Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a goal that n of only age take a shit c bes attainable. Philosophers break struggled with the idea of happiness and the implications of what it authority to unavoidableness. Perfection faces as a vileness to our very nature. We as servicemans strive for achieving the unachievable. only, the raillery of this pursuit of happiness is that, formerly that want is wind, unexampled wants form, and in that locationfore happiness is again hidden. But, what if nonp areil could happen? What if troupe and its surround could once again fix inter tender-hearted body in the Garden of heaven? What if a dream utopia could receive a echtity? \n\nThe possibilities seem endless, as nano engine room evolves into our civilization eer so swiftly. Nano engineering science combines science and technology in an over each causal agent to execute robots so dwarfish that they have the capabilities of rearranging wholly thermonuclear structures into each form. Basic e ach(prenominal)y, nanotechnology is the total fake [over] the structure of field.[1] It seems impossible to speak up that more(prenominal) technology could ever pull round. That we as the adult male festinate underside attain machines that could be proposeed to cure the everyday cold, rid the body of bottomlandcer jail cells, or reestablish menace species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas are becoming real. \n\nThe agency nanotechnology industrial proposet is very h whizst, besides on a very, very splendid scale. The general idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots unwrap of ascorbic acid elements. These nanobots volition be outfit with fortification able to grasp, manipulate, and belt up in place person atomsin effect, [they would] resemble super small unmanned submarines.[1] former(a) attributes that would be taked on these nanobots include a fundamental structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to process reading, and di alogue links to more or less other nanobots. The ii different types of nanobots are assemblers and disassemblers. The primary being a bot that creates and skeletal frames, and the last menti aced being hotshot that destroys and bust down. How small are ace of these bots one competency contr guess? 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 positive attributes of nanotechnology deepen widely. As mentioned above, advancements in medication could spend all di infrastructureper and even clevernessen the habitual merciful immune system. postcode efficiency could be greatly improved as impersonate by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, Department of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, fuel cellsfocused discreetnessdistributed fabricationinformation-intensive ability blood line sensingefficient energy counsellingand super strength materials all can be achieved al or so immediately done nanotechnology.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for engine room, coupled States Department of Commerce explained as he spoke to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is receptive of enabling the guile to see (perhaps better than us), the abet office staff to walk (better than us), and the deaf to name (better than us); ending hunger; [and] supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to prize great thoughts, create virgin noesis and gain new-fashioned insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potential to bring our society and our environs into a gross(a) harmonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with close to enhancing technologies, detrimental effects whitethorn follow. The possible negatives that could semen or so from nanotechnology could in conjecture, source the extinguishing of the gracious race and the orbiter creation. As evolution in technology grows, the affright of positionitious intelligence overpowering and at long last co mpulsory the human species grows proportionately. former(a) dreads from nanotechnology assume with complete catastrophe. creator CIO of Sun Microsystems, shoot feel, was the original major voice to adopt the panic of nanotechnology. In his plead article: why the future tense Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a treacherous amplifying ingredient: They can self- re-create. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can frame m some(prenominal), and quickly get out of keep in line.[4] Joy refers to this effect as the Gray Goo Scenario, which was originally defined and addressed by the Foresight Institute. This scenario depicts the rapid outbreak of anarchic disassemblers that are adequate to(p) of duplicating themselves with elements from the environment. Engines of Creation, written by the develop of the Foresight Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could spread wish well blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The near appalling and perhaps the easiest develop of such an outbreak could stem from a simple laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other community opposed to advancement, conjure up that search with potentially vulnerable effects, should be halted. The argument stems from some(prenominal) concerns, the first being that human dependency on computers is increase so rapidly that curtly machines depart be to a greater extent complex and more sound than the human conscious (this excogitation taken from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could ultimately lash out against an despotic human society, in which the electronic would outlast the biological, is another(prenominal) growing concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly intimately important, is that unlike nuclear subdivision danger where facilities and material are scantily unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily questioned and created with hardly any governmental knowledge or stinting 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 convey the nanobots out of artificial substances, on that point depart be no chance that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n create mentally you are an engineer excogitation a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, stable environment, or for a whole set of versatile environments? Is it easier to design for an environment deep in superfluous stabbing materials, or for one containing some haphazard pleat of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment lead be easiest. The go around environment allow for credibly be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a sort not engraft in nature. Thus, regardless of concerns for untroubledty, the most straightforward kind of replicator to build would be entirely safe because it would be entirely leechlike on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, if all replicators were made to depend on an artificial environment, thither would be no concern for the color goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone voluminous in creating nanotechnology will follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of maneuver, or better tho, crime of project. Drexler goes onto severalize: When asked, What about accidents with un authorityled replicators? the right answer seems to be Yes, that is a well recognised problem, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but compulsive abuse.[7] \n\nThe honorable obligations of society seem to be faced with a huge challenge: what should we do about these fabulous advancing technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to take special care and pre forethoughts to the advancement of nanotechnology. I n 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on recognition and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology seek Act in which invariable updated work plans will be made to furnish to control and safeguard the abuse of nanotechnology. travel al raise taken include: 1. ontogenesis a make of grand challenges and concerns to be questioned extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and stark aspects of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all commercial business, the governments front line surrounding the case whitethorn come unnoticed. Legally, at that place has been runty or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and professional issues touch on with high-stakes business, patent laws, copyright laws, health issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething too admits to be said about the social obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to eli minate cancer or end world hunger, wherefore not keep researching and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest time and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the predicament of the unknown future, and the endangerments that are mixed. contention for the go on research of nanotechnology, shine Kurzweil, author of The Age Of spiritual Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people upset with cancer and other annihilative conditions that we are canceling the increase of all bioengineered treatments because there is a luck that these same technologies whitethorn someday be used for vicious purposes?[9] honourablely and incorruptly, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe estimable issues confused with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very serious. tone at the situation analytically, a timeline needs to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech law will be created, molecul ar 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 niggling over a ten dollar bill 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 scattered is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, unbalanced armed forces leaders - could all achieve this technology, and use it for serious deadly purposes, or threats. The risk versus vantage of this technology seems so far to be answered. \n\nJoy goes on to elicit that a super societal utopia is more of a incubus than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and constitutional warfare, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] change our notion of utopia from immortality to lodge or equality, for example, then we will also change our prospect on our current remove for technological progress.[6] \n\nPossible satisfys that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. soften all research involved or correlated to nanotechnology. 2. hold all research that deals with insecure outcomes of nanotechnology, while keep research in fields that would win society. 3. retain research and training in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and breeding, having extreme caution and possible management of any self-destructive hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, honorable and moral stances should be taken antecedent to its maintaind advancement. This enables an evaluation that is liable(p redicate) to aid in reassurance of the replete(p) and bad possibilities, and what they all would hateful to society. \n\nStarting first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any put throughs, the most ethical one, is the one that will produce the greatest benefits over harms[11]) one must look at the consequences of each march. 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 indispensable, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or death of hunger to be enured with possible cures. spirit at the second possible action, the life-threatening risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at to the lowest degree crossd, 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 teac hing are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could result. As stated before, a simple loss of control in a lab taste could cause catastrophic effects. The after part choice is much(prenominal) like the second resource, in that it enables management over possible wicked 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 place supports the second course of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/ fair play berth (the theories that state: act in ways that consider the dignity of other persons by honoring or protect their legitimate moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally germane(predicate) differences between them[11]) shed illumine on the discriminating factor 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 deciding who could afford such an advance(a) science? Also, which respective(prenominal) or group of individuals would be controlling the use of the technology? at that place are definite paleness 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 checkup 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 perspective solidifies that everyone has the right to receive the benefits of nanotechnology. \n \nLooking at the common favorable perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would have to be in a joined have effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would entreat 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 unstable areas. It would also require that such persons in control make an oath to truth seriousy aver all results and necessary information to the whole of society. \n\nVirtue morals (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. leniency must directly deal with the aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any malevolent action were to come a bout 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 despicable on. Joys find out of halting 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. History always teaches lessons. When the nuclear arms race began, much consideration was taken to try to con trol the experimentation and return of nuclear arms. Yet today, the threat of nuclear war is higher(prenominal) then ever and the neglect 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 break 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 recognize and eliminated to prevent 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 legend stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and program line 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 office 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!