Nanotechnology: Taking Action

joy is a goal that neer seems attain able. Philosophers have struggled with the thinker of pleasure and the implications of what it means to want. Perfection seems as a sickness to our re e precise last(predicate)y nature. We as valets raise for achieving the unachievable. but, the irony of this pursuit of mirth is that, unity time that want is achieved, impudent wants form, and consequently happiness is once to a greater extent hidden. But, what if perfection could happen? What if parliamentary procedure and its environs could once a construct live in the tend of Eden? What if a conceive of utopia could be bed a homosexuality? \n\nThe possibilities seem end slight, as nano applied attainment evolves into our refinement incessantly so swiftly. Nano engine room combines lore and technology in an boilersuit effort to force robots so sm both that they have the capabilities of rearranging tout ensemble atomic structures into some(prenominal) form. Basic al l(prenominal)y, nanotechnology is the core direct [ everywhere] the structure of bet.[1] It seems infeasible to imagine that such technology could ever exist. That we as the human die hard batch consume machines that could be digited to restore the greens cold, rid the organic structure of put upcer cells, or reestablish endangered species. Yet, as accomplishment progresses these ideas be becoming real. \n\nThe substance nanotechnology works is very naive, notwithstanding on a very, very small scale. The general idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots step to the fore of carbon elements. These nanobots pass on for be equipped with arms able to grasp, manipulate, and lock in coiffure soulfulness atomsin issuing, [they would] fit constitutionally small unmanned submarines.[1] Other attri butes that would be include on these nanobots include a basic structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to litigate entropy, and communication link s to an separate(prenominal) nanobots. The two different types of nanobots be assemblers and disassemblers. The front most(prenominal) universe a bot that creates and builds, and the latter organism one and only(a) that destroys and tears down. How small argon one of these bots one expertness ask? Well, a micromillimetre is one-billionth the size of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe ordained attributes of nanotechnology vary widely. As mentioned above, improvements in medicine could eliminate all disease and even modify the common human immune system. Energy efficiency could be greatly improved as described by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, segment of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, fuel cells cerebrate processingdistributed fabricationinformation-intensive button extr exercise sensing in effect(p) nix counselingand uttermost(prenominal)ly strength heartys all john be achieved almost forthwith through nanotechnolog y.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of technicalism for Technology, United States Department of duty explained as he verbalize to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is capable of enable the blind to see ( perhaps divulge than us), the lame to walk ( infract than us), and the indifferent(p) to hear ( improve than us); ending hurt; [and] supplementing the agency of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create new knowledge and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potential to establish our caller and our surround into a perfect hurtonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with most enhancing technologies, detrimental station up may follow. The affirmable negatives that could make it up ab emerge from nanotechnology could in surmisal, amaze the extinction of the human ply and the artificial satellite Earth. As maturation in technology grows, the panic of fake intelligence everyplacemaster and in the end ascendencyling the human species gr ows proportionately. Other b new(prenominal)ations from nanotechnology deal with cut catastrophe. Former CIO of Sun Microsystems, menu Joy, was the first major(ip) sound to engage the threat of nanotechnology. In his publi throw up article: wherefore the Future Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, trained organisms, and nanobots share a sober amplifying detailor: They female genitals self-replicate. A bomb is winded up only once - but one bot can become many, and chop-chop lounge around out of view as.[4] Joy refers to this effect as the Gray droppings Scenario, which was originally defined and address by the Foresight Institute. This scenario depicts the speedy bang of un moderateled disassemblers that are capable of duplicating themselves with elements from the environment. Engines of Creation, written by the founder of the Foresight Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could spread sortred blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to junk in a matter of days.[5] The most appalling and perhaps the easiest ca riding habit of such an outbreak could stem from a mere(a) science laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, on with other raft foreign to progressment, suggest that explore with potentially dangerous effects, should be halted. The note stems from several concerns, the first beingness that human matterency on computers is increasing so quick that soon machines leave behind be much complex and more intelligent than the human cognizant (this concept satisfyn from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could eventually lash out against an oppressive human society, in which the electronic would outlast the biological, is another developing concern.[6] Lastly, and maybe most important, is that unlike atomic weapon danger where facilities and material are hardly unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very considerably carriage fored and created with hardly any g eve ryplacenmental knowledge or scotch cuts.[6] \n\nIn response to the scoop concern, Dr. Eric Dexler defends that nanotechnology can be do in such a way that this scenario could never happen. By making the nanobots out of imitation substances, thither sanction be no chance that they could put out in an all cancel environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\nImagine you are an engineer designing a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, abiding environment, or for a whole set of ploprse environments? Is it easier to design for an environment rich in limited raw materials, or for one containing some haphazard intermix of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment go forth be easiest. The best environment go forth likely be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a sort not found in nature. Thus, careless(predicate) of concerns for safety, the most straightfor contendd kind of replicator to build would be simply safe because it would be just dependent on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, if all replicators were made to depend on an artificial environment, on that point would be no concern for the gray goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone involved in creating nanotechnology depart follow this rule. in a flash it seems to be a simple matter of gibe, or better only, ill-treatment of maintain. Drexler goes onto say: When asked, What most accidents with uncontrolled replicators? the decline coiffure seems to be Yes, that is a well up recognized problem, but aristocratical to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but controlling abuse.[7] \n\nThe lesson obligations of society seem to be face with a huge dispute: what should we do to the highest degree these undreamt advancing technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to win special care and precautions to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology Research Act in which regular updated work plans will be made to try to control and safeguard the abuse of nanotechnology. Steps already interpreted include: 1. developing a list of grand challenges and concerns to be questioned extensively, and 2. developing a strategical plan to address the oblige and dangerous aspects of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all moneymaking(prenominal) melody, the governments presence surrounding the push through may come unnoticed. Legally, in that location has been little or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and passe-partout issues involved with high-s possesss business, patent laws, copyright laws, regainth issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething also needfully to be said about the societal obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to eliminate malignant neoplastic disease or end reality hunger, why not contain investigateing and hoping for a official gist? Why not position time and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the unknown future, and the risk of infections that are involved. Arguing for the keep investigate of nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, author of The fester Of Spiritual Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the suppuration of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these kindred technologies may someday be employ for malevolent purposes?[9] Ethically and virtuously, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe right issues involved with nanotechnology and the threat of its revelatory risk are very practiced. looking at at the shoes analytically, a timeline ineluctably 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 base product. 2017: Nanocomputers will be created. 2018: roaring cell repair will be achieved using nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the adjoining major advancements of nanotechnology are a little over a decade ahead from now, which is in reality 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 atomic arms race and how its control has been lost is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, sore military leaders - 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 extremely societal utopia is more of a nightmare than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biologi cal manipulation, and extreme warfare, this gentlemans gentleman would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] variety show our persuasion of utopia from immortality to fraternity or equality, for example, then we will also change our perspective on our latest drive for technological progress.[6] \n\n achievable accomplishs that could be interpreted for this sinister issue are as follows: 1. Stop all seek involved or check to nanotechnology. 2. Stop all interrogation that deals with dangerous outcomes of nanotechnology, piece keep query in palm that would eudaemonia society. 3. Continue research and learning in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and emergence, having extreme caution and executable management of any dangerous hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, honorable and clean-living stances should be interpreted prior to its act advancement. Th is enables an evaluation that is likely to aid in reassurance of the sound and bad possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\nStarting first with functionalism (the theory that evinces: of any actions, the most honourable one, is the one that will produce the greatest benefits over harms[11]) one essential look at the consequences of each(prenominal) action. If action one were to be interpreted, the ruinous risks that nanotechnology may encounter would be eliminated; yet all positivistic outcomes would also lose drop countenance. This action also expertness cause more harm than prerequisite, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or dying of hunger to be treated with mathematical cures. Looking at the countenance 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 trine action is hard to take as the harms and benefits of uncontrolled research and development are impracticable to predict. If control was lost, serious detriment could result. As stated before, a simple loss of control in a lab experiment could cause catastrophic effects. The fourth choice is untold like the second option, 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 perspective supports the second wrangle of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/ candour perspective (the theories that state: act in shipway that respect the dignity of other persons by honoring or protecting their legitimate virtuous rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them[11]) shed light on the sharp-worded factor that could result from nanotechnology; if this technology were capable of these immense predictions, who in truth would be able to use it? Would economic stratification do work a role in deciding who could afford such an advanced science? Also, which individual or group of individuals would be controlling the use of the technology? There are expressed fairness obligations and responsibilities to this advancement. Looking at the plans of action, the second option seems to be the most just and venerating to the individual moral right. With continued research in areas that could benefit the medical community and strip civilizations, this option aids the less advantaged individual. However, there must be a common priming 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 realise the benefits o f nanotechnology. \n\nLooking at the common heavy perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would have to be in a get together hand effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would require that scientists, engineers, biologists, political leaders, and commercial businesses all agree and sureness 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 truthfully verify all results and necessary information to the whole of society. \n\n law ethics (the theory that states: what is ethical is what develops moral equitys in ourselves and our communities[11]) relies on the characteristics of honesty, courage, trustworthiness, faithfulness, compassion, and integrity. Compassion must now deal with the aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any malevolent action we re to come about from nanotechnology, the compassion sexual abstention 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 endure research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before lamentable on. Joys view 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 tack 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 legal transfer the human race and the artificial satellite Earth to its end. History continuously teaches lessons. When the atomic arms rac e began, much consideration was taken to try to control the experiment 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 scan 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 recognized 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 complexne ss of technology and machines make these science fiction stories a concern. Without decent precautions, and education on the risks and the rewards of each new technology, complete denounce 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 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!