The Ethics of Nanotechnology

What kind of world do we wish to inhabit and leave for following generations? Our planet is in trouble if current trends continue into the future: environmental degradation, extinction of species, rampant diseases, chronic warfare, poverty, starvation and social injustice.

Are suffering and despair humanity's fate? Not necessarily. We have within our grasp the technology to help bring about great progress in elevating humanity. Or we can use our evolving knowledge for destructive ends. We are already immersed in fiery debates on genetic engineering, cloning, nuclear physics and the science of warfare. Nanotechnology, with its staggering implications, will create a whole new set of ethical quandaries. A strong set of operating principles is needed -- standards by which we can guide ourselves to a healthier destiny.

The following are some ethical guidelines gleaned from both foresight and my own philosophy in this field:

* Nanotechnology's highest and best use should be to create a world of abundance where no one is lacking for their basic needs. Those needs include adequate food, safe water, a clean environment, housing, medical care, education, public safety, fair labor, unrestricted travel, artistic expression and freedom from fear and oppression.

* High priority must be given to the efficient and economical global distribution of the products and services created by nanotechnology. I recognize the need for reasonable return on investment, but we must also recognize that our planet is small and we all depend upon each other for safety, stability, even survival.

* Military research and applications of nanotechnology must be limited to defense and security systems, and not for political purposes or aggression. And any government-funded research that generates useful non-military technological advances must be made available to the public.

* Scientists developing and experimenting with nanotechnology must have a solid grounding in ecology and public safety, or have someone on their team who does. Scientists and their organizations must also be held accountable for the willful, fraudulent or irresponsible misuse of the science.

* All published research and discussion of nanotechnology should be accurate as possible, adhere to the scientific method, and give due credit to sources. Labeling of products should be clear and accurate, and promotion of services, including consulting, should disclose any conflicts of interest.

* Published debates over nanotechnology, including chat room discussions, should focus on advancing the merits of the arguments rather than personal attacks, such as questioning the motives of opponents.

* Business models in the field should incorporate long-term, sustainable practices, such as the efficient use of resources, recycling of toxic materials, adequate compensation for workers and other fair labor practices.

* Industry leaders should be collaborative and self-regulating, but also support public education in the sciences and reasonable legislation to deal with legal and social issues associated with nanotechnology.

See Also
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN)

Self-awareness Makes Us A Unique Species

Are we the centre of God’s creation? In all our thinking and discussions about life and the universe, we seem to assume so. We have convinced ourselves that the array of living beings in the universe makes up a neat hierarchy. At the pinnacle of that hierarchy is the human being.

At the lowest rungs of creation are minerals. Then come the mosses, fungi and plants. Plants have only a sense of touch. Singlecelled and multi-celled microbial organisms feature the next stage of development. At the next higher perch are the reptiles, mammals, birds and animals. Finally, at the apex is the most evolved form of living being, the human, the most advanced and the most developed among all living creatures, the supreme glory of all creation.

Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed the interesting idea of a vital principle that guides the development, functioning or evolution of an organism or a hierarchy of beings. It was this vital principle that resulted in life-finding expression first as unicellular and multicellular organisms, then as plants, thereafter as birds and animals, and ultimately as humans, as sapient and sentient beings.

According to Aristotelian theory, humans are the most evolved form of thinking and feeling beings so far. What is more, we alone have the potential to grow and evolve into the spiritual dimension.

But what precisely, if anything, sets us apart from other living creatures? Is it the faculty of reasoning, the fact that we are rational? But reasoning does not and cannot teach us anything new. Socrates was a man, a mortal being. Therefore Socrates is mortal. You can see here that there is no new truth that the third and concluding statement expresses that is not clearly implied in the first two sentences.

The conclusion of any piece of syllogistic reasoning does not enable us to learn anything new other than what is already contained in its premise. You have the same limitation with inductive logic where you arrive at general truths from particular examples.

The mind grasps reality by establishing relationships between entities that it perceives newly and the perceptions that it carries from the past. Psychologists and neurologists explain that the human brain is large because a major part of the cerebrum is concerned with associating different perceptions and memories.

Newton formulated his celebrated laws of motion and gravitation by intuitively hypothesising a link between the fall of the apple on his head and the motion of the earth around the sun. But by the same token, the human mind is basically anchored in the past. Therefore, it pulls you back from letting yourself go completely with the flow of living reality here and now.

The distinguishing feature of humans lies in our capacity for self-awareness. Other living creatures may have the ability to perform a greater variety of tasks, or may have developed superior sensibilities in certain areas. But we alone have the capacity to look at ourselves and be aware of ourselves.

We can attain knowledge. But what is unique about us is that we can also get to know how we could attain that knowledge. A human being is like a computer that can see how it has been programmed and thereby transcend the programming itself.