 technology, Jonas elucidated important insights on the connection between technology and human responsibility for it (Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010). Jonas (2010) saw the formal dynamics of modem technology as being very different from technology from previous eras when technological development moved more slowly. For Jonas, modem technology is an enterprise driven by a relentless quest founded on the premise o f striving toward indefinite progress. Jonas' philosophical thinking about technology goes beyond the simple instrumental view o f technology. He held that the ends to be achieved through technology tend to be fluid, and that new technologies proceed outward in new directions through scientific discovery, innovation, and competitive pressure. Jonas saw this technological momentum as something driven by a restless pursuit of progress and novelty for its own sake, with the process creating and imposing new ends for technology from the invention of new means. Jonas observed that the evolution of technology has tended toward the systematic delivery of commodities, beginning with electricity, and evolving to electronics and information technology. Jonas (2010) was troubled by the prospect that biotechnology might evolve to the point that the human race takes its own biological evolution in our own hands. Jonas (2010) argued that mankind may be unprepared to provide the wisdom and ethical judgment necessary to deal with technological momentum, and possible threats to the quality and future preservation of human life. Jonas (2009) held that traditional ethical norms are generally confined to the immediate setting of ethical deliberations, but that the unforeseen consequences of modem technology require a new ethics of technology capable o f a larger perspective. Jonas (2009) argued that our predictive knowledge and 85 ability to foresee the consequences o f technology cannot keep pace with rapidly changing technical knowledge, and that this presents ethical dilemmas for human responsibility for technology. In order to meet this ethical challenge, Jonas (2009) proposed a new ethical imperative similar to Kant's categorical imperative, but which places the ethical maxim in the context of ensuring that actions are compatible with "the permanence of genuine human life" (p. 179). Jonas (2009) criticized utopian ideas about technology, and held that human responsibility for technology can involve a responsible restraint toward some technologies, given how we can be ignorant of some of the unforeseen consequences and ultimate implications of technology. Albert Borgmann and technology, focal things, and the good life. Influenced by Heidegger's philosophy of technology, Albert Borgmann (2009) proposed a reform of technology that proceeds from a nuanced view about its benefits, and compatibility with the good
technology, Jonas elucidated important insights on the association between engineering and human responsibility for it (Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010). Jonas (2010) saw the conventional moral force of modem technology as being very different from technology from former era when technological development moved more slowly. For Jonas, modem engineering is an enterprise driven by a relentless quest founded on the premise oxygen f striving toward indefinite progress. Jonas' philosophic thinking about technology run beyond the elementary instrumental view o f technology. He defend that the ends to be achieved through technology tend to be fluid, and that fresh technologies proceed outward in new directions through scientific discovery, innovation, and competitive atmospheric pressure. Jonas saw this technological momentum as something driven by a restless pursuit of progress and novelty for its own sake, with the process creating and imposing new ends for technology from the invention of new means. Jonas observed that the evolution of technology has tend toward the systematic delivery of commodity, begin with electricity, and evolving to electronics and information technology. Jonas (2010) was trouble by the view that biotechnology might evolve to the point that the human raceway takes its own biological evolution in our own hands. Jonas (2010) argued that mankind may be unprepared to provide the wisdom of solomon and ethical judgment necessary to deal with technological momentum, and possible threats to the quality and future preservation of human animation. Jonas (2009) held that traditional ethical norms are generally confined to the immediate place setting of ethical deliberations, but that the unforeseen consequences of modem engineering require a raw ethics of technology able o f a larger position. Jonas (2009) argued that our predictive knowledge and 85 ability to foresee the consequences o f engineering cannot keep pace with rapidly changing technical cognition, and that this presents ethical dilemmas for human responsibility for engineering. In order to meet this ethical challenge, Jonas (2009) proposed a new ethical imperative similar to Kant's categorical imperative, but which places the ethical maxim in the context of ensuring that actions are compatible with " the permanence of genuine human animation " (p. 179). Jonas (2009) criticized utopian ideas about engineering, and held that human responsibility for technology can involve a responsible restraint toward some technologies, pass how we can be ignorant of some of the unforeseen consequences and ultimate implications of technology. Albert Borgmann and technology, focal thing, and the beneficial animation. Influenced by Heidegger's philosophy of technology, Albert Borgmann (2009) proposed a reform of technology that proceeds from a nuanced position about its benefits, and compatibility with the good
 tefhnology, Jonas elucidatea important insnthts oi the cknnectiov between technology and humen rwsponwibility for it (Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010). Jlnas (2010) saq tht formal dynamics of modem techhllogv es being very dlfferent frmm technology xrum previous eras when technological dqvelopmrnh moved more sjowlj. Sor Nonas, modem technology is an enterlrise dgiven by a relentkess quest founded on the oremlse o f striving tlward indefunitq progress. Jovas' philosophical thiniing about technology goes beyovd thz simple inwteumfttal view o f tebhnology. He hckd thad the emds to be achicved vhroygh technology tend tm be fluid, and thaj new techtomogies proceed ourwqrd it nef difwctkona vhrkugh sfieitific disckvery, innovqtion, and competitife itessure. Jonaa saw ehys technological momentum as something griben by a restless pursuut of progress and nogelty for its own sake, with the process creating and imposhng nxw enbw for refhnology from the invention of new means. Jonaf onsvrved that the evjlution of yefhmjlogy has tenaed toczrs the systematic dflivery of cimmoditief, bebinning with electricity, ane evolving tj electronics and iuformation tzchnolpgy. Jpnas (2010) was troubled by tke proapect that hiotechnomugy might evolve to tve point that the human rase takes mts ocn bioloeicak evolttion in okr owk hands. Jonas (2010) argufd thct matkind may he unprepared to provide the wisdom and ethicsl juggment nzcessavy to deal with technological momentbm, and possible nhreats tm the qualiey and future kreservation mf human lifw. Jobas (2009) heua that traditipnal ethibaj noems are generally gonfivsd to the immednctt wetting of ethocau dqlpbecatiogv, but that tve uvfofrseen consequenccs uf mpdem technology requhre z new ethics of tevhkology cakable o f a larger perxpective. Jonas (2009) arhued vhat onr precicjive knowledge and 85 ability to roresee tje gonsequences j f bechgology canuot keep pace with rapidly changing techiical knowledge, and thar this presents ethncsl dilemmas for ruman res[onsibility for techbology. In order tp meet this ethical cgallence, Jojas (2009) proposed a new ethical imperative similar to Kant's categorical imperqtive, uue which plades yhe enhieal maxim in vhx context of ensuging that actions are compatible with "tha 'ermanence of genuine human lofd" (p. 179). Jonas (2009) ctiticized utopian ideas abkut techmology, and held that human resppnsibility for technologn can invilve z responsiule restraint toward some cechnooogies, tivek how we can bd ibnlrant of dome oy the unforeseen consequences and ultimqtf implications oh technology. Xlberj Borgmagn and technologg, fodwl thkngs, and the bood life. Inflienced by Heidegger's prilosophy of ttchnology, Alberj Borgmatn (2009) proposed a reform ox technology that proceeds from a nuanced view abouj its benefjts, and gompatibility witn the good
technology, Jonas elucidated important insights on the technology human responsibility it (Jonas, 2009; the dynamics of modem as being very from technology from previous eras when development moved more slowly. For Jonas, modem technology is an enterprise driven by relentless quest founded on the premise o f striving toward indefinite progress. Jonas' thinking technology beyond simple instrumental view o f technology. He held that the ends to be achieved through technology to be fluid, and that new technologies proceed in new directions through discovery, innovation, and competitive pressure. saw technological momentum something by restless pursuit of and novelty for its own sake, with the process creating and imposing new ends for technology from invention of Jonas observed the of has tended toward delivery of commodities, beginning with electricity, electronics and information technology. Jonas (2010) was troubled the prospect biotechnology might evolve to the point the human race takes its own biological evolution our own hands. Jonas (2010) argued that mankind may be unprepared to provide the wisdom judgment necessary to deal technological momentum, and threats the and preservation of life. Jonas (2009) held that traditional ethical norms are generally confined the immediate setting of ethical deliberations, but that the unforeseen modem require a new of technology capable o a perspective. Jonas (2009) argued predictive and foresee consequences f technology cannot keep with rapidly changing technical knowledge, that this presents ethical technology. In order to meet this ethical challenge, (2009) proposed a new ethical imperative similar Kant's categorical imperative, but which places the ethical maxim in the context ensuring that compatible with "the permanence of genuine human life" 179). Jonas (2009) criticized ideas about technology, and held that human responsibility for can a responsible toward some technologies, how we can ignorant of some unforeseen consequences ultimate of and technology, focal things, and the life. by Heidegger's philosophy of technology, Borgmann a reform of technology that proceeds from a nuanced view about its benefits, and compatibility good
 technology, Jonas elucidated Important iNsighTs oN thE cOnneCtioN between technoLOgy aNd human responsibility fOr it (JOnAS, 2009; JonAS, 2010). JOnas (2010) sAw the foRMaL DYnaMiCs Of mOdEM tEchnoLogY as beinG very diffeRenT fRom technologY FrOm previous EraS when technolOgiCal devElOpmENt movEd mOre slOwly. FoR jonas, mOdem technOlOGy is an ENterpriSE DrIven By a relentless quesT FoUNded on the premiSe o f stRiVInG TOwaRd iNdefinite pRoGress. jOnas' phiLOsOPHIcaL Thinking about Technology gOEs bEyond tHe SimPLe instRumenTaL VieW o f technoloGy. He Held that tHe ends TO be achiEVed throUgh tecHnoLogY tenD To Be FluId, ANd tHAt New TEchNologies PrOcEed ouTwarD IN NEw diRecTionS throUgh scientific DisCoveRY, inNovatIon, anD comPeTitivE pressUre. JoNaS saw this technolOgicAl momentuM as SoMetHiNg driVEn by a rEstLesS pursuiT of progREss AnD NOVeLty for its own sake, wiTh THE pRocess crEating ANd ImPOsing new EnDs fOr teCHNologY froM ThE inventiOn of neW MeAnS. Jonas oBsErved tHaT thE evOlutiON of tEchnolOgy has teNded tOWard the systemaTIc delivery of cOMmODItIEs, beGinNing with eleCtriCIty, aNd evOLvIng TO elecTroniCs ANd INformation technologY. JOnas (2010) waS trouBled by the prosPect that biOTEChnology MighT EvOLve to the point tHat thE human race TAkes its oWn bioLogical eVolution iN OUr own hanDs. JOnaS (2010) arGueD THaT mankind may be UNPrepArEd to proVidE the wisDom And EthIcaL jUdgment neCessary tO dEaL wItH teChnolOGical momEnTum, AnD poSsiblE ThreatS to thE quaLiTy ANd fUture prESeRVAtioN oF hUman LifE. JOnas (2009) hEld tHAt tRaditioNal ethicaL noRMs arE gEnErally cOnfined to the iMmEdiate settInG of EthicaL DEliberatIons, but that the unforeseeN ConsequEncEs of mOdem TechnologY reQuire a New EThics oF technOlogy CaPabLE O f a laRGEr PerSpEctive. JonaS (2009) ARguEd thaT oUr prEdictivE knowledge and 85 abiliTY to Foresee the conSeqUencES O f TecHNoLOgy CaNNot KEEp pace with rapidLy changing TeCHnIcal knowleDGe, aNd That thiS presenTs ethICal dileMmas for huMan responSiBiliTY For Technology. in order tO meet this EThicaL ChAllenGe, JOnas (2009) prOpOseD a new EthicaL ImpEratiVe simiLaR to KanT's catEgOrical imPerative, but which places tHe ethiCal maXim In the contExt OF enSuring thaT actIons are comPatIblE with "The PErmanEnce OF gEnuINe humAn liFE" (p. 179). Jonas (2009) crITiCizED UtOpian ideas aBOUT teChnolOgy, ANd held That Human responsibiliTY for technology Can iNVOlvE a rESponSiBle restraint toWarD sOME technolOgIes, given how We can be iGnORant oF some oF the unForeseeN COnSEquencEs anD ulTimate impLicAtIOns of teChNoLOgy. AlbErt BOrGmann aNd techNOlogY, FOcal things, and the Good lIFE. InflUEncEd by HEiDegger's PHiloSophy of tecHnology, AlbeRt BorgMann (2009) PropoSed a refOrM of tecHnoLoGy that procEEds from a nUanceD view abOuT its BenEfits, aNd coMPAtibiLity WiTh tHe good
 technology, Jonas elucida ted import ant i nsi ght son t he c onnection betw e en t echnology and human re spons ib i lity fo r it(Jonas, 20 0 9 ; J on as , 2 01 0 ).  Jona s ( 2010) s aw the for mal  d ynamics of m o de m technolo gyas being ver y d iffere nt  fr o m tec hno logyfrom p r evious  eras whe nt echnol o gical d e v el opme nt moved more slo w ly .  For Jonas, mo dem te ch n ol o g y i s a n enterpri se  driv e n by ar el e n t les s  quest founde d on the pr e mis e o fst riv i ng tow ard i nd e fin ite progres s. J onas' phi losoph i cal thi n king ab out te chn olo gy g o es  b eyo nd the si mpl e  in strument al  v iew o  f t e c h n olog y.He h eld t hat the endstobe a c hie ved t hroug h te ch nolog y tend  to b efluid, and that  new  technolo gie spro ce ed ou t ward i n n ewdirecti ons thr o ugh  s c i e nt ific discovery, in no v a ti on, andcompet i ti ve pressure .Jon as s a w  this  tec h no logicalmoment u mas  someth in g driv en  by  arestl e ss p ursuit  of prog ressa nd novelty for its own sake, wi t h  t h e pr oce ss creating  and impo sing ne w e n ds fo r tec hn o lo g y from the inventio nof new  mean s. Jonas obse rved thatt h e  evoluti on o f  t e chnology has t ended  toward th e  systema tic d eliveryof commod i t ies, beg inn ing  wi the l ec tricity, ande v olvi ng  to ele ctr onics a ndinf orm ati on  technolo gy. Jona s(2 01 0)  wa s tro u bled byth e p ro spe ct th a t biot echno logy  m ig h t e volve t o  t h e  poi nt  t hatthe  h umanrace tak es itsown biolo gic a l ev ol ut ion inour own hands .Jonas (201 0)  ar gued t h a t mankin d may be unprepared top rovidethe  wisd om a nd ethica l j udgmen t n e cessar y to d eal w it h t e c hnolo g i ca l m om entum, and p oss ibleth reat s to th e quality and futu r e p reservation o f h uman l if e.J on a s ( 20 0 9)h e ld that traditi onal ethic al no rms are ge n era ll y confi ned tothe i m mediate  settingof ethica ldeli b e rat ions, butthat the  unforese e n con s eq uence s o f mode mtec hnolo gy req u ire  a ne w ethi cs  of te chnol og y capabl e o f a larger perspect ive. J onas(20 09) argue d t h atour predi ctiv e knowledg e a nd85 ab ili t y tofore s ee  th e  cons eque n ces o f t e ch nol o g ycannot keep p a cewithrap i dly ch angi ng technical know l edge, and that  thi s pre sen t s et hi cal dilemmas f orhu m a n respon si bility fortechnolo gy .  In o rder t o meet  this e t h ic a l chal leng e,Jonas (20 09)  p r oposedane w  ethic al i mp erativ e simi l ar t o Kant's categoric al im p e rativ e , b ut wh ic h place s  the  ethical m axim in the  conte xt o f ens uring t ha t acti ons  a re compati b le with " the p ermanen ce  ofgen uine h uman l ife"(p.17 9).  Jonas (2 0 0 9) cr it i ciz ed u topia nidea s about t e chnology , a n d heldth ath u man re s po n s ibility fo r t echno l o gy can inv o lvea  r e spons ible r estrai nt towa r d s om e techn olo g i es, given  how we c a n b eigno rant ofso me o fthe  u nforeseen conse quencesand ulti m a te imp lic a tion s  of te ch nology. Albe rt Bo rg m ann and t ech nology, foc althi ngs,  an d th e  good life. Influenced b y He idegg e r's  phil osoph yof techn o logy , Albert Borgmann (200 9) proposed a r e for m  oftec h no lo gy that p roc e eds f roma n uanc edview a bout itsb en efit s, and  com pa ti bility wi th  the go o d
 technology,_Jonas elucidated_important insights on the_connection between_technology_and human_responsibility_for it (Jonas,_2009; Jonas, 2010)._Jonas (2010) saw the_formal dynamics of_modem_technology as being very different from technology from previous eras when technological development moved_more_slowly. For_Jonas,_modem_technology is an enterprise driven_by a relentless quest founded_on the_premise o f striving toward indefinite progress. Jonas'_philosophical_thinking about technology_goes beyond the simple instrumental view o f technology._He held that the ends to_be achieved through_technology_tend_to be fluid, and_that new technologies proceed outward in_new directions through scientific discovery, innovation,_and competitive pressure. Jonas saw this technological_momentum as something driven by a_restless pursuit of progress and_novelty for_its own sake, with the_process creating and_imposing new_ends for technology_from the invention of new means._Jonas observed that_the evolution of technology has tended_toward_the systematic delivery_of_commodities,_beginning with_electricity, and evolving_to_electronics and_information_technology. Jonas (2010) was troubled by_the_prospect that biotechnology might evolve to the_point that the human_race_takes its own biological_evolution in our own hands._Jonas (2010) argued that mankind may_be unprepared_to provide_the wisdom and ethical judgment necessary to deal with technological momentum,_and possible threats to the quality_and future preservation of_human life._Jonas_(2009) held that_traditional_ethical norms_are generally confined to the immediate setting_of ethical_deliberations, but that the unforeseen consequences_of modem technology require_a_new ethics of technology capable o_f a larger perspective. Jonas (2009)_argued that our predictive knowledge_and_85_ability to foresee the consequences_o f technology cannot keep pace_with rapidly changing_technical knowledge, and that this presents ethical_dilemmas_for human responsibility for technology. In_order_to meet this ethical challenge, Jonas_(2009)_proposed_a new ethical imperative similar_to Kant's categorical imperative, but which_places the ethical maxim in the context of ensuring_that actions are_compatible with "the permanence of_genuine_human_life" (p. 179). Jonas (2009) criticized utopian ideas about technology,_and held_that human responsibility_for technology can involve a responsible restraint toward some technologies,_given how we can be ignorant of_some of the unforeseen consequences and ultimate implications of technology. Albert_Borgmann and technology, focal things, and the good_life. Influenced by Heidegger's philosophy of technology,_Albert Borgmann (2009) proposed_a_reform of technology that proceeds from a_nuanced_view_about_its benefits, and_compatibility with the_good