[Moriarty]

When it comes to the world of the very, very small — nanotechnology — Americans have a big problem: Nano and its capacity to alter the fundamentals of nature, it seems, are failing the moral litmus test of religion. The survey findings, says Scheufele, are important not only because they reveal the paradox of citizens of one of the world's elite technological societies taking a dim view of the implications of a particular technology, but also because they begin to expose broader negative public attitudes toward science when people filter their views through religion.

We've probably all heard the buzz words and buzz phrases before: playing God, dabbling, messing with nature, arrogant, etc..

The fact is that emerging nanotechnologies, specifically biotech applications such as genetic engineering, synthetic biology, cellular repair/ anti-aging and others are coming. Much like stem cell tech, it's a question of when and where. My question is will an apparent distaste for the ethical implications prevent a nation of scientists and scholars from pursuing the all-too-obvious benefits related to such research?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rider]

I think it IS possible for the ethics of those in political control to inhibit scientific research and progress. That control comes in the form od refusal of government grants, facilities, licenses etc. to preform this research.

I don't know how many of you read about this kind of thing, but I would invite you to research the TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY, specifically outlined by Ray Kurzweil.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


His book, "The Singularity Is Near" poses some very valid arguments about his prediction of things to come. You can also find some of his speeches on YouTube, as well as his recent conference held in California just last month with leading nanotech and information systems scientists.

Food for thought.

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by Moriarty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My question is will would an apparent distaste for the ethical implications prevent a nation of scientists and scholars from pursuing the all-too-obvious benefits related to such research?

This query seems a bit slanted.

Firstly, as I have been told so many times on the Forum, ethics need not arise from a "religious" worldview; perhaps secularists will have ethical objections to certain applications of this technology...

... which brings me to my second comment:

While there might be all-too-obvious benefits, there is also all-too-obvious potential for abuse. Does this not figure in the discussion as well? Are putative benefits the only relevant elements of this question?

[redbaren]

I think the ethics for every thing can change in 1890 having a Black president would be unheard of but now it is almost normal peoples ideas and views can change from generation to generation, some day reversing your age to 20 will be normal.

[pocohauntus]

	Originally Posted by redbaren To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think the ethics for every thing can change in 1890 having a Black president would be unheard of but now it is almost normal peoples ideas and views can change from generation to generation, some day reversing your age to 20 will be normal.

Huh?

[Moriarty]

My question does appear slanted. History must have jaded me a bit.

Anything can be abused. Shall we establish a think tank to envision every potential ethical pitfall to these technologies so preemptive legislation will be awaiting signature on the day they emerge as viable applications? Throw the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps?

I'd prefer to fund research, or, as another once put it, to "subsidize intellectual curiosity".

[Rider]

With these types of radical technologies, the shift in what we will be able to do will happen so rapidly, and will be so drastic, that it will be difficult to percieve how life for us will change. Those in power now could potentially fear this rapid change and their inability to retain power on the other side of the technological shift (from political power to religious power and really any other kind of power/control).

So ethics be damned, people could just be afraid of the unknown and our ability to deal with it and retain the standards of society/power/religion/health as they stand now.

[Deadgod]

One can learn a lot about this from playing Metal Gear Solid games. According to anarcho-primitivists, this would lead to the eventual loss of individual freedoms, if abused. But I think if there are good laws and restrictions, there wouldn't be such problems.

[Rider]

Unfortunately, "good" is subjective, especially concerning laws, restrictions and rules. But lest we fall into the debate that's going on in a neighboring thread about good vs. evil, I'll stop there.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Kisai]

No nano on Shabbatz!

I personally can't see how religion can actually have an opinion on nanotechnology. It seems kind of 'faddish'. I'll expect preachers to instigate fears about the end of the world crap that they peddle regarding nanotechnology until Wal-Mart provides them with consumer products.

[TheLastMohican]

I guess I'm behind the times on this issue. What nanotechnology pursuits are facing religious opposition, and why? Granted, I don't read much about these objections anyway, but I can't think of any moral problems that would arise from anti-aging treatments.

[Kisai]

It's just more SJ crap.

Preacher: "We simplified the world and the mysteries of the universe for you!"
Congregation: "Amen!"
Preacher: "We made things really simple, and guaranteed you life after death if you believed it (and sent us your money)!"
Congregation: "Amen!"
Preacher: "But there are those, who want to complicate things."
Preacher: "They do things you don't understand."
Preacher: "They do things without consulting us first."
Preacher: "They are allowed to do whatever the heck they want with the building blocks of God's creation!"
Preacher: "It's the end of the world!"
Congregation: "Aieeeee!!!!"

[Antares]

	We've probably all heard the buzz words and buzz phrases before:

	playing God,

Give it here.

	dabbling

What's changed?

	messing with nature

We've always been messing with nature.

	arrogant

Not anymore arrogant than before. Just look at... Well... Everybody. We consider ourselves to be superior to animals, most of us anyway. Yet when it comes to manipulating nature, we suddenly respect it. It seems pretty hypocritical considering what we're doing to nature. Countless exploitations, overfishing, deforestation, wasting resources... et cetera.

	Firstly, as I have been told so many times on the Forum, ethics need not arise from a "religious" worldview; perhaps secularists will have ethical objections to certain applications of this technology...

No, they need not, but undeniably, the religious lobbies are the main opponents of nanotechnology.

[Moriarty]

Dietram Scheufele, the U of W professor who led the survey, agrees to a point. People’s understanding of what nanotechnology is hasn’t advanced much over the last few years, he tells the Business Technology Blog. “So people rely on mental shortcuts,” lumping nanotechnology in with other new technologies like stem cell research and genetically modified foods, he tells us. The same people who object to those fields – often on religious reasons – object to nanotechnology.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zombicide]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This query seems a bit slanted. Firstly, as I have been told so many times on the Forum, ethics need not arise from a "religious" worldview; perhaps secularists will have ethical objections to certain applications of this technology...

Doubtful that it would be to a significant extent, the current secularists who might really object would be in a minority. It's not slanted, it's just that religious people form the core opposition to such advancements, with everyone else more often supporting such things. Not to say that religion (in the classic sense of the word) is or isn't necessarily the real reason the religious demographic happens to be the one which objects but it is the given motive and there is that strong correlation.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Moriarty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	playing God, dabbling, messing with nature, arrogant, etc..

AKA primitivist fuckbabble.

[tp6626]

The first time I ever heard of nano-technology, probably 10+ years ago, the lack of understanding in the media focussed on the 'worry' of APOCALYPSE!!! (And that was New Scientist!).

They outlined something they called grey matter (if I recall correctly), which was basically a self-replicating molecule which processed, anything, it came into contact with, and made more of itself. They reckoned the whole universe could be consumed via this technology, and cited exponential growth as their justification.

Don't hear so much about that nowadays.

I can't see how any technology is inherently unethical. It is the people who use the technology who can be unethical, and that is a different issue entirely.

And if 'we', aren't going to develop new technologies, someone else definitely is, and we'll then be at a disadvantage, won't we?

The nano technologies that most caught my eye were carbon nanotubes (very promising), and the nano-machines that will be floating about in our bloodstream repairing / making us younger!

Generic sarcastic comment against religion: Did you know that in the old testament, god explicitly stated "thou shalt not fabricate carbon nano-tubes".

[Allie]

From your article:

"There is absolutely no change in what people know about nanotechnology between 2004 and 2007. This is partly due to the fact that mainstream media are only now beginning to pay closer attention to the issue. There has been a lot of elite discussion in Washington, D.C., but not a lot of public discussion. And nanotechnology has not had that catalytic moment, that key event that draws public attention to the issue."

So far, the main info I've seen regarding nanotech has been about the economic potentials and other ethical issues (non-religious). The debates may eventually get to that point once it becomes widely discussed (if it gets there); but in the end, the benefits so far outweigh the perceived risks.

I don't see this stopping or slowing down. This is moving forward, especially when nanotech is also involved in weapons improvements/military uses (China vs US competition).

For what it's worth, here's the current budget for nanotech funding:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ATCGs]

I'm not sure how nanotechnology comes into the whole morality argument - I haven't heard of arguments against nanotechnology.

I have heard of widespread uncertainty/anxiety/fear of and about various biotechnologies - specifically sythetic biology, genetic engineering and, of course, stem cell research.

Objections to the latter much more commonly have firm footing in the concern of creating human embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells - which is a legitimate concern in research that exists outside of regulation.

Concerns about the first two are a little more knee-jerk and less well founded. The most prominent argument i hear against synthetic biology (the building of non-natural genomes - a wholly new organism) is that it would facilitate the construction of the perfect biological weapon. This is fairly silly, as the construction of a synthetic genome is currently extremely difficult, to say the least. As with all things, as the technology progresses, it will become more widespread - regulation will be required, but the potential benefits to society of being able to custom-design organisms are staggering.

The most visible outcry against genetic modification is that against genetically modified crops. This is all-together rediculous - with the most hilarious objection being "we don't want DNA in our food". People will continue to object to genetically modified crops until the crops are required to provide the amount of food and the types of nutrients in foods that we require, at which point GM crops will be embraced.

[Melaphaisar]

Economics can and will eventually overrule moral/ethical objections to the advance of technology. In Michigan, we amended the state constitution to allow stem cell research. I believe that economics was a large part of the driving force behind those that funded the movement to pass the amendment. With the crumbling auto industry, the state needed at least the option to replace the industry. I think that as time passes, similar forces will drive funding to educate and sway public opinion in regards to nanotechnology as well.

[Saint]

The ethical objections to nanotech are silly. They're the same as many pre-existing objections.

The same objections could be applied to steriods, or almost any hormone changing drug. And we use lots of those these days. Therefore, it seems anyone engaging in "primitivist fuckbabble" (as Stasis aptly put it) is simply being sensationalistic.

[Sliderule]

I read that article on the BBC and it's depressing news to say the least. I guess I need to start learning French because if this is any indication of things to come it's doubtful I'm going to find a job here in the states when I get get out of school. Chances are slim but still...

I can imagine it now, picketers outside research labs holding signs up chanting, "Don't create that's god's mandate!"?

Very sobering stuff Moriarty, I'm going back to Pip Pop Party thread....

[ClydeB]

Kisai has the idea.

Fear sells. And organized religion has had hundreds of years to hone that 'fear of the new and unknown' plus 'we have an answer' equals more butts in seats and more money in the coffers. You just have to find new things to sell to your customer base once the fear du jour has become blasé.

I am sure that in time, there will be a new drum to beat as the technology becomes more familiar to the populace. For example, thalidomide has been back on the market in the U.S since 2006. But no one is freaking out about it like they did back in the late 50's and 60's. People know and understand the good and bad of that drug now.

[Tishy]

I'd be dead without medical and medical-machine intervention.

And I have to trust the companies that put the stuff together are acting somewhat ethically.

I have less problem with nanotech then I do with GM, and I'm in line for adult stem cell when they can figure how to fix me with that.

[lisakki]

How can nanotech be unethical? If people can accept cars, airplanes, computers, and the internet, then nanotech should no problem. The only times when science and ethics clash is when:

a) They involve altering/creating/killing humans.
b) The clash with religions.

Nanotech doesn't fit into any of these categories.