Why Society Under the Pressure of Technology ?
Society is becoming wider and more complex. Can we build ways and means for the common man to run his business effectively, to participate in it? When we realize the vastness and complexity, we get the assumption that a bureaucrat who is a transaction manager, a machine expert and a bureaucrat can do it. The youth, the poor and the oppressed have at times turned violent. How can we make human beings voluntarily discharge their duties in this new complex society? Can he save his freedom without being freed from this system?
And how big is the risk of dictatorship responding to rebellion? Can a state of the whole world be established where every person in the world can have real freedom? Fearful places of tyrannical dictatorship, what can be done to alleviate suffering?
As established forms of religion, the grip of established rules of sexual relations is diminishing. To what extent is a relationship between a man and a woman that satisfies only material lust without establishing a spiritual and institutional relationship justified? Is marriage and family inevitable? If a child is deprived of the opportunity to develop in one or the other type of family structure till date, will his development become normal and pleasant? What role will women play in tomorrow? What effect will the mechanization of life have on a woman's field of work? Given the current technology and social situation, how will a woman's life be governed by her physical wealth and her function? What will be the fate of the vast majority of the poor of mankind today in the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor or between the rich and the poor in one country? Does civilization and autonomous machines make cars seem to be increasing poverty? So can technology be said to be the antithesis of progress?
In what order should our equipment be organized in the coincidence that technology has enhanced both human skills and wealth with the help of science? A large group of human beings live in poverty. That's when our resources are spent on space exploration. This in turn raises the question of human priority.
Is it necessary for the whole world to have one state in the atomic age? If necessary, is it possible or not? Can a worldwide political organization overcome the obstacles that stand in its way, such as cultural differences, language differences, feelings of nationality and race, not global but regional organization? Can the United Nations be the seed of the world-state or not?
Humans are social animals
If our ancestors had not become part of any society till today, it is possible that they did not even become human! They had to be social before they could become human. And their heritage we are social animals naturally and as a result of economic need. We cannot make a living without each other's cooperation. To some monks or some hippies, whether they become Saint Francis or not, despite being isolated from society, society can survive. Even after separating them, they remain members of the society. You can call them parasitic members if you don't want to accept them. Also, he could be the founder of a new social organization. I think running away is a blind instinct, an aimless activity. Their opposition to the present society is in vain if the result of the instincts is to turn into escapism.
In the current situation that has arisen as a result of technology and population explosion, the task of becoming a partner in social life has become especially difficult for an individual. It is very, very difficult to see how the work of partnership can be easily reformed in our society or in our political system.
I believe that every adult, whether insane or a criminal, has a natural human right to participate in the administration of the state, to have a say in how human relations are governed (and this is what the government calls it!).
Political participation can take many different forms. This partnership can be real in a political society such as a Greek city-state or a Neolithic village or a small component of today's Swiss Confederacy - Mahalphanton. I think there are some small elements in the Swiss Confederation where every adult man is present in the legislature with his weapon.
I have witnessed real democracy in a village in Ethiopia. The next night a house burned down. The question was whether the fire was accidental or someone started it? The village guru was in the chair. A man, a woman and a child from the village gathered there. They were all discussing whether the fire was accidental or intentional. This can be called a real form of natural democracy. The number of villagers was so small that it was possible. All can be done in one meeting to do the work - of course, this requires some kind of discipline. His position was based on the status of the presiding priest, his power, and his respect for justice.
In a large society this option may be representative. In the same way as in a parliamentary system of government. In this state system, it is not the individual who decides on public matters, but he chooses his own representative. This representative takes part in politics on his behalf. In a representative state that gives maximum scope to democracy, even political decisions that cover the life and death of everyone - in fact, are made by a minority of diplomats. It is possible that there are other types of representative political structures that have not yet been implemented. Yet I think of real democracy or representative democracy rather than the idea of historically existing democratic state-constitutions. When I think of the shape of a knife, the shape of a kettle, or the shape of other physical tools produced by technology, I accept that there can be dozens of different shapes. Also, when I think of constitutions, their types are very rare. Alas, the number of discriminatory constitutions is extremely rare, even if we include undemocratic monarchies. Our imaginations and perceptions are not as prevalent in human affairs as in the realm of technology.
Predicting the future is always difficult. The society after 1914 was beyond the imagination of my parents. It was the same with me when I was growing up. We expected that the social trends that existed before the end of the seventeenth century would survive and extend their influence to the countries of the East as well. Our expectation was that life in the whole world would become more intelligent, more humane, more democratic, and gradually more political democracy would be the birthplace of special social justice. We also expected that the development of science and technology would make mankind more prosperous and that the flow of this wealth would gradually flow from the minority to the majority. We believed that all this would happen through peaceful means. In fact, we believed that mankind was on the verge of experiencing heaven on earth; And we also believed that our progress toward this goal was determined by historical necessity. (One can see that the acceptance of the inevitability of the pace of progress towards the desired goal, knowingly or unknowingly, leads us towards Marxism.)
Material possessions have come to us as expected - and much faster than expected. There is also a tendency for social justice to become a bit broader in the distribution of wealth, of course, on the other hand the minority in rich countries and the majority in poor countries are considered relatively poor. Didn't imagine the pollination that people experienced in their treatment of each other. 1800 AD In the 1900's, the West was especially humane. People did not cut off each other's heads or burn them alive for political or religious reasons. But the possibility that the world will become much less inhumane in 181 than in 1914 is real in front of us.
The mechanization of weapons has made the genocide bigger than ever. The discovery of the ability to throw bombs from the sky means that the line between soldier and non-soldier - the line that existed until the end of the 19th century - has been abolished. AD in the Western world By 1900, war was a conflict between two armies. It was a game between governments, not a fight between citizens. When a government wins a territory from another government, it does not have a profound effect on the personal lives of the inhabitants of that territory. All he had to do was change his political allegiance, not vacate the house or confiscate his property. E.g. The partition of Poland was a political crime. But life in the Poland-Lithuania-Nia region continued unabated. Is. In 191, the whole world was living in an environment similar to the war between the Protestant and Catholic sects during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. , Entering an era of unrest and violence. I think the growing state of social terror is incompatible with the urgency of technology. Because technology expects life to be more organized, more organized and more rule-abiding. Technology requirements; The tension between his demands and the current human mood is becoming especially intense. This is understandable. But this stress may not last long. It must be solved. The possible alternatives to this solution seem very daunting to me.
The practical question is whether a state with any kind of participatory element can survive in this age of rapid change, or in any age experiencing such rapid change. A state system with an element of partnership, then that partnership is quite narrow, even if it has a few individuals, is slow and inefficient. A representative state can only be effective if there is room for a safe period for delay and error. A time of trouble invites dictatorship. Man does not like to impose arbitrary rule on himself, but considers contentment to be the kind of evil that descends from independence.
- Thanks to Arnold Toynbee for "Surviving the Future" (App. Takht Singh Parmar)
The question of the survival of human life has been thought and debated in every age. In order to survive in the ever-changing coincidences of the world, i.e. in the future, in this way, all classes, especially the youth, are guided, their point of view is cultivated, scholars between the two countries - the West
No comments:
Post a Comment