• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed

  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Sounds Too Good To Be True | Main | Markets, Governments, and Freedom »

January 11, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Do you have any concerns about the promotion of potential negative consequences of MM turning popular public opinion against technological development? I agree that we can't ignore all the issues, but I'm somewhat worried about the public's tendency to fear the unknown, which could possibly lead to a stifling of further R&D. How do you see this issue?


I've been reading alot about nanotechnology and I have to say its reaching a point of impossible because of its complexity not in developing nanofactories but integrating it and the huge amount misconception.

Even if they build the most advance system known to mankind one very primitive and simple area will never get replaced, and thats natural resources, you cannot build anything without using something else, alot of people are talking about nanotubes and carbon as if they're popping out of the ground, graphite is a natural resource which has to be mined and thats where nanotubes come from, if not graphite then another natural resources. Even if dirt is used(highly unlikely) the price would skyrocket, gravel and sand is a multi million dollars industry today and its used mainly for simple things, imagine if everything was made by it, its not like a corporation can dig its backyard for billions of tons of dirt.

There are also tons of other unanswered questions and hurdles which could maybe never be overcome. I'll elaborate on them later.

Mike Treder, CRN


Promotion of potential negative consequences can be a problem when it is not conducted responsibly. Books like Prey and calls for a moratorium or for relinquishment are not helpful.

But even worse than clumsy discussion of dangers would be no discussion at all. As you said, fear of the unknown is a big obstacle. That's why open study and consideration of nanotech's major societal implications is so important. Public servants, scientists, and educators who speak only of benefits are doing themselves and everyone else a serious disservice.


All the good news about nanotechnology should be juxtaposed with the question of ethics. Patents claiming to own agricultural seed will only benefit, conglomerates whether it corporations or governmental, and this in turn will suffer farmers and cultures which sustainablity is their inherent right! Third World countries and cultures will no doubt suffer the consequences.

The comments to this entry are closed.