Human Development and High Technology

Insofar as they encourage a willed evolution, some basic premises – typically crafted by leaders and accepted by the led – exercise the collective conscience of the led. The progress is usually superior, but not always civilized. The following are the premises in question: “Our level of technological progress is unrivaled. When we achieve this level, we must also prepare our society for peace, and in order to ensure peace, technology must be updated to promote a war policy.” Pushing technological growth in this manner creates a hazardous precedent for other societies fearful of losing their sovereignty. They’re being encouraged to develop combat technology as well.

This way of growth is neither desirable nor morally justifiable in the realm of civilization. It is socially irresponsible because it is ethically unjustifiable. An examination of the premises reveals that the last one is the source of the problem. The last premise is the result of the two preceding premises, but it is not logically proven in any way. What it demonstrates is a passionately deduced conclusion, and as such, it cannot be considered a rationally prepared mind’s conclusion, at least at the time it was determined.

A society that advances based on the aforementioned assumptions – particularly the illogical conclusion – has instilled in its citizens the mentality of unquestionable dominance. Throughout, the force of emotion has dictated the tempo of human behavior. Because of the superiority syndrome that binds both the leader and the led, the ideal of equality fails to work in productive engagements and willed relationships. And, by the expected logic, a different civilization that refuses to share in such society’s collective senses or emotions has become a prospective or actual enemy, facing combat on all fronts.

What we must understand is that civilisation and technology are not synonymous. People who are civilised may or may not have advanced technology. Civilization is more than just science and technology, technological infrastructure, or architectural marvels; it also involves people’s moral and mental reflexes, as well as their level of social connectedness within and beyond their own civilization.

All forms of physical buildings, as well as the question of science and technology, can be generated from the basic behavior makeup of individuals. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, and heavy machinery that we observe in a civilization can reveal, in general, the people’s behavioral patterns. The level to which the natural environment has been used for infrastructure, science, and technology can also be determined through behavioral patterns. Above all, a person’s behavioral pattern can reveal a lot about their perceptions and knowledge of others.

How much technology do we need to protect the natural environment?” If civilization Y combines moderate use of technology with the natural environment to counteract the latter’s irresponsible destruction, then this positioning suggests that society Y is a believer in the idea of balance. This premise leads to the bold conclusion that society Y prefers stability over turmoil and, as a result, has a feeling of moral and social obligation. Any state-of-the-art technology demonstrates the intelligence of the human mind, as well as the casual taming of the natural environment.

If humans do not want to be at the mercy of the natural environment – which is an unpredictable manner of life – but rather want to live at their own predetermined speed, then technology is a given. It appears that the concept of balance chosen by society Y might only be temporary, or that this is more of a fictitious position than a true one.

The human intellect is speaking to itself, saying: “Without any hindrance, technological progress must speed. A retreat or a step-by-step approach is an insult to the inquisitive intellect.” This type of reasoning process merely reveals the mind’s riddle, its dark side, rather than its bright side. And the role of ethics is critical in examining the current mode of a certain technology according to the instructions of the mind.

Is it morally OK to utilize this technology for this product? Is it morally acceptable to use such a product? Both queries imply that the product or items in question are either dangerous or non-hazardous, ecologically friendly or not, or that they harm not just humans but also the environment.

If the objective of technology, as I have indicated, is to improve the quality of life, then using technology to create things that injure both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technology and refutes the claim that humans are rational. Furthermore, it implies that the human mind has advanced to a point where it is unable to comprehend the substance or reasoning of a good life. A peaceful relationship with the natural world would have been sacrificed in this case for the sake of an unconstrained, questioning human mind. The human mind would be “corrupted” by thoughts or concepts that are unsustainable in a variety of ways.