How should we approach the development of cyber-policy and -infrastructure given the “short arm” of predictive knowledge?

Today, the decisions made for the development of policies and infrastructure related to cybertechnology have the potential to significantly alter the future outlook of society. In order to determine the approach with which we continue to develop cyber-policy and -infrastructure, we must first observe our past history. By looking at past developments in technology and their effects on society, this can help us decide how to take on cyber-policy and -infrastructure issues considering and forecasting the possible outcomes and scenarios produced by such policies. Recognizing our past mistakes and what we learned from them can help shape future policies that are less likely to cause us harm in the future. However, given the “short arm” of predictive knowledge, there is no way to anticipate with absolute certainty how the policies and infrastructure plans created in the here-and-now will impact us in the future. Therefore, there should be a gradual development and implementation of cyber-policy and -infrastructure, so as to minimize any possible damages done to society. This also gives the overseers of these developments the opportunity to adjust their plans to promote beneficial outcomes and minimize catastrophic damage. Finally, there is the question of ethics. Try as we might to make these policies and infrastructure with ethical considerations in mind, the truth remains that new technologies bring about brand new conceptions of duties and rights. So, the ethics that existed before them do not provide us with the right principles or doctrine to handle the conditions and concerns presented by these new technologies (Jonas, 1973). Being aware of our own ignorance of future conditions is of utmost importance when developing policies and infrastructure for cybertechnology. This is paramount to better handle any possible future repercussions resulting from our misjudgements. We have to expand the field of what we consider to be “ends in themselves” which means taking into account not just human good, but also the well-being of things “extra-human” and provide care for them as well (Jonas, 1973, p. 40).

References

Jonas, H. (1973). Technology and responsibility: Reflections on the new tasks of ethics. Social Research, 40(1), 31-54.