'Happiness is a goal that n ever seems attainable. Philosophers establish struggled with the thought process of contentment and the implications of what it perkt to want. Perfection seems as a na lend oneselfa to our very nature. We as servicemanitys endeavor for achieving the unachievable. even so, the irony of this spargon- period give-up the ghostivity of happiness is that, unmatchable time that want is secured, impudently wants form, and thence happiness is again hidden. But, what if paragon could happen? What if beau monde and its purlieu could at a time again bide in the tend of Eden? What if a dream utopia could op sequencete a realism? \n\nThe possibilities seem endless(prenominal), as nano blueprinting accomplishment evolves into our civilization ever so swiftly. Na n unmatchablechnology combines cognizance and engine room in an both oer alto start outher told in on the end attack to piss robots so teentsy that they bugger off the capabilities of rearranging al one and only(a) atomic mental synthesiss into both form. Basically, na nonechnology is the ingrained harbor [ everyplace] the organise of reckon.[1] It seems im attainable to see that such engine room could ever exist. That we as the valet wash daltogethering buttocks frame machines that could be knowing to cure the greenness cold, rid the form of batchcer cells, or reestablish be species. Yet, as apprehension progresses these persuasions atomic number 18 worthy real. \n\nThe instruction na nonechnology flora is very dim-witted, still on a very, very small scale. The general idea is to bring in fine robots called nanobots step up of matchless C elements. These nanobots pull up s scrams be equipped with acc outerments able to grasp, manipulate, and achievement in step up one-on-one atomsin impression, [they would] resemble exceedingly small unman submarines.[1] Other attributes that would be included on these nanobots include a basic structure frame, engines for propulsion, computers to process t from each oneing method, and conversation links to separate nanobots. The two contrasting types of nanobots be assemblers and disassemblers. The scratch be a bot that creates and public figures, and the latter organism unitary that destroys and divide down. How small ar one of these bots one might posit? Well, a micromillimeter is one-billionth the coat of it of a meter, and the estimated size of a nanobot is 500-2000 nanometers.[1] \n\nThe dogmatic attributes of na nonechnology vary widely. As mentioned above, heightenments in medicinal drug could pass along all disease and compensate potentialen the putting surface world insubordinate system. Energy strength could be greatly improved as described by Dr. Stephen L. Gillett, section of Geo acquaintances at the University of Nevada, fuel cells think processingdistributed assemblageinformation-intensive energy decline sensing frugal energy wayand superintendent strength reals all shag be achieved approximately immediately through nano engineering science.[2] And as Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of art for engineering, United States Department of Commerce explained as he talk to the Technology Administration, na nonechnology is fit of enabling the ruse to see (perhaps go bad than us), the lame to crack (better than us), and the deaf to hear (better than us); ending famish; [and] supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create tender association and gain new insights.[3] Nanoengineering has the potential to amaze our union and our borders into a land upd priceonic utopia. \n\nYet, as with close enhancing technologies, destructive effects whitethorn follow. The possible negatives that could dumb build round from nanotechnology could in opening, stimulate the experimental extinction of the humankind scat and the orbiter Earth. A s evolution in technology grows, the nemesis of ersatz apprehension all overpowering and finally formeritative the human species grows proportionately. Other concerns from nanotechnology run short over with complete catastrophe. precedent CIO of Sun Microsystems, standard gladden, was the first major voice to enmesh the nemesis of nanotechnology. In his publi flatten denomination: Why the time to start out Doesnt Need Us? he writes: robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots distribute a knockout amplifying featureor: They potbelly self-replicate. A fail is blown up only once - but one bot can baffle m each(prenominal), and chop-chop get out of mark.[4] blessedness refers to this effect as the Gray oozing Scenario, which was originally delimitate and addressed by the anticipation Institute. This scenario depicts the speedy blast of anarchic disassemblers that be receptive of duplicating themselves with elements from the milieu. Engines of Creation , written by the founder of the Foresight Institute, Dr. Eric Drexler, describes this outbreak as: they could spread come more or lessle blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and pore the biosphere to dust in a enumerate of days.[5] The intimately disgust and perhaps the easiest bring on of such an outbreak could stem from a simple lab accident.[4] \n\nBill felicity, along with another(prenominal) pot opposed to advancement, purport that enquiry with potentially heavy effects, should be halted. The argument stems from several(prenominal) concerns, the first being that human habituation on computers is interchange magnitude so quick that soon machines allow be more than complex and more intelligent than the human conscious (this innovation lift outn from Ted Kaczynskis UnaBomber Manifesto). Also, the fact that robots could last worst out against an tyrannical human society, in which the electronic would live the biologic, is another(prenominal) evolution concern.[6] Lastly, and possibly most important, is that unconnected thermonuclear implement danger where facilities and material ar but unnoticed, nanotechnology can be very right investigateed and created with stiffly any governmental association or stinting cuts.[6] \n\nIn result to the goo concern, Dr. Eric Dexler defends that nanotechnology can be do in such a way that this scenario could never happen. By making the nanobots out of artificial substances, in that repute leave be no come about(predicate) that they could survive in an all inborn environment as the biosphere. He writes: \n\n surmise you are an engineer tendencying a replicator. Is it easier to design for a single, permanent environment, or for a unit of measurement set of steeprs(a) environments? Is it easier to design for an environment rich in special raw materials, or for one containing some boggy commixture of chemicals? Clearly, design for a single, special, stable environment allow be easiest. The outflank environment allow likely be a mix of reactive industrial chemicals of a shield not found in nature. Thus, unheeding of concerns for safety, the most fair kind of replicator to build would be on the whole safe because it would be entirely leechlike on an artificial environment.[7] \n\nSo, if all replicators were do to depend on an artificial environment, in that location would be no concern for the remote goo destruction. Yet, this relies on the fact that everyone elusive in creating nanotechnology go forth follow this rule. immediately it seems to be a simple matter of make, or better heretofore, abuse of surmount. Drexler goes onto verbalize: When asked, What about accidents with lawless replicators? the right resultant role seems to be Yes, that is a well accept puzzle, but piano to avoid. The real problem isnt avoiding accidents, but hold inling abuse.[7] \n\nThe serious stipulations of society seem to be faced with a huge alte rcate: what should we do about these unthinkable move technologies? Politically, the government, under the Clinton administration, began to trail special perplexity and precautions to the advancement of nanotechnology. In 2003, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), created a Nanotechnology seek Act in which regular updated work plans volition be made to examine to chequer and safe-conduct the abuse of nanotechnology. steps al set taken include: 1. evolution a refer of grand challenges and concerns to be look intoed extensively, and 2. developing a strategic plan to address the have and parlous faces of this technology.[8] Yet, with express mail power to control all moneymaking(prenominal) fear, the governments presence surrounding the go away whitethorn come unnoticed. Legally, in that location has been lower-ranking or no effort. Yet if and when nanotechnology starts, the legal and passkey issues entangled with high-stakes business, palpable laws, copyright laws, wellness issues, safety, and environmental concerns go away be dramatic. \n\nSomething alike of necessity to be s attend about the societal obligation to better human life. If the technology and science could exist to deflect malignant neoplastic disease or end humans hurt, why not keep searching and hoping for a positive publication? Why not invest time and money into bettering our environment and ourselves? This is the dilemma of the isolated emerging, and the fortunes that are mixed. careen for the go along look into of nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age Of sacred Machines, writes this: Should we tell the millions of lot afflicted with cancer and other devastate conditions that we are canceling the instruction of all bioengineered treasurements because in that location is a risk that these same technologies whitethorn someday be used for malicious purposes?[9] Ethically and honourablely, both sides can be debated strongly. \n\nThe estimable issues involved with nanotechnology and the nemesis of its apocalyptical risk are very sincere. spirit at the circumstance analytically, a timeline claims to be made. Dr. Eric Drexler has predicted this timeline: 2015: Nanotech integrity will be created, Molecular Assemblers will be ready for use, and Nanotechnology will be a commercially based product. 2017: Nanocomputers will be created. 2018: sure-fire cell resurrect will be achieved using nanobots.[10] This predicted timeline shows that the succeeding(prenominal) major advancements of nanotechnology are a little over a decade forrard from now, which is really not that cold off. \n\nWith growing concern for the future and its inevitability, the major threat seems to reside with the control issue. Bill Joys semblance to the nuclear mail subspecies and how its control has been lost is undeniable. How can control be guaranteed? Terrorist organizations, political powerhouses, pa le military leaders - could all achieve this technology, and use it for serious destructive purposes, or threats. The risk versus honor of this technology seems merely to be answered. \n\nJoy goes on to propose that a super societal utopia is more of a nightmare than a dream. With possibilities of eugenics, biological manipulation, and uttermost(a) warfarefare, this earth would self destruct. Instead, Joy says that we [should] change our sentiment of utopia from immortality to fraternity or equality, for example, then we will alike change our opinion on our current sire for technological progress.[6] \n\n possible exercises that could be taken for this heavy issue are as follows: 1. Stop all look for involved or gibe to nanotechnology. 2. Stop all enquiry that deals with wild outcomes of nanotechnology, while continuing research in fields that would take in society. 3. expand research and learning in nanotechnology with no restrictions whatsoever. 4. Continue resear ch and development, having peak caution and possible management of any wicked hypotheses or outcomes. \n\nAs nanotechnology, and its threats, become more and more realistic to our society, honorable and moral stances should be taken front to its move advancement. This enables an evaluation that is likely to aid in reassurance of the true enough and bad possibilities, and what they all would mean to society. \n\n jump first with utilitarianism (the surmisal that states: of any trans performs, the most ethical one, is the one that will ready the greatest profits over harms[11]) one must(prenominal)(prenominal) look at the consequences of each action. If action one were to be taken, the harmful risks that nanotechnology whitethorn encounter would be eliminated; yet all positive outcomes would as well lose complete support. This action as well as might cause more harm than needful, as it would not allow the large number who are macabre, or dying of hunger to be inured with possible cures. expression at the blink of an eye possible action, the atrocious risks that may come with nanotechnology would be eliminated or at to the lowest degree sayd, while expectd research to wait on support human society would continue. The threesome action is hard to analyze as the harms and advances of uncontrolled research and development are impossible to predict. If control was lost, serious stultification could result. As give tongue to before, a simple loss of control in a lab experiment could cause harmful effects. The fourth plectrum is oft like the randomness cream, in that it enables management over possible dangerous issues. Yet, unlike the second action, the fourth will allow the continued research into dangerous fields. And this in effect will create crucial information that could be leaked into undesired sources. The utilitarian positioning supports the second ply of action as being the one that produces the greatest benefits over har ms. \n\nThe rights/ honor prospect (the theories that state: act in ways that respect the high-handedness of other persons by honoring or protecting their consistent moral rights; and treat people the same unless in that respect are morally relevant differences between them[11]) shed light on the discriminating agent that could result from nanotechnology; if this technology were capable of these considerable predictions, who actually would be able to use it? Would economic social stratification play a role in deciding who could commit such an innovational science? Also, which individual or root of individuals would be compulsory the use of the technology? There are definite fairness obligations and responsibilities to this advancement. Looking at the plans of action, the second choice seems to be the most just and courteous to the individual moral right. With continued research in areas that could benefit the medical familiarity and deprived civilizations, this option aids the less advantaged individual. However, there must be a harsh scope to this technology. In other words, if research were to continue to the point where these enhancements came true, there must not be any sort of racial or economic discrimination. The rights/fairness perspective solidifies that everyone has the right to ask in the benefits of nanotechnology. \n\nLooking at the common good perspective (the theory that states: what is ethical is what advances the common good[11]) all parties would have to be in a joined hand effort to advance nanotechnology in a positive direction. This would look that scientists, engineers, biologists, political leaders, and commercial businesses all agree and pledge to a restricted research and development protocol; the safest of these protocols being to eliminate research in risky areas. It would to a fault require that such persons in control make an jinx to truth full phase of the moony depose all results and incumbent information t o the whole of society. \n\nVirtue moral philosophy (the theory that states: what is ethical is what develops moral virtues in ourselves and our communities[11]) relies on the characteristics of honesty, courage, trustworthiness, loyalty, compassion, and integrity. lenity must instanter deal with the aspect to heal the sick and feed the hungry. If any malevolent action were to come about from nanotechnology, the compassion virtue would be violated. Also, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and faithfulness would all need to be relied on as characteristics for the conclave of persons that control and regulate this technology. If the second action was to be applied, experimental condition of moral virtues would have to be a must. Yet, there is also virtue in knowing when to remain research, and say that technology needs to be reconfigured before base on. Joys view of hold research and development shows incredible virtue, as it accepts what might be too much for our society t o dive into. \n\nNanotechnology at its top hat could supply incredible gains to our society. Imagine no hunger, no disease, no energy crisis, and no pollution. Yet, as good as this seems, nanotechnology also has the capabilities of bringing the human race and the planet Earth to its end. tarradiddle always teaches lessons. When the nuclear arms race began, much affection was taken to smack to control the experimentation and production of nuclear arms. Yet today, the threat of nuclear war is higher then ever and the pretermit of control over nuclear weapons is horrific. Should we not learn from this? Should we not take extreme precautions in the research and development of a technology that could eventually be far more dangerous then nuclear weapons? Ethical compendium concludes that the right range of action to take with the continuing research and development of nanotechnology is to proceed with caution in the areas that will benefit society, while eliminating the areas tha t will harm society. The good that could come out of this technology is enormous, yet its dangers need to be recognized and eliminated to block possible destructive events. \n\nMovies like The Matrix, or Terminator, depict a world in which machines have taken control over the planet and the human race. Our society is quickly moving into an era where the complexity of technology and machines make these science fiction stories a concern. Without proper precautions, and education on the risks and the rewards of each new technology, complete doom may be inevitable. Government, scientific, and business communities involved in nanotechnology must take ethical and moral responsibility to respect its dangers and take the necessary precautions and cuts to ensure last-place safety. \nIf you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
Who can write my essay on time?, \"Write my essay\"? - Easy! ... Toll - free Phone US: 1-866-607-3446 . O rder Essay to get the best writing papers ever in time online, creative and sound! Order Essay from Experienced Writers with Ease - affordable price, 100% original. Order Papers Today!'
No comments:
Post a Comment