Let me take a car as an example.
For example, cars were originally invented to facilitate transportation. However, the current situation is that the roads are endlessly increased for the increase of cars, and the corresponding urban area has also increased, which in turn makes more people rely on cars, which in itself increases the cost for a person to achieve comfort. So everyone is busy for comfort, which makes the goal of comfort more and more slim. Remember, this is just a car. I haven't mentioned the house yet, buying a house, selling a house, decorating a house, negotiating with a property company and so on.
There is also air pollution caused by cars. I don't need to say more about this, although it is actually a more serious problem.
Then there is the problem of energy consumption, which reminds me of the Middle East issue. Many people say that Arabs have a long history, but they always emphasize "sensibility" or "understanding". Because they don't pay attention to "rationality", they are tossed around by the United States with strong "rationality". I think as long as we look at this problem in turn, we will find that rationality also has its irrationality. If "reason" is healthy, then why use violence and coercion? If the Arab world has its own problems and needs you to solve them, why didn't the rational world show such goodwill before oil became the main energy source?
With such a deduction, it seems that the car will bear considerable responsibility.
In my shallow concept, "rationality" and "science" are two similar concepts and interact with each other. But from now on, it seems that the disadvantages brought by science based on rationality and vigorous development are not much less than the benefits. Let alone that science and technology always seem to invest huge sums of money to develop the military, and then serve to improve human life (this is a matter of motivation); As for the part of improving human life, it usually leaves many bane because of its own imperfection-dichlorvos in the past; Both the West in the past and China in the present have suffered from the industrialization process of serious pollution; Controversial transgenic and cloning biology; The invention of penicillin also invented the drug of cocaine; There is also the chemical application in countless food workshops in CCTV's weekly quality report, and so on.
I didn't deliberately pick the bad points because of subjective doubts. In fact, I think these problems have been found to be good. The key is that the development of science and technology is not perfect in the corresponding restraint mechanism, or the unpredictable consequences (such as dichlorvos) caused by ignorance in the development process. I am worried that more hidden dangers have not been revealed-and the most terrible thing is that once a disaster is triggered, the consequences may be more serious and irreversible due to the blind acceleration of science and technology.
Another problem is the weakness of moral (perceptual) power, which makes human beings lose the necessary kindness and responsibility. The more advanced the technology, the more obvious the contrast, and the more serious the consequences (for example, from single-shot guns to automatic weapons to explosives; For example, in the past, due to the limitation of conditions, people could only get something with long hair that made you have diarrhea. Now, many people can be poisoned at one time through mass production in small industries and chemical reagents and catalysts.
Moreover, after the decisive victory of reason, the corresponding social models are basically materialistic. In a materialistic environment, emphasizing the supremacy of money and rapid development, first of all, individuals become smaller and smaller. For example, in the era of large-scale industrialization and even informationization, people's work tends to be streamlined and patterned (programmers don't refuse to accept it, you think you are creative, but in fact you are more patterned than anyone else), skilled craftsmen are no longer popular, and creative work is declining.
Developed transportation not only enables people to reach the world quickly and at low cost, but also makes individuals smaller and less important (brothers who come to Beijing from small counties should be familiar with this feeling). Cultural differences and conceptual conflicts brought about by ideological unprepared-I flew to you from your country-solved the employment and market in your, and as a result, you pulled some yellow perils or engaged in racial discrimination; Workers say that Beijingers discriminate against foreigners, and Beijingers worry that foreigners will come to grab jobs or increase the burden on the city. What does all this mean? It means that everyone is not ready yet, but science (rationality) is going too fast. Planes, ships and rockets are all built, so we have to bite the bullet.
The convenience of communication makes people have nowhere to hide, the pace of life is tense, and it is increasingly difficult to control and arrange their own lives; Drug addiction and social pressure make it difficult for you to turn off your phone easily; Moreover, the cost growth rate of buying a machine and changing brands has exceeded the necessary scale of manufacturing convenience (is there marginal benefit in economics), because there are still a lot of useless calls to make or not to make, not to mention boring text messages.
That's not enough. It took less than half a century from the absence of telephones to the popularization of telephones, and less than 10 years from the civilian coffee table on programmed direct dial telephones to the proliferation of mobile phones (in the meantime, a BP machine was thrown away). That's not enough. Now all kinds of wireless Bluetooth and videophone have come out, let alone whether you really have these needs, so I dare not easily judge whether there will be direct fax calls in the future. I feel that this so-called scientific and technological progress and gratifying development is not "people-oriented" enough. It is purely a business that makes money by taking advantage of laziness, curiosity and comparison in human nature. I don't understand philosophy. This kind of motivation is impure and not necessarily conducive to human progress. Is it rational?
I don't know if civilian democracy is the product of reason. But now it seems that democracy is not as healthy and perfect as imagined. If "politics is ugly", I still don't see that the democratic model represented by the United States has the slightest intention of destroying politics. On the contrary, it becomes more addictive and ugly. In contrast, in the early days of the founding of the United States, Jefferson and Adams, who founded democracy, still had some intentions of seeking goodness and beauty, but at that time, it seemed that the appeal and sensibility of religion were in the ascendant. Why are all these things they got thrown away by the dollar, exchange rate, GDP, import and export surplus and deficit? I'll stop here on this topic. I don't know. Don't let people think that I advocate centralization, or even say that I am Zuo Zuo. )
With limited knowledge, the problem must be superficial, so I won't give examples. Some people will say: Comrades, rationality has enabled us to find our ancestors and explore the universe (we can see XXXXX light years away, sending people to the moon). Rationality also allows most people to eat delicious food that emperors couldn't eat in the past and play things they never thought about. Rationality has increased the safety factor of your wife's childbirth by hundreds of times, and also increased your life span by at least 30 years (although the environment is a little worse than your grandparents).
Yes, these are all facts, and I have to admit it. Moreover, these things literally, we are almost living in heaven.