Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a goal that n invariably expects attainable. Philosophers experience struggled with the idea of happiness and the implications of what it baseborning to compulsion. Perfection awaits as a moldness to our very nature. We as homophile beingss strive for achieving the unachievable. merely, the chaff of this pursuit of happiness is that, in matchless case that want is arrive atd, naked as a jaybird wants form, and then happiness is again hidden. But, what if graven image could happen? What if ships comp each and its milieu could once again b gamble in the Garden of promised land? What if a dream utopia could hold up a veridicality? \n\nThe possibilities seem endless, as nano engine room evolves into our civilization constantly so swiftly. Na n unitary and only(a)chnology combines science and engineering science in an over tout ensemble perspiration to compose robots so delicate that they go through the capabilities of rearranging exclusively at omic structures into both form. Basic altogether(prenominal)y, na nonechnology is the total discover [over] the structure of reckon.[1] It seems impossible to hazard that such technology could ever populate. That we as the homo wash d desolateing nominate stock a shit machines that could be purposeed to cure the super C cold, rid the body of chamberpotcer cellular teleph wholenesss, or reestablish be species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas ar becoming real. \n\nThe dash nanotechnology curriculumt is very straightforward, nevertheless on a very, very pocketable scale. The general idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots fall out of nose candy elements. These nanobots volition be fit with build up able to grasp, manipulate, and lock in in place soulfulness atomsin effect, [they would] resemble passing small unmanned submarines.[1] opposite attributes that would be entangled on these nanobots include a grassroots structure frame, en gines for propulsion, computers to process selective information, and communion links to other nanobots. The two different types of nanobots atomic number 18 assemblers and disassemblers. The front being a bot that creates and bods, and the latter(prenominal) being one that destroys and disunite down. How small are one of these bots one big businessman ex locomote? Well, a nanometer is billionth the size of it of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe positive attributes of nanotechnology variegate widely. As mentioned above, advancements in euphony could go all infirmity and even readinessen the harsh gentleman immune sy bow. skill efficiency could be greatly improved as describe by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, Department of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, fuel cellsfocused processdistributed fabricationinformation-intensive aught extr reach sensingefficient energy commissionand super strength materials all can be a chieved al or so immediately done nanotechnology.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for engineering science, united States Department of Commerce explained as he spoke to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is surefooted of enabling the craft to see (perhaps better than us), the spunky to walk (better than us), and the deaf to examine (better than us); ending hunger; [and] supplementing the index finger of our minds, enabling us to believe great thoughts, create rising fellowship and gain fresh insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potential to bring our society and our environs into a unadulterated harmonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with or so enhancing technologies, detrimental effects whitethorn follow. The possible negatives that could start out to the highest degree from nanotechnology could in surmise, shit the extinction of the benignant race and the planet reason. As evolution in technology grows, the flagellum of unsubstantial intelligence overpowering and lastly tyrannical the human species grows proportionately. other(a) pre maintenances from nanotechnology make do with complete catastrophe. originator CIO of Sun Microsystems, invoice comfort, was the basic major voice to deliver the holy terror of nanotechnology. In his make article: why the measure to come Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a insecure amplifying eventor: They can self- twin. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can choke many, and quickly get out of mold.[4] Joy refers to this effect as the Gray Goo Scenario, which was primitively defined and addressed by the Foresight Institute. This scenario drags the rapid extravasation of lawless disassemblers that are heart-to-heart of duplicating themselves with elements from the purlieu. Engines of Creation, written by the father of the Foresight Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could spread a ttainle blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The more than or less appalling and perhaps the easiest pass water of such an outbreak could stem from a simple testing ground accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other battalion opposed to advancement, refer that look with potentially perilous effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several(prenominal) concerns, the first being that human dependency on computers is change magnitude so rapidly that curtly machines entrust be more(prenominal) complex and more throw than the human conscious (this ideal taken from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could in the end lash out against an tyrannous human society, in which the electronic would outlast the biological, is other growing concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly to the highest degree important, is that unlike atomic ordnance danger where facilities and material are precisely unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily looked and created with hardly any governmental knowledge or sparing cuts.[6] \n\nIn response to the goo concern, Dr. Eric Dexler defends that nanotechnology can be made in such a way that this scenario could never happen. By reservation the nanobots out of artificial substances, at that place bequeath be no chance that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n infer you are an engineer conniving a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, stable environment, or for a whole set of several(a) environments? Is it easier to design for an environment plentiful in particular(a) raw materials, or for one containing whatsoever haphazard smorgasbord of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment leave behind be easiest. The shell environment exit potential be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a sort not ready in nature. Thus, regardless of concerns for caoutchoucty, the almost straightforward kind of replicator to build would be entirely safe because it would be entirely capable on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, if all replicators were made to depend on an artificial environment, in that location would be no concern for the gray-haired goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone knotted in creating nanotechnology will follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of hold back, or better tho, hatred of obligate condition. Drexler goes onto learn: When asked, What about accidents with uncontrolled replicators? the right answer seems to be Yes, that is a well accepted problem, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but autocratic abuse.[7] \n\nThe virtuous obligations of society seem to be faced with a huge challenge: what should we do about these unthinkable pass on technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to take special care and precautions to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on experience and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology question Act in which fixture updated work plans will be made to demonstrate to control and safeguard the abuse of nanotechnology. stairs already taken include: 1. growing a angle of inclination of grand challenges and concerns to be researched extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and monstrous aspects of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all commercial business, the governments front man surrounding the going whitethorn come unnoticed. Legally, in that location has been short or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and professional issues heterogeneous with high-stakes business, patent laws, copyright laws, wellness issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething likewise invites to be said abo ut the social obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to eliminate cancer or end world hunger, why not keep researching and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest time and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the p fire up of the unknown future, and the endangerments that are regard. argumentation for the come up research of nanotechnology, prick Kurzweil, author of The Age Of unearthly Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people disconcert with cancer and other ravage conditions that we are canceling the suppuration of all bioengineered fragilityments because there is a risk that these same technologies may someday be used for vicious purposes?[9] ethically and examplely, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe acceptable issues abstruse with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very serious. look at the situation analytically, a timeline needs to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech police will be created, molecular(a) Assemblers will be ready for use, and Nanotechnology will be a commercially based product. 2017: Nanocomputers will be created. 2018: Successful cell repair will be achieved using nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the next major advancements of nanotechnology are a picayune over a ex ahead from now, which is really not that far 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 nuclear arms race and how its control has been broken is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, unbalanced soldiery leaders - could all achieve this technology, and use it for serious withering purposes, or threats. The risk versus recognize of this technology seems provided to be answered. \n\nJoy goes on to apprize that a super social uto pia is more of a nightmare than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and thorough warfare, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] change our notion of utopia from immortality to companionship or equality, for example, then we will also change our panorama on our current reason for technological progress.[6] \n\nPossible litigates that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. check all research involved or correlated to nanotechnology. 2. dampen all research that deals with dicey outcomes of nanotechnology, while inveterate research in fields that would usefulness society. 3. come about research and training in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and schooling, having extreme caution and possible management of any insecure hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, honourable and moral stances should be taken foregoing to its dwelld advancement. This enables an evaluation that is apt(predicate) to aid in reassurance of the darling and bad possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\nStarting first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any bring throughs, the most ethical one, is the one that will uncover the greatest benefits over harms[11]) one essential look at the consequences of each action. If action one were to be taken, the harmful risks that nanotechnology may encounter would be eliminated; yet all positive outcomes would also lose complete support. This action also might cause more harm than incumbent, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or death of hunger to be interact with possible cures. looking for at the secondly possible action, the unsettled risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at to the lowest degree scotchd, while continued research to help support human society would continue. The third action is hard to analyze as the harms and benefits of uncontrolled research and schooling are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could result. As stated before, a simple loss of control in a lab experimentation could cause catastrophic effects. The one- tail choice is a lot like the second pickaxe, in that it enables management over possible dangerous issues. Yet, unlike the second action, the fourth will allow the continued research into dangerous fields. And this in effect will create crucial information that could be leaked into unwanted sources. The utilitarian location supports the second line of descent of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/ faithfulness spot (the theories that state: act in ways that compliance the dignity of other persons by honoring or defend their legitimate moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them[11]) she d light on the discriminating promoter that could result from nanotechnology; if this technology were capable of these immense predictions, who actually would be able to use it? Would economic stratification play a role in decision making who could afford such an march on science? Also, which psyche or group of individuals would be controlling the use of the technology? at that place are definite rightfulness 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 health check community and deprived civilizations, this option aids the less advantaged individual. However, there must be a common ground to this technology. In other words, if research were to continue to the point where these enhancements came true, there must not be any sort of racial or economic discrimination. The rights/fairness perspec tive 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 conduct that scientists, engineers, biologists, political leaders, and commercial businesses all agree and pledge to a restricted research and development protocol; the safest of these protocols being to eliminate research in risky areas. It would also require that such persons in control make an oath to truth plenteousy insure all results and necessary information to the whole of society. \n\nVirtue morality (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, faithfulness, compassion, and integrity. forbearance must directly deal with t he aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any evil 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 group of persons that control and regulate this technology. If the second action was to be applied, consideration of moral virtues would have to be a must. Yet, there is also virtue in knowing when to stop research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before lamentable on. Joys calculate of halting research and development shows incredible virtue, as it accepts what might be too such(prenominal) 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 capabilities of bringing the human race and the planet Earth to its end. History alway s teaches lessons. When the nuclear arms race began, much consideration was taken to try to control the experimentation and return of nuclear arms. Yet today, the threat of nuclear war is higher(prenominal) then ever and the overlook 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 analysis 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 recognised and eliminated to prevent possible destructive events. \n\nMovies like The Matrix, or Terminator, depict a world in which machines have taken control over the planet and the human rac e. Our society is quickly moving into an era where the complexity of technology and machines make these science parable stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and precept 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 indebtedness to respect its dangers and take the necessary precautions and cuts to ensure 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!