Nano Technology Blog

"If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings." "the earth is the center of the universe and the sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolve about the earth." "The Earth is flat and to sail too far in any direction, one would fall off the earth and into the void." "The earth is carried on the back of a turtle." "Global warming is nothing but a scare tactic, we have plenty of fossil fuels."

Nanotechnology may be an emerging market poised to be worth billions of dollars but government funding around the globe still plays a key role in its R&D. A case in point, the $1.5 billion that the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative has requested in its proposed FY2009 budget. The request covers 25 federal agencies, increasing basic research funding to $551 million and instrumentation research to $82 million. Amid the ongoing dialog about the environmental and health risks of nanotechnology, that budget segment rises to $76 million. No telling how much of the requested funds will actually survive in the final budget. So get to work on those grant proposals, folks.

I belive in Gd and nanotecnolgy . And I also believe that any problem a human being creates a human being can solve. Accurate wholistic science will minimze the short sigted that usually comes with technology that only looks at the pecuniary impact . Global warming , overcrowding, excessive chemicals in the water and the food.

Funny thing about surveys: It all depends upon where you conduct them, and how you ask the questions.

In other words: Figures lie, and liars figure.

In a country where over ninety percent believe in god, despite a total lack of material evidence, and only about a third of the non-believers have a really sound scientific base for their non-belief; who would be surprised?

j.

There is no sound scientific basis for either belief or dis-belief. Belief in God is based entirely upon faith.

God created everything, including those who disbelieve.

If you believe and are wrong then it doesn't matter anyway, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you fry. So it is safer to believe, just in case.

As a Christian, I have serious issues with "Christianity apologists" who attempt to logically "prove" God's existence. As the Apostle Paul says in Romans, "For hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" Our hope is not in things tangible of proven by our own limited intellect, but rather in things known by Faith in God, sustained by observation of the things He does, not fully explainable (though not for lack of effort) by the brightest of men (or women, my apologies).

And if the universe were fully explainable, even so far as those who don't place the credit with God say it is, why are there so many points about which they all agree "God didn't do that, even IF He exists", while at the same time being "all over the map" on what did in fact make it happen.

In another thread, someone stated that Occam's razor cannot be applied in the universal set of events without proving first that the more complex answer is NOT the right answer(i.e., its not enough to just accept the simplest explanation, based on the logic that what is simpler is more likely). I find, though, that where both a complex (any version of evolution) hypothesis, befraught with many hotly debated "holes" (for want of a better word, I am trying NOT to be inflammatory, here), and a simple (Creation. After all, christians are often derided as "simple" solely on the basis of our acceptance of a "simple" answer to the mysteries) hypothesis, beset from outside, possibly, by hot debate, exist, the simpler is the easier to "swallow". And having swallowed it, and seen evidence in my own life of God's work (If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Behold, old things be passed away, and all things become new) in that things I fought against in my own behaviour, He, over time, took away the desire for, and gave me victory, I find no place at all to return to belief in a creation (Evolution, to be specific, which, after all, defines a thing previously not existing, which was brought into existence. And that, after all, IS one definition of creation, without the Biblical wrappings, in that a creature, or set of creatures, such as all the Flora and Fauna on the earth, is said to have somehow "bootstrapped" itself from simpler to more complex to the present forms of life) which relies entirely upon chance, and has no proof anywhere, in my life, nor in any other's, of being true.

So, without even trying to argue in favor of "Proof", either way, I find it much less distasteful to believe in God, and Creation as His work. And give Him all the Glory in the process.

And there went MY scientific credentials. Shoot, I was enjoying Science SO much, too. Good thing Science doesn't care what you believe, as long as you follow the rules.

Micah

Christians are better and more correct (they believe) than other religions or science because they possess "the truth".

How many times I have heard this said, by those who have no understanding of the "fundamentals" of Biblical Salvation. We are not better than anyone, because according to the God who "created us in His image" (not the other way around) ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD (Romans 3:23) and THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH, BUT THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD (Romans 6:23). Finally, descriptive of our relationship with Him, FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST. (Ephesians 2: 8 and 9).

So, on at least one point of your diatribe, you are absolutely right, and the hated "Christian Fundamentalists" know this better than you do (So why DO you hate us so? Given that we are in agreement on the only point you make which serves to denigrate US, why should it irritate you so much that we believe, what we believe?). What we know so well is that we are in no way better than ANY OTHER HUMAN, because we are ALL sinners.

And perhaps the humility you so vaunt is misplaced. We are happy to have realized our humble state, and our shortcoming of God's perfection, and even more humbled to embrace His Grace as our only hope of eternal life. The same hope you so vituperatively reject, in the arrogance of belief that no God could have made such a mess as man has willingly made (or maybe no God of your chosen definition would ALLOW man to make such a mess), and thus man has to find his own solution to how it all got so bad, is the hope we have of eternal redemption from our sins, and eternal salvation from Hell. But our world is not the mess it is because of God. It got this way because WE, ALL OF US (including those of us who now claim salvation, by God's Grace, through the shed blood of His son, Jesus Christ), MADE IT THIS WAY, INTENT ON DESTROYING THE BEAUTY GOD CREATED!!

And BTW, lest I forget to say it, I in no way believe Nano-Technology (AND YES, I DO UNDERSTAND IT) to be immoral. It is, has been already stated elsewhere, AMORAL, meaning it has no moral value of its own. It is only in what MAN might do with it (there's that pesky rotten MAN again!) that it can be immoral. And I don't see man's proclivity to ruin what is beautiful being an excuse for not doing the good we can with it. I feel the same about Nuclear power, and even, dare I say it, Nuclear Weapons, which did serve, after all, to end a war we didn't start, and save many more millions on both sides than were lost by the bombs we dropped.

Thank you, Ken.

First, to all, my apologies. And I KNEW (not shouting, emphasizing, to my own chagrin) the convention about caps. I knew and intended to explain that I wasn't shouting, but trying to emphasize my understanding of the Bible. I'm aware that not a lot of people put the faith in it that I do, and I do apologize for seeming arrogant. I'll use quotes next time, but I grew up having been taught that quotes are used to imply, in general conversation, that, while I'm saying it, I don't necessarily believe it (in fact, they were used to state categorically, but politely, that I thought the guy who said it was nuts, I will not be defending his position, and he might even have been lying through his teeth) unless the quotes are clearly "quoting" something we have all heard said, and by attribution, understand to be authoritative. Paradoxical, but there it was. I imagine Little-Brown did away with that usage a long time ago, but I am not up on styles, by and large, still using far too many commas for L-B's taste, in order to set the pacing of a long sentence. Nonetheless, I will use quotes, rather than speak so loudly to emphasize a point.

As for quoting what others may not agree with, I understand too that many do not believe as I do. This, too, makes the caps seem at best overbearing, but I badly misjudged the usefulness of them, and neither explained myself, nor apologized in advance, when I clearly should have done both. As my kids are wont to say, "my bad". As I prefer to put it, "my most humble and heartfelt apologies". My intent was only to make it clear that I put strong faith in the Bible, and find support for a fundamental of Christianity in those three (there are hundreds more, but those are clearest, I believe) verses.

That said, this is the only place I have spoken clearly of my faith on CR4, because it was the only place where it seemed on-topic, to a point, and warranted. I had no intent to offend. I did, however, see in Guest's comments a great deal of very strong distaste and disrespect for those of us who embrace faith in a higher being, regardless of who that might be. I did not attempt a defense of those of other faiths, not having the understanding of their beliefs to do them justice. I did not even attempt a defense of the faith of all Christians, since, as we understand it, God's word says that we all enjoy what my father called "the priesthood of the believer", which we can clearly read in God's word, gives us direct access by prayer, and study of the Bible, to God's intent and direction for us. But it IS personal, and it is not understood in exactly the same way, or with the same fervency, by all of us. Thus I don't defend other's beliefs, without an intimate knowledge of them, and permission from others to do so. I merely defend my own, and cannot do so without recourse to the Scriptures which engender and direct my beliefs. I confess this to be a literary shortcoming, though I cannot apologize for centering my entire understanding on the grace and goodness of God (but not of my own, of which I claim none).

Again, I apologize for causing offense, as I know I did. And this is the end of my polemic on the subject. No more coffee for me!! It makes me too passionate! ( Or at least, it makes me speak to passionately!!)

Micah

micahd02, you say "I did, however, see in Guest's comments a great deal of very strong distaste and disrespect for those of us who embrace faith in a higher being, regardless of who that might be."

How do you feel about Guest's #6 comment about me?

I think he is often rude, thoughtless, needlessly hurtful, and somewhat hateful to a lot more than just me.

I also think that, on consideration of your question, answering him any more comes under the category of "answering stupid questions", or in this case, commentary. He seems to have a very large problem with reasoned discourse.

My apologies again. I have unnecessarily prolonged my defense. I do feel that it is my duty as a believer in anything to defend that belief, but once is enough. I don't know who said it (perhaps you do, or have access to the source) but I've always appreciated the wisdom of "A man convinced against his will, is a man of the same opinion still".

And to be more specific, he seems to have a "great deal of very strong distaste and disrespect for those of us who embrace" anything with which he disagrees.

Micah

(perhaps you do, or have access to the source) I fail to see why you think I should have access to the source. I don't mix in circles where hoping someone is decapitated and in a Nazi concentration camp can be considered "rude, thoughtless, needlessly hurtful, and somewhat hateful"

To remind you of the crime which justified such a response, I said I would vote for a man who decided on the basis of evidence, rather than on his opinions of the attitudes of his imaginary friend. And if this offends your all powerful God, why not let him sort me out?

And to those who suggest I believe just to be on the safe side, wouldn't God notice? I would have combined atheism with a total lack of moral courage, hardly a defensible position.

back to nano technology. I am in favour of questioning the aims and intentions of our scientists, but knowledge is not really controllable for Galileo will always say but still, it moves.

Here is a brief section from a religious website on the subject of Galileo.

Unjust Condemnation The result of these ill advised tactics was the famous second trial. Galileo, an old sick man, was summoned before the Inquisition in Rome. The proceedings were not of the highest quality. Galileo's enemies produced the secret, perhaps forged, document that absolutely forbade the teaching or discussion of heliocentrism, and Galileo lied about the circumstances of the publication of his book. The trial did not address the scientific merits of the case, it centred on whether or not Galileo had disobeyed an official order. It was suggested that he admit to some wrongdoing, and he would get off lightly. He agreed to tone down the Dialogue, pleading that he had been carried away by his own arguments.

The Inquisition, on June 22, 1633, decreed that Galileo had rendered himself "vehemently suspected of heresy." He was to renounce his errors before the Inquisition, which he did, and be placed under house arrest. The choice of words was debatable, as Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by the Magisterium. In any event, Galileo was sentenced to abjure the theory and to keep silent on the subject for the rest of his life.

Galileo's condemnation was clearly unjust. Just as clearly, Galileo asked for some of the trouble that he got himself into.

Implications for the Magisterium Manifestly, the sorry story detailed does not impugn the infallibility of Catholic dogma. Heliocentrism was never declared a heresy by the Magisterium. The sentence of 1633 was not irreformable. Galileo's works were eventually removed from the Index, and at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as objective fact, not just a convenient ruse.

Nevertheless, the story does show how Church authorities can easily mistake "secular common sense" for Sacred Tradition and defend the former, to the extent of using intimidation and attempting to suppress the truth. It is my contention that this is exactly what is now being done in the field of friendship, marriage, gender, sexuality and reproductive ethics.

My reference to "access to the source" was only to the source of the "quote" (obviously misquoted, see the next entry, it sounds like it WAS Butler, and not accurately quoted in my hearing), "A man convinced against his will, is a man of the same opinion still".

I would have no idea where to find someone who thought either Nazi concentration camps or decapitation are merely "rude, thoughtless, needlessly hurtful, and somewhat hateful", nor would I assume anyone reading and writing here would have such knowledge. I apologize for leaving you with the impression I thought you would.

And without going into the history of the Baptist church, which would undoubtedly spark much more debate, without substantive gain, the Inquisition is as abhorrent to me as it apparently is to you, having never been a part of a church body nor lineage which had anything to do with it. It might interest you to know that I am friends with many Catholics, and know of none who are not appalled at that part of their history also. But, like the slavery my ancestors MIGHT have indulged in, it is way beyond our time, and there appears to be nothing we can do about that history.

And for all of us, if we dig deep enough into the history of anything we hold dear, we are likely to uncover some sordid past which we cannot embrace. Because that, after all, is the product of man's nature, which is wickedness, whether we like to acknowledge it or not. And that statement need not be tracked to the Bible, nor to my "Fundamentalism", but to the commonalities of the daily press.

Micah

Undoubtedly you are right about the source of the (misquoted) "quote". I still like it, and find the original rather more elegant. There is much wisdom I embrace in this world, coming from many sources whose religious leanings, or lack thereof, never come to my attention.

Take most of the reader/writers on CR4, for example.

So, yep, I still would. Do daily, as a matter of fact. Because you don't believe as I do does not make you stupid, inane, deliberately and wickedly misleading, or of any other dark desire. You might be, for all I know, but I know my own nature too well to cast aspersions on yours, or any others, without being offered incontrovertible proof.

As far as test, evaluate, retest, etc. (not a quote of you, but perhaps close enough to do for now?), I do the same, and embrace all of the physical, chemical, temporal, etc., laws I understand (undoubtedly there is much I neither understand, nor even realize it is a known known, to paraphrase a President. Those I accept as I have occasion to learn them). But I do not balk at the idea that any of those laws, given a sufficiently powerful impetus, from a sufficiently powerful source, could be overturned temporarily. And I suspect that any time they were, the results were not far short of cataclysmic. I know the Biblical accounts don't make it sound cataclysmic, but then again, God wasn't writing popular fiction, and didn't have to wow us with the glory of His works.

It occurs to me that my failure to "balk at the idea ..." is not far different than the "suspension of disbelief" that a fiction writer needs to induce in his readership, and is successful in the main in doing, as evidenced by the acceptance of Science Fiction among so many supposedly hard-headed engineers and scientists as we are.

I don't require others to believe as I believe, nor to swear-off saying things with which I disagree. In fact, I served in the military, at least in part to defend your right to say those very things. I only ask that when you speak of me and my beliefs, you speak as respectfully of me as I do you.

And that goes right along with those social rules you discussed.

So we can meet in the middle, after all.

Micah

This resonates with me in the same way that the guest post 29 did. Basically, I agree wholeheartedly, with a couple embellishments -- some of which you might see as clarifications of your own position -- and most of which would take a book-length response to deal with adequately. I'll edit your words, in the interests of simplicity.

My own quarrel with religious fundamentalists of every stripe is that they substitute belief in their own group's "truth" for any hint of logical thought, and then seek to impose their view upon others by, for example, legislating that women must wear burkahs, that abortion services must be discontinued, that women cannot vote, that slave ownership should be protected by law, that people who fail to renounce their belief that the earth orbits the sun should be put to death, etc. I'm perfectly OK with what we sometimes call "primitive" societies, in which common, easily explainable events are thought to be magic, the work of god(s), or the work of the devil, provided those societies (some of which function very well) do not seek to make me believe or act according to their beliefs. I see no discontinuity between religious practice in the middle ages and religious practice today -- and for fundamentalists, there can be no discontinuity, for scripture is inerrant -- it must mean now, exactly what it meant then. Treating homosexuals or women today as sub-human is no less a crime than threatening to kill Galileo.

If two religions ... through ... all right are infinitesimal. I can't think of anything to edit -- this seems logically inarguable.

And for my money, any that rates "faith" above scientific method, and considers its own beliefs more important than experiment and testing [and re-testing!] with open discussion of the results, has surrendered any claim to validity.

Perhaps we part company here. I put "faith" above science... but not when faith is used as it is today: "the faith community" as code for the religious community. The religious right gets away with government support of faith-based initiatives, because is sounds different that religious-based intitiatives... there are still too many people aware that our country was founded on the principal of separation of church and state to swallow the latter terminology, whereas the former terminology seems less patently offensive. My most significant acts are based on faith: faith in the dignity of human existence, faith that we should treat others as we wish to be treated, faith that all men (may not be created equal, but that they) should be treated as equal under the law. Perhaps my most important act was to bring children into this world -- something for which I can find no support whatsoever in science or logic. We are clearly overpopulated -- how can I be so self-centered? I take it on faith alone, that my kids can make a positive contribution. My grandmother worked with Susan B Anthony. Such heroics seemed to have skipped two generations, but my daughter seems headed down her grandmother's path.

Such intellectual dishonesty must rank among the poorest possible approaches to truth. I don't think of faith in humanity as being intellectually dishonest. But I certainly think that simply accepting a myth (such as the creation story in the Old Testament) as "true" because it "feels right"... or because one's parents accepted it as true... or because most people in your country accept it is true, is profoundly intellectually lazy. To take that unfounded belief further, to seek to impose that view on others, is intellectual tyranny. Then to succeed in that imposition -- in other words, (for instance) to turn a blind eye to the injustice of slavery, as the bible does, and to use the bible for support of slavery or for denying the rights of women and homosexuals, is beyond intellectual tyranny -- it's evil incarnate.

In my experience, those who hold their beliefs most strongly are the least educated in the alternatives. One would hope that someone with strong Christian beliefs, for instance, would have thoroughly read the Old and New Testaments, the Bhagivad Gita, The Upanishads, the hundreds of Buddhist texts, Greek mythology, the Koran, etc, etc. There may be such people, but the ones I've met who have come close to a general understanding of religions have not been fundamentalists.

I think he is often rude, thoughtless, needlessly hurtful, and somewhat hateful to a lot more than just me.

Unfortunately, the guest post system means that you can't tell whether there is one guest or several. I'm fairly sure there are several, because the post to which saddlechariot refers (#6) is simply sarcastic and nearly moronic, whereas the other posts seem at least logical. So when you say "he" I think you are really saying "they".

The guest post to which you responded (post 29) did not appear to me to be an attack, but rather an expression of opinions with which you are perhaps uncomfortable. I'd assumed that the first guest to whom you replied (post 10) and the guess making the lengthy post 29 were the same, and I took your response to post 10 to be essentially agreement.

Post number 6 is the equivalent of saying this to saddlechariot "I think you are a stupid doodoo head." It simply strengthens saddlechariot's position by saying, in effect, "dimwits don't agree with you". Post 29 seems moderately well-reasoned, so I'd assume it was by a different guest. But, of course, it's hard to know. Did you find only post 6 somewhat hateful, or was it post 29?

Although many of us find the guest posts a little hard to follow, and somewhat frustrating (because at times you don't know whether you are getting "jerked around" by one guest who seems to advance contradictory arguments just to be contentious -- or whether there are really two guests with differing views. On the other hand, there may be an advantage to guest posts, in that each post must stand on its own -- it is impossible to make an ad hominem argument against a guest post (unless, of course, the guest choses to post a name or otherwise separate his posts from those of others.)

Hmm, Blink, I think I was already lost on Post 6, and 29, and whatever, and if not, I certainly am now. But through my own failure to grasp what you just, so aptly, explained. I was, without realizing it, nor intending to, referring, and I acknowledge, totally unfairly, to "they". I undoubtedly should have gone back to make sure which guest, in which post, I intended to reference.

For my failure to do those things, I offer this to all.

I apologize for my failure, recognizing in it the seeds of a great deal of dissent and personal insult.

I pledge to do a better job of specifying my references in the future, should it ever become necessary.

I further pledge to avoid Ad Hominem attack, or inflammatory rhetoric.

I hope by these actions to restore myself to the grace of the CR4 readership.

And thank you for so ably explaining to me what I should have already seen. I appreciate the tone of your explanation, as salve to a blistered seat.

Micah

What if your god fround upon you not using your science to better his creation! Would not a car designer like herny ford marvel at furthering his dream, you seem to think it is best to let your god's work rust and go backward!!! Your so called god must feel all those followers are wearing blinkers, could it not be your so called god wish man to discover his techniques and rise to an equal ?? Do you not seek a mate that equals your own skills, IQ and talents why wouldnt your god seek the same!!! Do we as mankind not seek a better a world why not your god !

Faith like as in "Santa is real" or faith that nanotech has god like creational powers for those who master it? When will people stop believing in a non exsist entity, how much science do you need to know the "so called god" didn't save you but it was the work of MIT undergrad with the idea of attaching gold nano partilces to your cancer treatment and then nuking them, no it was not your preys, it was science and cash investment into R&D.

And if your so called god exsist, he does a losy job of stopping suffering and killing (he so called god has the power in him to wipe out the devil just to mute that argument that the devil does the bad stuff).

Uneducated people (aka public) should not be asked about such ideals because when one does not comperhend it they can not make sound judgement that is why trails are not carried out with 12 old kids as the jury, the ability to make sound rational thought is just not there (one could argue that point with the current jury selection)

If left to the public no change would come about unless the emontional content moved them to it ! Hence mention nanotech and they think/feel fear !!

Hi,

there are some risks, who would deny?

There will be some surprises, also very unexpected ones, human thinking is not well adapted to evaluate side effects.

So: do not touch anything new! Follow this politics for 20 years. Then there will be no more anything new to touch.

At the same time any wealth created by new things is gone to outside countries that are more "human" in the sense of curiosity and drive to explore new opportunities.

If we shield our children from any risk they will be unwilling and unable and lazy a few years later.

If we shield our science and economy from any new science and technology we will give away the heritage of our hard-working parents and grandparents.

Worst in political decisions - regarding to biotechnology, especially stem-cell biology - is (in my ranking) the Vatican, Germany and the US.

So we will see others to harvest the fruits of the new technologies: micro- nano- bio.

Après nous le deluge!

RHABE

Technology only makes use of God-given materials and people's brains. As a Christian I think science keeps proving that God exists. We still can't make our own dust.

There is nothing wrong with nanotech as long as proper safeguards are followed.

Beautifully stated!! As another Christian, who agrees entirely on all points.

Micah

(There is nothing wrong with nanotech as long as proper safeguards are followed.)

if they have already determined that some carbon nanotubes are carcinogenic, how do we believe what is considered safe today, will not be considered lethal tomorrow?

we have many things today where the threshold of the past was too high. future thresholds for these may be even lower. how do we know that nano thresholds will not go thru the same process?

is anyone designing to prevent nano's from escaping from the environment in which they are placed? what happens when nano's escape and become self replicating? does this threaten the world as we know it? what happens when nano's are discarded into the waste stream, when a product having nano's is discarded? does it then take on a life of its own. or will the product have to be incinerated to prevent nano escape? will different types of nano's be able to cross breed in an open environment?

if nuclear war is considered immoral and species threatening, why would nano caused human genocide be any different?

who is to say, and who do we believe, concerning what is paranoid and what is possible? some scientists would call it paranoia, some ludites would say it is predictable. shouldn't caution be required? or is it full steam over the edge, because we can.

I only know of one political leader with the courage to admit he doesn't believe in God, Nick Clegg,British Liberal Democrat and on that basis I will vote for his party. I don't want to go to war because someone has consulted their imaginary friend, or get locked up because I have insulted their imaginary friend.

Great news! Osama Bin Laden I'm sure is glad to hear that. He'll have your head lopped off as soon as he finishes with the people that wrote a cartoon of Muhammed. You suffer from cereberal anal inversion. By al means don't go to war.

Your fearless leader Chamberlin promised "peace in our time" after talking to Hitler a few years back. Too bad that idiot Churchill believed in God and saved your country. You'd be doning well in a Nazi concentration camp. Glad there is no God.

Morgan US

PS Nanotechnology will probably be the solution to the energy crisis....I believe in God.... I think.

I presume we have God to thank for the moral majority.

Don't blame God for what man organizes, even if man does it in the name of God. Blame man for what man does!

I happen to have agreed with a lot of what the Moral Majority stood for, even though I was not a joiner. Nevertheless, when sceptics at work would take me to task for their positions, I would suggest that they were big boys and girls who didn't need my help to stand up, and state that my faith is not in any man, nor any of man's devices nor organizations, but in God.

Nonetheless, and to forestall an expected rejoinder, were I ever to join such an organization, I would do so as a believer in the aims and purposes of the organization, and willing take any and all "heat" directed at the organization, staunchly defending it.

As I am willing to staunchly defend God. Even though HE certainly doesn't need my puny help to defend Himself.

Micah

Churchill sent many a 18 year old to your so called god, so I dont see him as much better then hitler... both where war mongers like bush.... there is no god ... only this life .... use it wisely ... and forget about trying for a belief of idiots following a religon that has caused more death/fighting/wars then any other ideal... life and science is the truth, better medicine will heal your illness not faith..

Quote:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/14773

In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States is 303,671,202

Of that 303 million, 1,000 people were questioned. That is 1/1,000,000 of the population of the country. That is no where near a respectable sampling

No information was given in the article about the demographics of the people questioned, their socioeconomic bracket or their education level how religious they are or their religious affiliation.

This is very bad science. It not even good science-fiction. This article informs us of nothing. The only information it imparts is that 1,000 are morally afraid of nanotechnology. I wonder how they feel about abortion and stem cell research?

Orpheuse

At last a real scientist in a scientific forum . Thank you for your clarity

What size sample do you accept Orpheuse? And by the way if 29.5% of 1015 accept nanotechnolgy, that does NOT leave 1000 who are afraid of it.

Of that 303 million, 1,000 people were questioned. That is 1/1,000,000 of the population of the country. That is no where near a respectable sampling

Although it may seem counterintuitive that a sample of 1000 people can be representative of a population of 300,000,000, this sample size is adequate if care is taken to ensure that the sample is truly random. University of Wisconsin is better than the average university at this sort of thing, so I would expect that their study was not seriously flawed.

Incidentally, your math is completely wrong. 1000 people is not 1/1,000,000 of the population of the country.

At a confidence level of 95% a sample of 1000 is sufficient for a confidence interval of 3%, just as the article claims. Here's a calculator you can use to verify that. To suggest that a study is "bad science" because you don't understand the statistics involved or the methods used seems rather arrogant doesn't it?

The only information it imparts is that 1,000 are morally afraid of nanotechnology. I wonder how they feel about abortion and stem cell research?

This is flat wrong. The study did not claim that 1000 are morally afraid of nanotechnology.

Sometimes religion is blamed instead of ignorance.

Sometimes religion produces ignorance.

I have been following Nanotechnology for quite some time and it does have some wonderful potential and some horrible dangers, but then, so does atomic energy, fossil fuels, flying, drunk driving, etc. The question is, how many of the 1015 actually know what nanotechnology really means - do you? One part is technology, meaning technical studies, and the other is nano, meaning the very small, less than 100 nanometers in size. So, take a guess, could it mean that 71% of the population believes that the study of anything that cannot they cannot see, feel, touch, hear, or understand is immoral? Or is it that so few know what nanotechnology really means. I bet dime to a donut that those surveyed actually thought that nanotechnolgy meant genetic engineering for cloning human beings.

"Or is it that so few know what nanotechnology really means. I bet dime to a donut that those surveyed actually thought that nanotechnolgy meant genetic engineering for cloning human beings."

To quote the article itself (Professor Dietram Scheufele performed the study, along with Elizabeth Corley of Arizona State U.):

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."

[Comparing US interviewees to Europeans] Why the big difference?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."

The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.

Hey, I, too, have strong religeous beliefs, see my philosophy here: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~chtank/education.

I

A lot of people are just anti-technology too, they do not have to be Christians, nor educated enough to even know what nanotech is in order to say they are opposed to it. When polls are taken I always wonder what the poll is trying to prove and how the questions are asked. A random poll is far from accurate, it must be representative of the whole population and carefully selected to have any credibility. If the "random" poll was taken outside some churches on a Sunday it would hardly be representative of the whole population. Since Jay Leno's Jaywalkers segments, showing just how ignorant people are, I doubt that half of them even knew what nanotech was. There were probably a bunch of "Greenies" in the group interviewed who were just opposed to anything called "tech". Given the lack of understanding, then the exact wording of the questions can skew the results.

Sounds suspiciously like another case of Christian-bashing.

Oy!

Nanotech like the name already indicates is technology which operates in a very small scaled universe.
Moving molecules and arrange them so that material have different properties and functions.

Most of the processes also creates waste, scrap and stuff which is hazardous to health and environment.
Nanotech processes will also create those kind of lets call it side products.
If those products are hazardous, how to recycle or dispose it?

Nano materials can penetrate the skin and enter the blood stream or lounge
much easier than the stuff we can find in our garbage cans normally.
Maybe you hear about the attack on a Russian spy by a very special radioactive material.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-23-spy-illness_x.htm
Next step, nano killer stuff an it is much easier to hide and to carry than a nuke.

Laws and rules have to be implemented to protect the environment and us.
Still, most of the engineered stuff can not be recycled or the recycling is too expensive.
So we just burn it and pollute our air or we just dig a hole somewhere and cover
all this things because out of sight is out of mind and for now not dangerous any more.
Hopefully nobody will dig at this place in the next 1000 years.

Can nano trash change DNA (plants, animals, human)?
How to do the recycling ?
How to do the disposal ?
Who takes a closer look ?
Does disposal comply to ISO 14001 or anything else?
Is it in our interest that nano firms are responsible for recycling of
there products after the products End Of Life ?

Throw a nuke and think about the consequences later, we know the result.
Hopefully somebody some day will learn something out of this example.

And in case keeping the environment clean in our country gets to expensive,
lets do outsourcing to other countries with less experience or not too
strict environmental laws and
lets ruin there environment because it is much cheaper and brings
lot of advantage to our industry.

We even do not want to handle the trash produced within the past 30 years,
so what will happen to nano trash?

There are two sides always or maybe three:
white - grey - black

"Nano materials can penetrate the skin and enter the blood stream or lounge [lungs?] much easier than the stuff we can find in our garbage cans normally." "Can nano trash change DNA (plants, animals, human)?
How to do the recycling ?"

These are valid concerns, no question, but have no bearing on whether nanotechnolgy is moral, or morally valid, or morally acceptable. It is worth noting, though, that for any class of natural object, we expect to find a single (or very few) examples of it at the extreme large end of the size range; then more at the next size tier, and still more at each succeeding smaller scale. For example, among land forms we have a few continents, many large islands, far, far more small islands, and immense numbers of rocks that stick out above water surfaces. There are a relative handful of immense mountains, lots of moderate-sized ones, and far more hills; local hummocks and rises outnumber them all. But the scale continues through clods to sand grains to dust, to . . .? There will be more sparrows than gulls, and more gulls than albatrosses. More dust grains than moons, more moons than planets, and more planets than stars. Artificial objects likely follow the same rule, but like some classes of natural ones may have lower size limits for various reasons: more pennies are made than dollars; more dollars than hundreds, and most of us will never even SEE a $10,000 bill. Thus it comes as no surprise that solid objects follow the same general quantity-versus-size inverse correlation; nano-sized particles must be incredibly common - but we cannot see them, so don't take notice. It would amazing if plants and animals (especially the numerous small ones!) didn't utilize such particles. How could, say, bacteria NOT do so? Here is an article that describes the discovery of just such a situation for ivy: http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0803&RELTYPE=MIC&PRODCODE=0000000&PRODLETT=LA&CommonCount=0.

So, odds are that any substance found in nature is already present as nanoparticles. This does NOT mean that we can treat all such particles as inherently safe, nor discard as we will, etc., but it tells us that SOME aspects of particles on this scale have already been tested, with every living thing on earth as a "lab rat". Who would like to take a bet as to whether we soon* learn that animals already utilize natural nanoparticles in life processes? How soon for humans?

*"Soon": five years or less, say?

The question or problem if you will is the lack of information about a technology that could drastically change how we live. It is not matter of belief but of knowledge. There is nothing immoral in knowledge. The mis-use of that knowledge is immoral. However, who decides what constitutes such mis-use. Who has the knowledge to decide? As Robert Heinlein said "who will watch the watchers?"

Hi all,

1. I believe in God
2. I'm an engineer with more than 35 years experience and 20 of university teaching
3. I've never had problems in being engineer and believer.
4. Fundamentalists are not only some believers but also those non believers who fiercely fight against something science (as many other issues) cannot say if is real or not. Remember some scientific principles (Heisenberg, Godel, Turing...)
5. Human beings are imperfect and the quantitative result of a survey doesn't have any relationship with the trueness of the results. (Remember too that Adolf Hitler became Chancellor because he won a democratic elections: That means that all who voted him were right?)
6. As I've posted in some other threads, the problem is not the science or technology developments themselves, but the use we humans make of them. (Remember too: a knife may cut your steak and can kill anybody)
7. Finally, I think nanotechnologies will help to solve many problems, but I'm sure too that some idiot would find some military applications to kill more people and more efficiently, but this is not a matter to not investigate. Just educate people for respect everybody else.