Ron Bailey has a long, but worthwhile article about the current state of nanotechnology, and its stasist enemies.

*sigh*

That sort of thinking does annoy me. Still, Luddites are a time honoured group - as long as they aren't allowed to get in the way.

I agree with the author's assessment of the "precautionary principal", as discussed in the article. Its a good example of wrong-headed ethical reasoning, because the logical conclusion of applying this principal is that the best solution is to do nothing. I recall an analogous email discussion, Rand, that you had some time ago with a person who argued that we need to holdup on humans expanding into space until our 'ethics' had become more advanced. An aspect of this approach that she failed to consider was that our 'ethics' advance even as our technology does, with the result that our current ethical standards NEVER measure up and we never end up going. Perhaps we should use the ethical standards of the '90's... ie. the 1890's. By those standards, we appear to really be making progress.

To follow along with John's comment, when have we ever learned how not to do something by not doing it? People always seem to need experimentation to get any understanding. Try as parents might, they can never fully impress a peril upon their young until the offspring has stared death in the face. We'll be unable to advance nanotech without some casualties. To me, this is a fact that should be expected and planned for in the sense of containment, not prevention. If you spend time trying to prevent that which you don't know is going to happen, you'll neccesarily exclude all actions to prevent any bad results. We'll just have to accept the inherent risks, whatever they may be, and be prepared to learn from them and adapt to the new environment they create. That's the nature of technological advancement. Nobody came up with insulating rubber gloves till someone grabbed a live wire and fried himself.

More to the point of this ETC group... it confuses me, their aim. Do they wish to save mankind or see it destroyed? If they want to help, they'll fund advancements - not roadblocks. If they want to destroy humankind and really believe their doom and gloom prognostications, wouldn't shutting up be more expedient? The conclusion I come to is that they simply like to make noise, be recognized and hope that someday they are somewhat right so that they may have some small degree of self satisfaction.

I like to remember a bumper sticker... "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Jerry, I think they're like tapeworms. They make a certain kind of noise, get a certain gullible population (their "hosts") upset enough to donate money, and get fed. How much thought does that really take?

My understanding is that nano 'chelates' were the easiest for the body to eliminate, not the hardest!

[b]More to the point of this ETC group... it confuses me, their aim. Do they wish to save mankind or see it destroyed?[/b]

Actually, neither - or rather, I do not believe they think in these terms at all. What they want is mankind [i]controlled[/i] - like all collectivists before them, ETC group can't stomach the idea of individuals making thefuture. They want to control the unwashed masses - not for their own gain, you understand, but "for the good of the peeple". The same noble sentiment which brought uncountable suffering in the last century.