the deeper approuch to the technology dilemma

"Today’s early nanoethics literature evinces our postmodern inability to seriously
discuss questions of ethics, and it reveals just how parched the language
of academic ethics has become. What are the great social goods we seek
to preserve? What are the high human goods we wish to defend? Those
involved in nanoethics seem uninterested, unwilling, or unable to engage
these deeper questions. The oft-heard refrain—that ethics has to “keep
up” or “catch up” or “evolve” with advances in technology—is a prescription
for a shallow and reactive ethics, one that ignores the questions that
matter most."
taken from the new Atlantis journal: Nanoethics as a Discipline by Adam Keiper, spring 2007

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

human ethics you mean? the ethics of new technology influencing our society is indeed a prevalent one, the standard to which we need oblige to abstain from the difficulties induced by the ethical dilemmas presented by technology, well this standard should be based on the balance of what we seek and what others seek for themselves and how well this technology meshes with our world.

What I am saying is that this nanotechnology does indeed need to have to be designed with consideration of privacy protection for example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear Draqon, the dilemma with technology advancement centers about the fact that technology can help solve many human problems while creating its own dangerous problems..
some people think that tech. advance. is beyond human control and subscribe to technological determinism.
if the above is not correct; than human societies can indeed influence the direction of tech. advancement..
given the upcoming huge capabilities and dangers of modern technology, I tend to agree with the author of the post; we need to state clearly our priorities as a society, and as citizens of the world.. not doing so, will waste many remaining opportunities for a humane management of tech. advancement..
so my friend what are those???.

 

Dear Fraggle Rocker, I tend to see the intention of this quote differently.. for us to make decisions about future technology investment and applications, we ought also to use a preemptive ethical approach.. that is by stating our core values and their logical implications with regard to major aspects of our live.

the choice of a personal vehicle lead among other things also to addiction to oil, and to the greenhouse effect, and to many other serious problems..
interestingly when at the beginning of the car industry a commission at the states studied the possible dangereous repercussion of this technology, they stated as a main negative consequence: the dust that will be produced by the automobile!!.

are we able -in retrospect- to soften the effects of upcoming critical technologies, as we might have done with the automobile ??.
or do we need early on, to post limitations; and if we can, where lies the border..are n`t we close enough to evoke or address a grand scale ethical issue?...

 

First of all we need to accept that if it was not for technology we would still have the same ethics we had 6,000 years ago, mainly kill or be killed or that human sacrifice is needed for the sun to rise, etc, What we have learned about morality and ethics so far as been a vast improvement, but it is foolish to say what we now know is right and that we should not change our ethics more.

 

Dear Kmquru, your reference to strong leadership appears to me very important.. I think that such a leadership can only be based on ethical standards and logical consistency..
this could be the only way to create political capital that can manage safely crucial social changes with long term effects and implications, while maintaining critical democratic feedback ..
the demise of ideology in politics, drove politics to low level grounds; instant success, corruption, irresponsibility, economic priorities, special interests... appears to be out of control and are becoming the norm..

BTW, it still always surprises me, when i study present and historical societal behavior, the level of learning inability of societies compared to individuals learning capacity, I think it is worth serious considerations and we might draw some important practical conclusions about that..

 

Dear electric Fetus, a recent study done by researcher Steven Pinker claims that violence indeed has diminished.. the phenomenon is fractal; that is, it is measurable at various levels, starting with individual and ending up with humanity at large..
remember technology is a dilemma; so it is not practical nor the intention of the author to renounce technology as such.

for the society to state its priorities clearly, is an act of self recognition, that will help in managing present contradictions and futile endeavors.
it is also a democratizing force; because it gives individuals clear criteria with which to judge leadership and management..

 

Why do we need any new ethics for nanotechnology? I am actively doing laboratory research into nanotechnology at a major university, and so far I haven't noticed any need for new ethics. The ordinary ethics that one uses for every other aspect of life seem to be sufficient.

Also, I can’t help but suspect that the vast majority of people writing about “nanotech ethics” don’t actually have a clue about nanotech. How many of them would be capable of reading and understanding an issue of the Journal of Nanomaterials? I suspect very, very few. I suspect they are mainly liberal-arts types who are just looking for a hot new area that they can try to be controversial and self-important about.

 

They fear a "grey goo" event, even though the technology at this time is just an off shoot of material science: it like worrying about robots taking over back in 1850, and demanding that regulations be placed on the gear-churning analog number counters of the day.

 

We deal with some of these problems as they occur, most of this is already biomedical research and must pass FDA testing for safty. Most engineered organism are uncompetitive with natural life and are very unlikely to survive outside the lab. For example the work I do with immobilizing enzymes in silica and magnetic nanobeads, I can't see any potiental harmful side effects (these are not meant for human ingestion), in fact the biocatalysis produced will be more environmentally friendly then the existing caustic catalysis.

 

Dear Nasor, I do not think that the author meant to establish a new ethic for nanotechnology, but rather emphasized the need for a serious ethical study considering implications that are asserted by experts to be close by..

I think it is Einstein who once said that: "the atom bomb did not create a problem, but it emphasized the need to solve existing ones".

off course the scope of nanotechnology is extremely wide and appears in most cases to be harmless. although there are even with simple (loose) materials some uncertainty with regard to toxicity due to special reactivity...

however, please consider the great potential presented by the multipurpose exponential molecular manufacturing technology, as perceived by some experts in the fields. according to those the establishment of such a technique is imminent, that is in few years!!.

 

I worry more about them make The Bomb. I have no problem with making rules and standard and oversight, even global standards, but that is not us the scientist and engineers problem, that is something we need to get the politicians and governments to do.

 

anyone know have there been plans to map Uranium on planets other than Earth?

 

Engineering problems?!?! Telling GMO companies to make their products sterile is not an engineering problem!, unless your asking us to try to graft spines to politician's cartilaginous backs.

 

I think we should be seriously worried about the new trend of transforming very destructive weapons with almost perpetual damage to the environment, into so called tactical weapons; which off course means making them easier to handle, to apply, and to purchase.

once these kind of weapons are developed with such an ease, we should not blame only the terrorist for grabbing them..

I do not think that mining planets for uranium is profitable at this juncture; mainly due to transport costs..