Some basic premises - often fashioned by leaders and supported by
the led - exercise the collective conscience of the led in so far as
they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior
but not necessarily civilized. The premises in question are of this
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 the 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 pushed to also foster a war
technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of
development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it
is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection
of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a
problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two preceding premises
but is not in any way logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately
deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to 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 transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to
its people. All along, the power of passion dictates the pace of human
conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the
principle of equality fails to work precisely because of the
superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. And a different
society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion
of such society has, by the expected logic, become a potential or
actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts.
Most
of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is
dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most
of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the most
advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the
pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology
to simplify and move forward an understanding of life and nature in a
different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as
possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many
respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily
mean that technological advancement is a mark of a superior
civilization.
What we need to know is that civilization and
technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an advanced
technology or they may not have it. Civilization is not just a matter
of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the
marvel of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental
reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness within
their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup
of people that all forms of physical structures could be created, so too
the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges,
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 could also tell a lot about the extent to
which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural
activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could
tell a lot about the perceptions and understanding of the people about
other people.
I do believe - and, I think, most people do believe -
that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and
technology, the environment has to recede in its naturalness. Once
advancing technology (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes
with the green environment for space, this environment that houses
trees, grass, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to shrink in
size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for
quality life, the need to control life without depending on the
unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the use of
technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural
environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a
society may justly utilize technology to improve quality of life, its
people also have to ask: "how much technology do we need to safeguard
the natural environment?" Suppose 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 prompts the
point that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. From this
principle, one can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability more
than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social
responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the
sophistication of the human mind, and it indicates that the natural
environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to
live at the mercy of the natural environment - which, of course, is an
uncertain way of life - but according to their own predicted pace, then
the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the
principle of balance that society 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 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 as if the human mind is telling 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 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 ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to use
this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally
right 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 do not only cause harm directly to humans
but directly to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the
purpose of technology is to improve the quality of life, then to use
technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural
environment contradicts the purpose of technology, and it also falsifies
an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests that
the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is unable to
grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a
peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would have been
deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The
human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas
that are untenable in any number of ways.
The advocacy that is
done by environmentalists relate to the question of environmental
degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that
there is no justification for producing high-tech products that harm
both humans and the natural environment. This contention sounds
persuasive. High technology may demonstrate the height of human
accomplishment, but it may not point to moral and social responsibility.
And to this point, the question may be asked: "In what ways can humans
close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental
degradation?"
Too often, most modern humans tend to think that a
sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to a simple one. The former is
supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mostly not.
The former eases the burden of depending too much on the dictates of the
natural environment, the latter does not. The latter tends to seek a
symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does
not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced
technology or the natural environment is not a matter that could be
easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking due to
population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology
is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It
is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech
products, among others, that are in need of criticism and have to stop.
Mr. Ainsah-Mensah has worked in various capacities mostly in
Canada and now in China. He is an education and race relations
consultant, projects coordinator, writer, and post-secondary instructor
in business courses, life skills, and critical thinking. He is
currently the principal of Handan-Lilac Education Group in China.
kamch22@yahoo.ca
are those who have stacks of experience working with computers and the
internet. This just isn't true, I have seen people go from earning
nothing to a few thousand a month using the methods I touched on above.