Thursday, February 14, 2008
In over our heads with nanotechnology?
The lecture by Dr. Uri Sagman was a great glimpse into the potential of the human race to accomplish amazing tasks, particularly in the field of medicine. But as comments in class and tutorial show, there are also serious questions regarding this new field of technology. Although I cannot remember everyone who brought up these questions, some of the points raised were "who is controlling its development and who is benefiting from it?", "how can we be sure it is not used for the wrong ends?" and related to this, someone mentioned that the U.S. military has usually been at the forefront of new technology such as this.
Dr. Sagman's consistent response seemed to be that all new technologies have benefited mankind in some way or another, after initial defects are worked out and social adjustments are made. However, the fact that he cited nuclear energy as a case in point did not convince me. Even if we overlook the reality that nuclear energy was developed as a weapon in the second world war, it still presents a threat to humankind, as I am sure the inhabitants of Chernobyl will attest. Sagman also mentioned that nanotechnology could increase the average human lifespan by 10-20 years. I believe it was Anna in tutorial who mentioned that this is meaningless if you don't take into account whether human happiness improves. Marshall McLuhan pointed out that we come to serve technologies that we rely on (like the car). Are we happier now that we have to spend time commuting in our automobiles everywhere?
If I had to place a bet, I'd say Big Business and governments are dictating the nanotechnology industry. Perhaps governments should regulate it, but should corporations concerned with profit as their bottom line be entrusted to develop these technologies that, as Sagman himself said, could be used for more efficient surveillance of human beings? He brought up Bill Gates as an example of an altruistic billionaire who can be entrusted to do good for humankind, citing the charitable work he has done in developing countries. But how much of his fortune, proportionately, does Gates spend on charity? There are many detractors of Gates and his empire. According to David Shenk, the U.S. Justice Department held federal hearings in 1998 over the question of whether Microsoft (Gates' company) "engaged in anticompetitive tactics to establish what amounts to a monopoly over various sectors of the software industry" (http://davidshenk.com/webimages/THENEWREPUBLIC.PDF, 1998).
One last criticism, which directly ties into our fear of clones. Dr. Sagman said "biology as a system is really not that different from other systems of information." That would imply, for example, that the brain is not that different from a computer. And it is no coincidence that Bill Gates has been quoted as saying "I don't think there's anything particularly unique about human intelligence." I asked Dr. Sagman after class what he would say to a humanist who is afraid that we will completely explain away what it is to be human. He said that he could not address consciousness - it was far too complicated and not part of his field.
Dr. Sagman's consistent response seemed to be that all new technologies have benefited mankind in some way or another, after initial defects are worked out and social adjustments are made. However, the fact that he cited nuclear energy as a case in point did not convince me. Even if we overlook the reality that nuclear energy was developed as a weapon in the second world war, it still presents a threat to humankind, as I am sure the inhabitants of Chernobyl will attest. Sagman also mentioned that nanotechnology could increase the average human lifespan by 10-20 years. I believe it was Anna in tutorial who mentioned that this is meaningless if you don't take into account whether human happiness improves. Marshall McLuhan pointed out that we come to serve technologies that we rely on (like the car). Are we happier now that we have to spend time commuting in our automobiles everywhere?
If I had to place a bet, I'd say Big Business and governments are dictating the nanotechnology industry. Perhaps governments should regulate it, but should corporations concerned with profit as their bottom line be entrusted to develop these technologies that, as Sagman himself said, could be used for more efficient surveillance of human beings? He brought up Bill Gates as an example of an altruistic billionaire who can be entrusted to do good for humankind, citing the charitable work he has done in developing countries. But how much of his fortune, proportionately, does Gates spend on charity? There are many detractors of Gates and his empire. According to David Shenk, the U.S. Justice Department held federal hearings in 1998 over the question of whether Microsoft (Gates' company) "engaged in anticompetitive tactics to establish what amounts to a monopoly over various sectors of the software industry" (http://davidshenk.com/webimages/THENEWREPUBLIC.PDF, 1998).
One last criticism, which directly ties into our fear of clones. Dr. Sagman said "biology as a system is really not that different from other systems of information." That would imply, for example, that the brain is not that different from a computer. And it is no coincidence that Bill Gates has been quoted as saying "I don't think there's anything particularly unique about human intelligence." I asked Dr. Sagman after class what he would say to a humanist who is afraid that we will completely explain away what it is to be human. He said that he could not address consciousness - it was far too complicated and not part of his field.
# posted by tetrahydra @ 3:20 PM 
