QuickTopic free message boards logo
NOTICE: QuickTopic is shutting down soon. Learn more.
Skip to Messages


Societal Implications of Nanotechnology

(not accepting new messages due to QuickTopic shutdown)
^     All messages            3-18 of 18  1-2 >>
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 10-27-2019 12:45 PM
07:14 AM ET (US)
when my weight
11:26 AM ET (US)
Good data, found it on google did we?
MBT Shoes
05:55 AM ET (US)

I am constantly searching high and low for this kind of information and have found one site where you can get all the Scholarship and Grant information you need in one place.|NATIVE SHOES
|supra shoes
  Spam messages 14-11 deleted by QuickTopic between 06-22-2011 02:01 AM and 07-21-2006 08:58 AM
10:15 AM ET (US)
I'm trying to get more information on nanotechnology issues and I understand that Pat Mooney is the leader in opposition to this type of research. I think he was recently on a news program like 60 minutes talking about nanotechnology issues, does anyone know where I can get a copy of this interview? I think he also recently did a radio interview about the same topic. If you know how I can get copies of these interviews please let me know.

Deleted by topic administrator 03-31-2004 05:34 PM
Howard LovyPerson was signed in when posted
02:57 PM ET (US)
Nanoscience writers as lab rats
The science of the study of the popular perception of the study of nanotechnology has truly arrived.
Howard LovyPerson was signed in when posted
07:22 AM ET (US)
What's New on Howard Lovy's NanoBot

Nano is chocolate in Silicon's peanut butter
A couple of days ago, I met Zyvex President Tom Cellucci at an Ann Arbor restaurant (Take a note, young entrepreneur wannabes: this high-powered nano honcho enjoys Greek salad and hummus, while this low-powered journalist just sat and chain-drank coffee), and we discussed a range of issues. Among them were the short-term commercialization steps the company is taking along the way to its goal of building a molecular assembler.

Drexler: More Empty Arguments
Dear Howard, A recent review of Daniel and Mark Ratner's book, "Nanotechnology and Homeland Security," highlights the current tactics of the denialist camp.

Driving under the influence of Feynman
One of my dirty little secrets is that I listen to audiobooks from audible.com (My commute from suburban Detroit to Ann Arbor keeps me in my car about two hours a day). This morning, I "read" (OK, had read to me), Richard Feynman's "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out."

More pieces of Feynman
In my previous post, I talked about how the nanotech founding father's words get me through my morning commute. Feynman was big on making science understandable to everyday slobs like me. I've written about this subject before, and I do wish that I had been around during his heyday. But I wonder how I would have handled this interview, relayed by Robert P. Crease in a March 2001 article in Physics Web, Revenge of the Science Writer.

Writers who know what I meme
David Pescovitz and Mark Frauenfelder, BoingBoing bloggers, NanoBot advisers and legendary writers, have contributed some excellent work to Small Times in the past couple of days.

Small Tech Business Directory is online
If I can get all commercial on you for a moment, I've been meaning to highlight the great work going on at Small Times.

A Game of Risk
Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post writes: "Just when you absorb one type of danger, someone invents a new one – SARS or avian flu or something enigmatic called nanotechnology."

Good evening, Mr. Phelps, The Speculist and CRN have joined your IM (InstaMail? InstaAntiModz?) Force.

What up with BBC doc?
Small Times London Correspondent Ben Wootliff brought this to my attention. The BBC is airing the above documentary tonight.

Big honor for little blog
Thank you, Nanotechnology Now, for naming the NanoBot one of the Best of 2003. They write: "Choice post in 2003 include - but are not limited to - Stairway to Heaven and Apocalypse Nano, The Hulk, Prince Charles and other scary things and 2003: The Year of the Straw NanoMan.

Unauthorized uses of 'Nano'
As before, cease and desist orders are being sent to the following perpetrators

News in a NanoSecond
From The Guardian: "A Horizon investigation into the dangers of nanotechnology was watched by 2.1 million, 300,000 more than watched The Diana Conspiracy, Channel 4's investigation into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Advertise on the world's biggest nanoblog!

Howard Lovy
Independent commentary at
Howard Lovy's NanoBot
E-mail: howard@lovy.com
Kurt Schoedel
05:10 PM ET (US)
If this C. ben Mitchell is serious about improving access to good health for the poor, he should do everything he can to support the SENS project. The SENS project (strategies foe engineered negligible senescence) offers a realistic approach to curing aging within 15 years for about $1billion. The cost of the resulting therapy would be closer to that of a flu-vaccine at Costco, than it would be to a surgical proceedure in a hospital.

Given the fact that 90-95% of all health care costs in the U.S. are medicare-related (hence caused by aging), any effective cure for aging would radically reduce the health care costs of our country (and the rest of the world) even if it cost several grand per person.

The lowest cost approach to making the poor healthy is an effective cure for aging. Anyone who is serious about low-cost health care should support SENS.

The SENS website: www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/
Kurt Schoedel
04:42 PM ET (US)
Religion and ethics has nothing to do with the debate on personal enhancements. Its not a democratic decision, its a personal choice. I do not consider it a legitimate function of government to tell me what I can or cannot do woith my body and life, providing i do not use my enhancements to violate the liberties of other people.

I don't believe in any religion what so ever. Therefor, religion has no business telling me whether or not I can enhance myself. It is purely a civil liberties issue. My life and body aremy private property.

The comnpetitive free-market is the only mechanism that is consistant with the notion that one's body and life is one's private property. Any other approach or mechanism is therefor immoral, in and of itself.
J. Reid
08:56 AM ET (US)
"Shades of grey are all that I find, when I look at the enemy line. Black and white is how it should be. Shades of grey are the colors I see."

Billy Joel

All ethics are shaped by race, religion, upbringing, education, and situation. There is no black and white. Anyone that takes an absolute stance on anything should be considered a danger to society and locked away. I don't care so much about the governments' ethical stance as I care about the governments' ability to judge between valid scientific research and "Lets see if we can get the government to fund this idiotic proposal" research.
11:53 AM ET (US)
I think philosophers agree that ethics is the study of what is right and wrong - they just can't agree on what those things are ;)

As for governments taking ethical considerations into mind, my reflex is to say no unless it benefits them in terms of public perception. I think I see an example in the current debate over stem cell research and GM food. In the US, where abortion is a hotly divisive topic, there is reluctance by government to allow stem cell research. When it comes to genetically modififed organisms/foods, there is almost no resistance by government and behold, almost no strong, unified opposition to GM foods from the populace. What is right and wrong for politicians is a mirror of what people think is right and wrong, because that spells out what the politicians will get away with. That's the extent to which I think they'll take ethics into consideration.
david oker
02:18 PM ET (US)
I find this almost comical; philosophers have never been able to define what ethics is; anything that hasn't been defined falls under the philosophers label, and ethics has never left the philosophers label; so, I don't know what there millions is going to accomplish!

I think they should call themselves politicians!

I also think(yes, I know, me; yes, I think), that the only reason why ethics hasn't been defined very well is because nobody wants to define it. Same with beauty. Who wants to be told they're ugly, or in the case of ethical, that maybe they are in the wrong? Of couse, the real issue is that most people despise science, so nobody wants ethics to be turned into a science(see Jacob Bronowski if you don't mind a little more scientific analysis of ethics).

Just remember, whenever you here some group calling for ethics, they don't want it defined, they're just playing politics!
^     All messages            3-18 of 18  1-2 >>