Some basic areas : often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led : exercise the collective conscience of the led in in terms of they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior but not necessarily civilized. The areas in question are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also have to prepare our cnc press brake society for peace, and to guarantee the peace, technology must be revised to foster the policy of war. inches 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 world, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An test of the areas will reveal that it is the last one that postures a problem. The last conclusion is the conclusion of two prior areas but is not in any way of course 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 carried the mind and body of non-negotiable fineness to its people. All along, the energy 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 fineness symptoms that grips the first choice and the led. And a different society that won’t share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected intuition, turn into a potential or actual foe and faces potential fight on all possible fronts.
Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is completely outclassed by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology are also, at times, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifting them to the best of power, fineness, and fame. They can also use technology to de-stress and improve a preliminary understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that can eliminate, if you can ,, a preceding connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and dangerous. This last point does not convey that technological advancement is a mark of a superior world.
What we need to know is that world and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have a sophisticated technology or they may don’t have it. World is not just a matter of science and technology or technical facilities, or, again, the sight of buildings; it also is du to the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness on 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 connections, 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 tell a lot about the extent to that your natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the ideas and understanding of the people about other people.
I believe : and, I think, most people do believe : that upon increasing the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the earth has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its worker structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses timber, sod, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to dissove in size. Yet the growth of population, the unremitting human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the erratic condition of the natural environment prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the punishment of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve life, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment? inches Suppose society Ful combines the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the dangerous break down of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the that society Ful is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can boldly conclude that society Ful wedding favours stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the style of the human mind, and it indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to live susceptible to the natural environment : which, of course, is an uncertain way of life : but according to their own expected pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Ful has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position when 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 almost like the human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement has to accelerate without any impediment. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the asking mind. inches 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 honesty is imperative.
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 cannot only cause harm on to humans but on to the earth too. And if, as i have stated, the stage that technology is to improve products you can life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the stage that technology, looked after falsifies an assertion that humans are lucid. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the heart and soul or explanation of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would have been abandoned in the interests of an unrestrained, asking human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in numerous ways.