Slashdot Mirror
Ministry of NanoEthics?
hlovy writes "Here's part of a blurb that promotes, Nanotechnology: Atom and Eve in the Garden of Eden," an upcoming conversation between Foresight Institute founder Eric Drexler and ETC Group head Pat Mooney: "Recent studies indicate that nanoscale materials now being commercialized pose potential hazards for human health and the environment." The "studies" were actually incomplete surveys of inconclusive toxicology reports, commissioned by ETC Group, itself. Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed. Read Howard Lovy's NanoBot for commentary."
I think that while this is a good idea, it's maybe a little too early to be thinking about nanoethics. Existing nanomachines are simple automata with no sort of intelligence or self-awareness. Therefore, issues of ethics and morality do not apply to them. We have several more decades before nanoethicism is needed.
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
I'm a bit sick of reactionary fear of technology. I work for a major university and deal with "outcry" to many of our "potentially dangerous" research projects. I hate to tell the reactionaries this, but the people capable of, say, bioengineering plants to extract toxins from the soil, are also the most competent ones for putting in safeguards and policing themselves.
The IT world is a perfect example of what happens when the uninformed start trying to regulate an industry they don't understand. I'm not saying everyone whould have free reign, I'm just saying that the fanatics should get maybe work on getting their PhD's if they are that concerned. Of course, then they might then find that they can solve problems with technology that they create, instead of wasting their time fearing what the can't comprehend.
Can I bum a sig?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Why is it so hard for people to see that public-key cryptography can be used for ill and will be very hard to stop?
Why is it so hard for people to see that atomic energy can be used for ill and will be very hard to stop?
Just because something can be used for Bad Things does not mean it should be instantaneously squashed. Just about any technology you want can be used for ill, and many of those would be very hard to stop. What about it?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
That does in no way absolve _anybody_ (including you) to try _very hard_ to do something about it. Otherwise we might as well give in to environemntal pollution, exploitation of natural ressources, injustice done to variuos peoples and imperialism. Oh wait: we've already done that. Sorry, you're absolutely right. Let's sit back and do nothing.
Worrying about the ethics of nanotechnology is like worrying about the ethics of flying carpets. Sure, somebody might fly over the Sultan's garden and peek at his wives---but he has to build the damn thing first.
The world is actually already full of self-replicating nanoscale bots, and at this very moment your very own precious body contains billions of them! Scary, huh? Better outlaw them until they do something dangerous!
They are called "bacteria". They have been around long before us, and they will be here long after the last human has died.
Sure, milk is milk and it probably won't hurt too much if it isn't.
Giant, sterile genetically-modified salmon, otoh, could end up being a real problem if they got out into the regular population. No one thought about that until the fish-farms were already built.
The ethical dilemma is that, once these technologies become available, companies will use GM foods and nanotech to make a quick buck without another thought to the unintended consequences.
Even worse, in the case of GM foods, would it really hurt the fish farmers if natural salmon were to become extinct? Would it really hurt Monsanto if native crops became infested with GM strains?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
On the other hand, YES, small things can be more dangerous than big things. Many things are dangerous when in a powder or string, but not in the bulk form. Anyone heard of asbestos ? The only time it is dangerous is when is it inhaled, I.E., only when it is small.
Finally, of course no comprehensive study has been performed. Has a truely comprehensive study been done on ANYTHING ? Can you perform the study if you forbid the discipline before it starts ? No. The people claiming we can procede without such a study know that the study can't be performed without proceding, (or they are idiots.) Beware anyone claiming to be reasonable when they say more studying needs to be done before you can begin studying something.
Dean G.
Remember : Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (Maybe up, maybe down...)
Personally, I'm not putting anything in my body that hasn't been tested. I imagine that the research to this point has been focussed on getting these little bots to do stuff and not on whether the material they're made of is toxic, or builds up in your liver, or promotes the clogging of arteries or anything else. They're still at the stage of "look, we made a tiny, tiny motor." They will have to go through a stage of testing before they start injecting people with stuff.
And it's amazing to me how many posts here are suggesting that something needs to be proven dangerous beyond all reasonable doubt before we stop to think about using it. I'm of the opinion that you've got to prove something is safe before unleashing it on the public, whether it's nanobots or the smoke from your chimney.
There's no way I'm putting anything untested in my body. Unless, you know, my best friend does it first and says it feels good...
There is a difference between regulating something, and banning it outright. Would you also say that we shouldn't regulate the use of asbestos as a building material, because it might hinder the development of architecture? Would you have opposed research into the health hazards of asbestos? If there are safety issues, they should be investigated, and a sensible response taken to the results.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Talk about biased spin. I would think that Greenpeace is specifically making noise that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed.
It is the same problem as placing genetically modified food into the mouths of the population. We are messing with powerful technologies that we barely understand. The least that we can and have a duty to do is take some care before haphazardly deploying them. It is totally irresponsible not to.
The burden of proof does not lie with Greenpeace, it solidly lies with those bringing new, untested, and possibly dangerous products to market. Maybe they're harmless, maybe they'll kill 15% of the population. Who the hell knows. Greenpeace's argument is let's find out first. We don't need 99% understanding before we can move on any new technology, but surely way less than 1% just isn't good enough.
Greenpeace's beef isn't that technology is bad, it is that we have no idea if it's the next R-12 or DDT or other 'good idea at the time'. There exists a responsibility to find out.
And nanomaterials is such a broad topic, I can't imagine there ever being a definative answer. Some nanotech will be harmless, other will be the end of us all. It's like saying "really small science is bad". Dumb.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
We are messing with powerful technologies that YOU barely understand.
You cite poor examples. How are we to test for things we didn't know to test for?
If we barely understand cancer, like back in th 50's, how are we to know to test for it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just AMAZING how life expectancy has RISEN so greatly in industrialized nations, with all tha bad science and technology touching everyone's personal lives.
Amazing how many quacks whine about the evils of science while using their computers, microwaves, and TV's. Oh, and let's not forget that when a person has cancer, the fruits of science quickly become their best friends.
Yeah, science sucks. Longer life expectancies. Better hygene. The ability to commumicate at the speed of light to people all over the planet. DAMN SCIENCE!
So: help that makes you a slave is not really help at all, it just defers short term suffering for greater long-term suffering [oh, we can fix that knee for you for the next few months, but after that you'll never walk again, it's okay because we have a special deal on wheelchairs]. Further, tying GM reliance to food aid then crying 'criminal neglect' is disingenuous when agricultural subsidies and WTO/IMF policies cause as much suffering as any drought conditions.
And please try to be a little more scientific if you're going to be a proponent of technologies. The comparison of husbandry and breeding with genetic engineering is specious.
Damn those pesky terrorists
* If it wasn't for this, I might have actually joined one of the groups. Too much of an anti-tech bias, though.
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey