<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Africans respond to prospect of nanotech competition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140</link>
	<description>examining transformative technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: </title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140#comment-800621</link>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140#comment-800621</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://index1.azezel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;myspace image code&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://index2.azezel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;123freegreetingcards&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://index3.azezel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wolfords&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://index4.azezel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;matthew harper fairfax county va&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://index5.azezel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;baltimore orioles and tv schedule&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://index1.azezel.com" rel="nofollow">myspace image code</a> <a href="http://index2.azezel.com" rel="nofollow">123freegreetingcards</a> <a href="http://index3.azezel.com" rel="nofollow">wolfords</a> <a href="http://index4.azezel.com" rel="nofollow">matthew harper fairfax county va</a> <a href="http://index5.azezel.com" rel="nofollow">baltimore orioles and tv schedule</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Bradbury</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140#comment-7444</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Bradbury</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140#comment-7444</guid>
		<description>What a bunch of ca-ca.

Doesn&#039;t the ETC group recognize that cotton plants *ARE* nanotechnology systems?  Though they are bionanotechnological systems, they have certainly been selected over thousands of years to be optimal producers of cotton fibers.  Developing a &#039;dry&#039; nanotechnology based system which is as efficient anytime in the near future seems quite unlikely.  People are going to devote their attention and investment dollars for something we don&#039;t have and would likely produce a very high ROI (e.g. long nanotube production and nanotube based cloth and cable production -- for everything from surface materials in planes (replacing aluminium and current carbon fiber composite based materials) [or nano-based aircars, or even traditional automobiles] to cables or beams for use in bridges or space elevator cables.

What one would like to see is a biotechnology based invention where &quot;cotton&quot; plants become &quot;nanotube&quot; plants (this is potentially much closer than dry nanotechnology based nanotube manufacturing systems because much of the manufacturing system -- the cotton plant -- is already built.  If this were achieved one would likely see an increase in benefits to cotton farmers because one would have to decide whether to grow cotton or nanotubes.  Given the high margins that growing nanotubes seems likely to yield, one would either see switching of other cropland (corn, wheat, etc.) to nanotube growth or see the price of cotton rise as the cotton farmers switched to nanotube farming and less cotton became available.  Those situations are *not* bad for most African farmers, though they potentially do have environmental consequences (for more land to grow nanotubes, forest destruction, etc.) and potentially negative for people who can barely afford food to live (assuming increased nanotube production reduced food production).

So the ETC group may be justified in having concerns, but the time estimates are extremely optimistic and they seem to be attempting to get a group which could benefit from bionanotech development to resist it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a bunch of ca-ca.</p>
<p>Doesn&#8217;t the ETC group recognize that cotton plants *ARE* nanotechnology systems?  Though they are bionanotechnological systems, they have certainly been selected over thousands of years to be optimal producers of cotton fibers.  Developing a &#8216;dry&#8217; nanotechnology based system which is as efficient anytime in the near future seems quite unlikely.  People are going to devote their attention and investment dollars for something we don&#8217;t have and would likely produce a very high ROI (e.g. long nanotube production and nanotube based cloth and cable production &#8212; for everything from surface materials in planes (replacing aluminium and current carbon fiber composite based materials) [or nano-based aircars, or even traditional automobiles] to cables or beams for use in bridges or space elevator cables.</p>
<p>What one would like to see is a biotechnology based invention where &#8220;cotton&#8221; plants become &#8220;nanotube&#8221; plants (this is potentially much closer than dry nanotechnology based nanotube manufacturing systems because much of the manufacturing system &#8212; the cotton plant &#8212; is already built.  If this were achieved one would likely see an increase in benefits to cotton farmers because one would have to decide whether to grow cotton or nanotubes.  Given the high margins that growing nanotubes seems likely to yield, one would either see switching of other cropland (corn, wheat, etc.) to nanotube growth or see the price of cotton rise as the cotton farmers switched to nanotube farming and less cotton became available.  Those situations are *not* bad for most African farmers, though they potentially do have environmental consequences (for more land to grow nanotubes, forest destruction, etc.) and potentially negative for people who can barely afford food to live (assuming increased nanotube production reduced food production).</p>
<p>So the ETC group may be justified in having concerns, but the time estimates are extremely optimistic and they seem to be attempting to get a group which could benefit from bionanotech development to resist it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pace Arko</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140#comment-7443</link>
		<dc:creator>Pace Arko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2140#comment-7443</guid>
		<description>In the near term Mr. Chibonga has the right of it. The ETC (Like so many others out there.) has mislabeled modest refinements in materials technology and genetically modified crops as nanotechnology--in other words according to the ETC it&#039;s merely new synthetic fibers and disease resistent cotton plants. In the near term, Chibonga&#039;s right in saying African farmers can deal with it.

But in the long term it&#039;s clear that African economies are already shifting away from towards intense urbanization and manufacturing. Let&#039;s be frank. After China, India and other parts of Asia grow too expensive, where is the next obvious source of cheap labor?

If I were a visionary African policy maker, I&#039;d be more worried about how the rise of fab labs, onsite minifactories and desktop fabrication would impact my growing industrial sector.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the near term Mr. Chibonga has the right of it. The ETC (Like so many others out there.) has mislabeled modest refinements in materials technology and genetically modified crops as nanotechnology&#8211;in other words according to the ETC it&#8217;s merely new synthetic fibers and disease resistent cotton plants. In the near term, Chibonga&#8217;s right in saying African farmers can deal with it.</p>
<p>But in the long term it&#8217;s clear that African economies are already shifting away from towards intense urbanization and manufacturing. Let&#8217;s be frank. After China, India and other parts of Asia grow too expensive, where is the next obvious source of cheap labor?</p>
<p>If I were a visionary African policy maker, I&#8217;d be more worried about how the rise of fab labs, onsite minifactories and desktop fabrication would impact my growing industrial sector.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>