The Morality of Nanotechnology

C-Chan sent me this link about a week ago...

EXCERPT:  A new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dietram Scheufele finds that only 1/3 of Americans find nanotechnology morally acceptable, reports this article in Science Daily.  In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

What, pray tell, is moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable about nanotechnology? Have we become so mired in fanatical puritanism that we are no longer capable of thinking for ourselves?

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.  CONTINUED AT ADEPT TECHNOLOGIES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concur--I can't imagine why anyone would find using our God-given brains to solve problems is morally unacceptable (same with stem-cell research, but that's another story).  It reminds me of the parable where a guy drowns in a flood while praying for God to save him, but turns away all the rescuers that show up since they aren't divine.

I'm spiritual, but not religious, with a critical, questioning mind; and for me, prayer = action.  That is, I've been in situations were I think the outcome was more than "luck," but the outcome still depended on applying my own reasoning capabilities.

Or, "God helps those who help themselves." 

If I were going to worry about nanotechnology, specifically used within biology, it would be over potential physiological effects:  could my body attack a nano-object like an infection, perhaps sending me into shock?  Could objects designed to help one system interfere with another?  Have potential long-term side effects been war gamed?  However, I trust nanotech researchers are working on these very questions.

In short, count me amongst the 1/3!

But wait--there's more!  The author further comments:

"To a certain extent, this reminds me of some of the things that happened in the Islamic world during the dark ages. While most of Western Europe was trying to remember how to read and write, the Islamic world had mathematics, algebra, medicine, and astronomy. Then something happened, some say it was a new strict interpretation of Sharia law, that caused their progress to stop, like it was frozen in amber. The West continued to learn and develop, while the Islamic world stagnated, and the majority of advancements in science no longer arose from that part of the world."

Indeed, to simplify the history a bit, Islam reached a point in roughly 1300 where Muslim leaders decided they'd solved all the Islamic world's problems and put Islam into stasis.  For me just the loss of the vibrant Islamic philosophy schools was an abject tragedy, let alone the losses to the hard sciences.

So back to the whole "critically-minded spirituality" bit:   I'm adamant that it is not the government's place to legislate morality.  I mean, we could debate about the relative morality of murder or robbery, but I put such issues under the category of legislation to maintain a peaceful society.  But issues such as nanotechnology, abortion, and stem cell research are deeply personal; and unless nanotechnology suddenly turns people into crazed killing machines (perish the weaponization thought), no single person in government should be making a moral choice for millions of people. 

I still gnash my teeth over the blight on the Constitution that is Prohibition...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, A Newt One, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Rosemary]

I am very religious, but I don't see anything wrong with nanotechnology either. They have come a far way without using HUMAN embroys. (Just thought I'd add that. lol) They are pursuing many avenues besides health as well. I have been reading a scientist's blog: Nanotechnoology Today. It is awesome! ;)

[Keith McMillan]

I'm glad you appreciated the post. *preen, preen* ;-)

The thing that was particularly annoying to me about the whole "nanotechnology is immoral" argument is that we weren't even talking about putting them into people (or at least, that wasn't the impression I got). It was the technology itself, even in the absence of applying it to people!

But let's go with the assumption we are applying it to people for a moment. How is this much different from using weakened strains of disease as an immunizing agent? Or using replacement joints? How about pig valves for heart replacement, as they offered my Dad years ago? Oh, but I forget, animals "don't have souls" so that's different.

Hmmm... This didn't start out as a rant, but there you go: my original post was one, so why not...

"I'm beginning to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis..."