Ќачитаешьс¤ вот такого на ночь... ј потом параноиком кличут.

Sony in Japan have used Quantum Dots to construct at least 20 artificial atoms that Ц withoutTHE GOODBYE WAVE
What will be the next technology wave?
A confrontation is looming between environmentalists and social activists on one side and
corporations and scientists on the other. Is the classic battle between the Luddites and the factory
owners being replayed? Corporations claim that those who raise concern are ideologically antiscience
and anti-corporation. Anti-science? Far from it! Anti-corporation? Rightfully so! As
already discussed, there are many precedents for concern that the managed waves of
technology that have swept over society in the modern era have swamped the marginalized with
unanticipated consequences for the environment and for society. It is not scientific knowledge
that is feared but the absence of context and the lack of opportunity for society to assess the utility
of potential technology tools
For 60 years now civil society and governments have struggled to comprehend a world
increasingly defined by waves of new technologies To be sure, industrial revolutions are not new.
It is less the pace - and more the scale - of these waves that has made understanding - much less
control - improbable.

The advent of nuclear power/weapons in the mid 1940s signaled an escalation in the power of
technology and, equally, a sharp decline in our ability to manage change. Not only, in the last 60
years, have we developed technologies as weapons of mass destruction - we have relegated their
control to the historically untrustworthy elite who have ridden every technology wave since the
Renaissance. Robert McNamara, the U.S. Defense Secretary for much of the Vietnam War,
estimates that the likelihood of accidental or deliberate nuclear conflict during the Cold War was
1 in 6185. Following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy concluded that the risk of
all-out nuclear annihilation had been between 1 in 3 and 1 in 2186. BritainТs Astronomer Royal,
Martin Rees, talks about an unusually powerful atomic particle accelerator experiment undertaken
by the Brookhaven National Laboratory wherein the physicistsТ calculated that the risk of causing
planetary implosion was approximately 1 in 50 million. Rees says they miscalculated. Had
conventional risk assessment rules been applied (dividing 50 million into the earthТs 6 billion
inhabitants) the real risk was 120 likely deaths187.
Is technology out of control? Knowing what he knows now Ц more than a dozen years after the
fall of the Berlin Wall Ц would Robert McNamara still support the nuclear risk he accepted in the
С60s? Are we today prepared to gamble all our tomorrows with the miscalculations of a handful
of poorly monitored scientists bent on an abstract academic adventure?
Today, unimaginably powerful advances in biotechnology/ genomics and in nanotechnology
(atomic manipulation at the nano-scale) continue to accelerate the scale of technological
transformation. As valid as it is for Rees and others to be concerned that a single scientific
blunder could erase human life Ц or biodiversity Ц or atomize the planet Ц there is still greater
reason to be concerned that the unmonitored advances of ever more powerful technologies will
act against the interests of humanity - or the welfare of the marginalized - and/or the health of
democracy. While we are all a-goggle over the latest techno-toys, neither society nor policymakers
have come to grips with the central role new technologies are set to play in every aspect
of human life in the decades immediately ahead. A new notion of converging technologies will be
a deciding factor in international trade and development, in human health and well-being, and in
repairing or destroying our ecosystems. We must change the way we handle new technologies Ц
at the community, national and international level.
Defining the Next Wave:
In the summer of 2003, UK scientists with the help of the worldТs most powerful laser succeeded
in turning gold into mercury. This was, perhaps, not quite what the old alchemists had in mind.
Nevertheless, the experiment proved that it is possible to take atoms apart and reconfigure them
to make different elements. Researchers at Delft University in the Netherlands and colleagues at
Sony in Japan have used Quantum Dots to construct at least 20 artificial atoms that Ц without
protons or neutrons Ц deploy electrons to function like rather wonky elements. Though other
scientists contest the point, the researchers at MIT consider it feasible to manufacture elements
without a nucleus and to instantly change an element simply by altering the number of electrons
and their structure. Craig Venter, the scientist whose DNA was used for the mapping of the
human genome Ц and who led the private sector mapping initiative - has a contract from the U.S.
Department of Energy to strip down the worldТs most basic life form (a parasite that thrives Ц
surprise surprise Ц in human male genitalia) to build entirely new life-forms. Venter has actually
trimmed the little critter back from over 550 genes to barely 350 and is using it as scaffolding to
build synthetic DNA literally molecule by molecule. For the first time since the Garden of Eden,
God has competition. Meanwhile, at the Scripps Institute in California, scientists have added a
fifth letter to DNA. Instead of the conventional ACGT combinations that connect the double
helix, scientists can now tinker with the new letter F. This modest adjustment to the building
block of life changes the number of conceivable variations from about 350 to over 3500.
Modeling their work on the behavior of ant and bee swarms, other researchers are creating Уsmart
dustФ Ц tens of thousands of extremely basic information chips that can be networked over a field
***DRAFT *** NOT FOR CITATION: Breaking Waves
H:\Teaching\Env.Pol\Break>ing Waves.doc P. 78
of rice or a battlefield or a conference hall to send back real-time news of their surroundings.
Meanwhile, teams of nanowalkers in Boston are picking up individual atoms and molecules and
moving them into novel shapes. Theoretically, they could build you a hamburger in about the
time it has taken the universe to reach its present state. Rather more quickly, Kraft Foods is
working with the Los Alamos atomic research station and Uppsala University (among others) to
develop a new beverage consumers may someday buy in grocery stores. Placed in a microwave,
the beverage can either activate molecules of coffee, tea, your favorite soft drink, or
(optimistically) single-malt scotch.
Size matters: All of these developments Ц many of them seeming strange and outlandish have a
relationship. They all involve developments on the nano-scale Ц one billionth of a meter. For 60
years now technology has been moving down Ц from vacuum tubes to semiconductors; from
robot car manufacture to microbot sensors; from trait transfers through conventional breeding to
transgenics through biotechnology; and, now from moving down to building up through
nanotechnology. It is not just a fascination with size. Smaller, more powerful devices use less
material, require less energy, and are more transportable. They are more discreet. They can also
be more precise.
At least since the 1980s, some scientists have been intrigued with the notion that there is only one
science Ц that biology, chemistry, and physics converge at the nano-scale Ц the realm of atoms
and molecules. There is some logic to this. All of nature is made from the 110 or so elements in
the Periodic Table. Of these elements, approximately 92 are the workhorses that comprise
virtually everything we use Ц organic and inorganic Ц living or not. As the worldТs real raw
materials, scientists naturally wanted to learn how to manipulate them Ц how to put them together
and build them up molecule by molecule rather than in the time-honored way of the last hundred
millennia Ц by cutting and hacking down. Instead of building from trees to tables to paper or from
crossbreeding cows to switching genes between species, is it possible to construct the paper, the
table, or the cow atom by atom? More: could living cells or DNA be used for memory storage or
to power tiny machines? More still: could non-living carbon be blended or grafted to living
carbon to strengthen bones or tissues or produce cyborgs (half-living, half-not)? More
immediately: can technology multiply the palette of raw materials at its disposal by taking
advantage of quantum physics and the strange and remarkable qualities that are imbued in
elements when they are utilized in the nanometer range?
Science fiction or foreign policy? Those who have not been devotees of science over the past
decade or two will find all this hard to credit. That there are powerful new technologies in the
pipeline is not surprising - that they share a unifying (or, at least, converging) structure is
understandably harder to comprehend.
The Little BANG Theory: In the United States, the National Science Foundation (NSF) talks
about Ц and funds Ц converging technologies which in their parlance they describe as nano, bio,
info, and cogno - or NBIC. By their reckoning, nano (the atom building blocks of
nanotechnology), bio (the genes that are the basis of biotechnology), info (the СbitsТ of computer
technologies), and cogno (the neurons in neurosciences) all come together at the nano-scale. The
ETC Group calls it BANG (bits, atoms, neurons and genes) and the political and scientific
strategy behind it, the УLittle BANG TheoryФ.
However, BANG is less a convergence than a coup. Bits, neurons and genes, after all, are made
of atoms. It is the nano-scale that trumps. BANG is also more strategy than theory. In January
2000, President Bill Clinton launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in the United
States and described the strategy as the worldТs next and biggest industrial revolution. Rather than
dismantle his predecessorТs initiative, President George W. Bush has more than doubled the
InitiativeТs funding to $816 million in 2004. Across the pond, in Brussels, the European Union
has taken И1.3 million for nano-scale technologies during its sixth framework initiative. While
this seems modest in comparison to Washington, (This funding covers a three-year period) it
excludes the costs of scientific personnel and it does not encompass the enormous amount of
work being done by national governments in the Union. Most observers believe that Western
Europe roughly equals American public sector spending on nano-scale technologies. On the other
side of the world, Japan is outspending the United States. Meanwhile, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Singapore are said to be investing hugely in the small technology.
Bucks for the BANG: Although industry hype is always to be feared, best estimates from both
U.S. government and private sector sources is that global expenditures on research in nano-scale
technologies in 2003 would exceed $10 billion. This makes nano the biggest investment in
science since the race to place a man on the moon. And, it is a race. At the World Nano Economic
Congress in Europe in early November, 2003, corporate and scientific delegates were sobered by
Royal Society information that there are more researchers working on nano-scale technologies in
the Beijing area of China than in all of Western Europe. Further, personnel costs for the Chinese
initiative are 120th of the costs in Europe.
Minutely-organized particles: BANG Ц or, at least, some parts of it Ц are already with us. By
some estimates, even the current market for nano-scale products and processes (including
traditional materials) exceeds $45 billion US. A more realistic appraisal of the current market for
Уnew nanoФ would be in the range of a few hundred million dollars. Nevertheless, the U.S.
National Nanotechnology Initiative insists that the global market for nano-scale technologies in
2015 will exceed $1 trillion. (See table below for industry data.)
Anticipated consequences:
Malleable matter: Almost all of this market is for Уbulk nanoФ Ц the commercial use of
nanoparticles as ingredients in mostly conventional products and processes. At this early-stage in
BANG, industry is most fascinated by - and most able to profit from - the quantum physics
effects on elements when used at the scale of 100 nanometers or less. Quantum physics has an
amazing effect. Calcium carbonate, for example, is simple chalk at the macro-scale Ц one of the
most common and one of the softest industrial compounds. At the nano-scale, calcium-carbonate
his 100 times stronger than steel and six times lighter. Dentists use aluminum oxide in making
dentures. The compound is perfectly benign and safe. At the nano-scale, aluminum oxide
explodes and is now being developed by nanotechnologists for military purposes as a high
explosive. The luster of gold changes when it slides down from the macro to the nano-scale. It
moves from gold to orange to red. At the same time, its electrical conductivity, elasticity, and
response to pressure all change. In fact, every element in the Periodic Table undergoes large but
uncertain changes in characteristics as they grow smaller. Twist a nanotube of carbon one-way
and it resists electricity. Twist it the other way and it becomes a good electrical conductor.
Suddenly, with nano-scale technologies, the very idea of Уraw materialsФ is transformed.
Theoretically, the molybdenum mined in Zambia could be replaced by the silicon found on any
California beach. Almost certainly, the copper and tin of the Andes and the Malay Peninsula
could be replaced by other elements closer at hand for manufacturers in Europe and North
America. CanadaТs nickel and JamaicaТs bauxite will likely find themselves in competition with
carbon Ц or with what are now considered to be materials of no value. The trade in conventional
manufacturing and construction materials will change unrecognizably. If not for furniture, wood
for housing and building construction may have to compete with much more mundane and more
environmentally-acceptabl>e ores.
The demand for other raw materials such as natural rubber, resins, dyes, and even some natural
fibers may deteriorate almost to the point of extinction. It is already possible to manufacture
automobile tires with nanoparticle coatings that will extend the life expectancy of tires well
beyond their cars or owners. Similarly, clothing fibers and fibers used for carpets and furnishings
may be based on nanotech materials allowing the products greater durability and requiring much
less УnaturalФ cotton or wool. Nano-based textiles will be able to switch color and texture. In
those instances where natural materials are still needed and where durability is still limited, the
potential to reduce the quantities required and to recycle the old materials could increase
tremendously. Nanoparticles often give immensely improved strength making it possible to use
far less material than before as well as being able to use it for longer.
Beyond nano-particles, there are implications for perishable agricultural commodities. Nanosensors
used in the field, in storage bins, and in retail packaging should significantly reduce crop
loss and product waste. More distant strategies that could enhance the heat and energy efficiency
of plants and livestock could also transform the geography of agricultural production. If Kraft
Foods is successful with its multi-beverage product, the demand for tropical beverages could drop
sharply. (While consumer use might remain constant, consumer-purchased quantities would
decline.) The Chicago Commodities Exchange will never be the same.
BANG benefits: The potential positives from the Little BANG Theory are difficult to exaggerate.
The capacity to multi-source and diversify raw materials will reduce transportation and
manufacturing costs. The potential to use less material and to recycle more, further reduces
energy and other production costs. All of this is a savings to the environment and a boon to our
fractured ozone layer. Replacing the slaughter of old-growth forests and tropical timbers with
locally-ubiquitous minerals will win the environmental vote. In the near-term, the U.S. National
Science Foundation believes it will be possible to produce homes and offices whose external
surface materials (including paints) will allow them to use solar energy with perhaps double the
efficiency of expensive solar cells today and will also allow the buildings to transfer heat and
exchange air with huge energy and health savings. Even in its initial phase, nano-scale
technologies should be able to substantially lower costs and improve benefits for consumers,
producers, and the ecosystem.
BANG is seen to come in several phases. Each phase more fantastic than the one before. These
will be discussed later.
Unanticipated consequences:
For the working poor: But the downside to nano is also obvious. At the sixth ministerial of the
WTO in Cancun, Mexico in September 2003, for example, the German government attempted to
work with West African governments to persuade the EU and North America to drop tariff
barriers to the regionТs finished cotton textile (clothing, etc.) exports. The African states were
hopeful that - perhaps over a period of five years or so - a deal could be struck through which the
NorthТs markets would open up and Wal-Mart et al would begin to carry African goods. In the
end, of course, there was no progress on agriculture and no progress anywhere as the negotiations
collapsed. But, unbeknownst to either the Africans or the Germans, at least some investors in the
North were anticipating a rebirth of the NorthТs moribund textile industry. New developments in
nanotechnology creating unique new fibers and cotton compounds have renewed market interest
in North American factories. Warren Buffett (a notoriously savvy and generally anti-Уnew
economyФ investor) recently offered $579 million for Burlington Industries, reportedly because of
the companyТs interest in NanoTex Ц a nano-fiber manufacturer. Buffet had already invested
heavily in another textile major - Berkshire Hathaway. In 2002, Berkshire Hathaway spent $2.1
billion buying Shaw Industries - the worldТs largest residential carpet manufacturer, also based in
the USA - and then went on to buy bankrupt Fruit of the Loom for $835 million.188 Some
investment analysts now believe that a considerable share of the overseas market could swing
back to North America because of the value-added by nano fibers.
US NSF and industry Estimates of the near- to medium-term
value of the nanotechnology market (circa 2000)
Total: projected total worldwide market size of over $1 trillion annually in 10-15 years.
Nano materials/processes: market impact of $340 billion p/a in the next 10 years (Hitachi).
Semiconductors: projected annual production of $300 billion In 10-15 years.
Global integrated circuits sales of $300 billion in 10-15 years.
Microprocessors: in 3 to 5 years, nonvolatile magnetic RAM using the giant magnetoresistance
phenomenon will be competitive in the $100 billion RAM market. (IBM)
Aerospace: projected to have market value of $70 billion in 10 years (Hitachi).
Automobiles: nano-reinforced polymeric material can replace structural metallic components to
cut 1.5 billion liters of gasoline over the life of one yearТs production of vehicles.
Chemicals: crystalline materials as catalyst supports has yielded catalysts (1 nm) reduce energy
consumption and waste - the basis of an industry that exceeds $30 billion a year.
Petrochemical catalysts: estimated annual impact of $100 billion in 10-15 years.
Nanostructured catalysts provide basis for hydrocarbon cracking and reforming processes valued
at $30 billion in 1999 (Exxon,).
Energy: in 10-15 years, nanotech-based lighting advances could cut worldwide energy
consumption by >10%, - saving $100 billion per year and 200 million tons of carbon emissions.
Pharmaceuticals: half of production dependent on nanotech Ч affecting over $180 billion per
year in 10-15 years (Elan/Nanosystems).
Nanosizing will make possible the use of low solubility substances as drugs - approximately
doubling the number of chemicals available for pharmaceuticals.
Liposome encapsulated drugs produced by Nexstar (doxarubicin for cancer treatment and
amphotericin B for fungal infection) had sales over $20 million in 1999.
What could keep textiles in the North rather than the South? Obviously, the intellectual property
would be held by the NorthТs manufacturers but this, of itself, would not be enough to stop the
production from drifting off-shore. However, if the raw materials still necessary could be
obtained in the North (the American South, for example) with high degrees of durability and
recycling Ц and if the nanotechnology production process can be largely automated Ц then the
cheap-labor, cheap-commodity УadvantageФ for West African farmers and manufacturers could
evaporate.
More advanced nano-fabrics will soon turn up in everything from car seats (to awaken sleepy
drivers), to bed sheets (not only to keep children and mattresses dry but to monitor health), in
winter clothing (with emergency beacons), and in human artery reinforcement. The range of
potential products is vast: the Stealth bomber is a textile product made out of carbon fiber.189 Not
only in Africa, the cotton and wool markets of Asia and Latin America must also be on their
guard. From field to factory, the textile industry is one of the largest in the world and from the
cotton fields of West Africa to the looms of Bangladesh and the mills of North Carolina Ц textiles
meagerly provision some of the worldТs poorest people.
Migrant agricultural workers will also be affected. Not quite at the nano-scale yet, still, tiny
robots are taking advantage of nano-enabled computer chips and nano-particles to take over farm
labour and food processing jobs. Remarkable new robots are already able to scale orchard trees to
harvest fruit that cannot easily - or safely - be reached by humans. The costs of robots is also
dropping at about the same pace as MooreТs Law is speeding up computers. Pepperidge Farms in
the United States estimates that it can recoup the costs of a new bakery robot within one year by
replacing at least two regular workers. After a half-century of promises, the robotics industry Ц
enabled by nano-scale technologies Ц is finally taking off Ц and taking over the jobs of some of
the worldТs poorest workers.
If the fate of agricultural commodities seems uncertain, the implications for the mining industry
in developing countries (and everywhere else) is still greater. Until the researchers in the UK
succeed in converting mercury to gold (rather than the other way around), precious metals, at
least, have a fair market. The future of all other mining operations is in doubt. Tens of thousands
of mining families and the economic well-being of more than 20 countries are at high (and early)
risk. As are the families that depend upon the mills and smelting plants that convert ore into
metal. As are many of the workers who manufacture metals into finished products.
BANG will also explode upon the workers at Wal-Mart. Early work on nano-scale technologies is
already producing retail-level radio frequency identification chips (RFIDs) that could quickly
transform the consumer end of the production chain. While they are not constructed from the
bottom-up, these nano-scale RFID chips are becoming cheap enough and small enough to attach
to almost any consumer product. The chips have already stirred considerable controversy as
governments and consumers both worry about privacy. The least discussed aspect of RFIDs is
jobs. Literally millions of retail workers Ц sales and stock personnel Ц will lose employment as
the tags eliminate the need for them at check-out counters and clothing stores. Inter-acting with
the already available communications technologies, the chips could also promote sales and
answer customer inquiries. Because the jobs at risk are low-paying and sometimes require few
skills, it will be the marginalizedest and most vulnerable who are unemployed.
Still, the coming Industrial Revolution is so broad and powerful that it will also destabilize the
middle-class and those with advanced skills. Every sector of the economy will be affected as this
technology tsunami washes across the globe. If the nano-scale market is to reach $1 trillion by
2015 these transformations will take place before society is even aware that the waters are rising
Ц and long before workers can be retrained for the few jobs remaining.
For the dismembered: Even now, it is possible to evaluate the devastation that will afflict the
rights of disabled people. In the United States, the National Science Foundation has consistently
emphasized the social benefits for the deaf, the blind, those in wheelchairs and those with neural
challenges. Millions of people in the United States are disadvantaged by their minority physical
or mental situation resulting from the general intolerance to human diversity. The modern
assumption is that all differences are illnesses and must be eradicated. The convergence of bits,
atoms, neurons and genes poses a new round of eugenics both by preventing births and by ending
the differences of those who escape pre-natal detection.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to suggest that the heavy emphasis on Уhelping the handicappedФ
arises from a simple intolerance of diversity or even some empathy Ц misplaced or not Ц for those
suffering the slings and arrows of an indifferent society. Large sums of money are being deployed
to improve hearing and vision and to strengthen limbs and repair spinal cords not for the benefit
of the so-called disabled but for military and police purposes. As much as medicine is less and
less for the sick and more and more for well people, human performance enhancement is intended
to strengthen the capacities of Уwar-fightersФ and the surveillance capabilities of governments.
Regardless, the Уbottom-lineФ is that the disadvantaged peoples in every society will be forced to
surrender their identities and to be medicated. Social justice Ц and diversity Ц will not be an
option. In the current intolerant world, it is of course likely that many or most will choose to be
УnormalizedФ rather than to bear the stigma of continuing as they are. This is not to suggest that
people should not be offered choices Ц nor that individuals should refuse technologies they
consider beneficial. Only, that technology is a poor substitute for the acceptance and celebration
of diversity. Under current conditions, BANG is much more likely to dismember the different
than to truly enable them.
For health and the environment: the optimists suggest that nano-scale technologies could solve
the worldТs clean water shortage as well as patch up the ozone layer and banish greenhouse gases.
The first environmental uses of these technologies are already in play. The third largest fish
farming enterprise in the United States, for example, is attaching vaccines to nanoparticles in the
water. Apparently the vaccines enter the fish through their gills and the drug is activated via ultrasound.
Following a fire at the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico in the summer of 2003, Sequoia
Pacific Research dispersed a nanotechnology-related compound over 1500 acres of burn area on
the mountainside to prevent the soil from eroding and sliding into the communityТs sole water
supply. Other nanoparticles are being devised to destroy toxic waste or to encapsulate oil spills in
a polymer that prevents them from doing further damage. Still other initiatives target anthrax (and
other УbioterroristФ agents) for early detection and to prevent their spread.
Laudable goals. Yet, all of these theoretically beneficial products have been developed Ц and
sometimes dispersed Ц in the absence of any regulatory framework either in the United States,
Japan, or Europe. The dispersal at the Taos Pueblo can only be characterized as a field
experiment undertaken at the risk of the local community and their sacred mountain. Pending
patent approval, the company actually refused to disclose the elements in its technology and only
acknowledged that it had consulted with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
confirm that the compound was acceptable when applied at the macro-scale. It seems that the
spray activates naturally-occurring silicate nanoparticles in the soil to cause them to self-assemble
into a kind of web that keeps the soil in place. The binding action seems to start at the 4 nm range
but may also involve larger particles. The action of rainwater reinvigorates the compound and,
according to the company, should protect the soil for up to 12 months. The process is eerily
reminiscent of УIce 9Ф Ц the formula in Kurt VonnegutТs famous 1963 book, УCats cradleФ a
nano-particle compound causing water to turn to ice at ambient temperatures. The effect was to
cause water all over the earth to ice over and for the soil to form an almost impenetrable crust.
The Crest of the Next Wave:
Among the specific ideas and general themes that dominate the NBIC report, there are nine that
are particularly alarming:
Human Cognome Project: The report notes that Уthe mind is the final frontierФ and anticipates
that it will be possible to map the human brain just as scientists are mapping the human genome.
The idea is that we will eventually be able to manipulate thoughts and emotions as easily Ц and as
hazardously Ц as we manipulate DNA. For example, some participants highlighted the long-term
potential for Уuploading aspects of individual personality to computers and robots, thereby
expanding the scope of human experience, action and longevity.190
Cultural memetics could enable scientists to locate and manipulate human cultures in the same
way scientists try to manipulate human genes. Linguistic and cultural databases can be the
starting point for cultural outcomes, forecasting and management. Two participants explained the
importance of a hard science approach to culture: УIf we had a better map of culture, analogous to
the Linnean system that classifies biological organisms into species and genera, we could help
people find the culture they want and we could locate СuninhabitedТ cultural territories that could
profitably be colonized by growing industries. Many of the social problems faced by
contemporary American society seem to have substantial cultural aspects, so the findings of
scientific memetics would be extremely valuable for both the government agencies and private
organizations that have to deal with them.191
Socio-Tech is envisioned as a predictive science of societal behavior.192 Through the
Уaccumulation, manipulation, and integration of data from the life, social, and behavioral
sciences,Ф Socio-Tech would be able to Уidentify drivers for a wide range of socially disruptive
events and allow government/industry(?) to put mitigating or preventive strategies in place before
the fact.Ф193 The authors see Socio-Tech as a powerful weapon in the war on terrorism.
Cyborgs, including human/machine interfaces, are given surprising scientific and political
currency within the report. One of the prevailing assumptions is that human evolution can be
accelerated by the merger of people with machines: УThis implies that we are more complex than
any creatures before, and that we may not have yet reached our final evolutionary form. Since we
are still evolving, the inescapable conclusion is that nanotechnology can help drive our
evolution.Ф194
Machine love: One participant argued that understanding human psychology is essential in order
to understand how to create machines that will be accepted by society: УIn the past, it has been
argued that technology dehumanized life, but as we become committed to person-enhancing
objects, this argument will need to be revisited. Making technology personable will entail
learning about ourselves. In order to make technology enhance humans, we will humanize
technology.Ф195 The argument goes further by claiming that Уsociable technologiesФ will gives us
more satisfactory relationships with our machines but also may vitalize our relationships with
each other Уbecause in order to build better sociable objects we will have learned more about
what makes us social with each other.Ф196 УSociable Technologies: Enhancing Human
Performance when the computer is not a tool but a companion,Ф pp. 133-141. Turkle argues that
an understanding of human psychology is essential for the development of machines that will be
deemed acceptable on a societal level (p.139).Ф
False insecurity? The report places enormous importance on the use of converging technologies
for military and police purposes. Contrary to claims made in the report, the proliferation of
unmanned vehicles, remote sensors, and augmented biological, and chemical technologies will
likely increase the probability of more violent wars. Likewise, non-lethal weapons increase the
likelihood of a converging technocracy because of the ease of Уcrowd controlФ Ц the peace to end
all peace.
Techno- tutor (Good grief, Mr. Chips!): Another pet project identified in the report is the
development of personal УcommunicatorsФ Ц robotic instructors/companions attuned to individual
personalities. Computer-assisted education will make it possible for the converging technocracy
to efficiently determine or УenhanceФ social attitudes and outcomes. Workshop participants
identified УThe Communicator as a research priority for individualized instruction and
communication.197 УThe CommunicatorФ would remove barriers to communication caused by
physical disabilities, language differences, geographic distance and variations in knowledge.
Windfall Wellness: Among the major benefits of converging technologies will be substantially
reduced research costs, new markets for well people, and the re-introduction of already-developed
drugs that were disallowed because of side effects. Individual gene mapping will identify allergic
customers but every affluent person (and employee) will have to submit to full genetic disclosure.
Human genetic diversity research can serve not only to target specific populations but also can
allow the pharmaceutical industry to use diverse peoples to develop drugs for their primary
commercial market (well people who are able to afford to pay high-priced drugs);
Dismemberment? Throughout the report (with one exception198), disabled people seem to be seen
as objects not subjects. The concepts of enhancement, progress, disability and disease are not
understood as societal constructions; rather they are viewed only through the lens of medicine and
technology so that УprogressФ fails to be examined for its relevancy and appropriateness. After the
little BANG, will physical УenhancementФ through new technologies become a social imperative?
Will Уself-improvementФ become enforceable by law?
Historic cue #9:
Dust to Dust : A concise history of intellectual property monopoly
The rallying cry Уno patents on lifeФ has become a line in a technological and legal sandstorm.
Although the notion of intellectual monopolies can be traced back to early Greece, patents did not
come into their own until BritainТs Industrial Revolution when the inventors of textile machinery
demanded Уprotection.Ф Recognizing that patents would make technology accessible only to wellheeled
manufacturers, smaller enterprises protested. The response: УDonТt worry. We only seek to
patent the machines we invented.Ф
In the 1920s and 30s, when rose and chrysanthemum breeders demanded intellectual property for
their flowers, they claimed that it was unfair to grant patents to machine inventors but to deny
equal rights to ornamental inventors. Although some were repelled by the idea that living things
could be patented, the flower companies replied, УDonТt worry. These patents protect only
decorative plants Ц not food crops.Ф
In the 1960s, when plant breeders called upon governments to grant them intellectual property
over food crops, they said it was unfair to recognize the minor contributions of ornamental
breeders without recognizing the contributions of the breeders of food crops. The companies
chided their critics by saying, УDonТt worry. These are just plants; weТre not patenting animals
and we would never interfere with the historic right of farmers to save seed.Ф
Then, in the 1980s, the Gene Giants demanded patents on microorganisms and animals. When
civil society protested, they said, УDonТt worry. If you allow the patenting of plants, why not
microbes and lab rats?Ф
In the 1990s, corporations and governments began to patent genes, snippets of DNA, and entire
human cell lines. When indigenous peoples raised an uproar, they responded, УDonТt worry. The
definition of a microorganism can include human cell lines.Ф
Meanwhile, industry ended the 12,000-year old Human Right of farmers to save seed, denouncing
the tradition as intellectual thievery.
With the coming of nano-scale technologies, corporations are patenting variations on
elements that are essential building blocks for DNA and all living and non-living things.
Corporations are redefining life and redesigning organic and inorganic matter creating
cyborgs that will take on machine functions. When we tell them they have gone too
far, they will reply, Don t worry, we are just patenting machines.




ј так же :

—идит комисси¤, принимает вступительный экзамен y парн¤.


Public.Ru и "јвикомп —ервисез" заключили соглашение о партнерстве


¬ыставка собак Crufts 2009.



Hosted by uCoz