New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 26, 2005

Ron Bailey, for one, welcomes our new nanotech-enhanced overlords.

Comments

Dave W.|10.26.05 @ 1:31PM|#

"But this sober call for harder thinking and more dialogue is a characteristic move in much of what passes for bioethical thinking. Instead of providing final answers, academic and government funded bioethicists artfully protest, "I am just asking some hard questions here. It�s my job to ask hard questions." But the implication is that technologists and researchers should stop what they are doing until the bioethicists have come up with the answers to all the hard questions that they are asking. As for public dialogue, this usually means setting up some government committee or other that issues a weighty report suggesting that "we" need to think harder about whatever it believes the issues are."

Does this apply to the noted toxicity and infection concerns? Not clear from the article.

|10.26.05 @ 1:40PM|#

From my reading, toxicity and infection were specifically excluded from the concerns raised in the article about bioethics Luddites. And really, those are not the issues that bioethicists typically concern themselves with--whereas warning about some kind of futuristic freakshow is much more likely to gain them notoriety (and hence $$$).

That linked article on vasculoids was fascinating. Still nothing more than science fantasy, however, since it posits the existence of technologies that are not even in their infancy at present.

|10.26.05 @ 2:04PM|#

It's worth noting that the average American today live a lifestyle that is radically different and "inhuman" compared to the way we were 100,000 years ago. Even to someone 1000 years ago, much of our culture would be unacceptable.

|10.26.05 @ 2:13PM|#

As for public dialogue, this usually means setting up some government committee or other that issues a weighty report suggesting that "we" need to think harder about whatever it believes the issues are.

Ah yes, the wonders of centralized government planning. :)

Jeff P.|10.26.05 @ 2:31PM|#

There are over a thousand books about the impact, risks, and possibilities on nano, both pro and con, available from assorted sources. There are a number of think tanks, scientific institutions, and independant organizations that delve heavily into the possible routes of the technology. I've lost count of how many SF books have played speculative thought-games with the subject.
Yet bioconservatives insist we need to START thinking about what these new technologies would mean for humanity.
I predict that, whenever the Singularity starts to happen, the remaining bioconservatives will be looked upon as perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

|10.26.05 @ 2:39PM|#

You know, just once, I'd like to see someone with the spine to stand up to those overlords. Just once.

Anon

|10.26.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Jeff P.,

Well, its a nice way to hide their neo-Luddite agenda.

Larry A|10.26.05 @ 2:40PM|#

It's worth noting that the average American today live a lifestyle that is radically different and "inhuman" compared to the way we were 100,000 years ago. Even to someone 1000 years ago, much of our culture would be unacceptable.

Or to the primarily agrarian society of 100 years ago, where the average person finished school with the eighth grade, started a family as a teenager, and died long before retirement.

Even if you only go back 10 years, how many elementary schools had policies on teacher cellphones, much less student use?

|10.26.05 @ 2:45PM|#

I've had many arguments with very intelligent friends over the dangers of technology and how we should react to our perceptions of them. They are maddening arguments.

There is a prevalent assumption among many liberals and perhaps conservatives that drives these arguments. The assumption is that we will serve our interests best by (excuse my flip formulation) planning it all out ahead of time. I believe that people who feel this way fail to grasp to note how complex human systems actually behave.

Interestingly, I came to this kind of thinking largely through the study of software development methods - particularly those that are called "agile", and those that value adaptation. I'd be interested in some reading on complex human systems outside of this realm - any suggestions?

|10.26.05 @ 3:07PM|#

I've lost count of how many SF books have played speculative thought-games with the subject.


And that's one of the roles that Science Fiction plays for society. But I guess unless professional bio-ethicists are the ones doing the talking, it doesn't count as a conversation.

|10.26.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Larry Edelstein,

...planning it all out ahead of time.

Which ignores all the lessons Bastiat and Hayek have taught us.

If you want to read about the dangers of planning in human societies read Seeing Like A State.

|10.26.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Anon-

You're right, we do easily submit to overlords, but then we secretly smoke pot behind their backs, just to show that the overlords don't really matter.

Jeff P.|10.26.05 @ 3:27PM|#

Please remember that there were protests over the steam engine because it was believed that a human body could not withstand a velocity of 60 MPH and would tear apart under such force.
Admittedly, that would have been cool.

Matthew Cromer|10.26.05 @ 3:34PM|#

Ah, yes, more Kurzweilian nano-hype, brought to you by the same folks who have been flogging the AI dead horse for the past 50 years.

Sorry folks to break the bad news.

You and everyone you know is going to grow old and die, and no pie-in-the-sky just-around-the-corner nanotechnology savior is gonna stop that process.

Carpe diem. Be what you come here for. And figure out who and what you really are. Wake up, and stop wasting your time on fantasies of eternal life in an ever-youthful body.

|10.26.05 @ 3:43PM|#

You and everyone you know is going to grow old and die, and no pie-in-the-sky just-around-the-corner nanotechnology savior is gonna stop that process.

Shhh. Don't let the Nano-overlords hear you say that...

|10.26.05 @ 3:52PM|#

Mr. Cromer,

I agree with you. On the other hand, 20 years ago, I wouldn't have believed we'd be exchanging views this way.

|10.26.05 @ 4:01PM|#

Yeah no ones claming its gonna let us live forever.

But that don't mean science, weather with nano or not, will push up our average life span a whole bunch, giving us more time, and more youth.

|10.26.05 @ 4:25PM|#

I predict that, whenever the Singularity starts to happen, the remaining bioconservatives will be looked upon as perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

Crimes against transhumanity.

Won't somebody think of the transhumans?

Dave W.|10.26.05 @ 4:38PM|#

From my reading, toxicity and infection were specifically excluded from the concerns raised in the article about bioethics Luddites.

Yeah, looks like Mr. Bailey might have missed addressing the real issue here, in favor of taking a shot at the Luddites.

|10.26.05 @ 5:00PM|#

Bailey addressed the issue of toxcity, etc. with this language:

First, let�s stipulate that if any future nanobio products are not safe because, for example, they are toxic or somehow dangerously infectious, then appropriate regulations and limitations must be adopted.

For some reason he apparently has to belabor this point and write ad infinitum about it.

|10.26.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Dave W.,

More to the point, how would you know about any of those concerns unless you actually do the science? In this instance you seem to favor conjecture.

|10.26.05 @ 8:29PM|#

Well, for some people, the chance to help increase life spans might be what they enjoy doing. Others might enjoy dreaming about what life would be like with very long life spans. Others might enjoy writing about it.

Others might try to get their enjoyment by insulting the first two in a tendentious attempt to strike out at what personally makes them unhappy.

(Others might be pots calling the kettles black, however...)

Anyway, from the National Center for Health Statistics, the average life expectancy in the US in 1930 was 59.7 years. In 2002 it was 77.3 years. So that's really, really big. That's a lot more significant than the statistical irrelevancy you've quoted.

|10.27.05 @ 8:11AM|#

Cromer:

I dig the zen, and I agree with you. But I think one can take simple joy in the virtually unlimited possibilities of science and medicine. It is about pushing the bounderies of our potential.

Dave W.|10.27.05 @ 11:01AM|#

Anyway, from the National Center for Health Statistics, the average life expectancy in the US in 1930 was 59.7 years. In 2002 it was 77.3 years. So that's really, really big. That's a lot more significant than the statistical irrelevancy you've quoted.

What is the life expectancy in nations that are slightly poorer than the US, Lare-Bear? How much longer do USians live than the rest of the first world?

|10.27.05 @ 12:09PM|#

I think Leon Kass is really terrified at the type of porn that will be possible.

Dave W.|10.27.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Very tiny porn. You watch tiny robots having sex through a microscope. It'll be like Horton hears a Who but with more fellatio and santorum.

|10.27.05 @ 2:42PM|#

"Horton Hires a Ho."

(Somewhere on the Web is an image of this book cover.)

|10.27.05 @ 9:54PM|#

Dave W: I refer you to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop, which graphs it all for you.

The "Lare-Bear" thing - people call me this once in a while, and I never know why! Never seen it written out, though. I guess this is proof that it ain't my appearance. Less'n you've met me before, of course.