Comments on: Church of Scotland wants nanotechnology to respect certain limits drawn from…the arts? http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: DRPRABIR http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-29697 DRPRABIR Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:54:34 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-29697 it is a great endeavour to rediscover the challenging e world of nanorobotics .nanomedicine,nanoconferencing it is a great endeavour to rediscover the challenging e world of nanorobotics .nanomedicine,nanoconferencing

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-28060 Christine Peterson Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:05:52 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-28060 Great comments, folks, thanks! --Christine Great comments, folks, thanks! –Christine

]]> By: Adam http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-28015 Adam Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:02:49 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-28015 One blogger on The Scotsman's site says this: "Defining what it means to be human has always been one of art’s most basic functions." I believe that the arts should be taken into account, but more so as a form of guidance, such as science using science fiction as a vision of the future. Likewise, since art is basically a human representation of all of the other criteria Dr. Bruce mentions (humanities, social sciences, region and philosophy) I think it should prove a valuable tool for insight into society's hopes for and fears of nanotechnology. I think Christine's questions are right on target. We should not respect limits drawn by the arts "apart" from the other fields, art should be used as a way we can consider all of the other topics mentioned. Maybe that's not what Dr. Bruce had in mind, but I think it could be useful to see how people would react to Nanotech developments in the future. Adam One blogger on The Scotsman’s site says this: “Defining what it means to be human has always been one of art’s most basic functions.”

I believe that the arts should be taken into account, but more so as a form of guidance, such as science using science fiction as a vision of the future.

Likewise, since art is basically a human representation of all of the other criteria Dr. Bruce mentions (humanities, social sciences, region and philosophy) I think it should prove a valuable tool for insight into society’s hopes for and fears of nanotechnology.

I think Christine’s questions are right on target. We should not respect limits drawn by the arts “apart” from the other fields, art should be used as a way we can consider all of the other topics mentioned.

Maybe that’s not what Dr. Bruce had in mind, but I think it could be useful to see how people would react to Nanotech developments in the future.

Adam

]]> By: Eric T. http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-27870 Eric T. Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:32:27 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-27870 I never realized the arts had defined limits...or at least not universally accepted limits. Then again, do any of the abovementioned topics contain universally accepted limits? That aside, the point of the arts often appears to be to stretch or break the limits imposed by many of the other topics. If we accept that as the norm, what does that then mean for nanotechnology research and development? (I imagine Dr. Bruce would be quite thoroughly exasperated by such overanalysis) I never realized the arts had defined limits…or at least not universally accepted limits. Then again, do any of the abovementioned topics contain universally accepted limits? That aside, the point of the arts often appears to be to stretch or break the limits imposed by many of the other topics. If we accept that as the norm, what does that then mean for nanotechnology research and development?

(I imagine Dr. Bruce would be quite thoroughly exasperated by such overanalysis)

]]> By: George Elvin http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-27748 George Elvin Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:40:29 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2293#comment-27748 Why shouldn’t the arts offer criteria for reasonable human enhancement? Defining what it means to be human has always been one of art’s most basic functions, from Oedipus to Prometheus Bound to Cyborg. The ancient Greeks, for example, prohibited citizens from building homes of marble because marble was reserved for sacred buildings. Is it so farfetched to consider the sacred and our relationship to it now that we have the technological power to transcend some of the biological boundaries that have defined our humanity until now? Why shouldn’t the arts offer criteria for reasonable human enhancement? Defining what it means to be human has always been one of art’s most basic functions, from Oedipus to Prometheus Bound to Cyborg. The ancient Greeks, for example, prohibited citizens from building homes of marble because marble was reserved for sacred buildings. Is it so farfetched to consider the sacred and our relationship to it now that we have the technological power to transcend some of the biological boundaries that have defined our humanity until now?

]]>