Human Development and High Technology

Some fundamental premises, which are often crafted by leaders and endorsed by the led, exercise the collective consciousness of the led in the sense that they encourage willed progress. The progress is typically better, but it is not always civilized. The premises in dispute are as follows: "Our technological progress is unparalleled. When we achieve this level, we must also prepare our society for peace, and to ensure peace, technology must be altered to promote war strategy." Pushing technological growth in this manner creates a hazardous precedent for other nations who are concerned about a threat to their sovereignty. They are driven to develop combat technologies as well.

This way of growth is neither desirable nor ethically justified in the realm of civilization. It is socially irresponsible since it is not ethically justified. An examination of the premises reveals that the final one is the source of the issue. The last premise is the conclusion of the two previous premises, although it is not logically derived. What it demonstrates is a passionately derived conclusion, and as such, it cannot be considered a result from a logically prepared mind, at least at the time it was determined.

A civilization that progresses based on the above assumptions - particularly the illogical conclusion - has instilled in its citizens the mindset of unquestionable dominance. The force of emotion has always dictated the speed of human behavior. Whether in constructive engagements or willed relationships, the equality principle fails to function precisely because of the superiority delusion that captures both the leader and the led. And a separate society that refuses to partake in such society's collective sensitivities or passions has, as predicted, become a prospective or real adversary, facing combat on all conceivable fronts.

Of all, much of what we learn about today's world comes through the media, which is controlled by cutting-edge technology. Societies with the most of this zin technology are sometimes b elieved to be the most sophisticated. Not only does their progress propel them to the peak of power, dominance, and celebrity. They may also utilize technology to simplify and advance knowledge of life and nature in a different direction, one that seeks to eradicate, as much as possible, a previous relationship between life and nature that was magical and dangerous in many ways. This final statement does not imply that technical progress is a sign of a better culture.

What we need to understand is that civilization and technology are not synonymous. Civilized people may have modern technology or they can't. Civilization is more than simply science and technology, or technological infrastructure, or architectural marvels; it is also about people's moral and mental responses, as well as their degree of social connectivity inside their civilization and outside. All types of physical buildings, as well as the question of science and technology, might be formed from the basic behavior composition of individuals. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, and heavy equipment that we observe in civilization may reveal, in general, the people's behavioral patterns. Behavioral patterns may also reveal a lot about how much the natural environment has been used for infrastructure, research, and technology. Above all, behavioral patterns may reveal a lot about individuals' views and knowledge of other people.

I believe - and I believe that most people believe - that as infrastructure and technology advance, the environment must retreat in its naturalness. When expanding technology (and its associated buildings or concepts) competes for space with the natural environment, this ecosystem, which includes trees, grass, flowers, various animals, and fish, must decline in size. Nonetheless, population expansion, the insatiable human need for quality of life, and the urge to manage one's life without relying on the unpredictability of the natural environment drive the use of technology. Technology does not have to endanger the natural environment. It is the misapplication of technology that is at issue. While society may legitimately use technology to enhance the quality of life, its citizens must also question, "How much technology do we need to protect the natural environment?" If civilization Y combines the reasonable use of technology with the natural environment to counteract the latter's irresponsible destruction, this kind of posture suggests that society Y is a supporter of the idea of balance. Based on this premise, one may confidently declare that society Y prefers stability over turmoil and, as a result, has a feeling of moral and social duty. Any cutting-edge technology demonstrates the intelligence of the human intellect, as well as the ease with which the natural world has been controlled.

If people do not wish to live at the mercy of the natural environment – which is, of course, an uncertain manner of life – but rather at their projected speed, then the use of technology is a given. It seems that the concept of balance that society Y has selected might only be temporary, or that this is more of a fictitious stance than a true one. For when the might of the human intellect satisfies itself after a significant technological accomplishment, retreat or, at most, a slow-down is rather exceptional. It's almost as if the human intellect is saying to itself: "Without any hindrance, technological progress must continue apace. A retreat or a step-by-step method is an insult to the questioning intellect." This kind of reasoning process merely highlights the mind's conundrum, its dark side, rather than its best side. And, to probe the current model of a given technology by the instructions of the mind, the function of ethics is required.

Is it ethically OK to employ this kind of technology for this kind of product? Is it ethically acceptable to utilize this kind of product? Both queries imply that the product or items under consideration are either hazardous or not, ecologically friendly or not, or that they do damage not just to people but also to the environment. And, if, as I have mentioned, the objective of Mark Nichols Advisor of Seabreeze Technologies is to enhance the quality of life, then using technology to create things that injure both people and the natural environment violates the purpose of technology, as well as falsifies the assumption that people are rational. Furthermore, it implies that the sophisticated level attained by the human intellect is incapable of grasping the substance or reasoning of quality of life. A harmonious cohabitation with the natural world would have been sacrificed in this aspect for the sake of an unconstrained, questioning human intellect. As it were, the human mind would get tainted with thoughts or notions that are unsustainable in a variety of ways.

Environmentalists' activism is concerned with environmental deterioration and its harmful repercussions for mankind. They maintain that there is no reason for developing high-tech items that are harmful to both people and the natural environment. This argument seems to be compelling. High technology may show the pinnacle of human achievement, but it may not speak to moral and social responsibilities. And at this point, one could wonder, "How can humans bridge the gap between unrestricted high technology and environmental degradation?"

Most contemporary beings, all too frequently, believe that a complex existence is better than a simple one. The former is largely backed by the weight of advanced tehnologyc, whereas the latter is not. The former alleviates the pressure of relying too much on the natural environment's mandates, whereas the latter does not. The latter seeks a symbiotic connection with nature, whilst the former does not. It is difficult to say whether human comfort should be primarily provided by modern technology or by the natural world. If the natural environment is declining as a result of population increase and other inevitable reasons, modern technology is necessary to reduce the demands on human comfort that occur. The reckless spread of, say, military technology or high-tech items, for example, is deserving of condemnation and must be halted.