High Technology and Human Development

Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and the support of the LED - the exercise of collective consciousness directed to the extent that stimulate the development of a will. The development is generally higher, but not necessarily civilized. The premises in question are as follows:. "Our level of technological progress is unrivaled At this level, we also need to prepare society for peace, and to ensure peace, the technology must be revised to promote the politics of war." Technological progress is pushed in that direction is a dangerous precedent for other companies who fear a threat to their sovereignty. They are also compelled to push a technology of war.

In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not worthy of praise, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises revealed that it is the last to be a problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two previous premises, but it is by no means logically deduced. What it shows is an inference drawn with passion, and if so, does not count as a conclusion of a rational mind prepared, at least in the time it appeared.



A society that is progressing according to previous budgets - and, especially, according to the illogical conclusion - has passed the psyche of the superiority of their people is not negotiable. All the while, the power of passion sets the pace of human behavior. Whether or willingness constructive engagement partnerships, the principle of equality does not work precisely because of the superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. And a different society that refuses to participate in the collective sensibility or passion of society, has, by the logic of waiting, they become a potential or actual enemy is facing confrontation at all possible fronts.

Most of what we learn about the world today, of course, through the media is dominated by the latest technology. Companies that have more of this technology are also, again and again, says that the most advanced. It's not just his pace that rises to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and advance the understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a previous connection between life and nature that was in many respects , mystical and uncertain. This last point does not necessarily mean that technological progress is a sign of a superior civilization.

What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not marital terms. Civilized people can have a technology or do not. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or the technical infrastructure, or, again, the wonder of the buildings, but also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people, and the level social networking within their own society and beyond. It is from the distribution by the general behavior of the people that all forms of physical structures could be created, so the question of science and technology. Therefore, the type of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, we can see in a society might say, in a general way, the pattern of behavior of people. Pattern could also say much about the degree to which the natural environment has been used for infrastructure activities, science and technology. Above all, the pattern could say much about perception and understanding of people about other people.

I believe - and I think most people think to do - that by accelerating the pace of activities and technology infrastructure, the environment has to go back in its naturalness. Once the technology advances (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes with the natural environment of space, this environment that houses trees, grass, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to be reduced in size. However, population growth, the constant yearning of the quality of human life, the need to control life without depending on the unpredictable conditions of the natural environment of the system's use of technology. The technology does not necessarily pose a danger unwarranted natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a just society can use technology to improve the quality of life, people also have to ask: "The amount of technology we need to protect natural environment?" I guess that society and combines the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to compensate reckless destruction of the latter, then this type of position applied the point that the Society and is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can conclude that audacity society and contributes to stability rather than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social responsibility. Any art technology points to the complexity of the human mind, and indicates that the natural environment has been domesticated cavalierly.

If humans did not want to live at the mercy of the natural environment - which, of course, is an uncertain way of life - but according to its own expected rate, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It seems that the principle of balance that society and could only be chosen for a short time or that it is more of a position to believe that real. For when the power of the human mind is satisfied after a momentous achievement in technology, retirement, or the best, a slowdown is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind itself is saying. " Technological progress must accelerate without any obstruction of a withdrawal or a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind. "This type of thought process only marks the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not the best area. And in seeking to question the current mode of a given technology according to the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.

Is it morally right to use this technology for such products? And it is morally correct use of these products? Both questions indicate that the product or products in question are harmful or not environmentally friendly or not, not only directly harm humans, but directly to the environment as well. And if, as I said, the purpose of technology is to improve the quality of life, after using the technology to produce products that are harmful to humans and the natural environment contrary to the purpose of technology, and also falsifies the claim that human beings are rational. It also suggests that the level of sophistication that the human mind is unable to come to capture the essence or reason for the quality of life. In this respect, peaceful coexistence with the natural environment that have been abandoned because of a wild, inquiring human mind. The human mind, so to speak, are corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are unsustainable in any number of ways.

Promotional activities carried out by ecologists refer to the issue of environmental degradation and its negative consequences in humans. They insist that there is no justification for the production of high technology products that harm humans and the natural environment. This argument sounds convincing. The technology can show the height of human achievement, but can not point to the moral and social responsibility. And at this point, the question can be asked: "How do humans close the gap between high technology without limits and environmental degradation?"

Too often, modern humans tend to think that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to a simple. The first is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is not everything. The first easy to load too dependent on the dictates of the natural environment, the second not. The latter tends to seek a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. If human comfort must come largely from advanced technology or the natural environment is not a matter that could be easily answered. If the natural environment is declining due to population growth and other unavoidable causes, then the advanced technology required to ease the pressure for the convenience of those submitted. It is irresponsible proliferation, for example, war technology, high technology products, among others, who are in need of critical and has to stop.

Blog Archive