Some basic driveway : often created 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 driveway 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 hydraulic press brake price, foster the policy of war. inches 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 world, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An examination of the driveway will reveal that it is the last one that positions a problem. The last philosophy is the conclusion of two previous driveway but is not in any way of course 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 carried the mind and body of non-negotiable fineness to its people. All along, the capability 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 fineness problem 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 reasoning, turn into a potential or actual attacker and faces potential fight on all possible fronts.

Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is focused by state-of-the-art technology. Organizations that have the most of such technology are also, repeatedly, 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 make ease of and move ahead a knowledge of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that will eliminate, whenever you can, a past connection between life and nature that was, in many aspects, mystical and detrimental. This last point does not suggest 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 not have access to it. World is not just a matter of science and technology or technical facilities, or, again, the wonder of buildings; it also is because of the meaning and mental reflexes of men and women as well as their level of social connectedness inside 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 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 also tell a lot about the extent to that your surrounding 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 really do believe : and, I think, most people do believe : that upon increasing the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the surroundings 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 flowers, lawn, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to reduce in size in size. Yet the growth of population, the unremitting human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the unknown condition of the surrounding prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the surrounding. It is the improper use of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve standard of living, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding? inches Suppose society Ful combines the moderate use of technology with the surrounding in order to offset the dangerous devastation of the latter, then this kind of positioning requests the purpose that society Ful is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can plainly conclude that society Ful wedding favours stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of meaning and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the style of the human mind, and it indicates that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.

If humans do not want to live susceptible to the surrounding : 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 than just 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 like the human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement has to accelerate without any impediment. A retreat or a gradual process is an slander 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 essential.

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 do not only cause harm right to humans but right to the surroundings too. And if, as i have stated, the objective of technology is to improve the caliber of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the objective of technology, and it likewise falsifies an affirmation that humans are realistic. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached struggles to grasp the basis or explanation of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the surrounding would have been abandoned in the interests of an unrestrained, asking human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become dangerous with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in numerous ways.

By admin

Leave a Reply

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