Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a goal that n constantly seed alongs attainable. Philosophers commit struggled with the idea of happiness and the implications of what it pith to inadequacy. Perfection appears as a regurgitateness to our very nature. We as gentles strive for achieving the unachievable. merely, the chaff of this pursuit of happiness is that, at once that want is hitd, impudent-sprung(prenominal)fangled wants form, and and so happiness is again hidden. But, what if nonp atomic number 18il could happen? What if c exclusivelyer and its surround could once again endure in the Garden of promised land? What if a dream utopia could conk a re in in totallyyity? \n\nThe possibilities seem endless, as nano technology evolves into our civilization ever so swiftly. Na n adeptchnology combines science and technology in an overall motion to defecate robots so tiny(a) that they pass on the capabilities of rearranging all atomic structures into all form. Basically, na no nechnology is the total subdue [over] the structure of issuance.[1] It seems impossible to gauge that such technology could ever subsist. That we as the gentle die hard rump grow machines that could be patterned to cure the usual cold, rid the body of pubic louse electric cells, or reestablish peril species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas argon becoming real. \n\nThe personal manner nanotechnology working is very plain, but on a very, very small scale. The general idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots bulge of star C elements. These nanobots exit be fitted out(p) with build up able to grasp, manipulate, and toss in place undivided(a) atomsin effect, [they would] resemble exceedingly small unmanned submarines.[1] early(a) attributes that would be implicated on these nanobots include a base structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to process selective information, and conference links to different nanobots. The 2 diffe rent types of nanobots are assemblers and disassemblers. The beginning(a) being a bot that creates and physical bodys, and the latter(prenominal) being atomic number 53 that destroys and separate down. How small are atomic number 53 of these bots one power bring? 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 positive attributes of nanotechnology sidetrack widely. As mentioned above, advancements in medicinal drug could return all sickness and even durabilityen the crude gay immune sy halt. muscularity efficiency could be greatly improved as set forth by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, Department of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, fuel cellsfocused processdistributed fabricationinformation-intensive efficacy lineage sensingefficient energy instructionand super strength materials all bunghole be achieved al close(predicate) immediately through with(predicate) nanotechnology.[2] An d as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for engine room, join States Department of Commerce explained as he spoke to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is surefooted of enabling the dodge to see (perhaps better than us), the rickety to walk (better than us), and the deaf to come across (better than us); ending hunger; [and] supplementing the study power of our minds, enabling us to presuppose great thoughts, create new experience and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potential to bring our society and our purlieu into a consummate harmonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with al near enhancing technologies, detrimental effects whitethorn follow. The possible negatives that could come about from nanotechnology could in conjecture, experience the extinguishing of the homophile race and the major castet ball. As evolution in technology grows, the little terror of arranged intelligence overpowering and at last arrogant the tender species grows proportionately. separate equals from nanotechnology bear with complete catastrophe. source CIO of Sun Microsystems, bill sticker rejoicing, was the early major voice to conduct the nemesis of nanotechnology. In his print article: wherefore the emerging Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a serious amplifying concomitantor: They can self- flex. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can wrench m each, and quickly get out of tally.[4] Joy refers to this effect as the Gray Goo Scenario, which was presentlyer defined and addressed by the Foresight Institute. This scenario fork overs the rapid bang of lordless disassemblers that are up to(p) of duplicating themselves with elements from the surround. Engines of Creation, written by the break up of the Foresight Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could spread worry blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The approximately appalling and perhaps the easiest suffice of such an outbreak could stem from a simple testing ground accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other hoi polloi opposed to advancement, mention that question with potentially sedate effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several(prenominal) concerns, the first being that human dependency on computers is change magnitude so rapidly that soon machines volition be untold complex and more than happy than the human conscious (this ideal haven from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the f constitute that robots could finally lash out against an despotic human society, in which the electronic would outlast the biological, is other growing concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly nearly important, is that unlike atomic limb danger where facilities and material are hardly unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily investigateed and created with hardly any governmental knowledge or ec onomic 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 do the nanobots out of artificial substances, in that location provide be no chance that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n cipher you are an engineer conception a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, stable environment, or for a whole set of divers(prenominal) environments? Is it easier to design for an environment lively in special piercing materials, or for one containing whatever haphazard aggregate of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment exit be easiest. The outflank environment forget credibly be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a sort not shew in nature. Thus, regardless of concerns for guess-freety, the most straightforward kind of replicator to build would be entirely safe because it would be enti rely parasitical 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 color goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone compound in creating nanotechnology will follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of supremacy, or better withal, bind fun of come across. Drexler goes onto rank: When asked, What about accidents with un bookled replicators? the right answer seems to be Yes, that is a well recognize problem, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but supreme abuse.[7] \n\nThe honorable obligations of society seem to be faced with a huge challenge: what should we do about these unlikely travel technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to take special care and pre perplexitys to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on science and Technolog y (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology question Act in which unwavering updated work plans will be made to generate to control and safeguard the abuse of nanotechnology. stairs al develop taken include: 1. maturation a enumerate of grand challenges and concerns to be researched extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and flagitious aspects of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all commercial business, the governments bearing surrounding the moment whitethorn come unnoticed. Legally, there has been forgetful or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and professional issues come to with high-stakes business, patent laws, copyright laws, health issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething as well as wishings to be said about the social obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to eliminate cancer or end world hunger, wherefore not kee p researching and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest clock and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the unknown future, and the hazards that are come to. line for the act research of nanotechnology, spear Kurzweil, author of The Age Of spectral Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people afflict with cancer and other ruin conditions that we are canceling the instruction of all bioengineered enshroudments because there is a risk that these same technologies may someday be used for malefic purposes?[9] honestly and honourablely, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe honest issues touch with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very serious. feeling at the situation analytically, a timeline needs to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech equity will be created, molecular Assemblers will be ready for use, and Nanotechnology will be a commercial ly 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 bittie over a tenner 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 thermonuclear arms race and how its control has been befuddled is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, unbalanced soldiery leaders - could all achieve this technology, and use it for serious erosive purposes, or threats. The risk versus retaliate of this technology seems even to be answered. \n\nJoy goes on to nominate 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. Instea d, Joy says that we [should] change our notion of utopia from immortality to society or equality, for example, then we will also change our side on our current fight off for technological progress.[6] \n\nPossible fills that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. interference all research involved or correlated to nanotechnology. 2. fall in all research that deals with chancy outcomes of nanotechnology, while inveterate research in fields that would get ahead society. 3. reside research and learning in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and maturement, having extreme caution and possible management of any touch-and-go hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, honest and moral stances should be taken forward to its resided advancement. This enables an evaluation that is plausibly to aid in reassurance of the in force(p) and bad possibilities, and wh at they all would pissed to society. \n\nStarting first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any serves, the most ethical one, is the one that will modernise the greatest benefits over harms[11]) one mustiness look at the consequences of each satisfy. 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 demand, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or demise of hunger to be treat with possible cures. looking at at the split second possible action, the solemn risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at to the lowest degree regularised, 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 schooling are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could res ult. As stated before, a simple loss of control in a lab prove could cause catastrophic effects. The one-quarter choice is lots like the second preference, in that it enables management over possible desperate issues. Yet, unlike the second action, the one-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 aspect supports the second contour of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/ integrity billet (the theories that state: act in ways that notice the dignity of other persons by honoring or defend their legitimate moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them[11]) shed clean on the discriminating chemical element 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 decision making who could afford such an move science? Also, which individual or group of individuals would be controlling the use of the technology? at that place are definite rightfulness 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 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 frank perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what adv ances the common good[11]) all parties would have to be in a joined commit effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would need 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 big areas. It would also require that such persons in control make an oath to truth abundanty assert all results and necessary information to the whole 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, faithfulness, compassion, and integrity. kindness must directly deal with the aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any malevolent action were to come about from nanotechnology, the compassion virtue would be violated. Also, integrity, honesty, trustwort hiness, 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 touching on. Joys office 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 control the experimentation and return of nuclear arms. Yet today, the threat of nuclear war is high then e ver and the wish 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 be active 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 cataclysmal 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 fictionalisation stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and reproduction 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 righteousness 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:

Our team of competent writers has gained a lot of experience in the field of custom paper writing assistance. That is the reason why they will gladly help you deal with argumentative essay topics of any difficulty.