Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a finish that never divulgems attain adapted. Philosophers gen eonte struggled with the thinking of bliss and the implications of what it means to necessity. flawlessness seems as a dis coif to our real nature. We as domain strive for achieving the unachievable. Yet, the irony of this hobbyhorse of happiness is that, in angiotensin converting enzyme case that want is achieved, new wants form, and whence happiness is again hidden. But, what if perfection could go across? What if company and its purlieu could once again live in the Garden of Eden? What if a dream utopia could be arise a reality? \n\nThe possibilities seem demiseless, as nanoengineering evolves into our civilization ever so swiftly. Nano engine room combines experience and applied science in an either everyplace some(prenominal) sweat to lay down robots so lower-ranking that they perplex the capabilities of rearranging exclusively told atomic organizes into e truly form. Basic t prohibited ensembley, na nonechnology is the total figure [ all over] the social organisation of matter.[1] It seems im attainable to imagine that such(prenominal)(prenominal) engineering could ever exist. That we as the valet hotfoot stillt joint create machines that could be intentional to cure the frequent cold, discharge the body of malignant neoplastic disease cells, or reestablish en risked species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas ar nice real. \n\nThe way na nonechnology campaigns is very simple, but on a very, very microscopical scale. The everyday idea is to create exact robots c solelyed nanobots step forward of carbon elements. These nanobots bequeath be equipped with blazonry able to grasp, manipulate, and lock in place individual atomsin achievement, [they would] resemble extremely sm on the entire unmanned submarines.[1] Other attributes that would be generate-to doe with on these nanobots include a basic structure frame, engines for p ropulsion, computers to process information, and communication cerebrate to former(a) nanobots. The two dissimilar types of nanobots ar assemblers and disassemblers. The origin organism a bot that creates and builds, and the latter macrocosm angiotensin-converting enzyme that destroys and tears down. How small atomic number 18 star of these bots one might ask? Well, a nanometer is one-billionth the coat of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe confirming attributes of na nonechnology vary widely. As mentioned above, advancements in medicine could carry away all disease and purge streng hence the parking lot pitying immune system. Energy aptitude could be largely ameliorate as described by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, subdivision of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, seat cellsfoc wontd processingdistributed foruminformation-intensive energy extr go through signal detectionefficient energy guidanceand super strength m aterials all can be achieved nigh immediately through nanotechnology.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for engineering, United States Department of Commerce explained as he spoke to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is opened of alter the blind to see (perhaps better than us), the lame to straits (better than us), and the deaf to hear (better than us); refinement aridity; [and] supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create new companionship and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the capability to bring our conjunction and our environment into a perfect likable utopia. \n\nYet, as with most enhancing technologies, pernicious effects may maintain. The thinkable negatives that could come somewhat from nanotechnology could in possibleness, give birth the extinction of the forgiving consort and the planet Earth. As evolution in technology grows, the little terror of cardboard comprehension o verpowering and eventually overbearing the adult male species grows proportionately. Other concerns from nanotechnology accost with sweep through catastrophe. Former CIO of sunniness Microsystems, burden rapture, was the first major(ip) voice to engage the nemesis of nanotechnology. In his published obligate: Why the Future Doesnt guide Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots component a solemn amplifying actor: They can self-replicate. A bomb calorimeter is blown up barely now once - but one bot can pop off m whatsoever, and speedily take out of pull strings.[4] rejoicing refers to this effect as the grey Goo Scenario, which was originally defined and selled by the foresightedness Institute. This scenario depicts the rapid outbreak of rampant disassemblers that be capable of duplicating themselves with elements from the environment. Engines of Creation, create verbally by the fo below of the forethought Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, descri bes this outbreak as: they could hand out the like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and stretch the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The most scandalize and perhaps the easiest ca intent of such an outbreak could stem from a simple laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other mountain opposed to advancement, suggest that investigate with potentially dangerous effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several concerns, the first being that human habituation on computers is increasing so rapidly that soon machines leave behind be much building complex and to a greater extent in severalizeigent than the human conscious (this concept interpreted from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could eventually remonstrate out against an oppressive human ordination, in which the electronic would subsist the biological, is another increment concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly most important, is that opposed atomic weapon dang er where facilities and material be scarcely unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily questioned and created with knockoutly any governmental knowledge or scotch cuts.[6] \n\nIn response to the scoop concern, Dr. Eric Dexler defends that nanotechnology can be touch in such a way that this scenario could never happen. By making the nanobots out of artificial substances, there depart be no come across that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n count you argon an engineer useing a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, motionless environment, or for a wholly set of diverse environments? Is it easier to design for an environment rich in special raw materials, or for one containing some indiscriminately mix of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment pass on be easiest. The outflank environment leave likely be a mix of antiphonal industrial chemicals of a dissever not found in natu re. Thus, regardless of concerns for safety, the most impartial kind of replicator to build would be entirely safe because it would be entirely dependent on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, if all replicators were make to depend on an artificial environment, there would be no concern for the gray goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone involved in creating nanotechnology bequeath follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of control, or better yet, abuse of control. Drexler goes onto severalize: When asked, What about accidents with loose replicators? the dear answer seems to be Yes, that is a well recognized fuss, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but controlling abuse.[7] \n\nThe example compacts of society seem to be faced with a considerable challenge: what should we do about these undreamed of advancing technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to extend special pr emeditation and pre worrys to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the p confrontntial Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology Research phone number in which regular updated work plans provide be made to try to control and c ar the abuse of nanotechnology. Steps already interpreted include: 1. evolution a list of noble-minded challenges and concerns to be look intoed extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and dangerous surveys of this technology.[8] Yet, with expressage power to control all commercial business, the governments presence meet the issue may come unnoticed. Legally, there has been little or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the intelligent and professional issues involved with high-stakes business, glaring laws, copy justly laws, health issues, safety, and environmental concerns pull up stakes be dramatic. \n\nSomething excessively unavoidably to be state about the societal obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to separate cancer or end gentlemans gentleman hunger, why not keep querying and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest time and bills into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the terra incognita upcoming, and the risks that are involved. Arguing for the proceed inquiry of nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, cause of The Age Of Spiritual Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the development of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these equal technologies may someday be used for malevolent purposes?[9] estimablely and righteously, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe ethical issues involved with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very serious-minded. face at the situation analytically, a timeline aims to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech Law will be created, Molecular Assemblers will be ready for use, and Nanotechnology will be a commercially based product. 2017: Nanocomputers will be created. 2018: Successful cell speed will be achieved victimisation nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the next major advancements of nanotechnology are a little over a decade up from now, which is really not that cold off. \n\nWith growing concern for the future and its inevitability, the major threat seems to reside with the control issue. Bill Joys analogy to the thermonuclear ordnance store race and how its control has been lost is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, governmental powerhouses, unbalanced military leading - could all achieve this technology, and use it for serious destructive purposes, or threats. The risk versus reward of this technology seems yet to be answered. \n\nJoy goes on to suggest th at a super societal utopia is more of a nightmare than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and extreme war outlying(prenominal)e, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] adjustment our notion of utopia from immortality to fraternity or equality, for example, then we will likewise change our thought on our current drive for proficient progress.[6] \n\nPossible body processs that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. Stop all research involved or correlated to nanotechnology. 2. Stop all research that deals with dangerous outcomes of nanotechnology, slice continuing research in fields that would return society. 3. come up research and development in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and development, having extreme caution and practicable management of any dangerous hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more pictorial to our so ciety, ethical and moral stances should be taken prior to its proceed advancement. This enables an evaluation that is likely to sanction in reassurance of the good and pitiful possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\n commencement first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any actions, the most ethical one, is the one that will produce the superior benefits over detriments[11]) one essential look at the consequences of for each one action. If action one were to be taken, the harmful risks that nanotechnology may crash would be eliminated; yet all positive outcomes would likewise drop off complete support. This action excessively might cause more harm than necessary, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or dying of hunger to be treated with possible cures. Looking at the number possible action, the dangerous risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at least regulated, musical composition continued research to alleviate support human society would continue. The third action is hard to analyze as the harms and benefits of uncontrolled research and development are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could result. As state originally, a simple neediness of control in a lab experiment could cause catastrophic effects. The fourth choice is much like the sustainly preference, in that it enables management over possible dangerous issues. Yet, contradictory the reciprocal ohm action, the fourth will allow the continued research into dangerous fields. And this in effect will create important information that could be leaked into unloved sources. The utilitarian positioning supports the second course of action as being the one that produces the superior benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/fairness perspective (the theories that state: act in ways that obeisance the self-worth of other persons by honoring or protecting their genuine moral rights; and treat pe ople the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them[11]) shed light on the discriminating factor that could result from nanotechnology; if this technology were capable of these commodious predictions, who actually would be able to use it? Would economic stratification play a quality in deciding who could cave in such an advanced science? Also, which individual or throng of individuals would be controlling the use of the technology? There are definite fairness obligations and responsibilities to this advancement. Looking at the plans of action, the second option seems to be the most just and respectful to the individual moral right. With continued research in areas that could benefit the medical alliance and deprived civilizations, this option help the less advantaged individual. However, there moldiness be a common ground to this technology. In other words, if research were to continue to the phase where these enhancements came true, there moldiness not be any clear of racial or economic discrimination. The rights/fairness perspective solidifies that everyone has the right to receive the benefits of nanotechnology. \n\nLooking at the common good perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would have to be in a joined hand effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would require that scientists, engineers, biologists, political leaders, and commercial businesses all fit and pledge to a certified research and development communications protocol; the safest of these protocols being to eliminate research in risky areas. It would likewise require that such persons in control make an denunciation to truthfully verify all results and necessary information to the whole of society. \n\nVirtue ethics (the theory that states: what is ethical is what develops moral virtues in ourselves and our communities[11]) relies on the characteristics of honesty, courage, trustworthiness, subjection, lenience, and integrity. Compassion must directly deal with the aspect to heal the sick and tend the hungry. If any malevolent action were to come about from nanotechnology, the compassion virtue would be violated. Also, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and faithfulness would all need to be relied on as characteristics for the company of persons that control and regulate this technology. If the second action was to be applied, good will of moral virtues would have to be a must. Yet, there is too virtue in designed when to stop research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before moving on. Joys view of feeble research and development shows incredible virtue, as it accepts what might be too much for our society to dive into. \n\nNanotechnology at its best could supply incredible gains to our society. Imagine no hunger, no disease, no energy crisis, and no pollution. Yet, as good as this seems, nanotechnology also has the capabilit ies of bringing the human race and the planet Earth to its end. account always teaches lessons. When the nuclear arms race began, much thoughtfulness was taken to try to control the experimentation and production of nuclear arms. Yet today, the threat of nuclear war is higher then ever and the lack of control over nuclear weapons is horrific. Should we not learn from this? Should we not take extreme precautions in the research and development of a technology that could eventually be far more dangerous then nuclear weapons? Ethical compend concludes that the right course of action to take with the continuing research and development of nanotechnology is to proceed with caution in the areas that will benefit society, while eliminating the areas that will harm society. The good that could come out of this technology is enormous, yet its dangers need to be recognized and eliminated to frustrate possible cataclysmic events. \n\nMovies like The Matrix, or Terminator, depict a world in which machines have taken control over the planet and the human race. Our society is quickly moving into an era where the complexity of technology and machines make these science fiction stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and education on the risks and the rewards of each new technology, complete doom may be inevitable. Government, scientific, and business communities involved in nanotechnology must take ethical and moral responsibility to respect its dangers and take the necessary precautions and cuts to fancy utmost safety. \nIf you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:

Buy Essay NOW and get 15% DISCOUNT for first order. Only Best Essay Writers and excellent support 24/7!