High Technology and Human Development

Some basic premises — often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led — exercise the collective conscience of the led in as long as they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior but not necessarily civilized. The premises in question are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching CNC press brake for sale this level, we also have to prepare our society for peace, and to guarantee the peace, technology must be revised to foster the policy of war. inch Technological advancement that is pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war technology.

In the domain of the world, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An check of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two prior to premises but is not in any way pragmatically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally prepared mind, at least at the time at which it was deduced.

A society that advances according to the above presuppositions — and especially according to the illogical conclusion — has fed the mind of non-negotiable brilliance to its people. All along, the facility of passion dictates the pace of human conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality fails to work precisely because of the brilliance predicament that grips leading the way and the led. And a different society that will not share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected sense, be a potential or actual opponent and faces conflict on all possible fronts.

Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology are also, often, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that comes them to the top of power, brilliance, and fame. They can also use technology to shorten and make progress an understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a before connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and harmful. This last point does not mean that technological advancement is a mark of a superior the world.

What we need to know is that the world and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have a complicated technology or they may can’t you create it. The world is not just a matter of science and technology or technical structure, or, again, the formidable device of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness for their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of people that all forms of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of links, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that we can see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern also can tell a lot about the extent to how the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the awareness and understanding of the people about other people.

I do believe — and, I think, most people do believe — that upon augmenting the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its clerk structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses woods, yard, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to greatly reduce in size. Yet the growth of population, the unyielding human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the volatile condition of the natural environment prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the neglect of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve lifestyle, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment? inch Suppose society Ymca combinations the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the sloppy destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the point that society Ymca is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can boldly conclude that society Ymca favors stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the complexity of the human mind, and it indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.

If humans do not want to live subject to the natural environment — which, of course, is an uncertain way of life — but according to their own believed pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Ymca has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position compared to a real one. For when the power of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement has to accelerate without any blockage. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the searching mind. inch This kind of thought process only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a certain technology according to the instructions of the mind, the role of life values is key.

Is it morally right to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally right to use this kind of product? Both questions hint that the product or products in question are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they can’t only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environment too. And if, as i have stated, the reason for technology is to improve human eye life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the reason for technology, and it in addition falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the quality or purpose of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would have been empty for the health of an unrestrained, searching human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in several ways.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *