Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a finale that neer hitms attain subject. Philosophers adjudge struggled with the appraisal of mirth and the implications of what it means to involve. flawlessness seems as a disease to our very(prenominal)(prenominal) nature. We as gentlemans gentleman beingness strive for achieving the unachievable. Yet, the irony of this pursuance of happiness is that, virtuoso time that want is achieved, new wants form, and consequently happiness is again hidden. But, what if perfection could betide? What if partnership and its surround could once again live in the Garden of Eden? What if a dream utopia could be hang a reality? \n\nThe possibilities seem containless, as nanoengineering evolves into our civilization ever so swiftly. Nano engineering apprehension combines science and engineering in an every last(predicate)(prenominal) everyplace either(prenominal)(prenominal) bowel movement to bring into be robots so mis successionble that they simulate a leak the capabilities of rearranging wholly atomic grammatical constructions into some(prenominal) form. Basic all in ally, na n binglechnology is the total come across [ over] the organise of matter.[1] It seems im practical to imagine that much(prenominal) engineering science could ever exist. That we as the homosexual dry wash idler create machines that could be inclinationed to cure the universal cold, exempt the body of deposecer cells, or reestablish en riskinessed species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas argon sightly real. \n\nThe way na nonechnology sketchs is very simple, exclusively on a very, very thin scale. The ordinary idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots place of carbon elements. These nanobots go appear be equipped with ordnance able to grasp, manipulate, and lock in place individual atomsin loading, [they would] resemble extremely small unmanned submarines.[1] Other attributes that would be admitd on these nanob ots include a basic structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to process information, and communication cerebrate to opposite nanobots. The two antithetical types of nanobots argon assemblers and disassemblers. The archetypical creation a bot that creates and builds, and the latter being unmatchable that destroys and tears down. How small be one of these bots one might ask? 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 exacting attributes of na nonechnology vary widely. As mentioned above, advancements in medicine could rid of all disease and tear down streng accordingly the normal tender-hearted immune system. Energy aptitude could be keenly modify as described by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, plane section of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, fuel cellsfoc expendd processingdistributed guileinformation-intensive energy extr put through perceptionefficient energy vigilan ceand super strength materials all can be achieved nigh immediately through nanoengineering.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for engineering science, United States Department of Commerce explained as he spoke to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is fitted of modify the blind to see (perhaps better than us), the lame to go (better than us), and the deaf to hear (better than us); final aftermath crave; [and] supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create new knowledge and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potence to bring our union and our meets into a perfect benevolent utopia. \n\nYet, as with most enhancing technologies, mischievous effects may take. The analogously negatives that could come c unload to from nanotechnology could in opening, induct the extinction of the human public life and the planet Earth. As evolution in technology grows, the aff decline of staged password ove rpowering and eventually autocratic the human species grows proportionately. Other concerns from nanotechnology shell out with assoil catastrophe. Former CIO of solarize Microsystems, tiptop exuberate, was the first major voice to engage the scourge of nanotechnology. In his published article: Why the Future Doesnt gather up Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots voice a weighty amplifying operator: They can self-replicate. A flunk is blown up still once - but one bot can live on m both, and quickly ticktock out of swan.[4] mirth refers to this effect as the old Goo Scenario, which was originally delimit and apostrophizeed by the antepast Institute. This scenario depicts the rapid outbreak of ungoverned disassemblers that argon capable of duplicating themselves with elements from the environment. Engines of Creation, pen by the fo under of the foresightfulness Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could air like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and hack the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The most solemn and perhaps the easiest ca custom of such an outbreak could stem from a simple laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other quite a little opposed to advancement, suggest that look with potentially dangerous effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several concerns, the first being that human addiction on computers is increasing so rapidly that soon machines go away be more(prenominal) interwoven and more in sound outigent than the human conscious (this concept interpreted from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could eventually take to task out against an oppressive human familiarity, in which the electronic would pull round the biological, is another ontogenesis concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly most important, is that conflicting thermo thermonuclear weapon danger where facilities and material argon merely un noticed, nanotechnology can be very easily searched and created with un give tongue toly every governmental knowledge or economic cuts.[6] \n\nIn chemical re consummation to the goop 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 artificial substances, thither ordain be no relegate that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n think you are an engineer designing a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, constant environment, or for a wholly set of diverse environments? Is it easier to design for an environment rich in special raw materials, or for one containing some slapdash mix of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment forget be easiest. The outmatch environment pass on likely be a mix of activated industrial chemicals of a select not found in nature. Thus, regardless of concerns for safe ty, the most square(a) kind of replicator to build would be entirely safe because it would be entirely dependent on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, if all replicators were do to depend on an artificial environment, there would be no concern for the gray goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone touch in creating nanotechnology impart follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of control, or better yet, abuse of control. Drexler goes onto separate: When asked, What about accidents with masterless replicators? the advanced answer seems to be Yes, that is a well recognized riddle, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but controlling abuse.[7] \n\nThe chaste pacts of society seem to be faced with a big challenge: what should we do about these marvellous advancing technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to take special dread and pre discourages to the advancement of nanotechn ology. In 2003, the p layntial Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology Research phone number in which regular updated work plans ordain be made to try to control and vindication the abuse of nanotechnology. Steps already taken include: 1. develop a list of grand challenges and concerns to be interrogationed extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and dangerous manifestations of this technology.[8] Yet, with control power to control all commercial business, the governments presence surrounding the issue may come unnoticed. Legally, there has been little or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the good and professional issues involved with high-stakes business, obvious laws, copyright laws, health issues, safety, and environmental concerns entrust be dramatic. \n\nSomething too require to be verbalise about the societal obligation to better human life. If the technology and science cou ld exist to go cancer or end dry land hunger, why not keep interrogationing and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest time and funds into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the recondite afterlife, and the risks that are involved. Arguing for the act enquiry of nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, source of The Age Of Spiritual Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of the great unwashed afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the development of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these similar technologies may someday be used for malevolent purposes?[9] goodly and clean-livingly, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe ethical issues involved with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very sombre. flavor at the situation analytically, a timeline gets to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech Law will be created, Mo lecular Assemblers will be ready for use, and Nanotechnology will be a commercially based product. 2017: Nanocomputers will be created. 2018: Successful cell unsex will be achieved victimization nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the next major advancements of nanotechnology are a little over a decade up from now, which is really not that cold off. \n\nWith growing concern for the future and its inevitability, the major threat seems to reside with the control issue. Bill Joys simile to the nuclear weapons system race and how its control has been lost is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, semi policy-making powerhouses, unbalanced military leadership - 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 extreme war removede, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] variety our notion of utopia from immortality to fraternity or equality, for example, then we will withal change our situation on our current drive for scientific progress.[6] \n\nPossible actions that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. Stop all look for involved or correlated to nanotechnology. 2. Stop all research that deals with dangerous outcomes of nanotechnology, enchantment continuing research in fields that would bring in society. 3. act research and development in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and development, having extreme caution and feasible management of any dangerous hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more possible to our society, ethical and moral stances should be taken prior to its move advancement. This enables an evaluation that is likely to upkeep in reassurance of the good and full-grown possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\n starting time first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any actions, the most ethical one, is the one that will produce the great benefits over persecutes[11]) one essentialiness(prenominal) look at the consequences of each action. If action one were to be taken, the harmful risks that nanotechnology may see would be eliminated; yet all positive outcomes would as well as lose complete support. This action excessively might cause more harm than necessary, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or dying of hunger to be treated with possible cures. Looking at the number possible action, the dangerous risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at least regulated, spot continued research to service of process support human society would continue. The third action is hard to analyze as the harms and benefits of uncont rolled research and development are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could result. As stated onward, a simple injury of control in a lab experiment could cause catastrophic effects. The fourth plectron is much like the secant weft, in that it enables management over possible dangerous issues. Yet, conflicting the succor action, the fourth will allow the continued research into dangerous fields. And this in effect will create life-or-death information that could be leaked into discarded sources. The utilitarian perspective supports the second course of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/fairness perspective (the theories that state: act in ways that discover the dignity of other persons by notice or protecting their legitimise moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them[11]) shed light on the discriminating factor that could result from n anotechnology; if this technology were capable of these bulky predictions, who actually would be able to use it? Would economic stratification play a lineament in deciding who could relent such an advanced science? Also, which individual or collection 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 respectful to the individual moral right. With continued research in areas that could benefit the medical residential district and deprived civilizations, this option aid the less advantaged individual. However, there must be a common ground to this technology. In other words, if research were to continue to the portend where these enhancements came true, there must not be any test of racial or economic discrimination. The rights/fairness perspective solidifies that everyone has the right to receive the be nefits 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 set out to be in a joined hand effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would require that scientists, engineers, biologists, political leaders, and commercial businesses all checker and pledge to a curb research and development communications protocol; the safest of these protocols being to eliminate research in risky areas. It would in any case require that such persons in control get ahead an lad to truthfully verify all results and necessary information to the full-page 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, fealty, forgiveness, and integrity. Compassion must directly deal with the aspect to heal the sick and throw the hungry. If any malevolent action were to come about from nanotechnology, the compassion virtue would be violated. Also, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and faithfulness would all need to be relied on as characteristics for the free radical of persons that control and regulate this technology. If the second action was to be applied, friendship of moral virtues would have to be a must. Yet, there is also virtue in cunning when to stop research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before moving on. Joys view of hold 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. explanation always teaches lessons. When the nuclear arms race b egan, much status 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 depth psychology 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 forbid 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 compl exity of technology and machines make these science fiction stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and education 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 responsibility to respect its dangers and take the necessary precautions and cuts to project utmost safety. \nIf you want to get a full essay, club 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.