The Morality of Nanotechnology

SezMe

post-pre-born
SezMe
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
25,183
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
The results of this study are depressing:

In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

...

In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.
Click to expand...

I have a hunch most of the respondents didn't really know what nanotechnology. But us religiously besotted USAians really come off looking bad. Europe is better but still the percentages are low.
 
I think that most people are frightened of the sci-fi scenario wherein one *ubernanomachine* is created that can assemble and disassemble on an atomic level, and is instructed to create more of itself !

Next thing you know the entire planet down to the magma is made of nanoboogers !
 
The mass of the planet wouldn't change if it were converted to nanoboogers. The pressure inside would kill some nanoboogers, which would have to evolve. There would be nano-variation. Selection. Some boogers would discover a selective advantage by combining to form their own nose. Eventually a super nano composite being would arise!

Wait a minute...
 
Last edited:
I don't see how it'd be immoral, even if it was used to eat people alive. They're objects. Very tiny objects, yes, but objects nonetheless. Potentially dangerous, granted, but that alone doesn't make things immoral.

Besides, most fears of self-replicating nanomachine superweapons are overstated.
 
Well, depends on what kind of nanotechnology. Carbon nano-tubules don't sound all that dangerous.

But nano-robots do strike me as a bit scary, especially if ones are developed that can self-replicate. You can bet some will be developed as weapons. I could imagine a type of bioweapon being developed along those principle's.

I guess there is the "gray-goo" "nanobooger" scenario-- I really don't know what the odds are, but nonetheless it should be factored into the equation as well. Interestingly, the guy who came up with the idea said, and perhaps correctly that "We cannot afford to have certain accidents".

I don't know however if immoral would be the word for it. I think "Potentially Dangerous", "Potentially Destructive", but not immoral.

INRM
 
Just seems a rather silly study:

...snip...

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed

...snip...
Click to expand...

So religious folk in the USA are not using all of the these: http://www.nanotech-now.com/current-uses.htm because they have "moral qualms" to sunscreens, car bumpers and stain resistant pants?

I would say that the conclusion from the study is flawed as it seems to be based on some science fiction idea of what nanotechnology is rather than what it actually is (and looks to be for at least the near future).
 
It's all just silly. "Nanotechnology" just means things on the scale of nanometres. Are computers immoral? Morality has absolutely nothing to do with size. Certainly the question of whether making self-replicating robots is a good idea is a valid one, but it makes no difference whether they're nanometres across or metres across. Since we can't actually make them it's a completely pointless question anyway.
 
Darat said:
I would say that the conclusion from the study is flawed as it seems to be based on some science fiction idea of what nanotechnology is rather than what it actually is (and looks to be for at least the near future).
Click to expand...
That's my opinion as well but the very portion you quoted says the respondents were "well-informed about nanotechnology". I suppose we'd have to read the actual study to find out what "well-informed about nanotechnology" really means.
 
Cuddles said:
It's all just silly. "Nanotechnology" just means things on the scale of nanometres. Are computers immoral? Morality has absolutely nothing to do with size. Certainly the question of whether making self-replicating robots is a good idea is a valid one, but it makes no difference whether they're nanometres across or metres across. Since we can't actually make them it's a completely pointless question anyway.
Click to expand...

The fact that they can't be seen because of their small size does pose a slight issue. Same principle if the government developed vehicles that had "cloaking" technology (hypothetically), or if a person could wear a suit that would make them completely and totally invisible.

It could provide unscrupulous governments, all sorts of ways to invade privacy without anyone knowing about it.

Extreme scenario, yeah. But technically I suppose it could be argued.


INRM
 
In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology.
Click to expand...

I would love to read the questions they used in that survey. In my experience surveys are a suprisingly good way to turn time and money into confusion.
 
Grey goo makes me think of robot african army ants............. in space!

Can there be an opposite scenario to the grey goo?

Perhaps (way too) highly efficient NanoDoctors (tiny robots that "fix" human health problems) are created before we have the ability to seek out someplace livable aside from earth. Accelerated overpopulation ensues.
 
INRM said:
The fact that they can't be seen because of their small size does pose a slight issue. Same principle if the government developed vehicles that had "cloaking" technology (hypothetically), or if a person could wear a suit that would make them completely and totally invisible.

It could provide unscrupulous governments, all sorts of ways to invade privacy without anyone knowing about it.

Extreme scenario, yeah. But technically I suppose it could be argued.


INRM
Click to expand...

I refer you to the last sentence in my previous post.

The point is, "nanotechnology" does not mean "armies of tiny little robots that are going to turn the entire planet into copies of themselves, grey or otherwise". All it means is "technology on the scale of nanometres". As I already said, intergrated circuits are nanotechnology. Nanotubes are nanotechnology. Scanning tunneling microscopes are nanotechnology. There is no issue of the morality of nanotechnology because that doesn't make any sense. You may as well ask what about the morality of a metre is. It's just nonsense.

The question that could actually make sense would be "What is the morality of making teeny tiny self-replicating robots that can turn the whole planet into copies of themselves, grey or otherwise?". The answer to that is "We can't do it and won't be able to for the forseeable future, so what's the point in asking?".
 
Last edited:
Cuddles,

You're right. Nanotechnology in itself is not bad. Certain applications of nanotechnology, just like certain applications of large scale technology are bad.

INRM
 
Cuddles said:
"We can't do it and won't be able to for the forseeable future, so what's the point in asking?".
Click to expand...

Like any ethics/law/technology issue, I suppose the point would be to get-ahead in providing a legal framework for the safe introduction of a technology, rather than mopping-up afterward.

Frankly, legislation always lags (sometimes dangerously) techology, but perhaps it should. Attempts to get-ahead are problematic at best, because technological development is almost guaranteed not to unfold in the manner predicted.
 
Last edited:
It's not about right or wrong, moral issues or whatnot. It's simply that it's a relatively new thing, and people don't like things that are new. We saw the same thing with cloned vegetables and whatnot. People hear about the issue, instantly jump to sci-fi stories and worst-case scenarios, and try to shoot down the newcomer without really thinking the matter through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom