[Platform] GRP on nanotech?

[John Walsh]

On Jun 10, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Jamie O'Keefe wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Walsh  
> <john.walsh at umassmed.edu> wrote:
>> This is not a very good debate or set of positions.  First, it has  
>> a Luddite
>> and anti-scientific tone to it, and it is unbalanced - stressing  
>> only the
>> drawbacks.
>
> I will admit to being of the science-fiction reading/watching part of
> the GRP and I work testing software, so i doubt I could be considered
> a Luddite.
>
> I will point out that the proponents will only stress the benefits,
> and they get paid to do it, so having us say "Hold on, lets think
> about this" is a right position for us.  When the nanotech firms pay
> people to focus on the potential downside, maybe I might cut them some
> slack.
>
>> Second, there is nothing preventing debate about all this although
>> nanotechnology is so diverse as to be nearly undefinable.
>
> Well, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology) sums it
> up pretty well:
>
> "Nanotechnology refers to a field of applied science and technology
> whose theme is the control of matter on the atomic and molecular
> scale, generally 100 nanometers or smaller, and the fabrication of
> devices or materials that lie within that size range."
>
> Seems pretty well defined to me.
>
Jamie, that at least seems a bit disingenuous.  Here is what  
Wikipedia says:
"Nanotechnology is a highly multidisciplinary field, drawing from  
fields such as applied physics, materials science, interface and  
colloid science, device physics, supramolecular chemistry (which  
refers to the area of chemistry that focuses on the noncovalent  
bonding interactions of molecules), self-replicating machines and  
robotics, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, biological  
engineering, and electrical engineering. Grouping of the sciences  
under the umbrella of "nanotechnology" has been questioned on the  
basis that there is little actual boundary-crossing between the  
sciences that operate on the nano-scale."  That is exactly what I  
said and it  is what Wikipedia said also.  You simply chose not to  
include that.  Now  you have cast doubts on the rest of your  
arguments.  And omission is the easiest way to convey something that  
might be called a little less than true.

SO we are talking here about such a huge field that the idea of a few  
simple platform statements on it only makes us look incompetent.  And  
anti-science to boot.  It is like Global Warming.  There is an  
important truth to it, BUT the computer models that claim to predict  
the consequences 50-100 years away are complete pseudoscience - as is  
a lot of computer simulation.


>> Third, how can you control something that is not yet invented.   
>> Same with
>> safety measures.
>
>> From wikipedia page listed above:  "As of April 24, 2008 The Project
> on Emerging Nanotechnologies claims that over 609 nanotech products
> exist, with new ones hitting the market at a pace of 3-4 per week." -
> original citation:
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/poen-nnp042308.php
>
> Putting in place some safety measures is a good idea from a
> precautionary principle.  We have seen what technology has done so far
> with increased pollution, increasing monoculture in agriculture, etc.,
> that putting some limits on new technologies, the negative
> implications of which could have dire effects, is a good idea.
>
>> Fourth, it is wildly impractical.  Research cannot be stopped.
>
> Research on human cloning is mostly banned and few seem to be working
> on cloning people.  While nanotechnology is broader and thus has a
> both a higher potential benefit and higher profit motivation, putting
> some limits and guidelines as a minimum would help.
>
> Perhaps such limits would help us avoid a Grey goo situation
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo) where "out-of-control
> self-replicating robots consume all living matter on Earth while
> building more of themselves".
>
> Between nuclear winter (never far from my mind) and global warming
> (six degrees anyone?), we know the potential catastrophic effects of
> human technology when we ostensibly control it.
The key word here is POTENTIAL.  All human technology can be  
damaging.  BUT we do not know for sure the consequences of global  
warming, AlGore to the contrary, notwithstanding.


> Throw in introducing
> a technology where we don't have preexisting mechanisms to control it,
> and we may not be long for this planet.

That has never happened.  Pre-existing control mechanisms are a  
contradiction in terms.

And is this not an unusual position I am taking here.  Do we ever  
here within the GP's that there is good to technology - in fact  
historically more good than bad.



> Outliers maybe, but through
> planetary feedbacks, we may get ourselves to six degrees of warming
> and turn the clock back to a very unpleasant world for the existing
> state of the biosphere.
>
>> Fifth, some of nanotechnology can be compared to genetic  
>> engineering (which
>> was opposed once upon a time but is now clearly seen as a boon to  
>> health and
>> medicine and knowledge.)   But not all of it can e.
>
> Well I disagree with you on benefits of GE with GMO use decreasing
> diversity and privatizing our common heritage.  See:
>
> Biotech Giants Demand a High Price for Saving the Planet
> Companies Accused of 'Profiteering' as They Attempt to Patent Crop  
> Genes
> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/08/9485/
>
> Even GE for treating illness has social justice implications as
> companies try not to cover people with preexisting genetic issues,
> whether they have manifested themselves or never will.
>
> There are serious social justice and biodiversity implications to
> genetic engineering that haven't been thought through.  It is our
> responsibility to bring them up and fight to fix them.
>
>> And no nanotechnology will be able in the near future to reproduce  
>> as well as a bacterium or
>> virus.
>
> It has been something like 15 years since I read K. Eric Drexler's
> book Engines of Creation on  Nanotechnology.  A great deal has
> occurred and the pace only seems to be speeding up.  Maybe it will
> take another 15 years to get to the point of self-replicating
> nanobots.  Shouldn't we start calling out the problems now so we can
> deal with them?  Isn't future focus one of our ten key values?
>
> Jamie
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
>

John V. Walsh, MD
Professor of Physiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Avenue, N.
Worcester, MA, 01655-0127
Phone (work): 508-856-3360
Phone (cell): 508-868-1653
email: john.walsh at umassmed.edu