Reynolds: Nanotech business community shortsighted
On TechCentralStation, Foresight director Glenn Reynolds describes some "awfully important" nano work being done today, and comments: "…as nanotechnology looks more quotidian, it may also short-circuit serious discussion of its implications. I think that the nanotech business community is actually hoping for such an outcome, in fact, but I continue to believe that such hopes are shortsighted. Genetically modified foods, for example, came to the market with the same absence of discussion, but the result wasn't so great for the industry. Will nanotechnology be different? Stay tuned."
December 27th, 2003 at 8:46 AM
Discussion is being used as a platitude
Glenn writes:
But, on the other hand, as nanotechnology looks more quotidian, it may also short-circuit serious discussion of its implications.
I'm sure that Glenn means well, but we're in some danger of using certain words more because they sound good rather than because they make sense, and "discussion" is one of them.
"Discussion" is rapidly becoming empty of meaning in the context of MNT. Discussion of what, by whom, and for what purpose? There has been highly informed discussion about expected near, mid and far-term effects of nanoscale technologies for well over a decade now, embracing the whole span of interests from technological and medical and economic through to societal and philosophical. It has been completely open and has embraced reasoned contributions from the whole world, directly or by representation.
Would bringing politicians into the discussion increase the existing depth of vision? Or is it more likely to lead to the distortions of national politicking and international powermongering? And given the inextricable symbiosis of politics with big business, is this likely to lead to a fairer distribution of progress in the world, or to ever greater dependence by the less fortunate on the first world megacorps? Is that the purpose of "discussion" with politicians? Well it's certainly the end result of seeking it.
Or, maybe the "discussion" referred to communication with the world at large, to seek better understanding and synergetic progress on a planetary scale. This does at least sound optimistic, but if it is indeed the goal then make it plain that it is so, instead of saying "discussion" and immediately running to talk to politicians, which guarantees to reduce discussion to only those subtopics that are safe to business and political interests.
Promoting discussion is actually pretty pointless in today's world of easy global communications, somewhat akin to helping the tide come in. The war for MNT meme space has been won long ago, and that's what matters most. The battles for national funding in the US are petty skirmishes in the larger scheme of things, as their outcome is not very likely to slow down overall progress. MNT is a global issue, and for those who understand the breadth of its implications, the national argument of "we are being left behind" is not particularly convincing. It's self-correcting anyway, as soon as world progress in this area becomes apparent.
Let's not use "discussion" as a platitude, nor as a euphemism for trying to attract national funding for societal studies. The latter are likely to be a waste of time anyway because, if honest, they will be roundly rejected through being inimical to current business interests, let alone to power structures. Remember that this is a world in which MP3s were demonized — further comment seems superfluous.