High Technology and Human Development

Some basic factory – often created by leaders and supported by the led – exercise the collective conscience of the led in so far as they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior but not necessarily civilized CNC press brake for sale . The factory in question are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is the best. Upon reaching 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. ” Technological advancement that is pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other organizations that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war technology.

In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An assessment of the factory will reveal that it is the last one that moves a problem. The last storyline is the conclusion of two earlier factory but is not in any way logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it doesn’t 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 transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the electricity of passion dictates the pace of human conduct. Whether in constructive destinations or willed partners, the principle of equality doesn’t work precisely because of the superiority malady that grips the leader and the led. And a different society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected common sense, become a potential or actual opposing forces and faces confrontation on all possible fronts.

Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is taken over by state-of-the-art technology. Organizations that have the most of such technology are also, over and over, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to make simpler and progress a comprehending of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that will probably eliminate, as far as possible, a previous connection between life and nature that was, in many aspects, mystical and risky. This last point does not indicate that technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization.

What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an advanced technology or they may not need it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the miracle of buildings; it also is related to the meaning and mental reflexes of men and women as well as their level of social connectedness of their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of men and women that all forms of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, 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 may possibly also tell a lot about the extent to which the surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the perceptions and understanding of the people about other people.

Me believe – and, I think, most people do believe – that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, mid-air has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses bushes, turf, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to reduce in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the unstable condition of the surrounding prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the surrounding. It is the incorrect use of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve total well being, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding? ” Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the surrounding in order to offset the reckless deterioration of the latter, then this kind of positioning requests the attachment site that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can plainly conclude that society Y favours stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of meaning and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the sophistication of the human mind, and it indicates that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.

If humans do not want to live at the mercy of the surrounding – which, of course, is an uncertain way of life – but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position over 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 that the human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an slander to the inquiring mind. ” 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 ethics is vital.

Is it morally directly to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally directly 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 just don’t only cause harm with the humans but with the mid-air too. And if, as i have stated, the goal of technology is to improve the grade of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the goal of technology, you’ll take pride in falsifies an affirmation that humans are wise. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached struggles to grasp the fact or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the surrounding would have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become dangerous with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in any number of ways.

Leave a Reply

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