Category: Ethics

HLovy writes "It's obvious that business and government have a bad case of DNA PTSD, or genetic shell shock, which is why they certainly won't get fooled again when it comes to nanotechnology. I've heard the mantra many times during the past few years: "No More GMO." But the chanters wear pinstripes and not patchouli oil.

Public outcry (especially in Europe) against genetically modified organisms was the result of a determined effort between science, business and government to completely misread the public. It took some serious brainpower, collusion and planning to so totally miss the point on what gets the masses all fired up, and the important role public perception plays in the introduction of any new technology. The biggest mistake was the arrogant assumption that the public will accept as inherently good anything that helps big biotech companies succeed and farmers increase their yields. What was missing from the equation, of course, was consideration of how the public "feels" about genetic manipulation.

More on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine offers a nanotech pro-progress essay: "As for unintended consequences, someday something will go wrong with nanotechnology, as it has with electricity, cars, and computers. But we shouldnít deny ourselves the benefits of a new technology just because we cannot foresee every consequence. We should proceed by trial and error and ameliorate problems as they arise. Thatís how the dramatic progress humanity has seen during the last two centuries was accomplished. If an ICENT [International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies] had existed in the 19th century, we probably would still be riding horses, using candles for lighting, cooking on wood stoves, and gulping whiskey for anesthesia."

Lincoln Roseanna writes "Values are the key to making Nanotech work FOR the future When discussing the implications of Nanotechnology, one assumption has been clearly stated; that someone, somewhere, will abuse the technology.

The emergence of commercial applications for nanotechnology, usable, saleable, mass-producible products, means that we are entering a new stage of evolution. Just as technology for transport changed the way that industry, society, cultures and countries interact with each other so profoundly, this new technological revolution will, in time affect every aspect of our lives on this planet. It is time that the implications of this type of research and development were taken very seriously. It is time that we thoroughly analyse and shift our motivation, and our values."

Read more for the remainder of this lengthy comment.

from the Failures-of-vision dept.
Mr_Farlops writes "The New York Times examines Dr. Francis Fukuyama's new book, Our Posthuman Future ("A Dim View of a `Posthuman Future' ", by Nicholas Wade, 2 April 2002). Some may recall Fukuyama as the author of The End of History and the Last Man. In this new book he exchanges the optimism of that earlier work for a pessimistic view of the future of biotechnology. It is his view that science is rapidly aquiring the tools to fundamentally redefine what human nature is. He wonders, while acknowledging the evil that Napoleon and Caesar did, what we may lose if advanced neurotherapy simply edits that type of personality out of society. Of course nanodotters are already very familiar with this line of thinking, what with Joy, Weizenbaum, Sales, Kaczynski and others but, it might be worthwhile to read and comment on the article."

According to the article, Fukuyama fears that "Major increases in human longevity could also be disruptive . . . because 'life extension will wreak havoc with most existing age-graded hierarchies,' postponing social change in countries with aging dictators and thwarting innovation in others." The article also notes "[Fukuyamaís] views are not academic; he has an official voice on such matters as a member of the White House's Council on Bioethics" So is Leon Kass, who doesnít like the idea of human cloning, either (see Nanodot post from 31 August 2001.)