«  
  »

Distant shores: nanotech concerns rural agritech advocacy group

By RichardTerra, on June 27th, 2001

from the concerned-but-confused dept.
For an interesting example of the distant shores the concept of molecular nanotechnology is washing up upon, and the concerns being raised about nanotech by people and groups not directly connected to the research and development community, take a look at this report issued by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI): The ETC Century: Erosion, Technological Transformation and Corporate Concentration in the 21st Century, by P.R. Mooney (February 2001). [Note: this is a link to an Adobe Acrobat PDF file, not a web page.]
Although the RAFI author does take note of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, concerns over the potential negative impacts seem more prominent.

RAFI is an international non-governmental organization headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, dedicated to the conservation and sustainable improvement of agricultural biodiversity, and to the socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. RAFI is concerned about the loss of genetic diversity – especially in agriculture – and about the impact of intellectual property on agriculture and world food security.

June 27th, 2001 | Category: Found On Web, Media Mentions

3 comments to Distant shores: nanotech concerns rural agritech advocacy group

  • BryanBruns
    July 8th, 2001 at 5:43 PM

    Reason column on "Nanotech Negativism"

    Ron Bailey has a column, Nanotech Negativism, at Reason Online critiquing the RAFI paper, particularly its advocacy of bureaucratic control over the introduction of new technologies.

    In fact, Mooney himself proposes that "progressives" begin agitating for an International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). This agency would control nanotechnology and other emerging technological advances in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, robotics, and, of course, biotechnology. The ICENT would create a global political process which would "set the terms and condition under which a new technology might be introduced into society and the environment and the terms and conditions under which the technology might be recalled if later found threatening."

  • mysticaloldbard
    June 28th, 2001 at 10:06 PM

    concerned-but-confused?

    Where is it that the author is confused? Is there something wrong with only taking note of potential benefits then moving on to concerns over the potential negative impacts? What is the use of delving into potential benefits if you believe potential negative impacts would nullify any positive ones?

  • Kadamose
    June 27th, 2001 at 4:55 PM

    Nanite Bio-Assemblers

    What if we could program the nanites, that will be in our bloodstreams in the near future, to create nourishment for the body without the need of consumption – that would mean no more agriculture; no more trips to the damn grocery store every few days; and no more bitching about crappy food.

    Nanites that provide nourishment, as well as s superior immune system, is something to definitely look forward to.