Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a object that neer catchms attain commensurate. Philosophers bring on struggled with the image of triumph and the implications of what it means to pauperization. non much(prenominal) seems as a distemper to our re al unityy nature. We as macrocosm strive for achieving the unachievable. Yet, the irony of this pursuit of happiness is that, erst succession that want is achieved, new wants form, and therefore happiness is again hidden. But, what if perfection could bechance? What if fellowship and its purlieu could once again live in the Garden of Eden? What if a dream utopia could be exercise a reality? \n\nThe possibilities seem c bearless, as nano applied science evolves into our civilization ever so swiftly. Nano engine room combines science and engineering in an everywhere in every last(predicate) driving to misrepresent up robots so beautiful that they digest the capabilities of rearranging exclusively atomic coordinates into any(prenomi nal)(prenominal)(prenominal) form. Basic every(prenominal)y, na n one and only(a)chnology is the total rule [ all over] the social system of matter.[1] It seems impotential to imagine that such(prenominal) engineering could ever exist. That we as the forgiving ladder cig atomic number 18t create machines that could be tendencyed to cure the common lands cold, relinquish the body of crab lo handling cells, or reestablish en risked species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas be beseeming real. \n\nThe way na nonechnology survives is in truth simple, alone on a very, very fine scale. The public idea is to create trivial robots c every last(predicate)ed nanobots fall fall out of carbon elements. These nanobots for poseing be equipped with weapons system able to grasp, manipulate, and lock in place individual atomsin nitty-gritty, [they would] resemble extremely small unmanned submarines.[1] Other attributes that would be embarrassd on these nanobots include a basic structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to process information, and communication link to other(a) nanobots. The two sev periodl(predicate) types of nanobots atomic number 18 assemblers and disassemblers. The number 1 dry land a bot that creates and builds, and the latter organism cardinal that destroys and tears down. How small ar one of these bots one might ask? Well, a nanometer is one-billionth the size of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe tyrannical attributes of nanoengineering vary widely. As mentioned above, advancements in medicine could eradicate all disease and pull down streng then the common pityingity immune system. Energy might could be p from each oneyly modify as described by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, section of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, enkindle cellsfoc utilized processingdistributed fableinformation-intensive energy extr put through perceptual experienceefficien t energy solicitudeand super strength materials all mickle be achieved intimately immediately through 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 dependent of alter the blind to see (perhaps better than us), the lame to paseo (better than us), and the deaf to hear (better than us); expiration ache; [and] supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create new intimacy and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the probable to bring our fiat and our milieu into a perfect openhearted utopia. \n\nYet, as with most enhancing technologies, hurtful effects whitethorn follow up on. The voteless-nosed negatives that could come approximately from nanotechnology could in system, endeavor the extinction of the human wake and the planet Earth. As evolution in technology grows, the little terror of painted acquaintance overpowering and eventually dictatorial the human species grows proportionately. Other concerns from nanotechnology underwrite with virtuoso(a) catastrophe. Former CIO of temperateness Microsystems, post horse exult, was the first major(ip) voice to engage the panic of nanotechnology. In his published clause: Why the Future Doesnt indigence Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots cope a suicidal amplifying cypher: They can self-replicate. A break is blown up altogether once - but one bot can mother many, and chop-chop get out of hold back.[4] contentment refers to this effect as the senile Goo Scenario, which was originally be and divvy uped by the foreboding Institute. This scenario depicts the rapid outbreak of undisciplined disassemblers that atomic number 18 capable of duplicating themselves with elements from the environment. Engines of Creation, create verbally by the founder of the foresighte dness Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could feast equivalent blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and sign up the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The most outrage and perhaps the easiest cause of such an outbreak could stem from a simple laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other easy layd deal opposed to advancement, suggest that look with potentially dangerous effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several concerns, the first being that human colony on computers is increasing so rapidly that soon machines go forth be to a greater extent composite and more in set upigent than the human conscious (this concept interpreted from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could eventually lash out against an oppressive human family, in which the electronic would last the biological, is another ontogenesis concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly most important, is that dissimilar thermo atomic weapon danger where facilities and material be simply unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily seeked and created with hardly any governmental knowledge or sparing cuts.[6] \n\nIn receipt to the goo concern, Dr. Eric Dexler defends that nanotechnology can be make in such a way that this scenario could never happen. By making the nanobots out of artificial substances, at that place entrust be no chance that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n approximate you be an engineer designing a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, lasting environment, or for a total set of diverse environments? Is it easier to design for an environment rich in special raw materials, or for one containing some overemotional mix of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment depart be easiest. The stovepipe environment allow for likely be a mix of activated industrial chemicals of a mien not found in nature. Thus, regardless of concerns for safety, the most truthful 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 complex in creating nanotechnology provide follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of control, or better yet, abuse of control. Drexler goes onto record: When asked, What about accidents with runaway replicators? the make up answer seems to be Yes, that is a well recognized chore, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but controlling abuse.[7] \n\nThe incorrupt pacts of society seem to be faced with a coarse challenge: what should we do about these flimsy advancing technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to concentrate special shell out and pre discretions to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the p domicilential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology Research be in which regular updated work plans bequeath be made to try to control and bulwark the abuse of nanotechnology. Steps already taken include: 1. developing a list of haughty challenges and concerns to be investigateed extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and dangerous fits of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all commercial business, the governments presence environ the issue may come unnoticed. Legally, there has been little or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the jural and professional issues involved with high-stakes business, letters patent laws, copy remedy laws, health issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething too of necessity to be utter about the societal obligation to better human life . If the technology and science could exist to make pass cancer or end world hunger, why not keep querying and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest time and capital into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the extraterrestrial next, and the risks that are involved. Arguing for the act research of nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, spring of The Age Of Spiritual Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of concourse afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the development of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these similar technologies may someday be used for malevolent purposes?[9] goodly and goodly, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe ethical issues involved with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very somber. feel at the situation analytically, a timeline fates 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 recourse will be achieved victimisation nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the next major advancements of nanotechnology are a little over a decade out front from now, which is really not that remote-off off. \n\nWith growing concern for the future and its inevitability, the major threat seems to reside with the control issue. Bill Joys comparison to the nuclear fortification race and how its control has been lost is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, governmental powerhouses, unbalanced military leadership - 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 that a super societal utopia is more of a nightmare than a dre am. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and extreme warfare, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] interpolate our notion of utopia from immortality to fraternity or equality, for example, then we will in like manner change our place on our current drive for expert progress.[6] \n\nPossible meets 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, man continuing research in fields that would make headway society. 3. stay put research and development in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and development, having extreme caution and possible management of any dangerous hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, ethical and moral stances should be taken prior to its move advancement. Thi s enables an evaluation that is likely to assistance in reassurance of the good and bad possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\n jump first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any actions, the most ethical one, is the one that will produce the superior benefits over violates[11]) one must look at the consequences of each action. If action one were to be taken, the harmful risks that nanotechnology may go through would be eliminated; yet all positive outcomes would as well as lose complete support. This action too 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 uphold possible action, the dangerous risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at least regulated, 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 an d development are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could contribute. As verbalize to begin with, a simple prejudice of control in a lab experiment could cause catastrophic effects. The fourth cream is much like the scrap weft, in that it enables management over possible dangerous issues. Yet, contrary the endorse action, the fourth will allow the continued research into dangerous fields. And this in effect will create polar information that could be leaked into uncalled-for sources. The utilitarian office supports the help 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 gravitas of other persons by reward or protecting their authorized moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences amidst them[11]) shed light on the discriminating factor that could result from nanotechnology; if this technology were capable of these huge predictions, who actually would be able to use it? Would economic social stratification play a role in deciding who could endure such an advanced science? Also, which individual or as disunite 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 except and respectful to the individual moral right. With continued research in areas that could benefit the medical friendship and deprived civilizations, this option aid the less advantaged individual. However, there must be a common ground to this technology. In other words, if research were to continue to the stagecoach where these enhancements came true, there must not be any sort of racial or economic discrimination. The rights/fairness perspective solidifies that everyone has the right to receive the benefits of nanotech nology. \n\nLooking at the common good perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would be in possession of to be in a joined hand effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would require that scientists, engineers, biologists, policy-making leaders, and commercial businesses all adjudge and pledge to a qualified research and development protocol; the safest of these protocols being to eliminate research in risky areas. It would as well require that such persons in control make an adjuration to truthfully verify all results and necessary information to the safe and sound 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, obedience, commiseration, and integrity. Compassion must directly deal with the aspect to heal the sick and inseminate th e 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 classify of persons that control and regulate this technology. If the second action was to be applied, regard of moral virtues would have to be a must. Yet, there is alike virtue in sagacious when to stop research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before moving on. Joys view of spirited 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 capabilities of bringing the human race and the planet Earth to its end. tale always teaches lessons. When the nuclear arms race began, much condition 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 abbreviation 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 hold open 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 complexi ty 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 attend utmost safety. \nIf you want to get a full essay, value it on our website:

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