I could just as easily say, for example, that Americans are more suspicious of new technologies than Europeans. Or that Americans are more likely to reserve judgment on a new technology until they understand how it’s going to be used and by whom. I have no idea if either of these generalizations are true, but if I was conducting such a survey, I’d make sure to have some “cultural context” type questions — without which, I could only report numbers.

Interesting article, and I like the way you navigated among the different sides of this issue, especially in your responses to the comments.

Bye for now,

Dale

A handheld computer improves our memory and extends our means of communication. Prosthetics replace our “natural” loss of limbs. Medicine battles our natural demise.

All of these are creations devised to augment our state, each a heartbeat closer to integrating with- and augmenting our physique on a smaller scale. Where is a line drawn on what counts as natural, and who draws it? On what basis do we place an artificial boundary at a particular scale through which we augment ourselves and the world? Certainly none rooted in the realms of science.

On your stance; it’s obvious the technology has risks. But I disagree on lack of experimentation. Rigorous simulations and physical experiments are being conducted in highly controlled environments.

But another and quite intriguing consideration is our means of evaluation. You mention environmental testing. Natural environments are extremely complex; their evaluation requires use of machines, computers. The smaller the scale at which we create and control computers, the better they get at evaluation. Thus, advancing nanotechnology endows us with greater capabilities to evaluate, predict and control all consequent advances.

Although humanity has made naive mistakes in its adolescent stage of technological growth — it would be lack of prudence to consider it a reason to halt our advances, for that would leave us suspended in a stasis of naivety.

On the other hand, asbestos is a chemically unreactive material. In the human body, it can cause disease because of the small, respirable size of its particulates – or perhaps I should say, nanoparticles. My personal reservations about nanotechnology have more to do with what looks like a headlong rush to embrace yet another new technology without sufficient in vitro, in vivo, and environmental testing. Lack of such testing is something I regard as a lack of Prudence, and therefore as a moral failure.

@Mike
I don’t blame or hold a personal grudge against anyone. But it does lead me to think that those of us who think differently have to make ourselves and our reasoning heard.

@Tony
There’s an issue though, lack of public acceptance leads to difficulties with regards to funding, and thus might delay nanotech reaching the mainstream. But yeah, we’ve already started using nanotechnology-or-close-to-it in various areas. Given that that trend continues I’m sure the benefits will eventually triumph. And like you say, the argument is flawed (but on the other hand, there’s usually no reasoning with religious convictions).

In my view nanotechnology is the same way, it’s just that the base materials are cut down to atomic size, before assembling the end product. Actually current transistors on integrated circuits are on a close enough scale already.

I don’t hear outcries against kemo and the like.