U.S. Public Sensible About Nanotechnology
A recent study of the American public's views on nanotechnology has shown a remarkably accurate understanding of its potential benefits and drawbacks. Conducted by North Carolina State University researcher, Dr. Michael Cobb, assistant professor of political science, who designed the survey and analyzed the data, and Dr. Patrick Hamlett, associate professor of science, technology and society, and Dr. Jane Macoubrie, assistant professor of communication, the results will appear in the next Journal of Nanoparticle Research.
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: Judy Conner
650.917.1122
Judy@foresight.org
U.S. Public Sensible About Nanotechnology
Has Clear Understandng of Nanotech Benefits, Downsides
Palo Alto, CA – July 22, 2004 – Since 1986 Foresight Institute, a nanotechnology education and public policy think tank, has worked to educate the public about molecular nanotechnology. Founded by Dr. Eric Drexler, author of Engines of Creation and Nanosystems, and Christine Peterson, president, Foresight Institute's mission has been to prepare society for nanotechnology with a focus on balanced discussion and broad understanding of its potential by the general public.
A recent study of the American public's views on nanotechnology has shown a remarkably accurate understanding of its potential benefits and drawbacks. Conducted by North Carolina State University researcher, Dr. Michael Cobb, assistant professor of political science, who designed the survey and analyzed the data, and Dr. Patrick Hamlett, associate professor of science, technology and society, and Dr. Jane Macoubrie, assistant professor of communication, the results will appear in the next Journal of Nanoparticle Research.
Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the study found a majority (57 percent) of respondents selected medical advances as the most important benefit, followed by environmental cleanup (16 percent), security and defense (12 percent), and improved human physical and mental abilities (11 percent). Only 4 percent saw "cheaper, longer-lasting consumer products" as the most important benefit.
In choosing which of five risks it was most important to avoid, respondents' top choice was loss of privacy due to surveillance (32 percent), followed by a nanotechnology arms race (24 percent), nanoparticles accumulating inside humans (19 percent), and economic disruption with job loss (14 percent). Only 12 percent were most concerned about the uncontrollable spread of self-replicating nanobots.
Approximately 70 percent were "somewhat" to "very" hopeful about nanotechnology.
"It's extremely gratifying to see that the message of nanotech's benefits and potential downsides has been heard so clearly by the public," said Christine Peterson, president and founder of Foresight Institute. "Foresight has worked hard to present a balanced view of the future we can expect from nanotech: huge medical and environmental advances, but with some key concerns about potential misuse. One of our central points has been that deliberate abuse is a far bigger issue than scary accident scenarios of nanobots run amok. These messages have come through loud and clear.
"Some nanotech promoters, and even some researchers, have criticized Foresight Institute for mentioning negative applications," Peterson continued. "This survey indicates that balanced discussion of nanotech's benefits and potential drawbacks is being handled well by the U.S. public. The task ahead is to help reinforce and maintain the common-sense views already held by the public, and make sure their concerns are addressed."
For more information about the North Carolina State University study: http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/04_07/211.htm
About Foresight Institute
Foresight Institute is the leading public interest organization focused on nanotechnology. Formed in 1986 by K. Eric Drexler and Christine Peterson, Foresight dedicates itself to providing education, policy development, and networking to maximize benefits and minimize downsides of molecular manufacturing.
www.foresight.org
Foresight Institute is producing the 1st Conference on Advanced Nanotechnology: Research, Applications, Policy, October 22-23, 2004, in the Washington, DC area.
www.mnt2004.org.
July 22nd, 2004 at 9:03 AM
But why?
"Some nanotech promoters, and even some researchers, have criticized Foresight Institute for mentioning negative applications," Peterson continued.
When researchers (admittedly, the term is vague) criticize Foresight and other organizations whom responsibly support a new technology, I can't help but think there may be a good reason. People who are doing true, advanced, work, and making progress in the field, while at the same time not realizing the possible downsides of their work, are one thing, and should be stopped or at least regulated. However, I think that the real situation, at least most of the time, is that researchers DO realize that they are working on technology which could create harmful new problems, but instead of basically crying wolf and shouting until their eyes become bloodshot and they are red in the face, they choose to keep at least that portion of their research softly spoken, so as to avoid an over-reaction from a public which feeds on mainstream media. It is very easy for the 'masses' to inflate risks and ultimately force research into the underground, such as with stem cell research, etc, ad infinitum. And clearly the underground is exactly where we do not want this research to be.
No, I think the intelligent people working with these new technologies are criticizing Foresight for choosing to fight a battle on the wrong battlefield. To these researchers the situation may be something like this:
I'm sure there are other reasons which I haven't thought of at this moment, but I hope I have at least painted a picture depicting why we should be careful in how loudly we speak to the public and popular culture — a group of people who largely don't understand the truth and are willing to go to extremes not to. I'm not suggesting clandestine practices, or hidden research… simply, I am saying we should let those who seek to know, and learn, do so, and avoid popular culture as much as humanly possible.
July 22nd, 2004 at 6:25 PM
The publis is NOT aware
The general public is not aware of the true potential of nanotechnology and MNT. The only things they are currently aware of are the computer manfucaturers bragging about their 65 nm fabrication plants, and medical institutions using 'nano' cameras to probe a patients body to see what's wrong.
They are not aware of the main factors:
- Immortality.
- Physical and mental perfection.
- The end of the money system and the material world as we know it.
- The end of religion.
- The end of all forms of government.
- Space exploration and habitation of other planets.
And the list goes on…
If the public were truly aware of nanotechnology, there would be confusion and chaos all over the place. Granted, that time is coming…sooner than anyone thinks, but it hasn't come and gone like this article states.
July 23rd, 2004 at 7:37 AM
Re:The publis is NOT aware
Why, Kadamose, must you make such over-wrought bogus claims about what MNT will do, and not stick to the basics? You say nanotech will bring: – Immortality. – Physical and mental perfection. – The end of the money system and the material world as we know it. – The end of religion. – The end of all forms of government. – Space exploration and habitation of other planets. Gime me a break! People's beliefs have NOTHING to do with the manipulation of atoms and molecules, how does that take away the existence of God? People will simply say "God made the atoms and molecules." Which is what is already said. Now onto this issue of immortality. Do you completely and totally understand all of the causes of death? None of us do in full. To say that nanomachines will make us "immortal" is a big leap of a claim. First of all, what is immortality in this sense? A body made of ultra-tough nanosystems that can repair itself? Medical nanites that repair damage done by free radical molecules? The immortality of the human conciousness? Nanotechnology will bring the end of all forms of government? Are you kidding me? What is government, Kadamose? Is government some big monolithic logical machine intelligence? NO! Government is HUMANS! WE are government, whether we like it or not. The only way for there to be an end to govt is for there to be an end to humans. Humans will continue to make govts, whether they be bad or good, positive or negative, my friend. The only way for there to be NO govt would be for the AI systems to take over completely, and enslave or exterminate us. Is that what you want? Physical and mental perfection? What is perfection? Being genetically whole and disease free? Being loving and kind to your neighbor? How can the construction of molecular assemblers (By the way I am TOTALLY CONVINCED and pursuaded from the evidence given that Molecular Manufacturing is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT POSSIBLE and infact INEVITABLE, I love nanotechnology.) make people's conciousness change? Sure, it then becomes cheaper and easier for people to do altruistic acts, like give a village in Bangladesh a nano filter system that protects them from arsenic, and to have food boxes for everyone. The end of the money system and the material world as we know it. Exactly what do you mean? Until nanotechnology software design machines and zero point energy/low energy nuclear reactions (www.lenr-canr.org) are available (and nanotech will allow those systems to be more reliable and available) there will be the cost of Software and Energy. Even then, human beings will hold value on things that cannot be manipulated via matter molding and assembly. Space exploration and the habitation of planets. That is definitely something nanotechnology will make available. I think it would be better to build huge O Neil style mini earths, though
July 23rd, 2004 at 8:28 AM
Let's add a few more factors
They are indeed unaware of any of those things, but why stop there? Here's some more things that would be possible with nanotechnology:
- Ubiquitous surveillance.
Did you ever want to know what your neighbors do in their spare time? Would you like to find out, for instance, that some might be doing drugs (oh, the nanotech drugs! Truly there would be no limit to what might be achieved with them.), some get drunk on a regular basis. But wait, what of other little vices? What would people do if they saw what their gay neighbors do in the bedroom, broadcast in vivid 3d holography? Or perhaps they might like to know about those kiddies that pirate music and software? Or that woman who lives alone with three kids, all bastards? Come on, bring on your dirty little secrets! Let's see whom we can lynch today.
- Slavery
Imagine having the ability to ultimately coerce another human being into obsequiousness. One of the reasons slavery is not as common as it could be is that slaves are unhappy with their lot and revolt occasionally. But what if they could be forced into happiness? If you can achieve Kadamose's "mental perfection", surely we can turn a few of those underclass scum into perpetually happy slaves. Why grant them immortality? They are inferior anyway, so why should any middle-class person tolerate their continued existance? But if they could be servants instead, dressed up in pretty livery, bowing deferentially to guests ("See how many good and happy servants I have? Am I not a good housekeeper?") and performing all those chores ('cause it is so much more entertaining to watch them suffer than it is to delegate such labours to nanobots). What? You don't think people can be that cruel? They are today, and they have been throughout human history.
- Automatic moral enforcement
Remember all those socially unacceptable behaviours uncovered by ubiqutous surveillance? Well, now you can set things right. Instead of the costly expenditures of prosecution, ostracism, burning at the stake, etc. we shall have the ability to heuristically detect undesirable behaviours (determined by majority vote, naturally) and "correct" them automatically, by, say, delivering nerve shocks upon detection. This safe and humane treatment will gently persuade people to not engage in things like drug abuse (those nano drugs are just so disguisting!), homosexuality, drinking, listening to loud music, wearing ghetto clothing, having bad manners, having sex before marriage, skipping work, being too comfortable (pamper the body – lose the soul), not being sufficiently charitable, hoarding, overeating, eating red meat, watching television, playing violent video games, etc. I am sure you can come up with a few more vices the society dislikes.
- Continued deterioration of education
Nanotechnology is like magic. You wish to have a thing, and your wish is granted. (Sure, you might have to pirate some software to make the thing, but the effort is pretty much nonexistent) Nothing ever breaks, because nanobots fix it. So consider for a moment, what incentive will most people have to learn anything? There are some individuals who enjoy learning and who even now attain incredible depths of understanding of how the world works. Such individuals have always existed and will always exist, in spite of society's ambivalence toward them. But think instead of the average Joe Sixpack, who can now drink his beer for free because it is now recycled from his urine by nanobots, and who sit on the couch all day and watch 500000000 channels of hidef holo television with at least 300000 channels devoted to football. These days he can't really do this all the time because he has to work, but when nanobots can do all the work, he can dedicate himself completely to entertainment. The most scientific of his thoughs might be about how to screen his house from the neighbors' surveillance mites; the solution to which he will discover by downloading black market miteproofing software from those anarchist net sites. Behind the protection of a "nanobar" envelope he can indulge himself in drinking, watching football, doing drugs, and having lots and lots of sex. He might get tired of it after a few years, but, being completely unaccustomed to making any effort, he will find books to be too difficult, science incomprehensible and apparently useless (why would you want to learn about physics, when it's the nanobots' job?) So he'll take a vacation, travel to the moon resort, maybe even sign up for one of those colony ships. And perhaps he'll just kill himself after finding immortality too repetetive and unrewarding in the long run. All this happens today too, of course, only they have jobs to keep them occupied long enough to not get too depressed. But, of course, you can't compete with 10^45 nanobots, all of which work for free, so there will be no jobs.
- Overcrowding
Immortality or no immortality, but people will want to have children. There is simply no way to remove people from the planet fast enough if they all want to have 10 kids each. There will always be plenty of food to feed them, plenty of clothes to clothe them, and plenty of free time in which there is little else to do but make them. What else would they do? Study math? Right…
- Resurgence of religion
No, Kadamose, religion is not going away. In fact it will become even more ubiqutous than ever. There will be more and more people asking "what is the meaning of life?", for whom "the pursuit of knowledge" just won't do for an answer. Couple this with their growing ignorance and the fact that nanotech is so difficult to understand that it seems like magic. It would not surprize me if people would start treating it as such, generating the kind of a society that you might see in a fantasy novel. Swords and sourcery, Fairy Godmothers, Shamans, and Aes Sedai, all filled with the odd magical powers they do not understand. Somebody will have designed such "magic powers" to be easy to use, with visual interfaces (such as "weaving" of "earth"[carbon], "fire"[oxygen], "water"[hydrogen], "air"[nitrogen], and "spirit"[flow control commands], like in the Wheel of Time. I can see this as an almost direct method of designing nanotechnological substances.) Arcane rituals will spawn, alliances will be forged, and wars will be fought, as the wheel weaves as the wheel wills.
July 23rd, 2004 at 11:20 AM
Re:Let's add a few more factors
Touche. That's the darker side of nanotech, for sure. I can't really argue against anything other than the population problem. For several years, I've had a solution to that problem, and that is simply to sterilize everyone on the planet through a means that no one, and I mean no one, can escape from (i.e. creating a nano pathogen that disables the human reproductive system, and then using Earth's atmosphere as a delivery system) Yes, it may seem sadistic, in a way – but it's the only way to curb the exponential growth problem – permanently.
That does not mean that children won't be born anymore – because they will. But in a limited sense; they will be 'created' in laboratories and will literally be perfect on all levels, but, of course, they will be hybrids, and therefore, will not have the ability to reproduce on their own. Of course, with the global sterilization in effect, which will destroy all sperm and egg production, these children will be created from scratch through other means.
July 23rd, 2004 at 11:32 AM
No need for sterilization
> For several years, I've had a solution to that
> problem, and that is simply to sterilize everyone
> on the planet through a means that no one, and I
> mean no one, can escape from
This is a rather dumb idea because it would put an overly high barrier of entry into reproduction. If humanity were to enter a dark age where artificial reproduction would become impossible, this would lead to the extinction of the species.
> But in a limited sense; they will be 'created' in laboratories
And what prevents those same laboratories from creating lot and lots of babies? I bet there would be plenty of underground laboratories that would manufacture human stock for slaves or organ transplants too.
To solve the overpopulation problem you need to understand the cause of it: namely that it is nature's tool for creating evolutionary pressures. And to understand the corollary problem: overpopulation is not a local issue unless it approaches starvation levels. Nature keeps populations down by starving the extra individuals, resulting in inevitable suffering, hunger, and poverty. This is the so-called "Malthusian principle". To fix this, we need for some globally aware population control nanobots that would keep populations stable by limiting the number of children born (by automatic abortion, for example) and by this keeping population low enough for every individual to live comfortably. This comes, of course, at the price of slackening the pressure to evolve, which could be compensated by increasing predator populations. But to really keep the system in good condition we would probably need a "god" to watch over it and make necessary adjustments now and then.
July 23rd, 2004 at 12:55 PM
Re:No need for sterilization
I don't think extinction of the human race is necessarily a bad thing at this point.
July 23rd, 2004 at 2:16 PM
Re:No need for sterilization
Good point.
And to perhaps help support your point, I have an idea.
Let's begin with you.
August 4th, 2004 at 8:35 AM
Re:The publis is NOT aware
While Iím skeptical that molecular nanotechnology will put an end to religion, it will very likely create confusion over fundamental philosophical and ethical beliefs. For example, with a nanofactory built just a few years after diamondoid LMNT nanofactories, it should be possible to assemble a live creature such as an actual human (after all, they are made of atoms). To some people, this will seem like ìplaying Godî. Moreover, non-replicating nanobots with onboard quantum computers (with just 100 memory storage components, they could actually store 2^100 bits; I donít know why, but thatís just the way quantum computing works, from what Iíve heard) could go through a personís body, especially through the brain, and store data on pretty much everything about the person (memories, ideas, beliefs, mental and physical abilities, hair color, and so on). This way, should the person die of a terrorist attack or war, the nanofactory could use the data to create a backup copy of the person. Or what if a person could use the nanofactory to create a robot with a sugar-cube size nanocomputer more powerful than the human brain, download his/her brain memory/opinions on the computer, thus transferring his/her identity to the robot? Or what if multiple copies of a single person are assembled? All of this will create confusion over the fundamental concepts of life, death. The issue of multiple copies may even create confusion over the concept of human dignity.
August 5th, 2004 at 1:18 PM
Tough Challenge Ahead
Sometime soon, theaters will show the movie version of Prey, which will very likely be watched by millions. This will likely increase misconceptions among the public about nanotechnology since it'll think that nanotechnology is all about scary self-replicating nanomachines or that mainstream nanotechnology will lead to that. They will be very ignorant about mainstream nanotechnology as well as the huge changes that molecular nanotechnology will bring, some of which include dangers WORSE than grey goo such as non-replicating (lacking replicating ability, they can be far smaller and stealthier, and easier to design) nanobots filled with poison or powerful flywheels programmed to get loose and cause damage. Or, since diamond and carbon nanotubes are stronger than steel, perhaps some nanobots or supercomputer-guided missiles a few centimeters long can be filled with highly pressurized hydrogen that can be instantly heated to millions of degrees when instructed. At the same time, people will be ignorant about the benefits of MNT such as better medical treatments, environmental cleanup, and cheaper interplanetary travel.