Advance Technology and A Progressing Society

Some fundamental premises, which are frequently fashioned by leaders and supported by the led, exercise the collective conscience of the led insofar as they stimulate willed development. This is because the led are the ones who give their support to the leaders. The development is typically advanced but does not always reflect a civilised culture. The premises that are in question are of the following form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also have to prepare our society for peace, and to guarantee 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 societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They are under pressure to also develop technology that can be used in warfare.

This mode of development is not commendable in the context of the advancement of civilization, nor is it morally justifiable in and of itself. It is irresponsible to society as a whole because it cannot be justified on a moral level. A thorough examination of the premises will reveal that the most recent of these is the source of the difficulty. The third and final premise is a conclusion that can be drawn from the two premises that came before it, but it cannot in any way be deduced logically. It shows that a conclusion was reached with a lot of emotion. Because of this, it can’t be thought of as coming from a mind that was ready to think rationally, at least not at the time it was reached.

A society that progresses in accordance with the aforementioned presuppositions—and especially in accordance with the illogical conclusion—has instilled in its people the mentality of unquestionable superiority, which cannot be negotiated. The strength of one’s feelings has always been the driving force behind human behaviour. The superiority complex, which affects both the person in charge and the people under their direction, makes it impossible for the egalitarian principle to be put into practise, whether it be in voluntary or involuntary partnerships. And a different society that doesn’t share the same feelings or passions as this society has, according to the expected logic, become a potential or actual enemy and is facing conflict on all possible fronts.

The majority of what we find out about the contemporary world, which, of course, comes to us through various forms of media, focuses primarily on advanced forms of technology. It has been repeatedly asserted that the most technologically advanced societies are those that possess the greatest quantities of such advancements. It is not just their progress that propels them to the highest echelons of power, dominance, and reputation. They can also use technology to simplify and advance an understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a previous connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. The final argument is that technological progress does not always imply a more advanced civilisation.

What is essential for us to understand is that the phrases “civilization” and “technology” are not conjugated. People who live in civilised societies might or might not have access to more advanced technologies. People’s moral and mental reflexes, as well as their level of social connectedness within and beyond their own society, play a significant role in determining whether or not a society is considered civilised.Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology, or technical infrastructure, or, once again, the marvel of buildings. All other kinds of physical buildings, as well as the subject of how science and technology came to be, were able to be produced as a direct result of the basic behavioural composition of humans. Therefore, the types of bridges, roads, buildings, and heavy machinery, amongst other things, that we may see in a civilization could tell us, in a general sense, the behavioural pattern of the people who live in that society. A pattern of behaviour may also reveal a great deal about the degree to which the natural environment has been exploited for activities related to infrastructure, research, and technology. First and foremost, a person’s pattern of behaviour may reveal a great deal about their thoughts and their level of comprehension of others.

I do feel, and I think the majority of people do believe, that as the rate of activity related to infrastructure and technology accelerates, the environment must retreat in its naturalness. This is something that I believe will happen. This habitat, which has trees, grass, flowers, a wide variety of animals, and fish, will have to become smaller once it comes into competition with growing technology (and the structures or concepts that accompany it) for space. However, the rise in population, the insatiable human need for a life of quality, and the imperative to exercise control over one’s existence without being dependent on the ever-changing state of the natural environment are the driving forces behind the development of technology. It is not necessary for there to be an unnecessary risk to the natural environment posed by technology. The issue at hand is the improper application of available technological resources. If society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning implies the point that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. While a society may justly utilise technology to improve the quality of life, its people also need to ask: “How much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment?”. Because this principle holds true, one may confidently draw the conclusion that civilization Y values order and consistency more than anarchy and, as a result, possesses a sense of both moral and social responsibility. Any technology that is considered state-of-the-art is indicative of the advanced nature of the human intellect, as well as the cavalier manner in which the natural world has been domesticated.

If human beings do not wish to live at the whim of their natural surroundings—which is, of course, a manner of existence that is fraught with uncertainty—but rather according to the pace that they have predetermined for themselves, then the utilisation of technology is an obvious choice. It would appear that the principle of equilibrium that society Y has selected may only be for a limited time or that this stance is more of a make-believe one than a true one. Because it is fairly uncommon for human thought to regress or, at most, slow pace after a significant technological breakthrough, which comes as a result of the satisfaction that comes from the strength of the human intellect, It is almost as if the human mind is saying to itself, “Technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind.” This kind of thought process only reveals the mystery of the mind, its shadow side, and not its most brilliant aspect. Also, the role of ethics is very important if the goal is to find out how a certain technology works now so that it can be used in the way that the mind wants.

Is it acceptable from a moral standpoint to employ this sort of technology for the production of this kind of product? And does the use of these sorts of goods violate any ethical principles? Both queries provide the impression that the item or items at issue are either dangerous or not, ecologically friendly or not, or that they not only cause harm directly to individuals but also harm directly to the environment. And if, as I have stated, the purpose of technology is to improve the quality of life, then using technology to produce products that are harmful to both humans and the natural environment is not only in contradiction with the purpose of technology, but it also disproves the assertion that humans are rational. In addition, it gives the impression that the human intellect, at the degree of sophistication it has attained, is unable to comprehend the substance or the reason of a decent existence. For the sake of an unfettered and inquisitive human intellect, a harmonious cohabitation with the natural world would have been abandoned in this regard. Because this corruption is so common, the human mind would, in a sense, become tainted by ideas or beliefs that don’t make sense in any number of ways.

The campaigning that is carried out by environmentalists relates to the issue of the deterioration of the natural environment and the detrimental effects that this has on people. They claim that there is no reason for manufacturing high-tech items that are harmful to both humans and the natural environment, and they say this without qualification. This line of reasoning appears to have merit. It is possible that high technology may display the pinnacle of human achievement, but it will not necessarily lead the way toward moral and social responsibility. At this point, the issue that might be raised is, “How can humans bridge the gap between unconstrained high technology and the damage of the environment?”

Most contemporary people have the tendency to believe that leading a complicated existence is superior to leading a straightforward one. The former is held up by the weight of advanced technology, whereas the latter is not supported by it very often. The former alleviates the weight of being overly dependent on the demands of the natural world, whilst the latter does not; yet, both have this load. The latter does not often aim to have a mutually beneficial connection with its natural surroundings, but the former frequently does. It is not a question that has a straightforward solution since it concerns the source of human comfort and whether it should primarily originate from technological advancements or the natural environment. If the natural environment is declining as a result of population increase and other inevitable reasons, then improved technology is necessary to alleviate the pressures on human comfort that develop as a result of these pressures. It is the reckless expansion of things like high-tech items and military technology, amongst other things, that has to be criticised and needs to come to an end.

The majority of them were performed in Canada. He is currently based in China. He works as a consultant in education and racial relations, as well as coordinating projects, writing, and teaching post-secondary students in the areas of business, life skills, and critical thinking. He holds the position of principal at the Handan-Lilac Education Group in China at the present time.