Children’s Perception of the World of Technology: Through the Lens of Heidegger

The pandemic resulted in an increased use of technology by children (Kazaz et al., 2022), leading to significant changes in their daily routines, social interactions, and overall lifestyles. These changes, encompassing both benefits and drawbacks, have primarily been analysed from a wellbeing perspective. The positive consequences from an increasing use of technology include an overall ability to “leverage and maintain social, physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual wellbeing for children” (Goldschmidt, 2020, p. 89). The negative consequences include decreased in-person social interaction (Twenge et al., 2019), less time spent outdoors and mental health issues (Pandya & Lodha, 2021), reduced sleep (Limone & Toto, 2021) and eye problems (Bahkir & Grandee, 2020).

This study goes beyond the wellbeing discourse to examine how technology shapes children’s relationships with nature, others, and themselves—a dimension that remains largely overlooked in the literature on children’s use of technology, both pre and post pandemic. Is an increased use of technology by children positive or detrimental to their relationships? Throughout the study, the term “computers” is used broadly to refer to digital technologies such as laptops, smartphones, tablets, and the applications accessed through them, reflecting the language and usage patterns of the children in the focus groups. In this article, the philosophy of Heidegger (1977) is used to analyse whether and how technology reshapes these relationships. This theoretical lens has not yet been applied in the existing literature on this topic.

We focus specifically on children aged twelve to fourteen, as they belong to a generation that has grown up with an unprecedented level of technological immersion. The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified this dynamic, increasing their reliance on technology for socialisation and entertainment at a critical developmental stage. From a Heideggerian perspective, this shift is not merely about children using digital tools more frequently but about a transformation in the way they perceive and engage with the world. Understanding how this intensified technological engagement affects their relationships with nature, others, and themselves is therefore essential for assessing the broader existential and ethical implications of this era of digital mediation.

This paper uses Heidegger’s work The Question Concerning Technology (1977) as its theoretical framework. Rather than arguing for the abolishment of modern technology or a return to ancient technology (Feenberg, 2005, p. 40), Heidegger’s philosophy seeks to clarify its role and impact on what it means to be human. He claims that modern technology affects everything in the world—objects, nature, and human beings—in a negative way (Dreyfus & Spinosa, 2003). His potential solutions, to live in a world of technology whilst avoiding the negative consequences by having a free relationship to it, will be discussed in the conclusion of the paper. Heidegger’s philosophy raises several questions, such as the essence of technology, its ‘enframing’, and the consequences of the latter, which will be explained in more detail below.

This theoretical framework is used to critically examine how technology mediates children’s relationships with nature, others, and themselves, uncovering potential concerns that might otherwise go unnoticed. However, this study does not endorse Heidegger’s broader philosophical position nor engage in normative critiques of utility-based perspectives. Whilst Heidegger’s analysis implicitly challenges instrumentalist views, this paper does not take a stance against utilitarianism; rather, it focuses on the ontological implications of technology in shaping human relationships.

2.1 What is Technology?

Why should we care about technology and how should we define it? As stated by Heidegger, in our modern understanding, technology is understood in an instrumental sense, as both a means to an end and a human activity (Heidegger, 1977, pp. 4–5). For example, an airplane serves as a means to the end of travelling from point A to B, a common activity performed by humans for leisure or business trips.

However, Heidegger argues that we must free ourselves from the danger of technology. The true danger of technology lies not in its physical form but in its essence (not as a substance but what it can do) as a “destining of revealing” (p. 28). Technology is thus “no mere means” to an end (p. 12). Heidegger defines the essence of technology as “a way of revealing” (Ibid). This way of revealing should not be understood as the manufacturing of the world but as a way by which we come to understand the world.^{Footnote 1} In other words, information about a certain thing or being enables us to endlessly transform it according to our needs, revealing its purpose in this precise optimal way. For instance, through the manufacturing of wind turbines, we come to see wind not simply as a natural phenomenon, but as something that can fulfil our demand for energy.

2.2 Modern Technology: ‘enframing’ and the ‘standing-reserve’

Modern technology has a particular way of revealing which Heidegger characterises as ‘enframing’ (Ge-stell) (p. 20). Namely, through this technological understanding of being, humans designate specific uses for everything in the world. The aim of these objects’ existence is to be a mere resource to an end. Technology makes us see objects in the world as things to be used and this enframing becomes our understanding of things. So, enframing is applying a framework or structure. Seen in this light, modern technologies enframe insofar as they demand that everything be orderable for our own purposes and uses. Everything can be encapsulated by a system of information and typically made measurable and quantifiable. We no longer see a river, but a thing that can be converted into hydroelectricity. The meaning of an object becomes what we can use it for, it becomes ‘standing-reserve’ (Bestand).

The problem with something being transformed into standing-reserve is that it “no longer stands over against us as object.” (p. 17). In other words, once an object is considered as a resource, it stops being an object in itself. It is solely defined by its utility. “Everywhere everything is ordered to stand by, to be immediately at hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering.” (Ibid) The object’s purpose is to be ready to be used and transformed into something else, which will be useful too. The problem with enframing is not just that it represents things in the world as resources—because pre-modern technologies did that too to some extent—but that it sees them specifically as standing-reserve. That is, they are resources which are divorced from a particular purpose—we do not just use the wind to turn the sails of the windmill to grind the flour to make our bread, rather, we use the wind to turn the blades of the wind turbine to generate energy to store and distribute and use for a variety of undefined purposes. Heidegger is particularly troubled by the way in which this abstraction depicts a particularly dominant relationship with the world and its things, whereby they are entirely subjugated to our goals and are not permitted to coexist with us.

2.3 The Danger to the Human Essence

Heidegger then goes on to highlight the crucial point: “man stands within the essential realm of Enframing” (p. 24). Why is this problematic? A human’s essence is reduced to merely ordering and structuring the optimisation of the standing-reserve.^{Footnote 2} Therefore, “he [human being] comes to the very brink of a precipitous fall; that is, he comes to the point where he himself will have to be taken as standing-reserve.” (p. 27) That is, because their existence is defined in relation to their utility in making other things useful, human beings become a standing-reserve too. This could be represented in our modern society where ‘human resources’ departments of companies enframe their employees by managing them as resources to the company’s ends (p. 18).

2.4 Revealing and Possibilities

Heidegger points out that “Enframing does not simply endanger man in his relationship to himself and to everything that is” (p. 27); man’s behaviour of only revealing things in an ordering-way also “drives out every other possibility of revealing” (Ibid). Seen through the enframing of modern technology, a thing is shaped in the most optimal way of being used. Furthermore, “the revealing never simply comes to an end. Neither does it run off into the indeterminate.” (p. 16) This endless chain or network of things being used for other purposes does not let things be in themselves. The organisation also does not let things come into revealing in an unforeseen way. For example, a tree might be seen as a mere resource, to fulfil the purpose of building a table, which in turn fulfils the purpose of holding objects, which in turn fulfils the purpose of organising a room, which in turns fulfils the purpose of making more space for people to work or live in, ad infinitum. The initial tree should, according to Heidegger, have the possibility of being something different, such as simply being a tree, existing for itself.^{Footnote 3} This begs questions of an ontological nature: How would things exist without the assigned uses human beings defined for them? How would the world look like?

The data for this study was collected in the summer of 2022 through four focus groups conducted in two secondary schools in England. The children in the focus groups were from coeducational state schools. The students in one school were interviewed face to face and the other were interviewed online, through a Microsoft Teams video meeting. The composition of each focus group is shown in Table 1.

The number of children in each focus group was aligned with Gibson’s research (2007), which also suggests that gender-homogenous groups may balance participation. The participants, aged 12 to 14, were considered capable of engaging in philosophical discussions (Pritchard, 2022; Trickey & Topping, 2004). To ensure a foundational understanding and familiarity with the content of the questions, all children were required to have prior knowledge of computing, gained through their school computing course. Participation was entirely voluntary.

The focus group lasted approximately 40 minutes during the school day, with all students actively participating—some even asked to continue the discussion after class. To protect their privacy, all children were assigned pseudonyms in accordance with ethical guidelines (Andow, 2016; Cohen et al., 2018) and the names of the schools remain anonymous for the same reason. The project received approval from the King’s College London Research Ethics Board. The structure of the discussion followed the six stage Philosophy for Children method (Trickey & Topping, 2004) of (1) Getting started—explaining the context of the study and establishing a philosophical and welcoming atmosphere where there is no right or wrong; (2) Introducing a first question to start the enquiry; (3) Letting the children reflect for a while; (4) Allowing children to share their thoughts; (5) Structured discussion—leading the children to build on each other’s lines of thought, whilst also exploring new lines of inquiry; (6) Concluding the discussion together, ending with a final reflection on the initial question and observing whether their perspectives had changed.

The exact structure of the focus group interview began with an independent reflection from the children on their position regarding the claim, “Do computers make the world a better place?” The children were asked to give arguments and explanations for their positions. Then, the first section followed on their relationship with nature. A thought experiment was used to help children imagine and critically assess the first philosophical question, a common approach in experimental philosophy (Andow, 2016). From there, questions were asked and sparked various discussions amongst the children. The second section was also introduced via another thought experiment and was followed by questions and discussions. Subsequently, the third section brought the second section further and prompted children to do some ontological questioning to justify their answers to the questions. Finally, the initial question “Do computers make the world a better place?” was asked again, to observe whether this philosophical discussion around the topics of their relationships with nature, human beings, and themselves had changed their position on the impact of technology.

The digital recordings of the focus groups were coded into themes using NVivo, a qualitative data analysis tool. The themes aligned with the structure of the interview questions and resulted from an analysis of the data and refinement of the themes, and vice versa. Originally, this structure of the questions asked in each focus group was built according to the Philosophy for Children model and the content of the questions was based on the argument presented by Heidegger in his philosophical essay The Question Concerning Technology (1977). For the sake of clarity and facility of understanding, this argument can be presented in three sections.

3.1 Relationship with Nature

Heidegger claims that technology enframes the natural world, hence the first section covers children’s relationship with nature. What Heidegger criticises here is that nature is regarded as a mere means to an end. For example, when we look at a tree, we would not simply acknowledge and respect its existence as a tree but rather seek to understand how to make the best use of it by for instance transforming it into a certain number of tables. “The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging (Herausfordern), which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such.” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 14). The students were given a thought experiment (see Sect. 4.2.1) to facilitate their engagement with the philosophical questions (Andow, 2016). They were then asked whether technology helps them understand the essence of nature. Additional questions explored their perception of how technology (e.g., computers and smartphones) affects their relationship with nature and their ability to build an emotional connection with it. They were also asked whether they view nature in utilitarian terms, and if they believe such a perspective is right. This first section relies on different types of questions (ontological, emotional, moral) to let children independently express their views, allowing diverse perspectives, before ultimately analysing their views to determine whether children enframe nature as Heidegger claims human beings do.

3.2 Relationship with Others

Heidegger then takes the point further and claims that human beings thereby also become resources. By ordering the world in a certain way, using technology, they end up as resources as a mere means to an end. For instance, consider how users of social media and web-enabled technologies are not just consumers of a product, they are the product, since companies make money by aggregating and selling their data. The second section will therefore analyse how children’s relationships with others are impacted by technology, to determine whether Heidegger’s worry is realistic or not. This was done through a second thought experiment (see Sect. 4.3.1), which resembled a hybrid of social, dating, and networking apps, along with a set of questions exploring children’s relationships with others and how these are influenced by technology—for example, whether technology helps or hinders their understanding of another person. Due to technology, do children view others as mere resources to an end?

3.3 Relationship with the Self

Heidegger’s philosophy of technology is founded in his ontology, more specifically in the question of Being (1977). The third section will investigate children’s relationship with themselves, investigating their existential thoughts about what it means to exist but also going further, reflecting on what it means to be who they are, how they define themselves as a unique human being. In the framework of a technological world, this resulted in questions such as: “Do computers help you understand and define yourself?” and “Does technology help or hinder you in asking questions about yourself?”. This will help us understand whether Heidegger’s claim, that human beings’ understanding of being is restricted in relation to modern technology, applies to children’s conception of being too. This section could be useful in further analysing the potential power of ontological questioning (in a Heideggerian or personal manner) in a world of technology. Would spending time with such questions enable one to reduce some of the negative impact of technology on the way it shapes our perception of ourselves and the world?

3.4 Discussion

After having reflected on the results of all three sections, confirming certain Heideggerian worries of living in a world of “danger”, two potential solutions will be suggested to alleviate technology’s negative effects. The danger at hand refers to technology enframing everything in the world, reducing its possibility of existence to the only most optimal one. Thereby, impacting children’s relationships with nature, others, and themselves.

3.5 Limitations

The research design was limited due to the potential lack of statistical generalisability that arises from the small sample of the study: 13 students were interviewed in total, of which 5 were girls and 8 were boys. Further focus group interviewing, with equal numbers of girls and boys, would be required to make stronger claims. Note that the time frame was designed as a single focus group session of approximately 40 minutes per group. The change in positions of the children (beginning versus end of interview) might have been more drastic if they would have had more time to process and reflect on the questions and implications at hand.

Moreover, conducting the focus group online was not the most effective method. First, the children appeared less at ease, needing more time to start expressing their thoughts and reflections more freely. Second, the children’s emotions were interpreted with a little more difficulty by the interviewer as indicators such as posture and eye contact were harder to ascertain. In this qualitative study, emotions have a role to play as they add depth to the children’s thoughts and reflections, enabling a more precise and realistic interpretation of what were otherwise only detached claims.

Lastly, it would be valuable to compare this sample of results with a study involving children not taking any computing courses at school. Such a comparison could potentially reveal more critical perspectives on technology. Whilst the current sample may be better equipped to engage with the questions due to their background knowledge and experience, they may lack critical distance, if technology is presented as neutral or positive within the school curriculum.

The results from the study will be following the network of themes that emerged from each section.

4.1 Initial Reflection: Does Technology Make the World a Better Place?

Of the 13 children who participated (n = 13), most (n = 11) answered yes and two (n = 2) were neutral. Their reasoning was based on the utility of computers, such as being useful for communication, data storage, and giving access to knowledge. The common criticisms that arose were the lacking development of social skills, computers’ usage of energy not being environmentally friendly, and physical issues such as worsening eyesight. These criticisms were however only of minor importance and thus did not undermine their confidence in technology making the world a better place.

4.2 How Does Technology Impact Children’s Relationship With Nature?

4.2.1 Thought Experiment

You are in a park and use an app on your phone to scan every plant you find. The app provides details and potential uses for each plant (e.g., whether it is edible for humans or animals, has medicinal properties, or can be used in fragrances or beauty products).

This thought experiment was chosen to make the philosophical question as accessible as possible, enabling mental representation. The details and uses represent the information about nature provided by technology. As interpreted by Heidegger’s philosophy, this would enable us to analyse whether, through gaining information about a plant, the plant’s existence would be reduced to solely being a resource, used as a mere means to our human-centric ends.

4.2.2 Findings

1. (1)

   According to the children from the focus groups, technology was frequently identified as a distraction that made it harder to be present in nature, potentially preventing a deeper connection with it.

After reflecting on the thought experiment, all children (n = 13) concluded that using an application on their phone, providing them with information about the plants they could encounter in nature, might be useful but would be an obstacle to a well-rounded and fulfilling outdoor experience. According to Oscar, “[technology] can distract you from nature.” Jack also mentioned that “it drags you away from your walk and looking at stuff.” As reported by Harper, “I probably wouldn’t use the app because it might ruin the experience of like the park. Cause I’d probably go to the park for like nature.” Lizzie appreciates being outside without her phone: “Because [in that case] the technology isn’t interrupting your connection [with nature].” Oliver agrees, claiming that “Computing and stuff … can bring you away from nature.”

The children from Yorkshire reported feeling connected with nature, whilst those from London generally did not. Those who felt connected with it experienced pleasant emotions. Those who did not feel connected, wished to be. Christoph: “Like it is important. I’m not connected to nature, but I want to be.”

William claims that he feels connected with his computer, instead of nature: “do I feel connected with my computer? I’d say yes. Cuz I spend a lot of time on it. So that could be a reason. And plus, I’d have a lot of memories attached to it. But I, I guess I do have some memories attached with nature, cuz when I was small. Yeah. I would’ve had quite a few memories attached with nature, but now it’s changed. I’m barely outside.” Based on William’s account and supported by Chawla’s review (2020), it appears that children may need to spend time in nature to develop a relationship with it, with factors such as the quality of time, the amount of time spent, and the memories associated with nature being crucial in influencing the strength of this connection.

For some, having emotions towards nature is something they never thought about. Elsie: “I see why you would ask that, but I don’t feel like people normally ask me that.”

1. (2)

   Children either display an instrumental relationship with nature or are against such a relationship and would rather connect with it on an emotional and appreciative level.

One the one hand, children represented Heidegger’s concern about having a utilitarian relationship towards nature, seeing it as standing-reserve. For them, knowledge provided by technology about the plants would be very useful, in helping them find the best use for the plant or preventing any dangerous situation (e.g., touching a poisonous plant). Rosie and Lizzie both shared this view. Rosie said that once you have knowledge about the uses of a plant, “you can use them for your advantage.” Most children (n = 10) said they would appreciate the plant more if they knew how it could be used. David said “it’s just a nice plant, that’s it? … if you actually knew … what it could be used for … You would appreciate it more.” Rosie: “I think it’s just there. Like nature’s just there, but if you know the use of that nature, then it would be useful, and you appreciate it more.”

On the other hand, Harper claims she “can just appreciate the plants and how pretty they are” [without associating it to a potential use] and several children had quite a critical position, questioning the use of gaining information about the plants. According to them, the information should not interfere with their appreciative relationship with nature. William says “I think in that scenario, we’re like expecting it. I don’t see why we can’t just stand around it, just look at it.” Oscar also pointed out that “at some point you’re just gonna be going around just because you want to know more about the plant. Like you wouldn’t be going around for your own adventure and find stuff like that.” Oliver underlines: “Actually interacting with what you have, not what you can get.” In other words, one ought to appreciate the plant as it is, not as the potential product it could be. Oliver thereby shows awareness for Heidegger’s worry of enframing nature as standing-reserve.

Heidegger’s concern about humans enframing nature appears to be reflected in the children’s views. Some children’s relationship with nature is strongly aligned with utility, and the majority (n = 10) believe that understanding nature’s functional uses enhances their interest in it. However, their reflections also suggest that relationships with nature are not fixed; rather, they may shift between instrumental and experiential modes depending on context. This aligns with Heidegger’s view and suggests that technology’s mediation of nature may shape whether children engage with it instrumentally or emotionally, potentially leading to varied forms of relationship-building.

4.3 How Does Technology Impact Children’s Relationship with Others?

4.3.1 Thought Experiment

You are sitting in a café and use an app on your phone that scans people’s faces. The app displays their profile, revealing details such as their job, height, weight, hobbies, number of social media followers, and more.

As in the previous section, the children were able to imagine the philosophical question at hand thanks to the thought experiment. In this scenario, technology’s impact is represented by the online profile, which reduces individuals to a set of data points or mere facts. This could align with Heidegger’s concern that technology encourages us to see others as resources—as mere means to an end rather than as complex human beings. For example, the children discussed the implications of connecting with someone based solely on shared hobbies. They considered the difference between forming a relationship out of genuine interest in a shared hobby versus rejecting a potential connection or relationship simply because they had no ‘obvious’ common interests that would be represented in one’s online profile. The scenario presented here mimics and combines features of social media apps, dating apps, and professional networking platforms, raising questions about how technology shapes human interactions.

4.3.2 Findings

In the adult world, using apps to connect with others based on common interests is standard. Whilst children appear to understand the purpose of such apps, they also appear to oppose such behaviour if the aim is to build genuine relationships with others.

1. (1)

   Children would not like to have an app extensively describing people they could meet or connect with as they would not enjoy building the relationship in that way.

The children said such an application would facilitate meeting people, but they insisted it should not be done that way—that it would not feel right. Christoph said, “It just wouldn’t be as fun. It’d just be like a shortcut,” and William agreed: “I think it takes the element of surprise away.”

Furthermore, if someone else were to scan their faces to get access to their profile, the children would all feel very uneasy. They would not like someone getting information about them in this way, without a proper open conversation. For instance, Oliver mentioned “I wouldn’t like it. If someone walks up to me and tries to scan my face and tries to know everything about me,” just as Lola said it would be “awkward”.

1. (2)

   Children do not think this is an actual connection, as pure information about a person is not enough to truly know them. They argue that the connection can only be built through direct experience with the other person and getting to know that person’s personality.

All children agreed that by using the application, they would not build a proper connection with the other person. William said: “Maybe it would help … but … I wouldn’t feel connected to them.” According to the children, personality is more important than someone’s occupation because it allows for a more comprehensive understanding of who they truly are and thereby facilitates connection on a deeper level. Christoph echoes this sentiment: “they wouldn’t know about who you are, but they would know what you do.” This suggests that information about a person does not define personal identity, that can only be discovered about another person through discovering their personality, reflected in their feelings and actions when facing certain situations in life. David explains it as follows: “All you’d know is just the facts that loads of people could already know. Cause you got like Twitter, Facebook—people post stuff on it but you never know like how they are. If they’re rude, if they’re nice. Until you actually talk to them.” Lizzie also insists on getting to know people’s true feelings, going beyond the usual facade of interests and activities we undertake. She claims that “knowing someone’s hobby is different to what their feelings are. And like what they actually like in life, maybe the hobbies are just something that makes people feel comfortable.” Perhaps, such subjective states, such as being “nice”, are not easily reducible to data because of the tacit and subjective knowledge that goes with them.

The right way then, opposed to using the application, is the traditional way of meeting another person face-to-face and “getting to know them yourself” (Harry). Using common networking, dating, or friendship applications might not align with the children’s understanding of creating true, authentic, relationships. For them, one could not categorise such types of social connections as genuine ones. Adults may partially agree with that position, arguing that these apps serve as a form of filtration for initial contact, after which they dedicate time to personal interactions. The children’s insights, though emerging from a different life stage and perspective, may point to a deeper unease with the reduction of relational complexity that such apps might produce. Adults may also share this unease, though perhaps experience or articulate it differently. Indeed, such apps, whilst useful in some ways, also oversimplify the complexity of human beings, reducing relationships to more predictable, pre-filtered interactions and preventing organic surprises that may come with spontaneous, real-life connections. Further research is needed to explore this hypothesis.

4.4 How Does Technology Impact Children’s Relationship with Themselves?

This section used the previous thought experiment once more, this time focusing on their own side of the situation instead of how it would make them perceive others. How would they feel if someone used the app on them? Would their profile on the app be representative of who they are? Then, the debate was philosophically abstracted to encourage the children to reflect on whether they perceive technology as helping, hindering, or having no impact on their ability to explore and develop a relationship with themselves.

Whilst the children did not use the terms existential or ontological, many expressed the importance of understanding who they are, what they want from life, and how they might change over time. These themes were explored through the lens of philosophical concepts such as ontological self-reflection.

4.4.1 Findings

1. (1)

   Technology is deemed useless in improving the relationship.

Children do not think technology helps them answer ontological questions in any way. Experience in the world and asking themselves such questions is key in building their relationship with themselves.

According to Lola, “you don’t really like, find your personality on Google.” She further claims that a computer might have lots of information on what she likes but would be ignorant on how she likes it. She would need to do some introspection to analyse her deeper preferences and get to know herself better.

It may be that in an increasingly data-driven world, people often define themselves through quantifiable and external attributes, such as job titles, social status, and physical factors. By contrast, when asked what it means to be a human being, children were convinced it went beyond those facts. David answered that “the scientists will only say how we are created or something, but you wouldn’t know as a person who you are, that you’ll have to find out without computers.” Oscar suggested that life experience can help one define oneself: “my computer is just facts and like information on the screen. You can’t really dictate who you are just by seeing that, you have to like meet people, to have friends, lose friends, experience all of that, and then you can find out who you are.” Moreover, Lola thinks that “You can like build your own personality. Like you do your own thing. You find your own hobbies. You like find your own like people that you look up to.” According to her, it is important that the process of self-discovery is independent of computers.

1. (2)

   Technology prevents children from working on their relationship with themselves.

Findings show that technology prevents children from being bored (Hand, 2016), which Heidegger (1995) considers a fundamental mood that enables existential self-reflection and deeper questioning of world, finitude, and individuation. Hand’s study suggests that digital technologies mediate time in ways that reduce opportunities for profound boredom, instead encouraging constant engagement that may limit deeper introspection. Oscar suggests that boredom creates a space for deeper thought. He describes the experience this way: “you’re just by yourself and you’re not doing anything. You’re just thinking basically.” From this, we interpret that boredom may enable a form of existential questioning, in which children begin to reflect on their lives and sense of self.

However, most children were of the position that computers prevent this required state of boredom. When they are not spending time with their friends or family, they would be on their computer, playing games or on social media. They claimed that computers keep them constantly absorbed and disconnected from themselves but cannot do anything against it. David says that “you never do anything about it. Because you’ve got all these computer apps that just keep bringing up new stuff. You like, oh, I’m gonna try this. I’m gonna try that.”^{Footnote 4}

1. (3)

   Children think it is important to work on their relationship with themselves.

The previous finding does not offer a complete analysis without the following: there is a consensus among the children on the importance of asking deep personal questions—questions about identity, purpose, and the kind of life one wants to live. In the context of this study, we refer to such inquiries as ontological or existential questions, in the sense that they concern the child’s understanding of themselves as a being in the world. This brings us to the conclusion that there is in fact an issue arising from the use of technology, because children do not want to be prevented from working on their relationship with themselves. For Lizzie, asking the question “‘Who am I?’ would, like, give you a sense of purpose in life.” Rosie agrees that by questioning yourself “it gives you like your own personal satisfaction.” According to Oliver, such questions help you assess your current state of life and determine the future structure of the life you want to live. He says that “You should prepare yourself for the future and make sure you achieve the things you want to. Think about how we could get there before, like you’re too old or you’re paying rent or stuff like that.”

Furthermore, Harry and Jack insist on the fact that this kind of questioning is not practised enough. Human beings do not go further than knowing “what you’ve been told or what you’ve seen. You don’t know too much about yourself.” (Harry). Making the effort to go deeper: “you learn more about yourself with the stuff you don’t really think of.” (Jack) Most children do not practise self-reflection and certainly do not know how to do it.

4.5 Final Reflection: Does Technology Make the World a Better Place?

To close the philosophical discussion, the children were asked to reflect once more on the initial question. Two aspects changed: a feeling of responsibility and their overall position.

First, the children said that in some respects technology does not make the world a better place but insisted that it is due to the way human beings use it. William summarised it as: “We can’t blame the computers; we should blame ourselves.”

Second, the children shifted towards a more neutral view: 8 out of 13 changed their position to neutral, 2 maintained their initial neutral stance, and 3 remained with a yes position—though they described it as a less confident position.

Finally, the children were asked if they would try to improve their relationship with nature, others or themselves (the three relationships that were questioned, in line with Heidegger’s philosophy). Some answered they would try. Others answered they could not, citing the influence of digital devices, even though they believed it would be better for them. Whilst their responses reference specific technologies, this may reflect a deeper condition: a mode of engagement with the world that prioritises speed, efficiency, and surface-level connection. This aligns with Heidegger’s worry that “The rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing.” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 28) In this sense, the issue is not simply the presence of digital tools, but a broader disposition that may be rooted in social, economic, and cultural systems that reinforce technological enframing. In other words, it is not simply digital devices that are the problem, but the broader technological worldview that may obscure or displace more original, embodied, and relational forms of understanding the world.

5.1 Summary

It was found in section one that some children do perceive nature as standing-reserve. It implies a conversion of natural resources into generic information, energy, or further resources to serve our undefined purposes.^{Footnote 5} However, some children do not have this kind of relationship and focus on appreciating nature and building an emotional connection instead. Interestingly, it shows that even in a world of technology, the children can separate themselves from this line of thought (of having a utility-based relationship with nature). How exactly they can achieve it needs to be further investigated.

In section two, the children’s position differed from what might have been expected based on Heidegger’s analysis, which sees humans as trapped in the system of enframing. Whilst adult behaviour could perhaps exemplify Heidegger’s concerns, the children strongly opposed technology-mediated ways of building social connections with others.^{Footnote 6} Nevertheless, Heidegger’s theory is best understood as a “tacit”^{Footnote 7} phenomenon—meaning that children or adults would not explicitly regard other human beings as mere resources. Through their actions, they might subconsciously do so, technologically revealing and ordering the world as standing-reserve. Further studies are needed to analyse children’s (or adults’) behaviour and uncover potential subconscious enframing.

Section three was insightful in the way it reflected how important the practice of ontological questioning is for children. All agreed on the benefits of it, with the majority not knowing how to practise it but being eager to learn. Their perception of what it means to be human could contrast with what one might expect from an adult, whose behaviour might be representative of Heidegger’s worries. This could prompt further research to effectively compare the potential cause of change from the children’s position to an adult-like enframing position, and whether that has any benefits or harms for humanity.

The themes combined in all three sections had an impact on the way children critically perceive technology. In their final answers on “Do computers make the world a better place?”, the children shifted towards a more neutral position, showing that reflecting on their relationship with nature, others, or themselves is valuable in evaluating the impact of technology.

5.2 How can we Strive Towards a Better World?

This study has explored whether technology makes the world a better place, contrasting this view with Heidegger’s notion of technology as “the highest danger,” which risks reducing our way of seeing the world to one shaped solely by technological thinking. Heidegger criticises our restricted way of thinking. His aim is not to condemn how technology is destroying our planet (Golob, 2017, pp. 362–3) or our culture. Instead, he wishes to target how it restricts or distorts our understanding of being, through the process of enframing. Withal, he does not explicitly offer a solution. Instead, his work invites various interpretations for how we might respond to this challenge.

One such interpretation centers on the realm of art. For Heidegger, art—broadly conceived to include literature, music, painting, and more—shares with technology a revealing function, but unlike technology, it opens up alternative ways of understanding the world (1977, p. 35). As Metcalf notes,

The saving power can be fostered only in a realm which is, on the one hand, akin to the essence of technology and, on the other, fundamentally different from it. Such a realm is art. For technology and art essentially belong to technology as ways of revealing, ways of bringing forth truth. Thus, Heidegger concludes that art is the realm of being which is primally claimed to foster the saving power in its increase. (1991, p. 53).

This could motivate a pedagogical response: educational programmes might incorporate art not simply as a creative outlet, but as a way to broaden students’ interpretive lenses. By engaging with various artistic perspectives—e.g., comparing how two artists differently depict an apple—students could learn to question fixed meanings and remain open to alternative ways of seeing and being. Additionally, curricula could integrate discussions about the role and impact of technology across disciplines, such as in history, politics, or literature, to foster critical awareness of how technology shapes human thought.

Another interpretation, however, pushes beyond seeking solutions to acknowledge the deeper ontological challenge that technology presents. As Dreyfus and Spinosa argue, “This threat [of technology’s enframing] is not a problem for which we must find a solution but an ontological condition that requires a transformation of our understanding of being.” (2003, p. 341) From this perspective, striving toward a better world involves nurturing an inner shift toward a more autonomous relationship with technology. By improving children’s relationship with themselves, could their understanding of being become more independent from technology’s way of revealing being? Might they learn to see themselves, and others, as more than mere resources to an end? Education again emerges as a key avenue—this time through philosophical reflection. A module of philosophy of technology for children (e.g., Peters, 2003) could dive into the questions covered in this research, increasing awareness of the impact of technology on our understanding of being, whilst simultaneously equipping children with the critical thinking skills that will enable them to define the way they see themselves, and other human beings. This aligns with Heidegger’s views, as he claims that recognising the potential for technology to enframe and transform the world into standing reserve is essential to limiting its power; i.e., he emphasises the importance of human reflection in resisting enframing and opening up other ways of revealing.

5.3 Final Word

Due to the nature of the small-scale study, this paper aims to offer an introduction to a new way of critically analysing the impact of technology and calls for further research in this field. The potential success of the two suggested ‘solutions’—first, fostering alternative ways of revealing through engagement with art and other critical lenses; and second, encouraging a transformation in our understanding of being through philosophical reflection—requires further exploration. Analyses of technology’s impact on children typically focus on mental and physical health but rarely extend to how technology shapes our understanding of being. Hopefully, this project will be seen as equally pressing in the near future.

The closer we come to the danger, the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin to shine and the more questioning we become. For questioning is the piety of thought. (Heidegger, 1977, p. 35).

Only by confronting the full scope of technology’s danger can we open up the possibility of a new, non-technological way of being. The act of questioning, itself, is not merely an intellectual exercise but a necessary engagement with existence—one that enables us to see beyond the technological paradigm and reconsider what it means to be human.