From the short summary he's not talking about timetravel but about relativistic spacetravel, which are two entirely different things altogether. I'd assume that Dr. Hawkins knows this, or at least he should having written a book to explain Einsteins theory of relativity and inventing a way of describing time within that theory. Seems to me he's regressing...
The question is kind of self-answering for those who know anything about nano (food or materials it doesn't matter). According to the industry itself there are two things that are important to realise when you're discussing nano-materials:
1. they are ffing small. So small in fact that they'd have no problem whatsoever getting past the blood-brain barrier (talk about a health risk).
2. the properties of nano-materials are different from those of their "normal" counterparts. Nano-iron does not behave the same way regular iron does. Not physically and not chemically. That's one of the main things as to why it's so attractive to research this stuff and why it has such a huge potential for innovation. To put this in scientific lingo "Materials manufactured or engineered at this level have unique properties and behave differently from conventional matter. This stems from two factors; their increased relative surface area and new quantum effects. Their greater surface area to volume ratio leads to increased chemical reactivity and resistance, whilst at nano scale quantum effects lead to unique optical, electrical and magnetic behaviours."
If you realise the two above then you also realise two things:
1. self-regulation can't ever work. Due to the simple fact that testing for side-effects costs a lot of money with the potential to not only affect profit margins but to render them negative all together (if the side-effects are really bad and the product is cancelled). It doesn't need more explaining then this. It's leaded gasoline/cigarettes/agent orange/asbestos/CFC's (--- take your pick) all over again.
2. politics, as usual, are way behind on legislating (imo consciously so). It'll take at least another decade (if not two, three or ten) and several bad press scenarios before they really start to act upon the potential dangers this technology entails.
Historical research if you'd bother to look into it. Luddites were not anti-tech, they were against the degradation of their living & working conditions it brought with it on account of how the tech was implemented. It's not hard to see that the placement of new machines destroyed the employment of a lot of workers and why they would get mad at that. The trend to use technology to replace workers continues to this day, and you can find legions of examples of it all the time.
Luddites basically said that if technology wasn't implemented to better the lives of all (ie: less hours worked, but equal pay) they didn't want to see it implemented at all. Not a bad stance if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
From the short summary he's not talking about timetravel but about relativistic spacetravel, which are two entirely different things altogether. I'd assume that Dr. Hawkins knows this, or at least he should having written a book to explain Einsteins theory of relativity and inventing a way of describing time within that theory. Seems to me he's regressing...
reductio at absurdum ... or in other words: you've got no clue what you're talking about do you?
The question is kind of self-answering for those who know anything about nano (food or materials it doesn't matter). According to the industry itself there are two things that are important to realise when you're discussing nano-materials: 1. they are ffing small. So small in fact that they'd have no problem whatsoever getting past the blood-brain barrier (talk about a health risk). 2. the properties of nano-materials are different from those of their "normal" counterparts. Nano-iron does not behave the same way regular iron does. Not physically and not chemically. That's one of the main things as to why it's so attractive to research this stuff and why it has such a huge potential for innovation. To put this in scientific lingo "Materials manufactured or engineered at this level have unique properties and behave differently from conventional matter. This stems from two factors; their increased relative surface area and new quantum effects. Their greater surface area to volume ratio leads to increased chemical reactivity and resistance, whilst at nano scale quantum effects lead to unique optical, electrical and magnetic behaviours." If you realise the two above then you also realise two things: 1. self-regulation can't ever work. Due to the simple fact that testing for side-effects costs a lot of money with the potential to not only affect profit margins but to render them negative all together (if the side-effects are really bad and the product is cancelled). It doesn't need more explaining then this. It's leaded gasoline/cigarettes/agent orange/asbestos/CFC's (--- take your pick) all over again. 2. politics, as usual, are way behind on legislating (imo consciously so). It'll take at least another decade (if not two, three or ten) and several bad press scenarios before they really start to act upon the potential dangers this technology entails.
Ah, you mean just like studies funded or sponsored or promoted by capitalist organisations or corporations? ...
Oh wait, there go all studies then O.o
Historical research if you'd bother to look into it. Luddites were not anti-tech, they were against the degradation of their living & working conditions it brought with it on account of how the tech was implemented. It's not hard to see that the placement of new machines destroyed the employment of a lot of workers and why they would get mad at that. The trend to use technology to replace workers continues to this day, and you can find legions of examples of it all the time. Luddites basically said that if technology wasn't implemented to better the lives of all (ie: less hours worked, but equal pay) they didn't want to see it implemented at all. Not a bad stance if you ask me.