From Jonas\u2019s perspective, cyber policy and infrastructure\u00a0need to\u00a0be approached with precaution,\u00a0and long-range responsibility because modern technological action\u00a0goes past\u00a0our ability to predict its consequences\u00a0long term.\u00a0Jonas\u00a0highlights how\u00a0in earlier ethics, action\u00a0was limited, but\u00a0as\u00a0stated\u00a0in the article,\u00a0\u201cThe effective range of action was small, the\u00a0time-span\u00a0of foresight,\u00a0goal-setting\u00a0and accountability was short, control of circumstances limited\u201d (p.\u00a035).\u00a0Opposite\u00a0to\u00a0that\u00a0modern technology creates long chains of effects that\u00a0go way\u00a0beyond\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0meaning the old\u00a0framework no longer applies.\u00a0Because of this, Jonas argues that ignorance is no longer an excuse. He\u00a0states,\u00a0\u201cIgnorance no longer provides it\u00a0with an alibi.\u201d (p. 39).\u00a0This applied to cyber\u00a0policy,\u00a0means that\u00a0these policy makers\u00a0can\u2019t\u00a0justify risky systems by\u00a0having any type of\u00a0uncertainty about the long-term effects.\u00a0Instead,\u00a0that\u00a0uncertainty\u00a0should\u00a0be a reason for caution.\u00a0He\u00a0also explains that technological effects are\u00a0\u201ccumulative and\u00a0therefore\u00a0irreversible\u201d,\u00a0he\u00a0states\u00a0that \u201ctheir effects add themselves to one another, and the situation for later acting and being becomes increasingly different from what it was for the initial agent\u201d (p. 39). This\u00a0highlights\u00a0cyber infrastructure, where stuff\u00a0like AI, surveillance networks, or digital\u00a0infrastructure\u00a0can\u00a0produce\u00a0consequences that\u00a0grow\u00a0over time.\u00a0Therefore\u00a0he\u2019s\u00a0highlighting how\u00a0policy should prioritize reversibility, and safeguards, rather than assuming systems can simply be fixed later.\u00a0Most importantly, Jonas introduces\u00a0basically a\u00a0new\u00a0responsibility we should follow\u00a0toward the future, He states \u201cAct so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life\u201d (p. 44)\u00a0This\u00a0statement\u00a0suggests that cyber policy\u00a0should\u00a0be evaluated not by immediate benefits\u00a0like the efficiency and profit\u00a0but by whether it preserves\u00a0long\u00a0term conditions for human security, and social stability.\u00a0He\u00a0proceeded to\u00a0\u00a0stress that modern ethics\u00a0need to\u00a0consider those who can\u2019t\u00a0speak\u00a0yet\u00a0he states, \u201cThe future is not represented\u2026 the unborn are powerless\u201d (p. 51)\u00a0What he\u2019s saying here is that cyber policies should consider future generations, not just us users here in the present. Decisions about infrastructure,\u00a0and data systems\u00a0etc\u00a0should be made with awareness of\u00a0long term\u00a0impact.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
From Jonas\u2019s perspective, cyber policy and infrastructure\u00a0need to\u00a0be approached with precaution,\u00a0and long-range responsibility because modern technological action\u00a0goes past\u00a0our ability to predict its consequences\u00a0long term.\u00a0Jonas\u00a0highlights how\u00a0in earlier ethics, action\u00a0was limited, but\u00a0as\u00a0stated\u00a0in the article,\u00a0\u201cThe effective range of action was small, the\u00a0time-span\u00a0of foresight,\u00a0goal-setting\u00a0and accountability was short, control of circumstances limited\u201d (p.\u00a035).\u00a0Opposite\u00a0to\u00a0that\u00a0modern technology creates long chains of effects that\u00a0go… <\/p>\n