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.
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...
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.
* 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