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
Nanoscale particles can pass through the skin, and therefore can be dangerous if the particles in question contain toxic substances. It is important that this is studied proerly and the appropriate regulations put in place before manufacturers start selling us carcinogenic toothpaste. It's also refreshing that they're addressing real issues, rather than paranoid sci-fi nonsense like grey goo.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
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?
I fail to see why materials with features of a particular scale are implicitly more dangerous than those of another. I suppose I'm afraid of centitechnology, especially bullet sized things.
GM foods bad! Embryo research bad! Cloning bad! And now Nanotech bad too. Obviously scientists have no morality or sense of social responsibility. Arse!
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.
For their safty (and your own), Please Don't Eat the Nanites. Thank you, Mgt.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
It's similar to a lot of technology that has really become commonplace in the media. Recently, a local TV news headline in my area had the audacity to say, "Food from Cloned Animals... IS IT SAFE?" Everyone in the room who knew a bit about cloning rolled their eyes. But later that evening, my grandmother called me, wanting to know if I was going to watch the broadcast.
"Recent studies indicate that nanoscale materials now being commercialized pose potential hazards for human health and the environment."
Yeah, and milk from cloned cows is going to make you grow three stomachs! Details at 10!
+5, Female
Potatos, when propelled at high velocity, can be used as a deadly weapon. We must band together and stop these evil vegetables from reproducing before it's too late. Potato farmers must be eradicated.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Oh wise and all knowing Magic 8 Ball, will this debate be fruitful?
Concentrate and ask again.
Hmm, perhaps a little vague. Will this ethical debate drag on for years?
Signs point to yes.
And while we debate whether we should use it or not, will the technology be put into production in some foreign asspit who don't give a mouthful of spit about ethical issues?
You may rely on it.
And after that happens, will we terminate our debate on the basis that the cat is out of the bag, and that American industry needs to compete or be destroyed by the Foreign Menace?
Most likely.
And after this happens, will the hissy fitters who predicted the imminent end of the world over this suddenly forget their claims, and instead find a new technology to shriek and gnash their teeth over, as they always do?
Better not tell you now.
Thank you, Magic 8 Ball, your answers are most enlightening.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
I work in the field of micromechanics/nanotechnology and at a meeting with some guys from Philips I heard that nanotechnology is so overhyped that even the suits were aware of it being overhyped. And I seriously think it is overhyped; there are so many promises done by many 'specialists' that we don't even begin to know how to start to make true, like the nanobots that repair you body from the inside, and the machine that makes tomatos out of thin air... Micromechanics turned out to be a big disappointment to many people I know who work/worked in this field (in that only a tiny fraction of the promises that people did ten years ago have come true), but the way things are going now nanotechnology could be worse. And that is a pity because it certainly, like micromechanis, has the potential for use in many interesting areas, just not as spectacular as is promised by many people.
-- Cheers!
that in the future we will have nano technology embedded within us to enforce RIAA etc type infringements by punishments such as inducing bouts of uncontrolled urination and defecation in public. People will see you crap yourself at the touch of a button and say 'ahh he must have been using P2P again'
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
It isn't that I don't trust scientists in particular... I just don't trust people in general.
I do some work for one of the national laboratories, and some (not all) of the scientists have enormous eogs. Any time someone has ANY incentive in their work (business==profit, science==prestige), there is an opportunity for someone to put themselves above the rest of the world (eg Hmm, I'm pretty sure this new nano substance is safe, so an environmental release should be no big deal)
What ever happened to slow and sustainable growth? I'd rather slow down the process and study the hell out of these new technologies (yes, that includes GMO foods, too) before they are commercialized.
Take the case of microsilica AKA silica fume. This is a material used in a vast number of products but perhaps most famous for making ultra-high strength concrete.
There are two common forms known as amorphous and crystalline microscilica. The amorphous product is not known to produce the lung disease silicosis while the larger scale crystalline variety does so quite readily.
So, substances don't necessarily become more dangerous at smaller scales, the opposite can also be true.
Life Found to be Leading Contributor to Death!
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.
This one is from Jeff Harrow (formerly of "The Rapidly Changing Face of Computing" when he was at Compaq Research).
It's an interview with some interesting names including a Senator, some techies, and a bunch of Nano/NBIC people. It's free trial for the whole thing on the magazine site, but Jeff has reprinted his discussion on his site.
Oh, and I highly recommend the Harrow Report newsletter to everyone here on
From the site:
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
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
Er... of course they do. In fact, even though the author is clearly trying to twist this into some sort of admission of guilt by Greenpeace, this is in fact, exactly the point they want to make.
No complete scientific study has been done, and one is needed badly. In many other areas we have found that as particles become increasinly small, they also become increasingly toxic. This may or may not be the case for nanomaterials, and we really need to find out.
It's the job of the industry to prove nanotech safe, not to say it's safe and hope no-one produces contrary evidence.
This was the mistake made by the biotech industry over GM in Europe, and the nanotech industry needs to try hard to avoid falling down the same pit. If they start to look even a bit like the pro-GM lobby by ignoring peoples concerns, they'll be tarred with exactly the same brush.
Mostly, these activists are asking that we just slow down and use the Precautionary Principle when bringing out novel technologies that have the potential to interact with the world in unforseen ways. It's really just being sensible instead of rash.
The ETC group is not just focussed on technology: "The issue of ownership and control of this all-pervasive technology is paramount." Mooney has been one of the better informed observers on this issue for 20 years.
Go ahead and promote a technology without caring about its implementation; that's like running a department store with no cash registers, just a jar by the door--it won't work.
To paraphrase Vico: our skill with invention always surpasses our understanding of ourselves.
Damn those pesky terrorists
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
Oh, your system is great at nutrition and has no problem with hunger, women are safe, and causes no health problems.
because their "goverments" are stupid and evil
Hm, yes, we should bring these international criminals to justice. Oh, wait...
there's a plank in your eye.
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