Some basic driveway — often created by leaders and supported by the led — exercise the collective conscience of the led in as long as 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 CNC hydraulic press brake 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 foster the policy of war. inch 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 the world, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An evaluation of the driveway will reveal that it is the last one that positions a problem. The last philosophy is the conclusion of two former driveway but is not in any way pragmatically 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 fed the mind of non-negotiable brilliance to its people. All along, the ability 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 brilliance affliction that grips leading the way and the led. And a different society that will not share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected judgement, be a potential or actual adversary and faces conflict 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, continuously, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that comes them to the top of power, brilliance, and fame. They can also use technology to easily simplify and advance a knowledge of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that will eliminate, whenever you can, a earlier connection between life and nature that was, in many aspects, mystical and hazardous. This last point does not imply that technological advancement is a mark of a superior the world.

What we need to know is that the world and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have a complicated technology or they may don’t you have it. The world is not just a matter of science and technology or technical structure, or, again, the amazing of buildings; it also is because of the meaning and mental reflexes of men and women as well as their level of social connectedness in 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 links, 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 can also tell a lot about the extent to how the surrounding has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the awareness and understanding of the people about other people.

I really do believe — and, I think, most people do believe — that upon augmenting the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the surroundings has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its clerk structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses trees and shrubs, your lawn, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to get smaller in size. Yet the growth of population, the unyielding human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the capricious condition of the surrounding prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the surrounding. It is the wrong use of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve quality lifestyle, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the surrounding? inch Suppose society Ymca combinations the moderate use of technology with the surrounding in order to offset the sloppy devastation of the latter, then this kind of positioning requests the purpose that society Ymca is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can plainly conclude that society Ymca favors stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of meaning and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the complexity of the human mind, and it indicates that the surrounding has been cavalierly tamed.

If humans do not want to live subject to the surrounding — which, of course, is an uncertain way of life — but according to their own believed pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Ymca has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position than the usual 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 blockage. A retreat or a gradual process is an slander to the searching mind. inch 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 life values is crucial.

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 don’t only cause harm right to humans but right to the surroundings too. And if, as i have stated, the intention of technology is to improve the standard of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the surrounding contradicts the intention of technology, and in addition it falsifies an affirmation that humans are realistic. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached struggles to grasp the substance or purpose of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the surrounding would have been empty for the health of an unrestrained, searching human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become dangerous with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in several ways.