70% of people think nanotechnology is immoral

B

bry789123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
886
http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/02/21/nanotechnology-is-morally-unacceptable/?mod=googlenews_wsj

If you don?t have a super-fast, super-small computer in a few years, blame the moral majority. It turns out that most Americans find nanotechnology, the scientific field most likely to produce such a breakthrough, morally unacceptable.

That?s according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin who are studying people?s attitudes towards nanotechnology, an emerging scientific field that involves manipulating molecules and atoms. They found that just 29.5% of the 1,000-plus Americans surveyed said they thought nanotechnology research was morally acceptable.

Our first reaction was that 70% of people must not know what nanotechnology is ? President Bush, who has openly relied on moral views to shape his scientific agenda, has made nanotechnology one of his scientific priorities, after all. And Dietram Scheufele, the U of W professor who led the survey, agrees to a point. People?s understanding of what nanotechnology is hasn?t advanced much over the last few years, he tells the Business Technology Blog. ?So people rely on mental shortcuts,? lumping nanotechnology in with other new technologies like stem cell research and genetically modified foods, he tells us. The same people who object to those fields ? often on religious reasons ? object to nanotechnology. (Incidentally, the heathen Europeans are just fine with nanotechnology.)

What?s noteworthy, Schuefele tells us, is that the objections are contained to the field itself, not the breakthroughs it could lead to. Overwhelming majorities across religious backgrounds supported the benefits of nanotechnology, anything from computers the size of a pin to stain-resistant pants. ?Most people have very little objection to building a better computer,? Schuefele says. They?d just prefer a different way to get there.
Click to expand...

WTF? Y?
 
90% of people who answer surveys don't know what the hell they're talking about.

In before "XX% of statistics are made up on the spot."
 
People who answer these surveys are usually given a question. If they have no idea, they will just go with the most obvious answer.

Is nanotech immoral? Yes!

I can do psychology me! :D












Oh yeah and there's the fact that a whole 61% of statistics are made up on the spot. :p
 
Last edited:
The thing is, once a technology is developed, it's just a matter of time until it lands in the wrong hands. And with technology of this scale it's a bloody serious trouble.
Imagine.. well imagine some nanobots entered your bloodstream, got into your brain and fiddled with your receptors in such a way that you just do what someone wants you to do. And that's not the worst part of it. You also feel no difference to your "normal" behaviour, so that you feel like it's what you actually wanted to do your-normal-self.
Ofcourse it's not that simple, there will be nanobot police and such, but you can see how the average thing goes with viruses, both biological and computer ones. The latter would be a better match, cause biological ones only render you ill and useless.
And that's not even the worst scenario. There's been some books on the matter, if you're interested.

edit:
Oh and the other case would be us developing a benevolent self-improving AI which would feed us with all the secrets of the universe or whatever in a couple of years. Place your bets.
 
Last edited:
niccce said:
The thing is, once a technology is developed, it's just a matter of time until it lands in the wrong hands. And with technology of this scale it's a bloody serious trouble.
Imagine.. well imagine some nanobots entered your bloodstream, got into your brain and fiddled with your receptors in such a way that you just do what someone wants you to do. And that's not the worst part of it. You also feel no difference to your "normal" behaviour, so that you feel like it's what you actually wanted to do your-normal-self.
Ofcourse it's not that simple, there will be nanobot police and such, but you can see how the average thing goes with viruses, both biological and computer ones. The latter would be a better match, cause biological ones only render you ill and useless.
And that's not even the worst scenario. There's been some books on the matter, if you're interested.

edit:
Oh and the other case would be us developing a benevolent self-improving AI which would feed us with all the secrets of the universe or whatever in a couple of years. Place your bets.
Click to expand...

Michael Chrichton's "Prey" anyone???

Leaving jokes aside, it's not that I find nanotechnology immoral but I wouldn't feel too well knowing that there are machines fiddling with my organism. I would not like to have such things into me. :?
 
It's times like this that I really empathize with the mad scientist. Sometimes the mob with the torches and pitchforks are the bad guys. This is one of those times.
 
300% of BlaRo thinks that the masses are idiots.
 
History repeats itself. This is such a repeat of every yappingly shrill anti-progress anything anytime anywhere. Meh.
 
thedguy said:
Cue the Penn & Teller video of them getting people to ban dihydrogen-oxygen/water
Click to expand...

I fucking love P&T.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw[/YOUTUBE]
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw[/youtube]
Click to expand...
Ha! Proof that environmentalists are all dumb sheep! As if we needed proof...

Oh, and, "OK, mostly left" :lol:
 
niccce said:
The thing is, once a technology is developed, it's just a matter of time until it lands in the wrong hands. And with technology of this scale it's a bloody serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Like lasers? Oh, absolutely.

Anyway I'm not worried for the future. Like industrial Britain illustrated, you can't stop progress even if you ARE the majority. Worst case scenario, America's gonna fall behind Europe in more than just internets for the dollar. :p
 
As usual, the technology is neutral. It's the use of it that is either good or bad.
 
epp_b said:
As usual, the technology is neutral. It's the use of it that is either good or bad.
Click to expand...

Sure, neutral technologies like guns and bombs can be used for good and bad! :p

If anyone they interviewed new a damn thing about nanotechnology, I think that the results of this survey would've been quite different.
 
I wonder if they included anyone from the Foundation For Law And Government in this...

That video is pure awesomeness. I can't believe some people can be that dense. :lol:

Seriously...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top