the deeper approuch to the technology dilemma

If you are talking about tiny machines that eat raw materials to make other tiny machines, there's no way in hell that it's "imminent," and certainly not "in a few years." No one has even the slightest clue how something like that could even be designed, let alone actually built. I'm working on my PhD in self-assembling nanomaterials, so I do a pretty good job of keeping up to date on the state of the art for this sort of stuff. The idea that anyone is going to create a bunch of little molecular robots that can turn a pile of raw materials into a car is nothing but fantasy at this point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not allowing dangerous bacteria to escape is already an issue for pretty much anyone who does any work with bacteria, and always has been. No new ethics necessary.

Then your nanoparticles are very hazardous. So what? People work with hazardous substances all the time. My lab has plenty of cyanide, HF, and an endless supply of toxic heavy metals - you just have to be careful with them and make sure they're disposed of properly when you're done with them. Issues like control of dangerous bacteria or handling of poisonous materials do not magically become any different just because you stick "nano" in front of them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aah "nano", what will be the edgy phrase of the future?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Doubt that, but it does follow the pattern: previous ones were micro, and mega.

 

Yeah Fraggle, just take a femto-second to think about it.

 

If you try to go smaller than "nano" you will get into the size range of molecules that only have a few atoms - so then it's just "chemistry".

 

imagine a computer running on "strings" of the string theory bound...

 

Dear Nasor:

"Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place. Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies. Assuming all this theory works—and no one has established a problem with it yet—exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable. It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015, more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020, and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025. When it arrives, it will come quickly. MM can be built into a self-contained, personal factory (PN) that makes cheap products efficiently at molecular scale. The time from the first fabricator to a flood of powerful and complex products may be less than a year. The potential benefits of such a technology are immense. Unfortunately, the risks are also immense."

taken from:
www.crnano.org/timeline.htm

BTW are you familiar with the congress hearing about this subject???

 

All hype, there is so much ground work needed before you can get a nanite or bioroid to take in a grossly cheap feedstock and produce in high purity a specific and complex chemical product, even more ground work is require for these things to live and replicate on their own and to be able to out compete life and take over the world. Just getting a organism to take in cellulose and produce ethanol is hard enough, imaging making a bioroid that takes in CO2, H2O, NH3, electricity and outputting something even as simple as acetometaphine.

 

I think you are confusing the issue of a greygoo with the the issue of personal nanofactories.. the dangers of nanotechnology are much more diverse, and to give you an idea:
Please consider the following from: The international risk governance council
7-9 Chemin de Balexert, Châtelaine
CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland
tel +41 (0)22 795 1730
fax +41 (0)22 795 1739
www.irgc.org

the following listing:

"• Human health risks. Several studies have shown that: (i) due to the high surface-area-to-volume ratio and higher reactivity of nanostructures, large doses can cause cells and organs to demonstrate a toxic response (in particular inflammation) even when the material itself is non-toxic; (ii) some nanosized particles are able to penetrate the liver and other organs and to pass along nerve axons into the brain; (iii) nanomaterials may combine with iron or other metals, thereby increasing the level of toxicity and presenting unknown risks; (iv) engineered nanomaterials raise particular concerns because of
the unknown characteristics of their new properties and their potential use in concentrated amounts;
and (v) some nanomaterials may have similar characteristics to known high-risk materials at the microscale.
• Explosion risks. The higher surface reactivity and surface-area-to-volume ratio of nanopowders increases the risk of dust explosion and the ease of ignition.
• Ecological risks. The impact of nanostructures on the environment may be significant because of the potential for: (i) bioaccumulation, particularly if they absorb smaller contaminants such as pesticides, cadmium and organics and transfer them along the food chain; and (ii) persistence, in effect creating non-biodegradable pollutants which, due to the small size of the nanomaterials, will be hard to detect.
• Political and security risks. Decisions taken about the direction and level of nanotechnology research and development (R&D) may result in: (i) insufficient investment in key areas to benefit future economic development; (ii) an uneven distribution of nanotechnology risks and benefits among different countries and economic groups; (iii) use in criminal or terrorist activity; and (iv) a new military technological race.
• Educational gap risk. If the knowledge within professional communities is not appropriately shared with regulatory agencies, civil society and the public, and, consequently, risk perception is not based on the best available knowledge, innovative opportunities may be lost.
Risk Appraisal of Frame 2 (focusing on concern assessment) The potential for risk identified in Frame 1 is also relevant to Frame 2 where there is an even lower level of knowledge and understanding of the nanostructures and their behaviours. Over and above this, the risks requiring further study in Frame 2 are primarily related to the assessment of stakeholder concerns including the impact of concern prioritisation amongst the different stakeholders, which is itself dependent on different value-judgements. In this white paper we identify the following as the most significant potential risks:
• Human development risks. There is apprehension about the use of nanotechnology to change human identity. Examples include: (i) genetic modification to control factors such as sex or eye colour; (ii) devices to control the human brain and body; (iii) changes to the environment, human safety and quality of life; and (iv) new economic and cultural class systems based on the ability to purchase human improvement technology.
• Society structural risks. Risks may be induced and amplified by the effect of social and cultural norms, structures and processes, such as: (i) the inability of the regulatory environment to react rapidly to new technologies; (ii) the unintended availability to the mass market of products based on applications
developed by and for the military (e.g. tiny airborne surveillance devices); and (iii) the impact of the mass media on risk perception (such as in movies and books).
• Public perception risks. Recent surveys have shown that public concern is currently less linked to any particular application or risk but rather to the capacity for human misuse, to unexpected technological breakouts, or to nanotechnology’s potential to exacerbate existing social inequalities and conflicts.
This situation may change if nanotechnology becomes associated with specific incidents and, meanwhile, there remains a deep suspicion of the motives of industry and doubts regarding government
ability (or desire) to act if required.
• Transboundary risks. The risks faced by any individual, company, region or country depend not only on their own choices but also on those of others. Evidence that control mechanisms do not work in one place may fuel a fierce debate in other parts of the world about the acceptability of nanotechnology in general."
You may also find here assessments for the timescale of future nanotechnologies..

 

also consider:

Nanotechnology and Future WMD
By Mike Treder and Chris Phoenix
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
A briefing paper prepared for the 11 December 2006 symposium on “Future WMD”, sponsored by the Stanley Foundation and the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
​

Abstract​

Although most forms of nanotechnology do not pose unfamiliar risks, one advanced field – molecular manufacturing – may present a source of extreme risk due to the implications of the power of its products. Molecular manufacturing will benefit from multiple advantages that other technologies, including earlier generation nanotechnologies, do not possess. Work toward this form of manufacturing is still in formative stages, but development could rapidly become easier, and it may be achieved with surprising speed once a few basic capabilities are attained. Rapid, inexpensive, large-scale manufacture of highly advanced products may have several unfortunate
consequences, including new classes of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction), unstable arms races, environmental impacts, destructively enabled individuals, social upheaval, and oppressive governance. However, the technology is dual-use and also may be highly beneficial. For this and
other reasons, patchwork policy solutions will be counterproductive

 

ak.R,

Resent studies have shown the diesel exhaust has been pumping out nanoparticles for years, and that they have not been good for our health, but we are exposed to nanoparticles all the time. From reading that list of concern its seem they merge nanotech with biotech and general technology fears, this is simply technology progressing and for every individual innovation and field laws and procedures need to be made specific to it, you just can't clump it all together!

 

Yeah, you can find a lot of stupid stuff on the internet, and lots of people who act alarmist about nothing. Look, like I said, I am currently working on a phd in self-assembling nanostructures - what this guy refers to as "using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures." And in my informed opinion, this is all stupid hype. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fascinating field with the potential to be very important one day (otherwise I wouldn't be working on a phd in it). But I actually read the scientific journals that publish articles about this stuff, I go to the conferences where leading scientists discuss this, and I've spent several years now actively doing laboratory research in it - and we are nowhere near the wide-spread "molecular manufacturing" of devices.

And once again, I haven't seen any new safety issues here. Yes, some nanostructured products very well could be dangerous. This is not a new issue - researchers already work with dangerous materials all the time. When a chemist makes a new molecule that no one has created before, he automatically assumes it's dangerous and treats it that way until he knows otherwise. If you think that your new molecule might be commercially useful and you want to expose a lot of people to it, there are well-established procedures for determining whether or not it's toxic before you release it into the environment or sell it to a lot of people.

 

yes we are exposed to some nanoparticles from exhausts..in fact proteins and other biomolecules can be regarded as nanoparticles too..the problem is that these particles come in every possible form and shape; however you might also consider asbestos as a good example for what we have been exposed for some time too.. there are actually some (scientific) fears today, that some nanoparticels could act toxically as asbestos..

your referrence of what you call clumping is important. the better term for that should be technology conversion which is an important phenomenon of modern time technology evolution.
we are faced with exceptional challenges, and one probably needs more than a PhD (with all due respect), in a specific specialized field, to perceive the greater picture in historical proportions..

there have been earlier grieve underestimations of technologies`s influence on human safety and environment, I am shur you are familiar with some of those..

does current progress, and future prospects, warrant some serious restructuring of our decision making process (as a society), resetting of priorities and Goals..I think yes, and it is a great challenge, for we, more than ever, need to transcend our very cherished identity..

reviewing fundamental questions of ethics is a mere consequence of the scope of what could be done in the future, or if you want, in a hidden laboratory (a la Manhatten project).. the last thing was actually proposed to the congress!.

 

Dear Nasor: your statement:"And once again, I haven't seen any new safety issues here." surprises me.. I can understand that you are enthusiastic about your field, and you consider some of the internet hype as a possible appraoch for a moratorium on nanotech. which offcourse i do not consider neither wise nor practical.. however to ensure a safe and beneficial progress of this technology at lowest cost to citizens of the US states and other nations, we ought not ignore the fact that something of exceptional degree of danger is moving towards us (or we towards it); waiting motionless and thoughtless until it hits is not worthy of a scientists.. I am sure you agree..