ࡱ> q` bjbjqPqP .::   ttt8T82 ^^ ^ ( a!a!a!58787878787878$ :ht<[89I$a!a!I$I$[8 83)3)3)I$  583)I$583)3)r3T}4  At%3588084z='=}4=}4a!+"3)"t/#a!a!a![8[8(da!a!a!8I$I$I$I$tt  INFORMATICS AND ETHICAL QUESTIONS IN THE WORK OF HANS JONAS Society in which we live today is on a lesser scale determined by the manufacture of material goods, and increasingly determined by the exchange of information and knowledge, as well as by communication over-networking. Introduction of ethics into informatics proves that modern science should also comply with ethical standards, adjusted to technology, as the grounds of basic human values. The ethics of informatics determines an ethical framework in the procedure of collecting, processing and the use of data, and it is based upon unquestionable ethical premises, as well as on those that have imposed themselves during informatics development: information privacy, openness, safety, availability and justification of their violation. The main goal of this paper is to bring those theses into connection with informatics and handling computers, and then to discuss about possible consequences connected with jobs of informatics experts, that primarily refer to their area of expertise. Ethics is, in general communication, rather loaded or even overloaded by morality, so its practical meaning or practical meaning of ethical efforts is often no longer recognizable. Postulates or imperatives are pushed in front, as well as the image of ethics as a result of separate efforts. It is less than that, but also more than that. In that way, the competence centers of communicational over-networking of data, information and knowledge are primarily created in the area of politics, science, mechanics and education. They are created within a system of mutual relation, where technologically rationalized communication processes determine not only social development, industry growth, economical rise and fall and allocation of power, but also the course of social migration itself. Key words: responsibility, ethics, informatics, application of computers. American psychological association appeals to videogame producers to decrease the level of violence in games designed for kids and youngsters. In one of the videogames, which is about to appear on the market in October, the hero marches into a wild campaign against his classmates and teachers. Carol Pearson Other games exploit other tragic events. In one of them, modeled on bomb attacks on London transport system, the players activate an explosive in the subway. Although the goal is saving the passengers, many people consider it to be too realistic. I can not think of anyone sane who would play such a game. It is sick. In one of the games the students attack the police until everybody ends up flooded in blood. The game was created last year after an event where the Boston police killed a girl Dr. Elisabeth Carll is ahead of the board dealing with crises and traumas for American psychological association. She says that violent videogames are more harmful than TV shows and movies which graphically display violence. When it comes to interactive media, you take part. That is repetition, and there are awards for violent actions. The game can be played two thousand times, which acts as an enormous opportunity for learning to play the game. Owing to the theory of learning, we know that, when there is such an interactive way of learning via active participation, the process of learning is intensified. Introduction The modern society, organized according to western cultural frameworks, progressively considers itself to be an informatical society. It is also understood that such a society communicates primarily within electronically organized relations, and that it is, when it comes to relevant issues, a communicational organization via media systems (which always includes the public and public control). Furthermore, it is understood that the social changes are observed via the media. In the same way, those changes are formed and changed by the society. In his book The principle of responsibility, philosopher Hans Jonas poses a question of the new technological civilization ethics (Jonas, 1984). Its necessity is explained by the new dimensions of responsibility, imposed to people by the existence and the danger of application of modern technics. To irresponsibility in handling the technique, Jonas opposes the command of caution which, formulated as the principle of responsibility, says: act so that your actions are in line with the requests of pure human life on Earth. (Jonas, 1984). Although Jonas does not explicitly mention informatics and computer application, a great deal of his theses refers to that domain, so one could think that informatics is seen as a technological discipline par excellence. It is proved in some of Jonass theses. This paper deals with informaticians ethical problems, which serve as a basis to answer the questions of responsibility. In this short survey of ethical problems related to engineers generally, the following topics will be elaborated: ethical problems which are encountered on a daily basis, problems related to computer system, problems of availability/ shortage of information, privacy and confidentiality of ethical data at a workplace ethical principles which should be pursued by programming engineers and a modern view on computer morality called the Hacker ethics. This ethics offers an expanded view on a philosophy which might make ethics and its rules irrelevant, since it would be of concern to everybody. The Hacker ethics is new work ethics, which questions Protestant work ethics an attitude towards work that has been present for so long. Protestant ethics was elaborated in a book by Max Weber, The Protestant ethics and the essence of capitalism (1904 1905). In short, Protestant work ethics highlights the importance of the feeling of responsibility towards work duty, and accentuates an attitude towards work that has to be liberated from constant calculation on how to earn a salary with maximal comfort and minimal effort. The work has to be done for its own cause, as a life profession. Since computer ethics is a rather new discipline, there are no company rules for every possible situation, and it more or less boils down to the individual and his moral principles. Therefore, the goal of this document is not to impose strict behavior rules, but to indicate a wide range of problems appearing in everyday life. For that reason, there are a lot more real-life examples than concrete instructions on how to behave in a given situation. Since there are often more asked than answered questions, it is advisable to apply an advice from ethical principles: Ethical disproportion is best solved by careful consideration of basic principles, and not by obeying strict details of rules. What does responsibility imply? The principal basis consists of several theses posed by a German-American philosopher, Hans Jonas, in his book The principle of responsibility an attempt of an ethics for technological civilization (Jonas, 1984). The theses must be brought into connection with informatics and handling computers, and then it must be discussed about possible consequences related to jobs of informatics experts, that primarily refer to their area of expertise. Before explaining Jonass theses, his understanding of responsibility and responsible work must be explained more closely. It can be best explained by quoting the answer of a president of a big concern to the question: what is indispensable to prevent catastrophic acts of technics?: International security standards, () international control () and then a necessary faith in God, that the technics will become yet more secure in its further development. By means of this quote we want to explain the fact that we do not have such an idea when it comes to responsible relation towards technics. For us, the question whether technique functions and whether it will be useful or harmful to individuals or humanity as a whole, is not a thing of faith in God, but exclusively an issue of people who, directly or indirectly, participate in its development. The objection here is that responsibility, as something which is a human purely a work, is transferred to an intangible, and therefore a higher, instance that cannot be attacked. In this way, any responsibility could be easily neglected, like the one for the remaining risk, which is often gladly reduced. Our understanding of responsible action is emphasized in the following quotation: Only when there are more engineers listening to the voice of their conscience, who take into consideration whether their actions lead to the ordinary or to the divine, to the ugly or to the beautiful, to the good or to the bad - only then can the shadows of destruction be sent away from us (Jung, 1963). Let us turn to different forms of responsibility which we encounter in our work in informatics. We would like to illustrate them in several examples: An associate would like to test his product (compiler) better, but the work must end due to a deadline. Who takes the responsibility? Can we justify cooperation on a data input system which is created to measure the work efficiency of a worker who is in charge of data collection? Or a cooperation on a project which is proven to leave many people unemployed? Associates, whose beliefs do not allow them to work on military projects, worked on an experimental product of general usage. The client with most interest in the product is a military person. Is he given moral support? An instrument of an expert system can be equally used for development of medical diagnostic system and for the development of a battle system. Can its usage be limited? Can cooperation on a project like SDI (strategic defense initiative) be justified? These examples show us that it is necessary to distinguish: responsibility for a result, meaning that it concretely and according to a schedule, fulfills previously determined tasks (example 1); from responsibility for a set goal and the effect of a project, as well as the results gained thereby (examples from 2 to 5) We would like to briefly take stance on the first kind of responsibility, the result of responsibility. We will completely skip the legal aspect. As for the moral aspect, i.e. the feeling of responsibility for a result, we believe there is not principal, but a gradual difference between developing computer programs and other wanted results, since perception and estimation of mistakes and shortcomings in computer programs is extremely difficult. Anyhow, the acceptance of one of them also includes the moral responsibility to finish it as better and as more careful as possible. I believe it is irresponsible to accept a task superficially, just to fool others. The focus of my theses should be based on ethical and (in a wide range) political aspects, as can be seen in examples from 2 to 5. It is important to note a difference between the projects (i.e. the results) with direct, obvious action, or applicable possibilities (example 2); and projects with indirect, hardly obvious consequences. In the latter we can include all kinds of metaresults, e.g. software developing instruments (compare examples 3 and 4). We must note a close connection existing between responsibility for a result and the one related to setting a goal. It is obvious from example 5 and the attitude of David Parnas about cooperation with SDI (compare with Parnas, 1095). He explains his decision no to cooperate with SDI by the fact that nobody can take responsibility for the result, and the set goal is not only questionable, but also dangerous. This standpoint, based primarily on technical arguments, must be differed from any other standpoint which refuses SDI because of its possible political goal, such as combat ability and request for hegemony that lies under it. In short, this would mean that, if we want to investigate whether it is justifiable to work on a completion of a task, we must first pose a question of its goal. If the answer is positive, another question arises: shall the expected result achieve that goal? If that is not the case, or if we must count on various side effects, the goal must be modified accordingly. The modification must assure that the new goal can be achieved by eliminating the side effects, or that, when formulating the goals, inevitable goals and side effects must be counted on. The justifiability of such modified goals must then be re-examined. Technical civilization ethics. Our projects are a part of constant attempt to solve the problems of the entire human kind or a group of people by technical means. We are all aware of wanted and unwanted, as well as local and global, effects of technical solutions. Does this require a special technical civilization ethics? Hans Jonas studies this question in his book and answers it affirmatively (see Jonas, 1984). In continuance I would like to consider his theses that I found extremely important more closely. The new dimensions of responsibility In his historical discussion Jonas compares the current situation with the one from the previous untechnical age, approximately the medieval times. The area of their responsibility included an exclusively clearly defined and a very limited life space the city. The limits of responsibility were clearly marked by the city walls. Outside this human state area there was nature, intact and left to exist on its own. Today, almost the entire planet became a global city. On Earth, there are almost no more large areas uninfluenced by people, no more areas existing on their own. Thus, the area of human responsibility is drastically increased. Technics (Greek: techne) originally meant skill, and primarily referred to objects, e.g. agricultural, domestic and hunting tools. Such technics had rare and slight effects on people (except the tools that have always been present). Today, technics almost always affect people (even the producers themselves), whether directly as with genetic modulation or behavior control techniques or indirectly, e.g. environmental changes. The increase in the area of human responsibility is equal to the increase in the area of inevitable consideration: if that area had earlier been spatially and temporally limited and clear (thus limited to an area of ones city and the length of a human life and possibly another human life), today it is spatially and temporally unlimited. In includes the entire Earth and even a part of the universe surrounding it, and encompasses many future generations, until their life space is completely destroyed. That changed the subject domain of ethics. If earlier ethics was limited to direct human relations, today it must comprise the indirect consequences of human actions, including the unknown and the unborn. Jonas includes these ideas, thereby expanding Kants imperative: do so that you can wish your maxim becomes the general law by his own imperative: do so that the consequences of your actions are in accordance with the requests of human life on Earth (Jonas, 1984). While Kants ethics refers to human interaction in direct contact, Jonas is trying to explain the new dimensions of responsibility by means of his expanded imperative. Of course, many unanswered questions still remain, such as: What is real human life? Is life in underground bunkers still considered real? How wide is the concept of permanence? It is certain that today we can still imagine the conditions of life and the possibilities of humans in the year 10000? Maybe this Jonass imperative could be determined like this: do so that the capability of deciding on life conditions of the next generation is unlimited (do not thus create the confusion about the real condition). The advantage of bad prognosis over good prognosis. Jonas introduces this seemingly odd thesis on grounds of the following probability: in great technical projects, there is a large number of failures as opposed to one great success. Thus, the risk of failure is major. Even when the risk is decreased by verification measures, a great problem remains. Jonas explains it by comparing it to a competition (the element of competition in human actions): great technical projects in a great deal simulate competitions where, with a (probable) chance of final victory, exists (significantly less probable, but not excluded) a danger of infinite loss. As an example of such competition we can give the allegedly secure roulette system, consisting of duplicating the stakes after every lost game (only betting on a pair rouge-noir chances). It is certain that the probability of a small prize is increased, but in case of a miss (which is relatively impossible - when minimal stake amount determined by the casino is exceeded), the loss is rather great. The logical conclusion for Jonas, after these reflections, is the command of caution. No ultimate goal justifies infinite total investment. The mere thought of the possibility of the infinite loss, although impossible, should be enough to discourage us from such intent. This means the following: where damage affecting larger portion of humanity cannot be completely excluded for the next several generations, the limit of responsible technics is reached, if not exceeded. This statement, in the meantime supported by the influential Church, is in opposition with the statement of the leading politicians, who modified Jonass danger of infinitive loss to the remaining risk. The utopia of technical improvement dynamics and excessiveness of responsibility. In this chapter Jonas compares great technical projects to the activity of nature during the evolution. The nature takes a lot of time - it makes a great deal of slight mistakes, progresses slowly and does not affect the whole. As opposed to that, people are aiming for a goal within their reach by means of great technical projects. There is no time for the mistaken ones (not even with great projects). Mistakes are not allowed if too many risks are taken, the natural advantages are resigned. So, technical projects do not develop communicative dynamics. The positive effects of reverse action ensure progress only if the first step had already been made. For instance, if construction of a channel, a bridge or a tunnel is considered, a partial solution, which may only be obvious in the initial step of the construction, makes no sense. This means that the rest must be built (maybe even contrary to the knowledge gained in the meantime) in order to justify the initial initiatives. That leads to the famous potato syndrome: the potatoes are on the table, so now they must be eaten. Also, in relation to this, negative effects of reverse action must be mentioned: what must be included is the technics that would limit or diminish the harmful effects of past technical developments, e.g. effects of the removal of dangerous remains. From such dangerous effects Jonas derives the commitment of watchfulness from the beginning. His thoughts, among others, are modified in the following demands: The demand of political philosophy. Due to complex and dangerous relations, the new ethics must turn to public politics more than to private behavior (compare Kant). The changed essence of human action changes the essence of politics. Hereby, politics should not be understood in sense of party of daily politics, but in the original Greek meaning of the community of citizens. Representatives for the future are indispensable. Daily politics only cares for present interests. Nonexistence does not have a porch and the unborn are powerless. While discussing such demands and their practical consequences, we must not give in. Among many possible prognoses, the most favorable is often encountered. Whoever raises a voice is being denied by arguments such as: We still know so little and There is more time. But, that is exactly what is not true because of the already mentioned dynamics. If we still know too little, that means that we should by all means study all the possible consequences before we indulge into a technical adventure. We have an obligation towards the future, primarily obvious in the obligation towards our descendants. For Jonas, this is the original form of responsible action. In the end of his every consideration, Jonas takes a stance towards the possible pessimistic reproach. The previously introduced theses should not be misunderstood as pessimism. The greatest pessimist is the one who feels that the situation nowadays is so bad that, in order to change it, some very risky technical projects should be done. The role of informatics. Jonas does not in any occasion mention informatics and the computer appliance. Still, many of his theses relate to our domain, so it could be concluded that it is being seen as a technical discipline par excellence. Let us look into some of his theses and in that sense, at the same time, try to find touching points for new thoughts in informatics. The new dimensions of responsibility The consequences of technical effects on people are almost always impressive in informatics. On the one hand, there are the advantages of our flights to vacation, transfer, accommodation, including late night calls etc. Nobody wants to forget these advantages, but, despite that, they should not make us euphoric. Very often, our systems have to pay to diminish the other, less positive, side of technics and make it bearable (for example, the light of lanterns versus traffic chaos in big cities). Thus, these are already the effects of reverse action in the sense of Jonass cumulative dynamics. Sometimes, these effects already bear negative consequences and risks, e.g. the loss of workplaces, the loss or decrease of personal communications in professional and private life, the control of citizens by the state (population census, the law on confidentiality of individual data, personal document which is read by a computer, police control, the laws on security) or even the threatened existence of entire nations or the entire humanity. While estimating such projects (and even more benign ones), it is essential to take humans into consideration including ideas of sovereign people who mastered technics, and are not being mastered by it. What is obvious here is an excellent basis for change of opinion on informatics. Computers are not only toys for individuals. They stand between people - connecting and separating them like a powerful means, like weapon depending on how we set them. Thus, informatics must not be limited to a question of how a computer is handled, but must ask a question of how to communicate with each other (with or without the computer). The advantage of bad prognosis over good prognosis. We are all familiar with Murphys law. Anyone who has ever tested programs is acquainted with the relation of a score (correct program) versus countless possible misses (wrong programs). We also know that, by the rule, we cannot achieve an absolute score. The change in opinion here might mean that we are learning to live with principally wrong programs. It does not mean that the significance of their quality should be reduced, but rather that we must ensure that the mistakes do not cause damage and, if they do, that it is slight. Where great of even unacceptable damage is not completely repaired, there are enough reasons to question the entire basis. Such is the case with the danger of infinite loss versus a chance of a great prize and command of caution. Luckily, in the system that we produce the danger of the infinite loss is not a rule. But, isnt the planned SPI- system an exact example of a surely deadly roulette system? In a discussion on the topic lead in Munich in FIFF circle The forum of informaticians for peace and social responsibility, one of the participants suggested limitation of computer appliance to thematic areas, which exclude the infinite loss. For that purpose he used a metaphor of the game of glass beads. We consider it to be a very good system for introducing new thoughts in informatics, but we are aware of how difficult it is to define in detail what else is a game of glass beads, and what is not. Computer systems and the thoughts on evolution Programming and evolution. The goal set by a programmer is from the very beginning hard to relate to the evolution of thought. The evidence is in the very word programming, which means planning of long term predetermined procedures and streams. A program always requires the exact solution, and often the solution is found on the basis of early thoughts, i.e. their clients. Mistakes are undesirable they can be tolerated, but can hurt further development. This is possibly where the change of thought in informatics started: lately, the incorporation of thoughts on evolution into software-engineering has been tried, using the so called prototype. It is yet to be seen whether this approach is successful. Expert systems and evolution. Related to this topic, arises a question of a class of expert systems that needs to be the basis for human decision making in unformulated and completely formulated areas. By this we mean all the systems in which (most often on believable grounds) the decision-maker is allowed a space for mind games, e.g. doctors diagnosis; psychological advice (compare Weizenbaum/ELIZA!); marginal cases with the issues of presentation (lecturing); even legal areas. What shall we say when in a bank X we get the same data as in bank Y, because both of them operate with the same expert system and have the same scientifically-creative operating method? In possible human form standardization I see a danger for further evolutionary development of human kind. I believe it is based on a large number of possible decisions including many wrong decisions. The next problem lies in the decision to shorten the time for decision making. Evolution allows itself a great deal of time. I do not think we should embrace the shortening when it comes to very significant decisions. Why is the saying that all the decisions must be slept over ? On communicative dynamics of technical projects. At first sight, it may seem that communicative dynamics in AOP systems (data analysis systems) is not the same as in other technical projects. Physically, it is easier to remove a computer or a magnetic track than a nuclear power station or a big airport. But, the first sight is often deceptive. Most frequently, really important ICT system are greatly embedded, i.e. one of the integral parts of its surrounding, without which it is amputated and incapable to operate. Everyone is familiar with examples of computer breakdowns in airports, banking money transfers and the military systems of preliminary alerts. ICT is made of facts that cannot be changed by people any more, such as trivial examples of a four-digit zip code, or a flight code consisting of two letters only. A change of opinion would here, for example, mean that in initial phase of our projects we ask the clients whether they want themselves or others to be made dependent by the DV system. A technical evaluation of consequences is necessary here - understood generally. Professional activity and the question of responsibility. How can a man, who in his professional activity, confronts the questions of responsibility, react? Some of possible behavior patterns are: to withdraw; to change work, i.e. to decrease business engagement; to engage politically outside his company (public jobs, parties, FIFF, business initiatives, peace groups); to take responsibility in his own company; to engage politically in his company (political companies), e.g. as an advisor; to convince people by talking to them within (or outside) the company; to ignore the facts; to give over to resignation. We must immediately state: we can not and will not give recipes, or recommend a choice when it comes to the patterns above. Instead, we would like to give several examples and, based on them, discuss different options (and their limits). The first example the activity of advisor in a software company. In this example we shall talk about the work of an advisor, reflecting our own experience. For me, to candidate for the advisor in my company, the critical criterion was the idea of my political engagement inside the company. In the election period there was incertitude in further development of the company, especially concerning military projects related to security. The previous advisor in the company did not succeed with his idea of making a poll for every issue. The task of the new advisor was thus to find another method for talking about the subject, provided that the idea does not fail again and that nobody is provoked by it. Hesse continues by saying: We have tried to openly talk to the company management, in order to signal the wishes and the ideas of the team. The idea was that a poll must be made among team members - with the question of which themes, and in which order, the advisor should deal with. On the theme list - beside classic themes like working hours, the cafeteria and traffic connections - the theme complex Company development and Social aspects was highlighted. The poll was organized anent one of the company meetings. There, the project manager reported that he could not find associates for a certain military project and asked the management if they considered it reasonable to keep acquiring projects from that area under such circumstances. A long, mutually open and vivacious discussion followed, and it did not end in a conclusion, but both sides gave word to the advisor. This example was on our minds while studying the presentation Cooperation as a road to responsible informatical technics (Hesse, 1986.). In it, Hesses statement is provided, which states that a company advisor, when it comes to questions in which he is not entitled to take part, should rather try to atmospherically coax, than to confront. It was not loudly approved by the whole audience. It is intelligible that a company advisor must not become an opportunist and betray the team members. On the other hand, he must be aware of the set limits and, where there is no legal possibility for action, he must provide a flow of good information and a public discussion where there is chance for complaining. He must constantly and carefully examine if a possible gain justifies the breaking of diplomatic porcelain. For us, cooperative action of all the interested people is a main assumption for dealing with the new dimensions of responsibility, provided the willingness to take responsibility collectively. I n the end of this paper arises a question of what role the associations of workers (trade unions) take. I believe that the unions would, given their history and experience, be willing to accept to lead the discussions on responsibility. Unfortunately, in reality it is really rare. That must be the reason why the involvement of informaticians joined in trade unions, especially ICT engineers, is (still) relatively small. Recently, a research by the union of engineers was published, where specific professional problems of 56% unorganized engineers were not taken into consideration. We believe that, in order to jointly solve problems that ail us all, not only engineers should join the union (association) as is often heard from the union members but also, the unions should consider changes of working habits, civil ideas on certain issues, and specific engineers problems on their workplaces. Hereby I would like to express my appeal for both sides, i.e. the union members and the workers who are not in the union, to exchange opinions and end the hostility. The second example from weapon production machinery. Some employees, mostly the ones engaged in production for military needs, took part in an SDI program. Peace group supporters from the company and union representatives tried to talk about the subject. The reaction served as an internal guide to discard the appeals in forms of paroles for workers personal co-responsibility, as well as the attempt to create an attitude of repulsion among the union members. Such political actions () which might significantly disrupt the peace in the company should not be tolerated. One group paid a lot of attention to responsibility (legal), which was given before it was even clearly familiar with the new dimensions of responsibility (Jonas, 1986). In a heated, confronted climate, political approach to the topic recommended by Jonas and which, naturally, has to start in the company (it has nothing in common with forbidden party-political actions in the company), can not work. The third example the action of peace initiative. Several years ago, over 1000 informaticians, engineers and engineers from a large south-German production company joined an open letter and refused to cooperate on an SDI project. The letter was sent to the federal chancellor by 35 natural sciences scholars from Munich. As a primary goal of such actions, we can see public display of issues of general interest with more hopes for success, than in cases where the initiative is given by an individual or an anonymous figure. Given the fact that an individual is often not able to estimate the reach of his actions, he typically does not achieve anything. I t should not by any means be understood as an invitation to prostitution. If somebody has a chance to help perform a task with his actions, he should use it. Parnass attitude towards SDI, stated above, is an example for that. He says: It is true that my decision not to throw any garbage in the street will not affect the cleaning of the world from pollution. If we want to get rid of garbage, we must not throw it around. Every piece is counted. That still is not enough. If this was not Parnas, but somebody anonymous, hardly anything would be achieved. We are all invited Jonas, too, showed us the way with his new dimensions of responsibility a way to make questions of our technics an public political issue, and not to leave it to non-expert politicians. I see the way out in helping others to understand the chances, but also the limits of technics, and thereby make them accept the principle of responsibility. In informational responsibility, the whole life is optimized in a way typical for work (and untypical for the previous times). However, that is not all. Along with time optimization which is directed to work, protestant ethics understands an organization of time directed to work. With protestant ethics, the idea of regular working hours came into the center of life. Self-organization is lost and transferred into the area left after work: evening as remain of the day, the weekend as remain of the week and retirement as what remains after a working life. In the centre of life there is work, which is regularly done and which organizes all the other ways of spending time. Weber describes how, in protestant ethics, inconstant work, to which ordinary worker is obliged, is often an inevitable, but always an unwanted inter-state. What a man without profession is missing is exactly a systematic-methodical character, which, as we have seen, is required by the world . So far, that time organization in informatical economy has not changed a lot. However, rare people can still deviate from strict, regular working hours, despite the fact that new information technologies do not only compress time, but also make it more flexible (Castells calls it time desequencing). With technologies like the Internet and mobile phones, we can work wherever we want and whenever we want. But, this new flexibility does not automatically lead to a fuller time organization. In fact, in information technology, flexibility seems to develop in the direction of further strengthening of work focusing. Informaticians will very often use that flexibility to work in their spare time. In practice, a portion of time reserved for work is still an eight-hour day (or longer), and ever free time is abrupt by work: half an hour of television, half an hour of e-mail, half an hour of going out with children, and all of that interrupted by various business mobile phone calls. Wireless communications such as mobile phones do mean freedom by themselves. They can also be technology for emergencies. Literature: Hans Jonas: The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God & the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958)  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0807058017" ISBN 0-8070-5801-7 Hans Jonas: The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology (New York, Harper & Row, 1966) OCLC 373876 (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2001).  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0810117495" ISBN 0810117495 Hans Jonas: The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age (trans. of Das Prinzip Verantwortung) trans. Hans Jonas and David Herr (1979).  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405974" ISBN 0-226-40597-4 (University of Chicago Press, 1984)  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405966" ISBN 0226405966 Hans Jonas: Immortality and the modern temper: the  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingersoll_lecture" \o "Ingersoll lecture" Ingersoll lecture, 1961 (Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School, 1962) OCLC 26072209 (included in The Phenomenon of Life) Hans Jonas: Heidegger and theology (1964) OCLC 14975064 (included in The Phenomenon of Life) Hans Jonas: Ethical aspects of experimentation with human subjects (Boston:American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1969) OCLC 19884675. . Nadrljanski: Obrazovni softver  hipermedijalni sistemi, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, 2000. Pekka Himanen, Linus Torvalds, Manuel Castells:. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age  The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age (trans. of Das Prinzip Verantwortung) trans. Hans Jonas and David Herr (1979).  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405974" ISBN 0-226-40597-4 (University of Chicago Press, 1984)  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405966" <=>?& ' @ b    # &  bc9ɷo]o]ooKKK"hQsh.6CJ]aJmH sH "hQsh\$6CJ]aJmH sH "hQshQ6CJ]aJmH sH "hQsh)6CJ]aJmH sH "hQshQx6CJ]aJmH sH "hQshc6CJ]aJmH sH "hQshp6CJ]aJmH sH hphpmH sH $jhphp0J5UmH sH hphp5mH sH hphp6mH sH >?9:;   $dha$gdQs $dha$gdQs 8dh^8gdc $dha$gdc$8dh^8a$gdc$dh^a$gdc$dh^a$gdcdhgdc9:EO*Oj  r)Nмwk_k_k_SSSSShQshb6mH sH hQsh6mH sH hQsh-8b6mH sH hQsh0c6mH sH hQshORD6mH sH hQsh6mH sH hQshjq6mH sH hph_B96mH sH h_B96mH sH hp6mH sH hphpmH sH hphp6mH sH hphp56mH sH h_B956mH sH hchpmH sH %')785\^mnz~%&i ܽܽܜܽܽ{{{pep{hphcmH sH hphVmH sH hph [OmH sH hphC=mH sH h|h{NmH sH h|h|mH sH h|hf@mH sH h|hmH sH hphmH sH hQsmH sH hphf@5mH sH hphf@mH sH hQshb6mH sH hQshP6mH sH % '()*78q"r"s"t"""U$V$v%w%m*n*o*$hdh^ha$gd{N$hdh^ha$gdc$ & Fdha$gdc $dha$gdc2=]VtYgiu% ( , 0 4 !$!7!y! ""p"q"s"t"Ծߝ||q|qfhph'mH sH hph$VymH sH hph&mH sH hph?>mH sH hymH sH hphw]mH sH hph>y]mH sH hph9mH sH h|h{N]mH sH hph9]mH sH h|h9]mH sH & ///>/K/W////v0000P122_22223=33334455/5O55*6+64666ɾԳtii^hphusmH sH hph2mH sH hph#RmH sH hphDNmH sH hQsmH sH hphamH sH hphl mH sH hph mH sH hphhkmH sH h>>>>>U?V?W?f?????@@@AA2ASATAfA"B#B$B>BGBBBB C2C3CԾԳԳɨɨɨɝɇwlhph mH sH h2r1mH sH hQsmH sH hphmH sH hphJmH sH hphYmH sH hph^mH sH hphXmH sH h|hT^mH sH hphamH sH hphT^mH sH hphu8mH sH hphImH sH hpht4mH sH '3CCCCCCDDIDjDkDDD E ECEHEKEMEEEEEFFF-FGF9HxHyHzHɾɾԳԨzozzdYQhQsmH sH hphWmH sH hph4EmH sH hph{ mH sH hphGmH sH hphG5mH sH hph{ 5mH sH h|hGmH sH h|hmH sH hph#>&mH sH hph zmH sH hphnmH sH hphmH sH h6#WhmH sH h6#WhmH sH hphP'mH sH zHH%I/IMIJJJJJK$K&K'K(K,KKLLLLLLLMMjMM}q}q}f[PhphH"mH sH hphvmH sH hphBmH sH hph5mH sH hphB5mH sH hphmH sH hphXVmH sH hphmH sH hQsmH sH hph#>&mH sH hphmH sH hphVmH sH hph~mH sH hphW6mH sH hphWmH sH hphmH sH (KLL[R\RRST(U!W"W!Y"YZZZZ ]!]^``]a^a$hdh^ha$gdc$ & Fdha$gdG $dha$gdG $dha$gdcMMNN%N&N'N(N9NNNNN_OOfP`QQZR[R\RRRRRR#S+SSꫠtlaaaUaJhphqzmH sH hphb5mH sH hphbmH sH hQsmH sH hphmH sH hphTomH sH hph-pmH sH hphj`mH sH hphxmH sH hphqmH sH hphQsmH sH hGmH sH h|hnmH sH h|hGmH sH h|hH"mH sH hphH"mH sH hphnmH sH SSSSS T)TTTTTTTTTU'U(UfUgUUUUVVVVV!W"WWWW3X8XXXǼ}th]]]hphmH sH hph5mH sH hQs5mH sH hGmH sH hphGmH sH hphu>mH sH hph.}@mH sH hphmH sH hphCxmH sH hphqmH sH hphq5mH sH hphqz5mH sH hphbmH sH hphqzmH sH hphnmH sH $X!Y"Y9YY=ZKZLZ[Z]Z^ZkZzZZZZZZZ\ \I\J\\\ ]!]f]]]^ʿտտ{{{sh]R]hphBmH sH hphYmH sH hphjE"mH sH hQsmH sH hph.nmH sH hph5OvmH sH h|hu85mH sH h|h 5mH sH hphqmH sH hphmH sH hphHmH sH hph1mH sH hph`PmH sH hph5mH sH hQs5mH sH hphmH sH ^^_O_b________G`H`I````a1a^aaaabbcccccccddReSeTeeefɾԳԟꔫ~~~ԫshhph mH sH hphqMmH sH hph(&}mH sH hphu-mH sH hphKpmH sH hphKp5mH sH hQsmH sH hph5OvmH sH hphjE"mH sH hphYmH sH hph)/mmH sH hphgmH sH hphBmH sH hph5mH sH (^abbSeTeYgZgggZi[iYjZjBlClllmmnnqq-rwbwiwww xxmxtxxxxxxxy?y꾳ꨳɨɨɨɨhphmH sH h.mH sH hph|mH sH hphEemH sH hphm|mH sH hphTmH sH hphmH sH hph_mH sH hphpmH sH hph mH sH :ttEttt-utuuuuv6w7w2{3{||ր؀de R $dha$gdc$ & Fdha$gdc?yDyyyyzyzzzzzzzz1{2{3{[{b{{{P|j|s|||||b}r}}}}}ɾԾԾԨߕԠti^^^hphwEmH sH hphWmH sH hphemH sH hphmH sH hphTmH sH hphzmH sH h.mH sH hph|mH sH hphgmH sH hph9BmH sH hphmH sH hph|]mH sH hphTmH sH hphmH sH hphEemH sH !}}}}}~#~~~4C Հր׀؀9>@ ,abςɾԶԠԠԠtiihph*$^mH sH hphmH sH hph&mH sH hphmH sH hphVmH sH hph mH sH hph mH sH h.mH sH hphmH sH hph`mH sH hphOxmH sH hphTmH sH hphemH sH hphGmH sH ) #4ĩ̓փ׃$*+,9M`abcde|  !QRS]ÉƉ׫׊hph3GmH sH hph(mH sH hph<mH sH hphmH sH hphKmH sH hph+3mH sH hphrmH sH hphmH sH h.mH sH hphb mH sH hph*$^mH sH hph&mH sH 2RS/0FGTUVb?@CDϚКқ dd[$\$gdCxhdd[$\$^hgdCx & Fdd[$\$gdCx $1]1a$gdCx$1dh]1a$gdc $dha$gdcƉ/09YZd2EFG'FǏݏ@UXy~ϐ!V7wlahph-mH sH hph/LmH sH hCxmH sH hph(fmH sH hph><mH sH hph4FmH sH hphP@mH sH hphc;mH sH h|hu mH sH hphu mH sH hph~&mH sH hph .mH sH h.mH sH hph3GmH sH hph(mH sH #7:QT]h’ے#$S`p=]Ŗ%STUV`blɾɾ߳ԳԳԳԳԝ|n\"hphC5CJ\aJmH sH hphC5\mH sH hphZ5\mH sH hcmH sH hphu mH sH hphCmH sH hphmH sH hph\mH sH h|h(fmH sH h|hEmH sH hph(fmH sH hphEmH sH hph-mH sH hph6BmH sH #lmnߗ)*<=>?@JKL01@ABCDNOP˺}lZ˺}IZ hph~UCJ_HIaJmH sH "hphC5CJ\aJmH sH  hphZCJ_HIaJmH sH  hphZCJ_HIaJmH sH ,hphC>*B*CJ_HIaJmH phsH )jhphCCJU_HIaJmH sH  hphCCJ_HIaJmH sH &hphC6CJ]_HIaJmH sH hphCCJaJmH sH "hphZ5CJ\aJmH sH Pę9:LMrs͚̚ϚКښۚܚXYƯƯ۞zkSS/jhphC6CJU]_HIaJmH sH hphCCJaJmH sH "hphZ5CJ\aJmH sH "hphC5CJ\aJmH sH  hphZCJ_HIaJmH sH ,hphC>*B*CJ_HIaJmH phsH )jhphCCJU_HIaJmH sH  hphCCJ_HIaJmH sH &hphC6CJ]_HIaJmH sH Yjkqϛқӛݛޛߛ0\bdxz|tvκteteSDhhCCJaJmHsH"hhC5CJ\aJmHsHhphCCJaJmH sH "hphZ5CJ\aJmH sH "hphC5CJ\aJmH sH  hphZCJ_HIaJmH sH  hphCCJ_HIaJmH sH &hphC6CJ]_HIaJmH sH /jhphC6CJU]_HIaJmH sH 2hphC6>*B*CJ]_HIaJmH phsH қӛbdtv$a$gdCxgdCx$1]1^a$gdCxhdd[$\$^hgdCx & Fdd[$\$gdCx dd[$\$gdCxFGٞ)*stʶzzodZVKCKC7C7jhOUmH sH hOmH sH hO6]mH sH hOjhO0JUhph&mH sH hphKmH sH hphCmH sH  hphCCJ_HIaJmH sH hphCCJaJmH sH  hphC0JCJaJmH sH &hphZ0J5CJ\aJmH sH &hphC0J5CJ\aJmH sH  hhZCJ_HIaJmHsH hhCCJ_HIaJmHsHthph&mH sH jhUhhOUhOmH sH jhOUmH sH hO0JmH sH ISBN 022640596     $a$gdCx,1h. A!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHDA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List(O( Ckomentar>@> p Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ pFootnote ReferenceH*4U@!4 p Hyperlink >*ph<>?9:; ' ( ) * 7 8 qrstUVvwm"n"o"p"q"###q$M%%I&J&&'''++001122223355V7W7T9U9#:$:2;3;<k<==y@z@'C(CDD[J\JJKL(M!O"O!Q"QRRRR U!UVXX]Y^YZZS]T]Y_Z___Za[aYbZbBdCdddeeffii-jF)t v hnsu00.232=>DEJ#KNN"Q:Q^YY__Zbwbfffg=kvkkkElGlmmnnxx }B}~Q|FH 33333333333333333333333333333* 8 ftp##2%M%%%23;<kltmmxx$b1D  C+8.t"6ph ^Fgv ^`CJo(hH.^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.gvh ^"C+8؄ln ~UqMz3G{95DVO _u #P { 'YjqJVOx Igx*t,v5"jE"]"0$\$-%~&#>&g&P'(_+u-..Y12r1T4t48u89_B9><?>u>.}@9BORD4EyGT^\]>7FTBWGFJrg6B&2$"Q.H"q9 `+@4'4`@``<@`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1ffQ7L}M4d<2qHX ?jq2#American psychological association P. `. Svib Nino Tocigl    Oh+'0 $0 P \ ht|$American psychological association  P. . Svib Normal.dot Nino Tocigl2Microsoft Office Word@@@A@@AQ7՜.+,D՜.+,T hp  MZOL< $American psychological association Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA* /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingersoll_lecture#" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405966##<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405974#)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0810117495$.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0807058017#"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405966##<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226405974  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz|}~Root Entry F AData {1Table*=WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q