"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

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.

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.This is a biased view. They present the modern study of ethics as though its purpose is to modify our ethical principles and discard what we've learned about good and evil.

The purpose of the modern study of ethics is to preserve what we've learned about good and evil and discover how to apply it to an increasingly complex world. The overriding concern of modern man is situational ethics, which is the dilemma we face when two ethical principles conflict, or when oversimplified ethical statements from earlier eras don't give us a clear mandate.

The classic situational ethics problem: You're driving your pregnant wife to the hospital as she's going into labor, on a high-speed highway. Suddenly a child darts out into the road from the right. You can steer to the left and barely miss him... but then a nurse who was walking along the road rushes out from the left in an earnest but doomed attempt to save him. There's not enough space to miss both of them.

What do you do? Hit the child at 60mph, certain death? Kill the nurse instead? Or swerve over the embankment?

The nurse has volunteered for the risk, but still she might be the sole support of her family, and in any case her death would be a loss to society. Crashing your car will almost certainly kill you, your wife, or her fetus, will probably kill two of you, and could easily kill all three, versus the single death in both other alternatives.

What do you do?

There's no prescription for this situation. What we've done as a society is to limit access to high-speed highways, reducing the probability of this event occurring. We've shortened the stopping distance of cars so that you might avoid hitting anybody, or at least hit them at a lower and more survivable speed. We've also taken the steel bullets off the front of radiator grills so they don't impale people, lowered cars so they push people up into the air instead of knocking them down and squashing them, and softened hoods so when the airborne victim lands he doesn't hit the cast-iron engine block. Finally, we've installed safety belts and air bags in cars so if you do go down the embankment all three of you might survive.

All of these advances in road safety, in aggregate, have resulted in a huge decline in traffic deaths. But they come at a cost. What we spend on highway improvements is surplus wealth that we can't spend on schools and emergency clinics. The safety features on cars are one of the reasons cars have become so expensive that many people have to drive dangerous old run-down jalopies, bicycles, motorcycles and scooters, greatly increasing their individual chance of a fatal accident.

This is how modern technology impacts our ethics. We don't have to change the rules, we just have to apply them more proactively, and this involves statistical decisions. Ethics today are tied up with many of the pillars of adult morality, such as deferred gratification, risk management, and cost-benefit analysis. These are complicated, difficult decisions, and not ones you're going to resolve by re-reading the bible.

And that's just an obvious situation that any American could encounter. Don't get me started on the problems of the "Golden Rule." If your daughter's school caught fire, you would demand that the firemen come and rescue her. There are women in Saudi Arabia who would rather die than be pulled out of a burning building by a man. (At least so we are told by the men in Saudi Arabia who insist that they speak for "their" women.)

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?...

.. 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.

Some people like us (yours truly) are applying technology for the long term benefit of several African countries. What we learned from our mistakes, we can fix for them now so that they do not go through the same mistakes again. The problem is for the last 50 years, idiots were pushing the Africans to follow out footsteps and make the same mistakes again and again.

Because public enterprises are short term profit oriented, it is difficult to look ahead and create an environment without strong leadership. Only social engineers (engineers with strong understanding of social implications) can fix these issues.

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.

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.

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.

You do need ethics in every aspect of life. Even in Consumer Credit, without robust ethics, the society suffers and the long term effect can be social implosion as it is happening now witch may peak by 2011.

I am glad you are doing research in nanotechnology. Just imagine this scenario. You create an engineered bacteria to eat material and produce usuful nano materials as a production process. While the material itself may be harmless, what happens if the self-replicating bacteria escape from the lab? They might come out as cloud and eat everyones car for lunch....or what if a specific nano-particle when inhaled blocks the oxygen transfer in the human lungs and microphages are unable to neutralize the invader?

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.

While that is partially true, there are engineers as repoters too. We used to have a lot of engineers as reporters in sixties and seventies due to space race, but those groups are retiring replaced by idiots....

I am glad you are doing research in nanotechnology. Just imagine this scenario. You create an engineered bacteria to eat material and produce usuful nano materials as a production process. While the material itself may be harmless, what happens if the self-replicating bacteria escape from the lab? They might come out as cloud and eat everyones car for lunch....or what if a specific nano-particle when inhaled blocks the oxygen transfer in the human lungs and microphages are unable to neutralize the invader?

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.

Little knowledge is dangerous - FDA is only in USA and overworked that is why the Heparin fiasco. And they will police the whole planet? A Muslim biochemist in Indonesia can cook up all types of enzymes....I was talking about engineered bacterias/microbes...like the Pseudomonas aeroginosa...and if they are genetically modified....the unintened consequences can be troublesome....

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!!.

Little knowledge is dangerous - FDA is only in USA and overworked that is why the Heparin fiasco. And they will police the whole planet? A Muslim biochemist in Indonesia can cook up all types of enzymes....I was talking about engineered bacterias/microbes...like the Pseudomonas aeroginosa...and if they are genetically modified....the unintened consequences can be troublesome....

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.

The N. Bombs are not easy to build. Knowing how to build (if that can be done by the brainwashed people) and building it hidden without state support are two different items. More likely, they will buy one in black market again with some serious state support...

When politicians and lawyers try to solve engineering problems, that is when trouble begins...that is where critical thinking is needed...

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

The N. Bombs are not easy to build. Knowing how to build (if that can be done by the brainwashed people) and building it hidden without state support are two different items. More likely, they will buy one in black market again with some serious state support...

When politicians and lawyers try to solve engineering problems, that is when trouble begins...that is where critical thinking is needed...

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..

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!!.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.

I am glad you are doing research in nanotechnology. Just imagine this scenario. You create an engineered bacteria to eat material and produce usuful nano materials as a production process. While the material itself may be harmless, what happens if the self-replicating bacteria escape from the lab?
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.
or what if a specific nano-particle when inhaled blocks the oxygen transfer in the human lungs and microphages are unable to neutralize the invader?
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.

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.

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

femto?

femto?

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

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

well, start using the word like wait a femto-second....and let us see how many years it takes to be in the popular lexicon....

femto?pico- comes first. For negative powers of one thousand:

Milli-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-, zepto-, yocto-.

For positive powers of one thousand:

Kilo-, mega-, giga-, tera-, peta-, exa-, zetta-, yotta-.

We know...we know...

Femto just sounds better than pico. So we jump one level...big deal....

pico- comes first. For negative powers of one thousand:

Milli-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-, zepto-, yocto-.

For positive powers of one thousand:

Kilo-, mega-, giga-, tera-, peta-, exa-, zetta-, yotta-.

We know...we know...

Femto just sounds better than pico. So we jump one level...big deal....

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...

Pico sounds like Pico de Gallo

http://goneraw.com/recipe/image/23/Pico-de-Gallo-large.jpg

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???

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.

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!

Dear Nasor:

[SIZE="2"]"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.
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.

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!
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..

what is you opinion on that:
Israeli futurologist predicts terror horror
Run for the hills
By Mark Ballard Published Thursday 21st June 2007 14:34 GMT

Western nations have less than 20 years to prepare for the next generation of terror threats, according to Dr Yair Sharan, director of Tel Aviv University's Interdisciplinary Centre for Technology Analysis and Forecasting. These could consist of suicide bombers remote-controlled by brain-chip implants and carrying nano-technology cluster bombs, or biological compounds for which there is no antidote. It is hard to imagine how we are supposed to prepare for such a future, but Sharan, who presented his dire predictions to an audience of spook industry bigwigs last week, has some idea about what the US and its allies should do about it. "Europe is naive with its love of privacy," he told The Register. "It's the weak point in the chain." The spook industry is already doing its best to prepare for the worst, and gaining a sense of history about what it is doing. Sharan's take on geopolitics can only put wind in their sails: "Why should we be more worried about death today?" he said at the Royal United Services Institute conference on Homeland Security last week. We get a better-educated class of terrorists these days, he told the conference, while sci/tech advances can quickly find their way into irresponsible hands, or "proliferate" through the forces of globalisation. Not only that, technology is always smaller and cheaper, making it inevitable that bad people are going to get their hands on some bad-ass weaponry. Most bizarre of all his predictions is "the recruitment of huge numbers of suicidal candidates - human bombs - by mind control techniques". Brain chip implants could create a more obedient servant than conventional techniques like hypnosis: "Imagine that this suicide bomber is remote controlled and cannot give up, even if he wants," warned Sharan. This might be some way off, though - Sharan estimated it would be more than 10 years. Within five years, however, we might be faced with terrorists armed with powerful new explosives delivered by robot. Even remote controlled toys might be used to deliver dangerous payloads into crowded places like supermarkets, he said. Some of these payloads, also conceivably within five years, would be constructed using radical nanotechnology that could produce something called the MOAB, or Mother of All Bombs. Nanotechnology, which is made using components one billionth of a metre across, might also give terrorists the means to release malicious nanobots into people's bloodstreams. Terrorists might also get their hands on new biotechnology that could give them powerful new weapons. "Imagine anthrax that would stand against antibiotics," he said. "It's possible to do that - to build a new kind of anthrax that would be resistant. It was done by Russia - the knowledge is there and might fall into the hands of terrorists."Sharan said we should also worry about terrorists getting their hands on cluster bombs. Now where might they have got that idea.

What is your opinion on that: Israeli futurologist predicts terror horror.

"Europe is naive with its love of privacy"My opinion is that this is something an Israeli would say, because the Israelis and Palestinians are locked into an escalating cycle of mutual terrorism. Of course the future looks bleak from his vantage. His government is criminally incompetent and can't find a way out of this mess. To be fair it was the British who started the cycle by "giving" the Jews somebody else's country, but it's their problem now and they're not trying very hard to solve it. Any Jew who talks about launching a shoah against another people should be excommunicated.

From my vantage... well my government is criminally incompetent too, not to mention guilty of treason for protecting its friends the Saudis from punishment for 9/11, but America is less of a theocracy and more of a democracy than Israel and we get to throw the assholes out next year. Once we stop sending Christian soldiers to overthrow Muslim governments (at least governments that did us no harm) I think the terrorist threat to our people will decline.

Even if it doesn't, well 140,000 of us have been killed by drunk drivers since the start of this century, compared to 3,000 killed by terrorists. Unless the terrorists get hold of a nuclear weapon and manage not to blow themselves up in the process, they are not much of a threat compared to our own people. Or I guess they could all come over here and get driver's licenses--oh wait that won't work because even though they walk around with pockets full of explosives they think alcohol is dangerous so they don't drink it.

Ballard's quote is the kind of propaganda the American government loves to trumpet. They want nothing more than to strip away our last vestige of privacy.

I say fuck 'em. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than have some incompetent, unaccountable, authoritarian civil "servant" reading my e-mail and tracking my GPS. These days our government gives me the creeps.

Dear friend

the problems that a citizen faces are mostly similar in quality yet different in grade and severity in various nations.. consider this important quote:
"this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new to the American experience.. in the councils of governments we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex the potential for disastrous rise of power exists and will persists". Farewell address 1961 D. Eisenhower

Did we complete the necessary societal transformation that will catalyze the transition from a cold war period to another safer and better age??. did we abandon economical, logical, psychological, ethical ties that push us back to those global confrontations?. it seems that this transition was for many too painful to bear in economic terms.. but the failure was not only in that regard, it is and was also in setting up the right principles and priorities (ETHICS) for a new world that could be more stable and prosperous.

your reference to the interlocking event seems to me very diagnostic of a cycle of action and reaction that indicates a hole in the middle of the storm.. that is a severe and chronic lack of commonsense ethics..