Certain basic principles – often shaped by leaders and supported by leaders – train the collective conscience of leaders to the extent that they stimulate voluntary development. Development is usually higher, but not necessarily civilized. The principles under consideration take the following form: “Our level of technological progress is unprecedented. At this level, we must also prepare our society for peace, and for peace technology must be rethought in accordance with the policy of war.” Technological progress in this direction has set a dangerous precedent for other societies fearing a threat to their sovereignty. They are also seeking to promote military technology.
In the field of civilization, this path of development is not commendable or morally justified. Since it is not morally justified, it is socially irresponsible. A property inspection will show that this is the last problem. The last parcel is a conclusion from the two previous parcels, but it is in no way derived logically. What it shows is a passionate conclusion, and if it does, it is not considered a rational conclusion, at least at the time it was done.
A society that develops in accordance with the above assumptions – and especially in accordance with the illogical conclusion – has conveyed the psyche of undeniable superiority to its people. At the same time, the power of passion dictates the pace of human behavior. Whether it is constructive alliances or coveted partnerships, the principle of equality does not work properly because of the syndrome of superiority that strikes the leader and the leadership. And another society, which refuses to share the collective feelings or passions of such a society, has become, logically, a potential or real adversary and has faced confrontation on all possible fronts.
Much of what we learn about the world today, of course, from the media, is based on advanced technology. The companies that have the most of these technologies are also repeatedly called the most advanced. It is not only their progress that brings them to the pinnacle of power, supremacy and glory. They can also use technology to simplify and advance understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to be an earlier link between life and nature that in many ways was mystical and dangerous. Eliminate as much as possible. . This last paragraph does not necessarily mean that technological progress is a sign of a higher civilization.
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not marital relationships. Civilized people may or may not have advanced technologies. Civilization is not only science and technology or engineering infrastructure, or, again, the wonder of buildings; it also has to do with people’s moral and mental reflexes and the level of their social connections in their own society and beyond. The general behavioral structure of humans can create all forms of physical structures, including science and technology. Thus, the types of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery and other things that we see in society can generally indicate a pattern of human behavior. Behavioral models can also tell a lot about the extent to which the natural environment has been used for infrastructure, science and technology. It is important to note that the pattern of behavior has a lot to say about the perception and understanding of others.
I truly believe – and I think most people too – that as infrastructure and technology accelerates, the environment must give way to its naturalness. Once advanced technologies (and related structures or ideas) compete with the green environment beyond space, this environment with trees, grass, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish should narrow.
Technology should not pose an undue threat to the environment. The misappropriation of technology is at stake. While society can rightly use technology to improve the quality of life, its residents should also ask themselves, “How much technology do we need to protect?” Suppose Y combines the moderate use of technology with the natural environment to compensate for the reckless destruction of the latter, then this type of positioning indicates that Y is a proponent of the principle of equilibrium. From this principle we can safely conclude that Company Y prefers stability to chaos and therefore has a sense of moral and social responsibility. Each advanced technology demonstrates the sophistication of the human mind and demonstrates the arrogant taming of the environment.
If people don’t want to live in a natural environment – which of course is an uncertain way of life – but at their own suggested pace, then using technology is easy. It seems that the principle of equilibrium chosen by Y is short-lived or that it is more an imaginary position than a real one. Because when the strength of the human spirit is rewarded after an important technological achievement, retirement or, at best, recession is quite rare. It’s as if the human mind was saying to itself, “Technological progress must accelerate unhindered. Removal or gradual process is an insult to the curious mind.” Such a thought process only points to the mystery of the mind, its dark side, and not to its best area. And in trying to question the current regime of a particular technology at the behest of reason, the role of ethics is irreplaceable.
Is it morally correct to use this technology for these types of products? And is it morally correct to use these products? Both issues suggest that the products in question are harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they are harmful not only to people but also to the environment. And if, as I said, the goal of technology is to improve the quality of life, then the use of technology to produce products harmful to humans and the environment is contrary to the purpose of technology, and it is also a false claim that humans . Rational.