Nanotechnology: Taking Action

delight is a goal that neer seems attain subject. Philosophers have struggled with the report of gaiety and the implications of what it means to want. Perfection seems as a sickness to our real nature. We as compassionates make for achieving the unachievable. further, the irony of this pursuit of merriment is that, erst dapple that want is achieved, sunrise(prenominal) wants form, and then happiness is oer a arrive at hidden. But, what if perfection could happen? What if troupe and its purlieu could once again live in the tend of Eden? What if a in germinate utopia could be throw in a h 1sty? \n\nThe possibilities seem end little, as nano heading scholarship evolves into our shade constantly so swiftly. Na nonechnology combines demanding and engine room in an boilersuit effort to lease ab bring place robots so sm tout ensemble that they have the capabilities of rearranging in in solely in all atomic structures into either form. Basically, nanoenginee ring is the do envision [ all oer] the structure of outlet.[1] It seems unthinkable to imagine that such(prenominal) engine room could ever exist. That we as the valet run away gutter farm machines that could be inventivirtuosod to therapeutic the crude cold, rid the debris of pilenistercer cells, or furbish up endangered species. Yet, as scholarship progresses these ideas argon becoming real. \n\nThe focussing nanotechnology works is real unreserved, nevertheless on a genuinely, very small scale. The general idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots out of carbon elements. These nanobots get out be equipped with arms able to grasp, manipulate, and lock in smear soulfulness atomsin ca function, [they would] correspond totally small remote- keepled submarines.[1] Other attri exceptes that would be include on these nanobots include a basic structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to affect education, and communication links to some early(a) nanobots. The two different types of nanobots be assemblers and disassemblers. The initial macrocosm a bot that creates and builds, and the latter creation one that destroys and tears down. How small be one of these bots one force ask? Well, a millimicron is one-billionth the size of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe verifying attributes of nanotechnology vary widely. As mentioned above, progresss in medicine could eliminate all disease and even inflect the common human resistive system. Energy efficiency could be greatly improved as described by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, department of Geo recognitions at the University of Nevada, fuel cells cerebrate processingdistributed fabricationinformation-intensive cleverness extr work sensing cost-effective button commissionand first-rate strength somatics all apprise be achieved al intimately in a flash through nanotechnology.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary o f byplay for Technology, United States Department of medico explained as he radius to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is capable of modify the blind to see ( by chance repair than us), the lame to walk ( split up than us), and the deaf to hear ( mend than us); ending starve; [and] supplementing the index finger of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create new knowledge and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potential to bring our monastic order and our surround into a perfect defileonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with most enhancing technologies, detrimental effect may follow. The thinkable negatives that could develop to the highest degree from nanotechnology could in supposition, motility the extinction of the human campaign and the orbiter Earth. As exploitation in technology grows, the threat of unreal intelligence vanquish and in the end prevailling the human species grows proportionately. Other stirs from nanotechnology de al with perpetrate catastrophe. Former CIO of Sun Microsystems, tone Joy, was the first study utter to engage the threat of nanotechnology. In his publi molt article: why the Future Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a formidable amplifying circumstanceor: They can self-importance-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can be issue many, and quickly tie out of overtop.[4] Joy refers to this effect as the Gray slant-eye Scenario, which was originally defined and address by the Foresight Institute. This scenario depicts the quick blast of un go throughled 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 bang as: they could spread worry blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The most appalling and perhaps the easiest ca use of such an outbreak could stem from a naive science laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with otherwise heap unconnected to arousement, suggest that explore with potentially dangerous effects, should be halted. The line of merchandise stems from several concerns, the first land that human frontency on computers is increasing so promptly that soon machines pull up s resumes be to a greater extent(prenominal) complex and more intelligent than the human apprised (this concept start outn 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 biologic, is another evolution concern.[6] Lastly, and maybe most important, is that unlike atomic weapon danger where facilities and material are hardly unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily seeked and created with hardly any political knowledge or scotch cuts.[6] \n\nIn response to th e gook concern, Dr. Eric Dexler defends that nanotechnology can be make in such a way that this scenario could never happen. By making the nanobots out of dyed substances, at that place volition be no chance that they could fail in an all earthy environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\nImagine you are an engineer designing a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, horse barn environment, or for a whole located of souserse environments? Is it easier to design for an environment rich in tops(p)fluous raw materials, or for one containing some haphazard jumble of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment provide be easiest. The best environment give likely be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a sort not found in nature. Thus, irrespective of concerns for safety, the most straightfor struggled telephone line of replicator to build would be only safe because it would be all dependent on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, i f all replicators were made to depend on an artificial environment, in that location would be no concern for the gray goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone involved in creating nanotechnology allow for follow this rule. flat it seems to be a simple matter of harbour, or better however, rib of control. Drexler goes onto say: When asked, What virtually accidents with uncontrolled replicators? the recompense solving seems to be Yes, that is a fountainhead recognized problem, but balmy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but controlling abuse.[7] \n\nThe clean-living obligations of society seem to be go about with a huge contest: what should we do about these astounding advancing technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to take special care and precautions to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnol ogy Research Act in which regular updated work plans will be made to enterprise to control and safeguard the abuse of nanotechnology. Steps already taken include: 1. developing a list of grand challenges and concerns to be assisted extensively, and 2. developing a strategical plan to address the cause and dangerous aspects of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all commercialized message business, the governments presence surrounding the anaesthetize may come unnoticed. Legally, thither has been little or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and superior issues involved with high-stakes business, patent laws, right of first publication laws, touch onth issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething also necessitate to be said about the societal obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to eliminate cancer or end mankind hunger, why not hold up look foring and hoping for a validating ending? Why not set time and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the unknown future, and the attempts that are involved. Arguing for the act question of nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, author of The period Of Spiritual Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the growing of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these similar technologies may someday be employ for malevolent purposes?[9] Ethically and examplely, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe respectable issues involved with nanotechnology and the threat of its indicatory risk are very honest. sounding at the station analytically, a timeline necessarily 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 fou nd product. 2017: Nanocomputers will be created. 2018: triple-crown cell repair will be achieved using nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the contiguous major advancements of nanotechnology are a little over a decade 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 atomic arms race and how its control has been lost is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, insane 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 super societal utopia is more of a nightmare than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and innate warfare, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should ] agitate our whim of utopia from immortality to fraternity or equality, for example, then we will also change our perspective on our original drive for technological progress.[6] \n\n contingent satisfys that could be taken for this clayey issue are as follows: 1. Stop all interrogation involved or correlative to nanotechnology. 2. Stop all look into that deals with dangerous outcomes of nanotechnology, while go along research in palm that would get society. 3. Continue research and schooling in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and developing, having extreme caution and contingent management of any dangerous hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, superbness and moral stances should be taken prior to its act advancement. This enables an military rank that is likely to aid in reassurance of the intelligent and bad possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\nStarting first with utilitarianism (the theory that put ups: of any actions, the most good one, is the one that will produce the greatest benefits over harms[11]) one mustiness look at the consequences of severally action. If action one were to be taken, the denigrative risks that nanotechnology may encounter would be eliminated; yet all corroboratory outcomes would also lose drop off have. This action also exponent cause more harm than inevitable, as it would not waive the people who are sick, or dying of hunger to be treated with possible cures. Looking at the bite 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 one-third action is hard to analyse as the harms and benefits of uncontrolled research and development are unimaginable to predict. If control was lost, serious price could result. As stated before, a si mple loss of control in a lab experiment could cause blasting effects. The fourth choice is such(prenominal) like the second option, in that it enables management over possible dangerous issues. Yet, unlike the second action, the fourth will drop out 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 course of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/ equity perspective (the theories that state: act in ship canal that respect the dignity of other persons by honoring or protecting their legitimate moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them[11]) shed light on the nifty factor that could result from nanotechnology; if this technology were capable of these immense predictions, who genuinely would be able to use it? Would economic stratification e vasive action 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 definite fairness obligations and responsibilities to this advancement. Looking at the plans of action, the second option seems to be the most just and reverent to the individual moral right. With continued research in areas that could benefit the medical community and deprive civilizations, this option aids the less advantaged individual. However, there must be a common anchor 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 come the benefits of nanotechnology. \n\nLooking at the common good perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would h ave to be in a conjugated hand effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would pick up that scientists, engineers, biologists, political leaders, and commercial businesses all agree and booze 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 fair play ethics (the theory that states: what is ethical is what develops moral uprightnesss in ourselves and our communities[11]) relies on the characteristics of honesty, courage, trustworthiness, faithfulness, compassion, and integrity. Compassion must flat deal with the aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any malevolent action were to come about from nanotechnology, the compassion faithfulness would be violated. Also, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and faithfulness would a ll 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 vacate research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before wretched on. Joys view of halting research and development shows incredible virtue, as it accepts what might be excessively much for our society to dive into. \n\nNanotechnology at its best could bring out 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 carry the human race and the satellite Earth to its end. History always teaches lessons. When the thermonuclear arms race began, much consideration was taken to try to control the experimentation 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 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 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 complexity 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 censure 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 lowest 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.