From: Brendan Coffey (bmc@section9.net)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 11:33:46 MDT
Points well made. People who are leery about the _implementations_
of technologies resulting from this science aren't misplacing their
concerns, I don't think. And it's nothing particular to nanotech.
The dominant culture doesn't to a very good job of implementing emerging
technologies to the general benefit of the biosphere, and the biosphere
isn't an "issue." If we fuck it up, we die. Period.
-bmc
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:44:32PM +0200, Joao Magalhaes wrote:
> Hi!
>
> To me, some of Greenpeace's worries are reasonable and deserve to be
> discussed. What I feel would be a mistake is to try to pass on the message
> that Greenpeace is just calling up attention and thwart the industry. If we
> want nanotech to flourish then we must come up with solutions to some of
> these problems instead of insulting the people who pose them. Otherwise, we
> will eventually have governments making laws to control nanotech, stem
> cells, GE, etc. For instance, the comments in the article in favour of
> nanotech are incredibly arrogant. They reminded me of Monsanto's failure,
> some years ago, to make Europeans accept GM crops. The strategy was not to
> educate or understand their critics but instead label everyone against GM
> crops as "anti-progress". Such arrogant attitude may work in the US, but
> will not work in Europe. Yet if you take a look at all the legislation
> rising up against stem cells, in both US and Europe, you will see that the
> best way to assure transhuman technologies becomes more accepted is by
> understanding the problems others pose and coming up with solutions.
>
> All the best.
>
> PS: I go on vacation tomorrow, so I won't be joining this, or any other,
> threat until mid-August.
>
> At 08:15 25-07-2003 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Bill Joy, Prince Charles, Etc Group... and now Greenpeace. Looks like a
> >storm
> >gathering, to me...
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Fabio
> >
> >--------------------------------------------
> >
> >GREENPEACE WADES INTO NANO DEBATE WITH REPORT THAT CALLS FOR CAUTION
> >
> >http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=6408
> >
> >Future technologies, today's choic
> >es
> >Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: A technical,
> >es
> >political and institutional map of emerging technologi
> >es
> >
> >http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?
> >CFID=190973&CFTOKEN=43323225&ucidparam=20030721113521
> >
> >
> >
> >----
> >This message was posted by estropico to the Extropians 2003 board on ExI
> >BBS.
> ><http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=56592>
>
> Joao Magalhaes (joao.magalhaes@fundp.ac.be)
>
> Website on Aging: http://www.senescence.info
> Reason's Triumph: http://www.jpreason.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 11:44:32 MDT