Man in the crosshairs of technology!

Passage VII P. 126
"Similar comparisons could be made with all the other historical forms of the ethics of contemporaneity and immediacy."

The above line which begins Section VII wraps up his critique of Kant and all other theories of developing ethics as fixed forms that focus on present populations. He then goes on to state that his formulation requires foresight and responsibility. First and foremost I definitely agree that ethical behavior requires foresight and responsibility. It is not enough to say 'I did not know'. The question is always 'should you have known?' This principle is encompassed in a legal doctrine most people have heard that colloquially states that 'ignorance is no defense.' Foresight requires us to actively consider the consequences of our actions and is part and parcel with responsibility. The people that do not end up in jail are those who learn this lesson. The scientists that do not end up jail should be those who learn the same. In a later section he also points out that in the absence of wisdom to act, ignorance is a reason to restrain action. This is a principle I believe in and why I am a critic of ‘reflexivity’.
The majority of Section VII is a provocative discourse in which he notes that “man himself has been added to the objects of technology[!]” By placing man in the crosshairs he may serve to convince a few others that there must be a limit. He notes “[s]omewhere along the line of increasing social manageability at the price of individual autonomy, the question of worthwhileness of the human enterprise must pose itself (128).”
While some of Jonas’ writing might be looked at as hyperbole and rhetoric, I found it hard hitting and interesting. I did not find it nearly as difficult as last weeks reading.