Archive: 32 posts

---

So I was having an interesting conversation with my professor about the supposed future nano-technological world. He believes the next step in human evolution/technology is for us to build machines that can help our bodies stay healthy and increase the average life-span, perform task better, and even unlock hidden potentials in our brains. Imagine a world where there wasn't any disease, obesity, mental disorders (such as depression or Alzheimer's) or fatigue. Possible through the use of nanoscopic machines that super-regulate our natural bodily functions. We'd transcend our very nature and become super human! I think it's very exciting and if this is truly the next step for us, then we have a very bright future. What's your take on this? What do you think are the Pros and Cons of a nano-techno world? And here's an interesting website pertaining to the topic: The Nano Age (http://thenanoage.com/)

2011-12-01 23:31:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

I'd say it seems a little far-fetched, but I like to believe anything is possible in this world especially with all this new amazing technology. To me, it really catches my interests because I like thinking of what could be in the future and what's to come. So it really draws my attention. But I think the pros would be all the great advantages against diseases, obesity, mental disorders and such that'd change the world to make everything better. I haven't read all of it obviously.. But I think about the cons, that could be scary too. Malfunctions (assuming the whole Nanotechnology is the next step in the future), I mean really, it's scary when our manual technology malfunctions, but when WE malfunction..? But it's really interesting and I think if it really is the next step, then it'd have a deep effect on the world, obviously.. A good one for once.

2011-12-01 23:47:00 Author: Unknown User

---

There's only one fairly simple outcome OP: the Earth's population will increase dramatically as we humans avoid death more easily through our newly gathered intelligence. With more people, however, comes greater resource and food consumption. We will blindly lead ourselves to a point where we are causing the Earth and its other inhabitants too much harm, thus blindly driving ourselves into our own demise. Either we figure out a way to reduce our population, say leave Earth by means of transportation or death, or we could all throw our lives away and continue to pursuit our short-lived enjoyment in our ignorance of our nano-tech lives.

2011-12-02 00:02:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

There's only one fairly simple outcome OP: the Earth's population will increase dramatically as we humans avoid death more easily through our newly gathered intelligence. With more people, however, comes greater resource and food consumption. We will blindly lead ourselves to a point where we are causing the Earth and its other inhabitants too much harm, thus blindly driving ourselves into our own demise. Either we figure out a way to reduce our population, say leave Earth by means of transportation or death, or we could all throw our lives away and continue to pursuit our short-lived enjoyment in our ignorance of our nano-tech lives. This could be an epic movie! Get christopher nolan on the phone asap! Edit: But seriously though, why couldn't the nano machines help speed up the earth's agriculture? And why couldn't we use the nano-machines to keep us from reproducing too much?

2011-12-02 00:06:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

First this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJJQ0zNNOM Now nano-machines for greater mental and physical functionality. Metal Gear Solid was right D: On a more serious note, I'm not really sure what my thoughts are on this yet, it's such a long way off and I don't know much about it.

2011-12-02 00:19:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

If it lets me jump 30 feet high and run at 60mph then I'm all for it. :hero:

2011-12-02 02:01:00 Author: warlord_evil Posts: 4193

---

I think it's very exciting and if this is truly the next step for us, then we have a very bright future. What Cyber said is absolutely right. (Sorry, I can't let someone plug in the words 'very bright future' without mentioning the population crisis (http://www.cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm)). Connecting that concept with nanotechnology, the research doesn't even have a chance, I'd reason. It's too many decades out of our reach and we don't have very many decades of relative peace left to enjoy. What's your take on this? Even if this technology did exist, how expensive would it be? I think it would be a luxury reserved for the rich, in contrast to the sci-fi utopia you described. And there would still be people in third world countries that never live to see an electrical outlet. But seriously though, why couldn't the nano machines help speed up the earth's agriculture? Aren't nano machines injected into the bloodstream? Crops don't have blood... Nor is the solution more crops rather than less people. And why couldn't we use the nano-machines to keep us from reproducing too much? That... makes no sense. First of all, we already have that technology. They're called abortion pills. Second of all, again the problem of expenses comes to mind. The population boom is biggest in the developing countries, and I doubt the world powers would administer an expensive, brand-new technology to third world farmers, when our competitive economies are dependent on their being poor. To sum things up... nanotechnology needs a breath of reality. Even if we ignored everything I just said, let's say nanotechnology comes true. This would clearly take time - decades and decades and decades. During that time, nanotechnology isn't the only technology expanding and improving. Genetic engineering especially would allow us to manufacture organic chemicals at a whim, grow limbs and organs in laboratory settings, and regrow lost tissues in conjunction with stem cells. Now nanotechnology isn't looking so hot.

2011-12-02 03:00:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

Geez...you guys are really negative on this subject... What Cyber said is absolutely right. (Sorry, I can't let someone plug in the words 'very bright future' without mentioning the population crisis (http://www.cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm)). The "population crisis" is only a matter of people not being able to keep it in their pants. You can't reproduce without having sex, so how does it "not make sense" for nano-machines to decrease sex drive? Or even better, replace condoms? Edit: OH ok, I didn't read the rest of your post. Well I find it hard to believe we won't find a way to stop people from reproducing so much "decades from now". Connecting that concept with nanotechnology, the research doesn't even have a chance, I'd reason. It's too many decades out of our reach and we don't have very many decades of relative peace left to enjoy. Even if this technology did exist, how expensive would it be? I think it would be a luxury reserved for the rich, in contrast to the sci-fi utopia you described. And there would still be people in third world countries that never live to see an electrical outlet. Why do you think this? Why do you think they couldn't find a low cost way of manufacturing it? Especially as you say, decades into the future? Aren't nano machines injected into the bloodstream? Crops don't have blood... Nor is the solution more crops rather than less people. Crops need healthy soil? To sum things up... nanotechnology needs a breath of reality. Even if we ignored everything I just said, let's say nanotechnology comes true. This would clearly take time - decades and decades and decades. During that time, nanotechnology isn't the only technology expanding and improving. Genetic engineering especially would allow us to manufacture organic chemicals at a whim, grow limbs and organs in laboratory settings, and regrow lost tissues in conjunction with stem cells. Now nanotechnology isn't looking so hot. It's just a thought. Not everything has to be perfect in order to benefit the world in some kind of way. Plus, It might not take as long as you think. It just needs to be perfected(in terms of functioning) and safe. That's when I think it will become available for everyone. And nanotechnology can be used for more than just humans.

2011-12-02 14:16:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

Imagine a world where there wasn't any disease, obesity, mental disorders (such as depression or Alzheimer's) or fatigue. Possible through the use of nanoscopic machines that super-regulate our natural bodily functions. And why couldn't we use the nano-machines to keep us from reproducing too much? That would really change the entire human condition, to live serenely free from pain or desire. What kind of effect do you think it'll have?

2011-12-02 20:10:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

Its all good until they get hacked.

2011-12-02 21:14:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

Its all good until they get hacked. Like the internet, right?

2011-12-02 21:28:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

---

Yeah, we're a long way off from "The Human Revolution". But short term, nanotech will help in creating new super-strong/super-light materials, that'll help us finally build the Space Elevator (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator). Which would make travelling to the moon alot faster and cheaper. But will also cause WWIII over who owns the Helium 3 mining rights on the moon

2011-12-03 03:02:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

It's foolish to think that nanotechnology would be able to so readily solve all the other problems we have today rather then exacerbate them. As it stands we already don't have the logistical means to provide food and shelter for a huge chunk of Earth's population and the idea upgrading everyone into nano-ubermensches would be any easier is ridiculous. The benefits of magical nano-crops if they actually existed (and whether or not they needed fertile, nutrient-filled soil like normal crops do) would also be hindered by similar difficulties in distribution; and as Incinerator said, even if distribution wasn't a problem it doesn't solve the greater ills of humanity as a whole. Even if you could get beyond the issues of logistics, nanotechnology will not make the world any bigger or make people any wiser unless it actually makes them learn a lesson, the hard way. The fact is, people are living too long and those that have the means often breed too often and live too decadently, and the very conditions nanotechnology could supposedly cure have only become acute problems in this age because of that kind of lifestyle (when you live long, damage to your genes adds up and when you breed more the chances of that damage passing on increases too). Of course, this sort of lifestyle is only possible for the relatively prosperous, who would incidently be the individuals who would most likely have access to hypothetical miraculous human augmentation treatment. And that's not even considering the possiblity that only a "few" of them would refuse a controlled breeding measure. The result? They live even longer and have even less reason to care about how degenerate their lifestyles are because those nanomachines would address most of the consequences of them and have little reason to believe such a lesson would be worth passing onto their offspring, who will incidently probably inherit the money to get similar treatment. I mean, why worry about eating healthy and staying fit when nanomachines can keep you healthy and fit for you, right? Thus the disparity within the human race increases even more as the amount of decency decreases. Science only works for the benefit of humanity when humanity itself has the wisdom to use it responsibly. And technology, nano or not can't change human nature on a grand scale (i.e. making people less able to reproduce) unless you start sliding down a very slippery slope and actions like that over the course of history tend to be filed under a little category called "crimes against humanity."

2011-12-03 03:25:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

And hope we don't all end up as grey goo (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GreyGoo)

2011-12-03 03:42:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Does this mean we will soon have supreme power over Deus Ex Machina? :O Kojima, eat your heart out. Then grow it back. Then eat it again. Yum. Wait, what? Oh yeah, we're about to get the power of deus ex machina. Cool.

2011-12-03 03:52:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

It's foolish to think that nanotechnology would be able to so readily solve all the other problems we have today rather then exacerbate them. As it stands we already don't have the logistical means to provide food and shelter for a huge chunk of Earth's population and the idea upgrading everyone into nano-ubermensches would be any easier is ridiculous. The benefits of magical nano-crops if they actually existed (and whether or not they needed fertile, nutrient-filled soil like normal crops do) would also be hindered by similar difficulties in distribution; and as Incinerator said, even if distribution wasn't a problem it doesn't solve the greater ills of humanity as a whole. Even if you could get beyond the issues of logistics, nanotechnology will not make the world any bigger or make people any wiser unless it actually makes them learn a lesson, the hard way. The fact is, people are living too long and those that have the means often breed too often and live too decadently, and the very conditions nanotechnology could supposedly cure have only become acute problems in this age because of that kind of lifestyle (when you live long, damage to your genes adds up and when you breed more the chances of that damage passing on increases too). Of course, this sort of lifestyle is only possible for the relatively prosperous, who would incidently be the individuals who would most likely have access to hypothetical miraculous human augmentation treatment. And that's not even considering the possiblity that only a "few" of them would refuse a controlled breeding measure. The result? They live even longer and have even less reason to care about how degenerate their lifestyles are because those nanomachines would address most of the consequences of them and have little reason to believe such a lesson would be worth passing onto their offspring, who will incidently probably inherit the money to get similar treatment. I mean, why worry about eating healthy and staying fit when nanomachines can keep you healthy and fit for you, right? Thus the disparity within the human race increases even more as the amount of decency decreases. Science only works for the benefit of humanity when humanity itself has the wisdom to use it responsibly. And technology, nano or not can't change human nature on a grand scale (i.e. making people less able to reproduce) unless you start sliding down a very slippery slope and actions like that over the course of history tend to be filed under a little category called "crimes against humanity." Heh...no one said it would solve "all" our problems. But you are looking at the glass half-empty. I'm filled to the nose with finals, so I didn't have time to properly state my point of view on what incinerator said. (Plus I have ADHD, so it takes me forever to organize my thoughts well enough to make sense.) But I'm on my journey to sleep (and I've taken my pills) so I'll give it another shot. First off, nano-machines are like any machine, they only are an extension of the human body. They only help us do things we can''t do/make things we can do easier. No one (certainly me) is saying that nano-machines will save the world, because no machine in the world can alter human nature. I think the Smith agent from the Matrix put it quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w&feature=related So...without all the melodrama, the human race is doomed to be who we are. A virus to the planet Earth. Eventually, the Earth won't be able to provide us the things we need to survive and "something" will need to change. Something will have to happen in order for us to survive. A few of my friends believe WWIII will be started in an attempt to lower the overall population and conserve the little resources we might have. Some believe we will find other planets capable of sustaining life. Who knows? My point is that nano-machines will arguably neither help nor hurt the human race. But it will "change" it. Think of it like the introduction of television, or telephones, or Internet or Ipods . It's just (possibly) the "next step" for us. The whole "bright future" thing, is just a way of saying that we are going to grow as a race.

2011-12-03 05:20:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

Yeah, thing is, you're arguement is kinda going all over the place. You can say machines can't change human nature, but then you mention how nanomachines will nebulously "change" humans shortly after as well as specifically noted that they could be used to make people superhuman in your first post and proposed using them to make adjustments to the very ability for people to reproduce as a potential "countermeasure" to potential problems that arise from it. Nevermind the heavy ethical implications of that last one but I imagine a superhuman being that is immune to a number of detrimental medical conditions is a dramatic change from what a human is today. But hey, let's just say you're just talking about human nature in mental/psychologica/sociological terms rather then biological ones and you claim the introduction of nanomachines is more parallel to the introduction of more recent technological advancements; but the thing is those technologies have already been found to change how you think and behave (http://www.cracked.com/article_18856_6-shocking-ways-tv-rewires-your-brain_p2.html) simply by altering the degree and content of information you process on a daily basis (I imagine the effect of #5 is particularly prevalent, no?) and what you propose nanomachines can do will introduce far more pronounced changes to the people who make use of them but haven't given an explaination about how making "superhumans" would result in them being better (not "superior") people which should ideally take presidence. Incinerator has already mentioned the issues of overpopulation and resource shortages and I concur so I don't really know the point of posting Agent Smith's nihilistic monologue. Not to mention the fact that he was an agent of a system that controlled human behavior really muddles whatever point you're trying to make; are you saying humans modified by nanomachines should be kept under lock and key by bigger machines? No one here said using nanomachines on a grand scale will only have bad results but using them in the way your professor hypothesized, even if it was at all feasible in spite of the innumerable hurdles in the way, raises a lot of eyebrows. It might not be "evil" but it is very reckless and that "next step" might just be another one step forward alongside two steps back.

2011-12-03 07:02:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

I don't think there would be a huge population boom. Or at least, it won't last very long. People will still keep killing each other, and there will probably be a huge, decimating war. Also, I figure that once someone is capable of doing a lot on their own, and can live a long time, they'll probably stop thinking about raising children, or at least they won't raise many children. From what I've seen in nature, it seems like the more capable an individual is in a species, the less the procreate. Of course, this is just speculation. Who knows what will, or if we'll actually make it to that point.

2011-12-03 07:04:00 Author: RagTagPwner Posts: 344

---

Yeah, thing is, you're arguement is kinda going all over the place. You can say machines can't change human nature, but then you mention how nanomachines will nebulously "change" humans shortly after as well as specifically noted that they could be used to make people superhuman in your first post and proposed using them to make adjustments to the very ability for people to reproduce as a potential "countermeasure" to potential problems that arise from it. Nevermind the heavy ethical implications of that last one but I imagine a superhuman being that is immune to a number of detrimental medical conditions is a dramatic change from what a human is today. You''re taking everything I said too literally....Or you misinterpret what I'm saying altogether... When I say "human nature", I was referring to the natural things human do that are detrimental to themselves and their environment. No matter what technology or biology humans have, they will still find a way to harm themselves and the environment. It's apart of being the superior species on a planet. And I was only suggesting a possibility with that reproduction thing. The same with the crop thing. It's about what COULD be possible with nano-technology. But hey, let's just say you're just talking about human nature in mental/psychologica/sociological terms rather then biological ones and you claim the introduction of nanomachines is more parallel to the introduction of more recent technological advancements; but the thing is those technologies have already been found to change how you think and behave (http://www.cracked.com/article_18856_6-shocking-ways-tv-rewires-your-brain_p2.html) simply by altering the degree and content of information you process on a daily basis (I imagine the effect of #5 is particularly prevalent, no?) and what you propose nanomachines can do will introduce far more pronounced changes to the people who make use of them but haven't given an explaination about how making "superhumans" would result in them being better (not "superior") people which should ideally take presidence. I hardly even watch TV...so no number 5 isn't prevalent...(assuming you were referring to my ADHD) Incinerator has already mentioned the issues of overpopulation and resource shortages and I concur so I don't really know the point of posting Agent Smith's nihilistic monologue. Not to mention the fact that he was an agent of a system that controlled human behavior really muddles whatever point you're trying to make; are you saying humans modified by nanomachines should be kept under lock and key by bigger machines? I just liked the way he explained it...? Why are you looking any deeper into something that is very plainly put out to you? No one here said using nanomachines on a grand scale will only have bad results but using them in the way your professor hypothesized, even if it was at all feasible in spite of the innumerable hurdles in the way, raises a lot of eyebrows. It might not be "evil" but it is very reckless and that "next step" might just be another one step forward alongside two steps back. OK so basing your views on nanotechnology on Incinerator's and your posts...your problem with nanotechnology is that it will increase the population of an overpopulated population...and that I'm being too positive about something that might possibly allow me and my loved ones to live longer...and that "realistically" speaking, nano-technology, will be more harmful than helpful... Do I get everything? And please elaborate more on the bolded statement.

2011-12-03 08:45:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

I don't think human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature) means what you think it means. It's a matter of ethics and behavior within the species, not human behavioral patterns and how they affect nature itself (I'd be more inclined to call that "environmental impact"). And TV is just an example of technologies introduced that unexpectedly but rapidly changed how humans behave and interact with one another and one you specifically brought up initially as a parallel to nanotechnology and the advancement of the species. And given the grand scope of what you hope nanotechnology can do relative to what the proliferators of TV hoped to do, makes the implications behind the former even more significant. I'm also not looking into deeper meaning into Smith's rant. I hate to spell it out for you word for word, but what I was trying to imply was that to an extent he, me and Incinerator agree on how humans behave and as such doesn't really back up any sort of stance your taking on the implementation of nanotechnology. Not only because what he says does nothing to show humans can use such advanced technology responsibly, but because he himself is a result of technology gone wrong. He does nothing for your primary argument other then create a tangent. Again, I don't have problem with nanotechnology in itself or for that matter optimism. While overpopulation and disparity are the most likely negative outcomes the fundamental problem I have is with people who jump on something untested, potentially dangerous and of questionable viability mostly because it can have specific benefits without actually addressing the potential costs (monetary and otherwise) which would allow those negatives to become issues in the first place in a proper fashion. For example, responding to the question of long term costs of R&D, mass manufacturing, distribution and other socioeconomic obstacles with "We'll just make it cheaper! We'll find a way!" does not give me reason to believe that such a response was well-thought out. It's not nanotechnology I have a problem with, it's how you want to use it. One step forward and two steps back. A solution to a problem loses its worth if it creates more problems then it solves. And that step won't even occur if the solution isn't even viable.

2011-12-03 10:16:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

I don't think human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature) means what you think it means. It's a matter of ethics and behavior within the species, not human behavioral patterns and how they affect nature itself (I'd be more inclined to call that "environmental impact"). Yes...but it's implied that I'm talking about "effects" of human nature. Again...you're taking everything I'm saying too literally. And TV is just an example of technologies introduced that unexpectedly but rapidly changed how humans behave and interact with one another and one you specifically brought up initially as a parallel to nanotechnology and the advancement of the species. And given the grand scope of what you hope nanotechnology can do relative to what the proliferators of TV hoped to do, makes the implications behind the former even more significant. Again, I don't have problem with nanotechnology in itself or for that matter optimism. While overpopulation and disparity are the most likely negative outcomes the fundamental problem I have is with people who jump on something untested, potentially dangerous and of questionable viability mostly because it can have specific benefits without actually addressing the potential costs (monetary and otherwise) which would allow those negatives to become issues in the first place in a proper fashion. For example, responding to the question of long term costs of R&D, mass manufacturing, distribution and other socioeconomic obstacles with "We'll just make it cheaper! We'll find a way!" does not give me reason to believe that such a response was well-thought out. It's not nanotechnology I have a problem with, it's how you want to use it. You're spending too much time trying to contradict me rather than see the whole point of this thread. It's fine that you give your input on everything, but it seems your problem with this is "my" input on everything. Nano-technology is something young and no one knows anything about. I'm only talking about "what could come out of nanotechnology", I'm not being "realistic", just thoughtful. And if incinerator talks about this technology coming out decades from now...a lot more technology could change a lot of the concerns you have about population, responsibility, etc.. I'm also not looking into deeper meaning into Smith's rant. I hate to spell it out for you word for word, but what I was trying to imply was that to an extent he, me and Incinerator agree on how humans behave and as such doesn't really back up any sort of stance your taking on the implementation of nanotechnology. Not only because what he says does nothing to show humans can use such advanced technology responsibly, but because he himself is a result of technology gone wrong. He does nothing for your primary argument other then create a tangent. Well...yeah you are actually...You're thinking all this because you saw the movie. If you didn't then the message would be plain and simple. Plus, I was agreeing with you...that nano-technology won't "Save the world" like you thought I thought it would...but it will "change" it. For the good? For the bad? who knows? One step forward and two steps back. A solution to a problem loses its worth if it creates more problems then it solves. And that step won't even occur if the solution isn't even viable. So far the only problems you seem to address with nanotechnology is that it will make people irresponsible and will screw up the gene pool because people live too long. Anything else? Because those seem a bit trivial/easily remedied if you ask me. Especially given the time-frame.

2011-12-03 15:44:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

You haven't been anymore thoughtful then you've been realistic, you've only said what you hope nanotechnology could do and more specifically could do for you and those you care about without giving any regard to the long term consequences while dismissing the points others brought up essentially with "we'll figure that out later!" or just flat out not getting what we were saying or putting very loose interpretations to our words. Again, I'm not looking into a deeper meaning to the Smith rant, I'm saying it doesn't do anything for your argument. That's it. And there are more consequences then irresponsibility and "screwing up the gene pool" as well as hurdles to be overcome that have already been mentioned and ethical implications that have been brought up previously that you didn't even seem to notice, but again you haven't said how those would be addressed other other then "we'll figure it out later!' The thing is, we've been trying to figure stuff like that out for generations now and still trying but it's been an uphill battle because people kept on saying (you guessed it) "we'll figure it out later!"

2011-12-03 16:59:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

You haven't been anymore thoughtful then you've been realistic, you've only said what you hope nanotechnology could do and more specifically could do for you and those you care about without giving any regard to the long term consequences while dismissing the points others brought up essentially with "we'll figure that out later!" or just flat out not getting what we were saying or putting very loose interpretations to our words. You act as though you KNOW EVERYTHING about something that doesn't even exist yet. And I've never said or implied "We'll figure it out later". The problems you bring up are theoretical, and only based on inferences of what could happen with nano-technology. My solutions to those problem would be of the same nature, so it's pointless imo to go into all that. All I'm saying there's a possibility of good things coming out of nano-technology. Ya know, better health, longer life styles. How is that not thoughtful? Just because I don't see "what could possibly go wrong" with everything? There are good and bad things that come out of technology, sorry for trying to see the good things that come out of it rather than bad. Again, I'm not looking into a deeper meaning to the Smith rant, I'm saying it doesn't do anything for your argument. That's it. I'm not sure you even know what my argument is...I'm not even sure if I'm arguing anymore, rather just defending the sensibility of my previous post. And there are more consequences then irresponsibility and "screwing up the gene pool" as well as hurdles to be overcome that have already been mentioned and ethical implications that have been brought up previously that you didn't even seem to notice, but again you haven't said how those would be addressed other other then "we'll figure it out later!' The thing is, we've been trying to figure stuff like that out for generations now and still trying but it's been an uphill battle because people kept on saying (you guessed it) "we'll figure it out later!" The ethical implications was based on using nano-machines to decrease sex drive, which is only something I suggested could help with population control. Edit: And exactly how would this be an "ethical" thing anyway?

2011-12-03 18:15:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

I'm cautious about how nanotechnology will be used based on humanity's questionable record of using technological advancements in the past and trouble addressing the consequences in the present, not because I'm omniscient. And I've never said or implied "We'll figure it out later". Ahem. Well I find it hard to believe we won't find a way to stop people from reproducing so much "decades from now". Why do you think this? Why do you think they couldn't find a low cost way of manufacturing it? Especially as you say, decades into the future? Because those seem a bit trivial/easily remedied if you ask me. Especially given the time-frame. You're far, far from the first to make these statements even if they weren't referring to what you are addressing specifically. You're only looking at nanotechnology's benefits from a very superficial standpoint and with the hope that you and those around you will experience those benefits. Let's say theoretically they could improve the health and lifespan of people who would have access to their benefits. But we are already living in a world where people in undeveloped societies or even those on the lower rung of developed societies don't enjoy the full fruits of the medical, technological or overall scientific advancements made over the last century or so due to problems of affordability and accessibility. We haven't been able to provide for those sort of people since the dawn of civilization and introducing something else that seperates the haves from the have nots only makes that problem even more pronounced. And what of those that would benefit from nanotechnology's potential benefits? Would a person who has grown fat or has developed a heart condition from his excessive lifestyle while people starve in the streets actually deserve to have those ailments be cured? And if he is cured will that person have even learned that the lifestyle he led before was a bad one? Will he actually appreciate the extended life he gets and pass on lessons learned to his children or just take it for granted while his ill-raised brood follow his example and the "less deserving" live in misery? If nanotechnology could achieve such feats and if it could be implemented to society as a whole in a responsible way I'd genuinely like to hear how it would be done, because that sort of solution would make a lot of the other problems the world faces today seem a lot less daunting but as it stands we have more questions then answers. Again, even if the technology were there it does not provide assurance that it would be properly implemented. From where I stand your argument is that nanotechnology can do good thus it is worth investing into to explore its potential, but if you're going to address questions of the collective sense of responsibility of humanity in regards to if it will do good with someone's rant about how humans are irresponsible and destructive you've undermined your very argument and may as well have not brought it up in the first place. Is your argument what I just said or are you actually saying lets just take that blind leap without any heed to the consequences or who gets stepped on along the way because humans behave badly anyway and we may as well enjoy the show? And altering people's sex drive with nanomachines to keep the population of Earth stable, ignoring the points previously mentioned about difficulties in implementation, is an ethical issue because it requires a forcible change on humanity as a whole and also brings up the question of what other "safety measures" those in charge would enact. And that slippery slope is the sort of line of thinking that has given rise to some of the worst monsters of recorded history (hence "crimes against humanity"). The only way around that I know of is if you know of a way to convince humanity to wholly and willingly accept a decrease in their sex drive and an absolute guarantee from those they put their faith in to do such to never abuse their trust. If there is a way to do this it is also something I'd really like to hear.

2011-12-03 19:31:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

None of those imply "we'll figure it out later" It's more "we are working on solving those problems already, and have tons of solutions for fixing those problem and it's only a matter of time before we get things done. And one of the those things you claim to be implications of that phrase are only questions I wanted to see why he thought those things would be a problem...that's it. Sorry I didn't read your whole post, just skimmed along to this part: From where I stand your argument is that nanotechnology can do good... This is correct. ...thus it is worth investing into to explore its potential ...this is incorrect. I'll come back and read it later.

2011-12-03 20:52:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849

---

I remember seeing a juxtaposition of photographs - of satellite photographs of the spread of the "concrete jungle" and the spread of cancer in a cell... they looked exactly the same. There's no denying that human activity is a cancer on the earth. Also, most of these "nanotech" predictions are in the region of "within the next 20 to 30 years" - which if past predictions of future technology are anything to go by - will be wildly inaccurate. We were supposed to have robot slaves, all of our daily nutrition in pill form, all hunger disease and poverty irradicated - oh and be living on the moon 10 YEARS AGO! Where as the technology that really did change the world - like the internet - came as a complete surprise to most futurologists. Play the "Tomorrows World" game if you like - I doubt any of us will be right.

2011-12-04 02:43:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Hmm... Anyone for mass nanotechnology burning?

2011-12-04 03:28:00 Author: Undarivik Posts: 442

---

7:51 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5gDJMWh-YGg#t=501s

2011-12-15 05:37:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800

---

I've heard that in the future pepole will be cyrogenically frozen and kept for the fututre, then, when unfrozen, nanobots will enter the body, unfreeze and repair body cells so we can live in a different era. And I learnt that watching TV. Booyah school.

2011-12-16 02:04:00 Author: ALEXhatena Posts: 1110

---

Nanotech is up-and-coming and certainly not limited to residing exclusively within humans. Nanotech can improve crops, food in general, recreation, electronics, and, of course, the lives of humans. The possibilities are nearly limitless. In what way the technology is used in the future determines its true effectiveness. Only time will tell, and I can assure you that nanotech is not far off the horizon.

2011-12-19 23:08:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

Nanotech is up-and-coming and certainly not limited to residing exclusively within humans. Nanotech can improve crops, food in general, recreation, electronics, and, of course, the lives of humans. The possibilities are nearly limitless. In what way the technology is used in the future determines its true effectiveness. Only time will tell, and I can assure you that nanotech is not far off the horizon. Anyone else reading this and feeling that it is missing some links to dodgy sites selling Ugg boots?

2011-12-20 00:09:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

Anyone else reading this and feeling that it is missing some links to dodgy sites selling Ugg boots? Almost, needs to make a little less sense and have some unnecessary HTML coding, then it'd be perfect.

2011-12-20 02:10:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.