Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Category: Opinion

But Siriusly, folks … The Neofiles Interview

HLovy writes "R.U. Sirius, who has an impressive track record of spotting cultural and technological trends years before the rest of the media pick up on it, has posted an interview with me on his neofiles Webzine.

More on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Nano's 'No GMO' Mantra

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."

Omission in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Deveopment Act

2012Rocky writes "Among a rapidly growing group of nano-commentators, Nanotechnology Now is concerned that the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act calls for a one-time study of the feasibility of "molecular self-assembly," and omits any possibility of studying the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. Failure to investigate both the promise and the peril of molecular manufacturing may well lead to a future where we find ourselves taken by surprise, to our collective detriment. Read the other comments here: http://nanotech-now.com/MNT-12092003.htm"

Caltech lecture by Crichton on "consensus science"

Those objecting to MNT often cite a "consensus" against it. Despite authoring scary sf stories such as Prey, a nanotech/AI horror tale, Michael Crichton understands the core values of science better than some prominent scientists, as he showed in this lecture at Caltech about the dangers of "consensus science":"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics…In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of." Also worth reading is his essay on molecular nanotechnology.

Organic chemist fears being "invented out of a job" by MNT

Organic chemist Derek Lowe, PhD, gives a chemist's view of molecular nanotechnology: "As a chemist, I've more than a passing interest in this field. Nanotechnology is chemistry, through and through. It's done (going to be done, I should say, if Drexler's right) by other means than the ones I'm used to, but it's atoms and bonds all the way. As a solution-phase classical organic chemist, I look on the advent of what Drexler calls "machine-phase" synthesis with equal parts anticipation and dread. The dread isn't because of some looming catastrophe, just the fear that I'll eventually be invented out of a job."
So that's why they object so much…–CP

2003: The Year of the Straw NanoMan

HLovy writes "Since everybody is doing a "year in review" piece, here's mine in a "nanosecond." Nanotech purists cannot see how nanotechnology could be treated as merely a business proposition, while businesspeople cannot see how it could be treated as anything else. And that brings us to 2004." The complete commentary can be found on Howard Lovy's NanoBot.

Wynne: Scientists's denial, not public ignorance of nano, causes mistrust

One speaker at this year's EuroNanoForum took a rather controversial stand:
" While ignorance is seen by many as the reason for public concern, Bryan Wynne from Lancaster University in the UK rejected this argument: 'Public ignorance is not the cause of mistrust and scepticism, this has been proved by Eurobarometer surveys. The cause is what as seen as a denial by scientists of scientific ignorance.' The novel nature of nanotechnology means that there are many knowledge gaps, and the 'well-meaning but mistaken behaviour of institutions involved in nanotechnology' leads to doubts, elaborated Professor Wynne."
We in the U.S. are certainly seeing some mistaken institutional behavior, reflecting an underestimation of the public's ability to address nanotech issues reasonably. Americans do not reject every technology featured in a Michael Crichton horror novel/film.–CP

Reynolds: Nanotech business community shortsighted

On TechCentralStation, Foresight director Glenn Reynolds describes some "awfully important" nano work being done today, and comments: "…as nanotechnology looks more quotidian, it may also short-circuit serious discussion of its implications. I think that the nanotech business community is actually hoping for such an outcome, in fact, but I continue to believe that such hopes are shortsighted. Genetically modified foods, for example, came to the market with the same absence of discussion, but the result wasn't so great for the industry. Will nanotechnology be different? Stay tuned."

Message from Iran: why Drexler/Smalley debate matters

Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher of Iranscope, explains why he finds Drexler & Kurzweil's views more persuasive than Smalley's, and why this matters to the developing world: "The same way, the nanotechnology can be the most important technology that may replicate fuel cells, to put an end to the age of oil, and not only it would impact the economy of oil producing countries like Iran, but it can change the whole economy of energy production in the world, which is the basis of all industrial production worldwide, and can make a huge impact on poverty and wealth worldwide."

Nanotech: Pro-Progress vs Pro-Caution debate rages on

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."

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute