High Technology and Human Development

 

 

Some basic property - often fashioned by management and reinforced by the led - exercise the combined moral sense of the led in so far as they acti
vate a willed development. The development is usually excellent but not really cultured. The property under consideration are of this form: "Our degree of technical progression is second to none. Upon attaining this stage, we also have to prepare community for serenity, and to guarantee the serenity, technical innovation must be improved to promote the policy of war." Technological progression that is forced in this route sets a dangerous precedent for other cultures that fear a risk to their specific sovereignties. They are forced to also promote a war technical innovation.
In the domain of society, this method of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it fairly sensible. Since it is not fairly sensible, it is culturally careless. A check mark of the property will reveal that it is the last one that presents a problem. The last assumption is the summary of two previous property but is not in any way rationally deduced. What it shows is a amorously deduced summary, and being so, it is not able to be believed as a summary from a rationally prepared thoughts, at least at plenty of your persistence at which it was deduced.

A community that developments according to the above presuppositions - and especially according to the unreasonable summary - has passed on the mind of non-negotiable brilliance to its individuals. All along, the strength of interest demands the interest rate of individual conduct. Whether in beneficial events or willed relationships, the concept of equal rights is not able to work precisely because of the brilliance syndrome that holds the leader and the led. And a different community that declines to share in the combined sensibilities or interest of such community has, by the expected reasoning, become a potential or actual opponent and encounters conflict on all possible methodologies.
Most of what we learn about the existing world, of course, via the media, is taken over by state-of-the-art technical innovation. Societies that have the most of such technical innovation are also, repeatedly, stated to be the most innovative. It is not only their progression that raises them to the best of energy, brilliance, and popularity. They can also use technical innovation to make simpler and progress an knowing of lifestyle and characteristics in a different route, a route that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between lifestyle and characteristics that was, in many aspects, magical and risky. This last factor does not really mean that technical progression is a mark of a excellent society.
What we need to know is that society and technical innovation are not conjugal terms. Civilized individuals may have an innovative technical innovation or they may not have it. Civilization is not just just a few technical innovation or technical facilities, or, again, the amazing of buildings; it also has to do with the ethical and mental responses of individuals as well as their degree of public connectedness within their own community and beyond. It is from the common behavior makeup of those who all forms of physical components could be created, so too the issue of technical innovation. Thus, the type of connects, streets, structures, heavy equipment, among others, that we can see in a community could tell, in a standard way, the behavioral design of individuals. Behavioural design could also tell a lot about the extent to which the habitat has been utilized for infrastructural actions, technical innovation. Above all, behavioral design could tell a lot about the views and knowing of individuals about other individuals.
I do believe - and, I think, most individuals do believe - that upon speeding up the rate of infrastructural actions and technical innovation, the atmosphere has to diminish in its naturalness. Once improving technical innovation (and its worker components or ideas) plays with the green atmosphere for space, this atmosphere that houses plants, lawn, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to contract in size. Yet the development of inhabitants, the persistent individual looking for lifestyle, the need to control lifestyle without based on the unforeseen condition of the habitat immediate the use of technical innovation. Technology need not cause unnecessary danger to the habitat. It is the neglect of technical innovation that is under consideration. While a community may justly utilize technical innovation to enhance total well being, its individuals also have to ask: "how much technical innovation do we need to protect organic environment?" Assume community Y combinations the average use of technical innovation with the habitat in order to balanced out the careless devastation of the latter, then this type of placement encourages the factor that community Y is a lover of the concept of balance. From this concept, one can strongly determine that community Y favors balance more than disorder, and has, therefore, the sense of ethical and public liability. Any state-of-the-art technical innovation factors to the complexity of the individual thoughts, and it indicates that the habitat has been cavalierly trained.
If individuals do not want to live subject to the habitat - which, of course, is an unclear way of lifestyle - but according to their own expected speed, then the use of technologies are just a few course. It would seem that the concept of balance that community Y has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position than a real one. For when the strength of the individual thoughts satisfies itself following a significant accomplishment in technical innovation, getaway, or, at best, a slow-down is quite uncommon. It is as if the individual thoughts is telling itself: "technological progression has to speed up without any impediment. A getaway or a constant procedure is an offend to the asking thoughts." This type of approach only highlights the enigma of the thoughts, its down side, not its finest area. And in seeking to question the existing method of a certain technical innovation according to the guidelines of the thoughts, the role of values is essential.
Is it fairly right to use this type of technical innovation for this type of product? And is it fairly right to use this type of product? Both questions sign that the item or items under consideration are either harmful or not, eco-friendly or not, or that they do not only cause damage straight to individuals but straight to the atmosphere too. And if, as I have stated, the goal of technologies are to enhance the total well being, then to use technical innovation to produce items that damage both individuals and the habitat opposes the goal of technical innovation, and it also falsifies an declaration that individuals are logical. Furthermore, it indicates that the innovative stage that the individual thoughts has achieved is unable to grasp the substance or reasoning of lifestyle. In this regard, a relaxing coexistence with the habitat would have been abandoned for the benefit of an unrestrained, asking individual thoughts. The individual thoughts would, as it were, become damaged with values or concepts that are untenable in any plethora of possibilities.
The loyality that is done by environmentalists associate to the issue of ecological deterioration and its negative repercussions on individuals. They persist that there is no validation for producing high-tech items that damage both individuals and the habitat. This argument sounds powerful. Advanced may demonstrate the height of individual success, but it may not factor to ethical and public liability. And to this aspect, the issue may be asked: "In what methods can individuals close the chasm between unrestrained great technical innovation and ecological degradation?"
Too often, most modern individuals tend to think that an advanced lifestyle is preferable to a simple one. The former is reinforced by the weight of great technical innovation, the latter is mostly not. The former helps the pressure of based upon too much on the demands of the habitat, the latter does not. The latter tends to seek a union relationship with the habitat, the former does not. Whether individual convenience should come mostly from an innovative technical innovation or the habitat is not a question that could be easily responded to. If the habitat is reducing due to inhabitants development and other inevitable causes, then innovative technologies are required to relieve the demands to individual convenience that occur. It is the careless growth of, say, war technical innovation, high-tech items, among others, that are in need of critique and have to stop.