Re: U.S. Public Sensible About Nanotech

From: Richard Steven Hack (richardstevenhack_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: 28 Jul 2004 15:58:56 GMT

On 25 Jul 2004 19:30:57 GMT, jsn@panix.com (John S. Novak, III) wrote:

>
>In article <cdusvo02ubn@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard Steven Hack wrote:
>
>>> Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the study found a
>>> majority (57 percent) of respondents selected medical advances as
>>> the most important benefit, followed by environmental cleanup (16
>>> percent), security and defense (12 percent), and improved human
>>> physical and mental abilities (11 percent).
>
>> I have one problem with that. The public clearly has no clue that the
>> latter (improved human abilities) is in fact the primary goal of
>> nanotech. (I assume they don't make the connection between "medical
>> advances" and the latter.) And I suspect the public, once informed of
>> how much of the human race is going to be made obsolete by a new
>> nanotech-based species, is going to be MUCH less receptive to nanotech
>> than Foresight believes.
>
>I have multiple problems with your assessment.
>
>First, you're either enthropomorphizing or self-aggrandizing.
>"Nanotechnology" doesn't have a primary goal, or any oals except in
>the loose sense of "arranging matter to molecular precision."
>Likewise, steam engines didn't have a primary goal, except in the
>loose sense of extracting work from heated gases. (Of course in both
>cases, those primary goals were the goals of the people developing the
>technology, and the technology just the expression of that goal.)

>And while I know some people have as their primary goals the
>application of nanotechnology to the human body for the purpose of
>enhancing it, I don't think it's fair to say that this is the primary
>goal of enough people, that it can therefore be construed as the
>primary goal of even the nanotechnology community.

This is basically a semantics argument. I am not suggesting that the
entire body of the nanotech research community has a specific goal. I
am saying that the end result of nanotech will be that goal regardless
of the present aspirations or conceptions of that community. And the
public will react to those approaching capabilities when some
percentage of those capabilities are visible to them.

>Second, I do and will continue to draw a distinction between health
>advances and improved human capabilities. I don't think it's a
>stretch to say that curing cnacer is a health care advance, while
>respirocytes swimming in my bloodstream letting me take my afternoon
>nap at the bottom of a swimming pool is an improved human ability.

I don't believe I indicated that I thought there was no distinction.
What I said was that the public would not make that distinction.
Also, while there is a distinction to begin with, in that nanotech
research may initially be applied for health benefits, the same tech
might well be applied for enhanced abilities . In fact, that might
happen sooner than you would expect or wish because funding from those
who desire those benefits might actually exceed funding applied for
health benefits. This is a social, economic, or political issue.

You might see the distinction, but the public might not. More
importantly, if the public starts to see actually enhanced human
abilities over and above health applications and disease cures, and
these enhancements are only available to those with money and/or power
(or worse, only for those in some social, economic, or political
"elite"), nanotech is going to be viewed with suspicion.

> But, I claim, this is a good thing for people whose
>primary goal *is* the development of advanced human abilities, because
>it will create a slippery slope effect.

I am saying it probably will create a slippery slope effect, but that
effect might go both ways. On the one hand, those who desire those
abilities will be motivated to acquire them, but those who for
whatever reason cannot acquire them (for reasons of social, economic,
religious or political restrictions) will react with customary human
jealousy and fear. The issue is which camp will exercise the most
influence. Given the number of government flacks currently criticising
the concept on enhance abilities, this does not bode well for which
camp will eventually prevail.

>While I doubt anyone but Leon Kass and his merry band would turn down
>immortality or superhuman abilities if they were offered on a platter,
>they won't be offered on a platter. Immortality will not come
>(assuming it comes) in a single pill five years from now. It will
>come in small increments, a cure for this, a cure for that. Likewise
>any extrahuman abilities, and those *will* start as medical advances.

But even incremental advances can lead to qualitative changes in
social conditions. It is the latter that I am concerned about.

Also, keep in mind that as nanotech improves in capability, there may
come a time when enhancements do NOT start as medical advances, but
are pursued directly for their own sake. This could bring the issue
into sharper focus for the public, especially when they start seeing
such enhancements and more so if they see those enhancements going to
people they consider "privileged" in the first place for whatever
reason.

>In a very real sense, I expect that perfectly reasonable, perfectly
>acceptable desires for improved health will start people on that road,
>and once that happens, it will continue.

In general, I would expect the same. I am merely suggesting that when
that road starts to broaden into a turnpike, some people will want to
put on the brakes. And I am much more pessimistic about human nature
than you are when it comes to human irrationality. 

-- 
Richard Steven Hack
"Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger" - 
and YOU have not killed me!