I was asked by the makers of a new public television special on nanotechnology -- "The Power of Small" -- to preview it and give them a reaction.
The program, produced by the Fred Friendly Seminars and sponsored by the National Science Foundation, comprises three episodes:
- PRIVACY: Watching You Watching Me
Safer societies or no more secrets? - HEALTH: Forever Young
Longer lives? But who decides? - ENVIRONMENT: Clean, Green, and Unseen
Cleaner world or potential pollution?
"Nanotechnology: The Power of Small" is coming to public television stations nationwide (U.S.) in April 2008. I previewed all three parts a few days ago and was quite impressed.
Imagine yourself sitting in an audience at a university symposium and watching a large and diverse panel of experts from science, business, and activist groups debate the merits of advanced nanotechnology. That's exactly the experience you'll have in viewing this program.
Unlike many so-called science specials on TV these days, "The Power of Small" takes its subject seriously and treats its audience as intelligent, discriminating adults. Thankfully, there are no flashy graphics, no distracting camera tricks or special effects; just smart, thoughtful people led by a capable moderator discussing provocative issues.
My only real complaint is that the main topics chosen -- privacy, health, and the environment -- while important in their own right, did not include issues around the potential militarization of nanotechnology and consequent geopolitical impacts. Another subject brought up only fleetingly, but worthy of much broader discussion, is the possibility of severe economic disruption from an abrupt revolution in manufacturing. Perhaps these will be considered in future editions of the program if this first series is successful.
Look for the show on public TV next month. Or, if you're so inclined, you can watch it now in small (5 to 15 minute) segments online. If you do see it, let us know what you think.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog
It was ok. I am always astounded when I hear people saying with a straight face that they wouldn't want to live in good health to 150. The lady's argument is at what cost, when we could be using these resources to help those in need. Well, that situation exists today. I have heard that something like 90% of your medical expenses happen in the last 10% of your life. That amounts to billions of dollars a year to treat old people when we could use that money to treat poor sick children throughout the world. No, when it comes down to it, people are greedy and want what is best FOR THEM and their family.
If these treatments come out, they will be wildly popular and I would be willing to bet that the vast majority who today say they wouldn't want them would use these treatments if they were available in the future. It's the only rational explanation when viewed from the perspective of humanity's unwaivering greed.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 20, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Greater longevity for the wealthy vs "natural" longevity for the poor is a false alternative. We could have both, with the poor seeing their longevity tracking only a modest amount behind the richest.
The real alternative is
"Increase population faster than your economy can grow while imposing irrational economic policies"
vs.
"Have an improved quality of life, including greater longevity".
Look at China after a generation of a freer economy and a "one child" policy let them get ahead for a change.
Posted by: Tom Craver | March 31, 2008 at 06:55 PM