The technological advancement that is pushed toward this path sets a dangerous point of reference for different social orders that fear a threat to their separate ways. They are pushed to also cultivate war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this method of advancement isn’t praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it isn’t morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that represents an issue. The last reason is the finish of two preceding premises yet isn’t in any way logically found. What it shows is a passionately derived end, and being in this way, it fails to be figured as a determination from a rationally prepared mind, at least at the time at which it was concluded.
A society that advances according to the above presuppositions – and especially according to the illogical end – has transmitted the mind of non-negotiable prevalence over its kin. All along, the intensity of passion dictates the pace of human lead. Regardless of whether in useful engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality fails to work absolutely because of the prevalence disorder that grasps the leader and the drove. And an alternate society that will not share in the aggregate sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the normal rationale, become a potential or actual adversary and faces confrontation on all potential fronts.
The vast majority of what we learn about the present world, obviously, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Social orders that have a large portion of such technology are also, over and over, claimed to be the most advanced. It isn’t just their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of intensity, prevalence, and fame.
I do accept – and, I think, a great many people do accept – that after accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the earth has to subside in its naturalness. When advancing technology (and its attendant structures or ideas) rivals the green condition for space, this condition that houses trees, grass, blooms, all kinds of animals and fish has to shrink in size. However the development of population, the steady human craving for quality life, the need to control existence without depending on the unpredictable state of the natural condition brief the utilization of technology. Technology need not present unwarranted danger to the natural condition.
The advocacy that is finished by environmentalists relates to the subject of environmental degradation and its negative outcomes on humans. They insist that there is no justification for producing cutting edge items that harm the two humans and the natural condition. This dispute sounds persuasive. High technology may demonstrate the tallness of human accomplishment, however, it may not point to moral and social responsibility. And to this point, the inquiry may be posed: “In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?”
Time and again, most present-day humans will, in general, think that a sophisticated way of life is preferable to a simple one. The previous is bolstered by the heaviness of high technology, the latter is for the most part not. The previous eases the weight of depending a lot on the dictates of the natural condition, the latter doesn’t. The latter will in general look for a harmonious relationship with the natural condition, the previous doesn’t. Regardless of whether human solace should come largely from an advanced technology or the natural condition is certainly not a matter that could be easily answered.