The Luddites prepare to strike again.
posted on 12/22/2003 9:37:52 PM PST
posted on 12/22/2003 9:38:46 PM PST
(Xin loi min oi)
You could never be hungry, never be sick, have all the energy you need, all the water, all the food and no diseases.
1) The planet or our species would be destroyed within a couple of generations.
2) We already got all that, it's called death.
How old do you have to be before you stop "dreaming" you can make the finite infinite?
posted on 12/22/2003 9:43:23 PM PST
To: neverdem; RadioAstronomer; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
posted on 12/22/2003 9:45:49 PM PST
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
In an editorial in the September 2003 issue of smalltimes magazine, Greenpeace UKs chief scientist Douglas Parr writes: "Greenpeace has not called for a ban on nanoparticles, but a moratorium until the hazards are characterized and understood."
An appropriate name for a magazine produced by such small thinkers.
This sounds like great technology for entirely new kinds of weapons. What are the possibilities?
posted on 12/22/2003 11:20:42 PM PST
posted on 12/23/2003 4:26:02 AM PST
(Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
Here is the gist of the author's argument:
As for unintended consequences, someday something will go wrong with nanotechnology, as it has with electricity, cars, and computers. But we shouldnt deny ourselves the benefits of a new technology just because we cannot foresee every consequence. We should proceed by trial and error and ameliorate problems as they arise.
Armageddon may indeed be postponed indefinitely, but only if, with due caution, we leave human genius free to harvest the fruits of technological progress.
It's a stupid and irresponsible argument founded in technological hubris bordering on religious faith. He pretends that there is no consequence so serious that we can't invent a fix in time. There are any number of historic die-offs that attest to the fact that nature can indeed serve up consequences from which its victims do not recover.
Each invention carries risks, some of which are quite apparently lower than others. Insurance can do a dandy job of assessing whether a product is worth the attendant risks. Validation of the accuracy of product claims and risk assessments are necessarily the province of a third party. Patent applied for. :-) All we really need is tort reform.
posted on 12/23/2003 9:45:02 AM PST
(There are people in power who are truly stupid.)
The last 100 years was spent figuring out the potential applications of electronics. The next 100 years will be spent discovering the latent potential of nanotech
posted on 12/24/2003 4:49:48 AM PST
(That which does not kill me, had better run away real fast)
In his 1998 book The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?, science fiction writer and futurist David Brin suggests another way to handle intrusive surveillance: make sure the watchers are watched.
This is a pretty good book. I'd give it a good recommend.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson