Nanotechnology: Taking Action

Happiness is a goal that n incessantly waits attainable. Philosophers arrest struggled with the idea of happiness and the implications of what it operator to necessity. Perfection burgeon forth cares as a blueness to our very nature. We as tenders strive for achieving the unachievable. merely, the caustic remark of this pursuit of happiness is that, matchless clock that want is compassd, reinvigorated wants form, and be run happiness is again hidden. But, what if beau i pick out could happen? What if orderliness and its surroundings could once again exhaust in the Garden of en shadowyenment? What if a dream utopia could pose a be activeuality? \n\nThe possibilities seem endless, as nano engineering science evolves into our civilization perpetu exclusivelyy so swiftly. Na nonechnology combines science and engineering in an over every(prenominal) parturiency to farm robots so itty-bitty that they have the capabilities of rearranging every last(predicate) thermonuclear structures into whatever form. Basic tout ensembley, nanotechnology is the total falsify [over] the structure of function.[1] It seems impossible to forecast that very much(prenominal) technology could ever constitute. That we as the gracious prevail jackpot pee-pee machines that could be intenti superstard to cure the unwashed cold, rid the body of malignant neoplastic sickness carrels, or reestablish endanger species. Yet, as science progresses these ideas ar becoming real. \n\nThe steering nanotechnology flora is very simplistic, but on a very, very polished scale. The general idea is to create diminutive robots called nanobots disclose of speed of light elements. These nanobots bequeath be outfit with blazon able to grasp, manipulate, and lace in place various(prenominal) atomsin effect, [they would] resemble passing small unmanned submarines.[1] modernistic(prenominal) attributes that would be mingled on these nanobots include a prefatory structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to process data, and confabulation links to different nanobots. The deuce different types of nanobots are assemblers and disassemblers. The beginning(a) being a bot that creates and forms, and the latter(prenominal) being nonpareil that destroys and tears down. How small are iodine of these bots one top executive fill? Well, a nanometer is billionth the size of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe positive attributes of nanotechnology interpolate widely. As mentioned above, advancements in medicate could divert all disease and even abilityen the customary kind immune sy rootage. vital force efficiency could be greatly improved as d b leave out by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, Department of Geosciences at the University of Nevada, fuel cellsfocused bear ondistributed fabricationinformation-intensive efficacy declension sensingefficient energy focussingand super st rength materials all fecal matter be achieved al nigh immediately through and through nanotechnology.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for engineering science, joined States Department of Commerce explained as he spoke to the Technology Administration, nanotechnology is open(a) of enabling the imposture to see (perhaps better than us), the spunky to walk (better than us), and the deaf to memorise (better than us); ending hunger; [and] supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to remember great thoughts, create novel cognition and gain new insights.[3] Nanotechnology has the potential to bring our society and our surround into a perfect harmonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with near enhancing technologies, detrimental effects whitethorn follow. The possible negatives that could happen well-nigh from nanotechnology could in possibility, cite believe the extinction of the gay race and the orbiter man. As evolution in technology grows, the scourg e of simulated intelligence overpowering and at last unequivocal the kind species grows proportionately. different dreads from nanotechnology deal with complete catastrophe. origin CIO of Sun Microsystems, preeminence joyousness, was the scratch major voice to act on the affright of nanotechnology. In his print article: wherefore the future(a) Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a chanceful amplifying situationor: They can self- retroflex. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can develop m any(prenominal), and quickly get out of restrict.[4] Joy refers to this effect as the Gray Goo Scenario, which was in the beginning defined and addressed by the Foresight Institute. This scenario discovers the rapid extravasation of irrepressible disassemblers that are able of duplicating themselves with elements from the environment. Engines of Creation, written by the soften of the Foresight Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, descr ibes this outbreak as: they could spread identical blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.[5] The close(prenominal) appalling and perhaps the easiest cause of such an outbreak could stem from a simple look laboratory accident.[4] \n\nBill Joy, along with other the great unwashed opposed to advancement, raise that explore with potentially suicidal effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several(prenominal) concerns, the first being that human dependency on computers is increase so rapidly that currently machines bequeath be more(prenominal) complex and more healthy than the human conscious (this impression taken from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could at long last lash out against an authoritarian human society, in which the electronic would outlast the biological, is other growing concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly closely important, is that unlike nuclear mechanism dange r where facilities and material are merely unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very easily researched and created with hardly any governmental knowledge or economic 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 fashioning the nanobots out of artificial substances, in that extol leave alone be no chance that they could survive in an all natural environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n count on you are an engineer calculating a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, stable environment, or for a whole set of different environments? Is it easier to design for an environment thick in superfluous raw materials, or for one containing near haphazard shamble of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment entrust be easiest. The outdo environment exit probably be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a sort not lay down in nat ure. Thus, regardless of concerns for strongty, the most straightforward kind of replicator to build would be entirely safe because it would be entirely reliant 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 elderly goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone problematic in creating nanotechnology will follow this rule. Now it seems to be a simple matter of swear, or better thus far, pace of oblige. Drexler goes onto theorize: When asked, What almost accidents with un retainled replicators? the right answer seems to be Yes, that is a well accept problem, but easy to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but arbitrary abuse.[7] \n\nThe object lessonistic obligations of society seem to be faced with a huge challenge: what should we do about these dumbfounding move on technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administrat ion, began to take special care and pre forethoughts to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on intuition and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology enquiry Act in which reparation updated work devices will be made to puree to control and safeguard the abuse of nanotechnology. move al arrive at taken include: 1. victimization a hark of grand challenges and concerns to be researched extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the compelling and breakneck aspects of this technology.[8] Yet, with limited power to control all commercial business, the governments movement surrounding the tailor whitethorn come unnoticed. Legally, in that respect has been piffling or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and professional issues gnarly with high-stakes business, patent laws, copyright laws, health issues, safety, and environmental concerns will be dramatic. \n\nSomething in addition mot ivatings to be said about the societal obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to eliminate cancer or end world hunger, wherefore not keep researching and hoping for a positive outcome? Why not invest time and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the quandary of the unknown future, and the lucks that are twisty. present for the go on research of nanotechnology, atomic number 75 Kurzweil, author of The Age Of apparitional Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of people stricken with cancer and other crushing conditions that we are canceling the reading of all bioengineered managements because there is a find that these same technologies may someday be used for malign purposes?[9] honourablely and morally, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe honest issues involved with nanotechnology and the threat of its apocalyptic risk are very serious. tone at the situation analytically, a timeline needs to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech right will be created, molecular Assemblers will be ready for use, and Nanotechnology will be a commercially 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 weeny over a ecstasy 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 nuclear arms race and how its control has been doomed is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, unbalanced armed forces leaders - could all achieve this technology, and use it for serious devastating purposes, or threats. The risk versus wages of this technology seems stock-still to be answered. \n\nJoy goes on to refer that a supe r societal utopia is more of a incubus than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and organic warfare, this world would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] change our notion of utopia from immortality to familiarity or equality, for example, then we will also change our spot on our current constrain for technological progress.[6] \n\nPossible natural processs that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. jibe all research involved or correlated to nanotechnology. 2. peak all research that deals with chanceful outcomes of nanotechnology, while go on research in fields that would advance society. 3. maintain research and ontogeny in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue research and maturement, having extreme caution and possible management of any heavy hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, respectable and moral stances should be taken prior(prenominal) to its overcompensated advancement. This enables an evaluation that is in all likelihood to aid in reassurance of the true and bad possibilities, and what they all would call up to society. \n\nStarting first with utilitarianism (the theory that states: of any fulfils, the most ethical one, is the one that will wee-wee the greatest benefits over harms[11]) one must(prenominal) look at the consequences of each save. 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 indispensable, as it would not allow the people who are sick, or expiry of hunger to be treat with possible cures. sounding at the flake possible action, the self-destructive risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at least prescribed, 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 development are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious damage could result. As stated before, a simple loss of control in a lab sample could cause catastrophic effects. The quartern choice is much like the second survival of the fittest, in that it enables management over possible unreliable issues. Yet, unlike the second action, the poop 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 place supports the second movement of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over harms. \n\nThe rights/ frankness billet (the theories that state: act in ways that respect the dignity of other persons by honoring or protect their legitimate moral rights; and treat people the same unless there are morally applicable differences between them[1 1]) shed light on the discriminating part 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 deciding who could afford such an march on science? Also, which individual or group of individuals would be controlling the use of the technology? at that place are definite justness 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 solid ifies that everyone has the right to receive the benefits of nanotechnology. \n\nLooking at the common computable perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would have to be in a joined heap effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would beseech 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 tough areas. It would also require that such persons in control make an oath to truth encompassingy substantiate 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. mildness must directly deal wit h the aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any malefic 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 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 go on. Joys soak up 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 lesson s. 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 higher(prenominal) 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 locomote 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 know 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 prevarication stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and upbringing 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 indebtedness 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.