The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Nanotechnology Is Morally Unacceptable
blogs.wsj.com — If you don ’t have a super-fast, super-small computer in a few years, blame the moral majority. It turns out that most Americans find nanotechnology, the scientific field most likely to produce such a breakthrough, morally unacceptable.
tringtring- 1790 diggs
- digg it
- o0JoeCool0o, on 02/22/2008, -8/+225well see what they say when nano robots cure cancer destroy tumors and save lives :)
- prisoner24601, on 02/22/2008, -5/+219When this issue came up yesterday in another article, I spent quite a long time googling "Dietram Scheufele" and trying to get the exact wording of this survey. Before everyone here jumps back on the "religious people are stupid" bandwagon for the second time in 24 hours, think about this for just a second.
You have NO idea, whatsoever, what question was posed to people. It has NOT been disclosed by any of the (sadly rather lazy) reporters who have picked up this story. For all we know, the question was: "do you feel there are moral implications to the use of nanotechnology" which would be perfectly reasonable to respond "yes" to. (Notice that, when phrased that way, there is a USE element. The *use* of a hammer has moral implications, even though a hammer has non inherent moral value to it.
I'm just astonished that so many are willing to blindly leap to wild conclusions about what this "survey" reveals. It's particularly ironic that the criticisms seem to be loud and long from atheists (who pride themselves on rationality) and yet no one is even asking what the actual QUESTION was that people were asked!- xsAce, on 02/22/2008, -5/+23now that's insightfull ty
- grimward, on 02/22/2008, -12/+43schhh prisoner, you don't want to give the diggers the impression that you're not part of the herd, that'll get you dugg down ;)
- zite, on 02/22/2008, -1/+13the herd of anti herd... man I hate humanity.
- bosssmiley, on 02/22/2008, -2/+11Nope, sorry. Heresy against the consensus is where the most interesting ideas almost invariably crop up.
Dugg prisoner24601 for both the insight into polling practices and the "Les Miserables" reference - swr1ght, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6Thank you! I was sitting here trying to figure out where I knew Prisoner 24601 from.
- eclectro, on 02/22/2008, -3/+15You know, another thought is that some people may equate this technology as bad is not because they don't understand it's implications, but understand that big companies will force this technology on people. Much like they have already with genetic foods (and pesticides before that). Trusting corporations to be good stewards of morality would be foolish, with the many things that they have done in the past. Another reason why a positive response to this question may be justified.
- Euler2718, on 02/22/2008, -6/+3How would forcing nano-technology on people be bad? It's not like have a smaller and faster computer will give you cancer or lower your quality of life.
- oddtom, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9Are you thick? How about--for your own good, of course--a government-sponsored nano-tech corporation releases technology in the water supply that will cause an immediate gag response from any human who imbibes any substance deemed "bad, mmkay." Prohibition against stimulants such as coffee or depressants such as alcohol will suddenly become effortless.
If even a fraction of a William Gibson or Neal Stephenson novel becomes reality, life is going to get really, really ugly for the dehumanized "consumers" of corporatist countries. - Euler2718, on 02/22/2008, -4/+11Wow, tin foil hat cutting off your circulation?
- elementop, on 02/22/2008, -1/+7"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you" --Kurt Cobain
- DanOnTheMoon, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1My biggest objection is to some ***** putting a microchip in my skin. That ain't cool.
- csw1342, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1You can do it yourself. I think all it takes is a large syringe.
- tech42er, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1odd, releasing nanobots in the water supply and using nanotechnology in the manufacture of computers are completely different. When Euler said "forcing nanotechnology on people", he obviously meant using nanotechnology in manufacturing, as evidenced by his example. He did not mean it should be used by a moralistic nanny state.
- oddtom, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9Are you thick? How about--for your own good, of course--a government-sponsored nano-tech corporation releases technology in the water supply that will cause an immediate gag response from any human who imbibes any substance deemed "bad, mmkay." Prohibition against stimulants such as coffee or depressants such as alcohol will suddenly become effortless.
- Euler2718, on 02/22/2008, -6/+3How would forcing nano-technology on people be bad? It's not like have a smaller and faster computer will give you cancer or lower your quality of life.
- millerftw, on 02/22/2008, -9/+7I am an athiest and still have some qualms about nano tech regardless, not the morality of it, but its potential for evil/harm to the human race.
- theOster, on 02/22/2008, -1/+17i disagree with that only because if you take it to extremes, we shouldn't learn *anything* new. for every technological breakthrough that benefits man, there will be someone that will use it selfishly and end up hurting people. i say it's just a part of the equation.
- GreyICE, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2If taken to extremes, all ideas are stupid.
Regardless, there are some dangerous uses of nanotechnology. Just to throw one out there, tracking devices on the nanometer scale. - willfe, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1GreyICE: Not microscopic, but RFID is damn close -- it's already itty-bitty :)
- GreyICE, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2If taken to extremes, all ideas are stupid.
- theOster, on 02/22/2008, -1/+17i disagree with that only because if you take it to extremes, we shouldn't learn *anything* new. for every technological breakthrough that benefits man, there will be someone that will use it selfishly and end up hurting people. i say it's just a part of the equation.
- Markpdotcom, on 02/22/2008, -26/+18Why do we even listen to religious people any more? We're a very intelligent group of people. We know god, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster don't exist, so why do we still pander to these dark age fools? They hold us back, constantly.
I've had enough. No more should science and progress be held back by small minded people. Scientists aren't idiots, they test ideas and theories for a living. They have safety as a paramount in everything they do! Lets have some common sense here!- yournightmare, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4What? They invent things all the time that they KNOW will be used to kill or have a great potential to be used to kill.
- SteveMax, on 02/22/2008, -5/+20Speak no evil of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, infidel!!!!!
- rabidbob, on 02/22/2008, -4/+13I hate to point this out but there are plenty of scientists who hold religious beliefs. They're not holding us back. It's willful ignorance, selfishness and small mindedness than holds us back.
- aceslick911, on 02/22/2008, -6/+3Religion is a fath-based moral compass. When you have a population of billions, sometimes its okay to have a 'just because' kind of mentality to some issues. Not everyone considers all the facts rationally and thoroughly. Have a look at the comments above and you'll have some idea. When religion is used as a compass then translated into politically correct logical fact, we can as a large group be more confident that someone doesnt go ending the world every other day.
- Veritate, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure we can say necessarily the moral qualms are religion-based. The article makes a connection, but it seems dubious.
- Roryking, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Are you retarded? Did you even read Prisoner24601's comment before you replied? The survey doesn't tell you what was asked and so you can't automatically conclude "it's those goddamned fundamentalists fault"
- elementop, on 02/22/2008, -4/+4Can you say "agent orange", "DDT", "PCB's", "asbestos" and so on? On a less sinister -- but still unhealthy -- note, how about MSG and other artificial ingredients in our food? What about the anti-biotic resistant bacteria we have now because in the 60's and 70's doctors would prescribe antibiotics for *everything* because they knew it would make you feel better, and didn't hurt anything to take it even if you didn't need it?
Here, drink the Kool-Aid -- it's good for you. You know we would never do anything to hurt you. We're scientists, and we've studied it. What could possibly go wrong? - Qeveren, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2What the heck is wrong with MSG? You don't like tomatoes or something?
- Smuikas, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Uh, monosodium glutamate has nothing to do with tomatoes.
It also causes severe headaches in a percentage of the population - of which I'm one of. The stuff tastes nasty anyway. - RobotBuddha, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Qeveren's right. Tomatoes, especially the pulp, have a very large concentration of free glutamate. Which has the exact same effect on the body as monosodium glutamate.
- Smuikas, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Uh, monosodium glutamate has nothing to do with tomatoes.
- bunit03057, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Your comment is a little off topic, but
"We know gods, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster don't exist"
Even Richard Dawkins (God Delusion) would admit that we don't know whether they do or do not exist, since there is no evidence either way. As an atheist you and I choose to not believe in them, but I have no concrete evidence to prove that they do not exist.
- mrbro, on 02/22/2008, -17/+26That would require a surprising level of insight from that 70%, which is not quite realistic. The more likely scenario is:
nanotech -> never heard of it -> not in the bible -> immoral- jmccgod, on 02/22/2008, -3/+9So... By using your same asinine comment, everything after the year 30 is immoral?
The more likely scenario is that you are a dense athiest that has no respect for other peoples beliefs.- MadOtaku, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I don't agree with mrbro at all; I think he is making assumptions. But why the hell should you respect a belief? Certainly you should extend common human decency to the people who hold it, but no belief deserves respect just because someone holds it.
- jmccgod, on 02/22/2008, -3/+9So... By using your same asinine comment, everything after the year 30 is immoral?
- antich, on 02/22/2008, -0/+13prisoner24601,
Thank you for that. I did the exact same thing when I saw this yesterday, and came to the same dead ends. It's nice to see that some people still poses critical thinking.- antich, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3erm.... *possess*
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4This is digg... correct speeling is optional.
- elementop, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, a lot of people on digg pose critical thinking. Many less actually *possess* critical thinking :P
- antich, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3erm.... *possess*
- Tyr7BE, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1Twice in 24 hours would be a good day.
- heartsblood, on 02/22/2008, -6/+5I view all religious people as cattle so I've never had a problem discrediting them. But sadly this survey serves little purpose to me for the reasons you mentioned.
- Willy0Panhandle, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Agreed, prisoner has shown that some believers are capable of critical thought. This gives me hope that more of them are capable of thoughtful rationality and will eventually abandon their foolish and superstitious ways.
One giant Digg for prisoner! - tyho, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5That's funny, I view all people making sweeping generalizations as idiots that discredit themselves by speaking. Which leaves me more time for pie!
- csw1342, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1By not having a religon dont you fall into the same category as those you unjustly stereotype??
- Willy0Panhandle, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Agreed, prisoner has shown that some believers are capable of critical thought. This gives me hope that more of them are capable of thoughtful rationality and will eventually abandon their foolish and superstitious ways.
- sotopheavy, on 02/22/2008, -21/+2this is *****. everyone I know thinks it will be great. Whenever I have a conversation about nanotech it ends up positive. I am typing with one hand on the keyboard and one hand on a beer. just watched blazing saddles... obama ftw.
- ucg1, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5Is your beer taped to your hand?
- csw1342, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Nope, just the coolie.
- bluezinc, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3What are you talking about? That was the most pointless comment ever. Please don't attach Obama's name to rambling crap like that, you'll turn him into Ron Paul in no-time flat.
- InfamousAtheist, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Nobody cares what you're doing right now unless it has some bearing on the topic. If you want to report on your idiotic activities, write a blog that nobody will read, or use twitter.
- csw1342, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Well as long as everyone you know says its right then Ill just agree.
- ucg1, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5Is your beer taped to your hand?
- 1town, on 02/22/2008, -10/+31If they are so anti "playing god" then they should stop using the benefits medical science has given us. Without science you live 30 years and during childbirth 50% of the babies die, and 50% of the mothers die.
- bluezinc, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Hey, if it means less moral majority assholes around, I'm all for it.
- MadOtaku, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I thought babies survived slightly more often than mothers and 1 in 5 mothers would die.
- Abomonog, on 02/22/2008, -4/+13Sadly all they will say is that you're ***** in God's territory and then refuse to allow their children any "nano-treatments".
- bosssmiley, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4...and their stoopid-dominant genes will die out thanks to Darwinian selection.
- Antwan718, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1You bring up a good point, with all these medical advancements it is going to weaken the gene pool.
Also it needs to be taken into consideration that if there are 12 billion people on this planet as apposed to 6 billion then confilcts will arise. Look in nature when a habitat can not support so many of a given species, the species that is in abundance starts to have to compete for things to survive.
- Antwan718, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1You bring up a good point, with all these medical advancements it is going to weaken the gene pool.
- bosssmiley, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4...and their stoopid-dominant genes will die out thanks to Darwinian selection.
- Cryoniq, on 02/22/2008, -13/+3Well see what they say when nano robots are used by terrorists and in warfare. Dropped over a town and people are shredded to guts from the inside by them. Or when computers AI reach singularity and they start to produce nano robots that produce nano robots (terminator isn't unreal. All thinking and living organisms strive naturally for survival and to be on top of food chain no matter what fence you put around them).
- 4rp4n3t, on 02/22/2008, -7/+5Tinfoil hat cutting the blood circulation from your brain there a little bub?
- Herostratos, on 02/22/2008, -2/+7The problem with your scenario is...
1. If you wanna destroy a town, why not just use a nuke, poison gas or ebola?
2. Where shall the robots get their energy from?- execute85, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5I love nanotechnology, but Bill Joy's "grey goo" article has some serious points that you should consider. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html)
1. 1 billion nanobots fit inside a baseball. Nothing else would be that easy to transport hide.
2. The robots could get their energy from tiny nanobatteries, or static electricity, or the flesh of the people they're shredding.
But I'm willing to accept the risks in exchange for awesome cell phones, artery cleaners, bullet proof t-shirts, etc.- g30ph, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Hey it worked in Jake 2.0 right?
- heypetray, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Bio weapons leave infrastructure intact. Nukes are obsolete in conquest.
- execute85, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5I love nanotechnology, but Bill Joy's "grey goo" article has some serious points that you should consider. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html)
- paker, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3That boy has watched The Terminator 1 to many times.
- sonoran, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4... or when the nanobots sneak even more flouride into our water supply
- bluezinc, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1And the terrorists will get nano-bots from.....? Their secret underground science lab?
- tech42er, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Well, where the ***** do you think they get ricin, anthrax, etc. from?
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Ummmm, they don't. The "terrorist" who was sending anthrax around in 2002 has been linked to a disgruntled lab worker.
- tech42er, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Well, where the ***** do you think they get ricin, anthrax, etc. from?
- RobotBuddha, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1What do humans have that an advanced AI could possibly care about. All the metal and power it could want is in space, without having to bother with messy organic life.
- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -7/+17BREAKING NEWS!!! Moral Majority Rejects Scientific Progress, also in news today Bear ***** In Woods; Pope Is Catholic.
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -6/+8Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology. - yngtimmy, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2The article (at the bottom, big surprise) says that the majority across religious lines are NOT opposed to the benefits of nanotechnology.. Misleading and ax-to-grind article
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -6/+8Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
- burnin8r28, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1ZOMBIES!!!!!!11
- vdgmr1213, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Or when the nano bots infest their brains to fix out inferior minds and logic. I'm up for a little cyborging. Anyone else?
- heypetray, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Would I have the strength of 5 gorillas??? And Chainsaw hands... BZZZZZzzzz!!!!
- yngtimmy, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1If you're not part of the moral majority, does that make you part of the immoral minority? :)
- Antwan718, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2No, outside of the majority is just a lot of grey area.
- hydraw, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Although it might sound crazy I think there are actually genuine reasons why nanotechnology could pose a worry, don't forget humans have made mistakes in the past. How would humans cope if the nanorobotic inventions went out of control. Also What happens if nanotechnology is used in warfare; little robots in the water supplies of the enemy waiting for the signal to release poison chemicals into the water, and killing thousands of innocent people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implications_of_nanot ... for more reasons.
However I think the uses of the nanotechnology could have so much potential to change the world and so long as we are careful, it could become the greatest invention of the twenty first century.- Nanobe, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Whether or not the U.S. chooses to embrace it, scientists around the world will continue to develop it. When will people learn that you simply can't stop the progress of knowledge and technology just because there are potential dangers of it?
- EgaoNoGenki, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2So you see? I would rather EMBRACE it. Nanorobots will give us clinical immortality because it'll clean out the cellular garbage that accumulates and makes us look older.
- carpespasm, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2they'll thank jesus that he allowed us to cure diseases.
- Peetweefish, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Definitely the future possibility of future weapons development. Instead of killing tumors they cut holes in your organs.
- Devotia, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I don't know. Maybe for a few years nanotech might be a conceivable weapon, but after a few groups of people get it, any state worth surviving will throw some nanobots that can destroy them into the air, so that one person can't take out half the country. Plus it's not conceivable to use a nano weapon on a country who also has nanoweapons simply because even if you kill 100% of their country, what's to stop either one of their citizens in your country, or an allied country to do the same to you?
- postalblowfish7, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1yaaay! let's cure all disease and halt aging/death so the world can quadruple in population!
- Strunt, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2"we'll see what they say when nano robots cure crabs destroy lives and save tumors:)"
fixed it for you.
- prisoner24601, on 02/22/2008, -5/+219When this issue came up yesterday in another article, I spent quite a long time googling "Dietram Scheufele" and trying to get the exact wording of this survey. Before everyone here jumps back on the "religious people are stupid" bandwagon for the second time in 24 hours, think about this for just a second.
- WriterSD, on 02/22/2008, -7/+273This is so crazy. Why on earth would nanotechnology be morally wrong?
- WiseWeasel, on 02/22/2008, -5/+98The only objection I could think of is that newly-created nanoparticles might be a potential health hazard, and that extreme caution would have to be used to contain and test them before releasing into the wild.
Maybe the eleventh commandment on the broken tablet said "thou shalt not create devices smaller than one billionth of a meter"...
I bet the poll was conducted with very weird wording that made people select that answer through ignorance.- KMartSheriff, on 02/22/2008, -8/+17Where the hell was this poll taken? The deep south? Burried as inaccurate.
- loquax, on 02/22/2008, -13/+7Come on, lay off the South would ya? Some of the best work in science and medicine is being done down here.
- Abomonog, on 02/22/2008, -5/+5As nearly all polls are, it was a random polling of the middle class. Soccer moms and such.
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -4/+4Because soccer moms usually know everything about nanotech...
- gak001, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1I think you mean "one billionth of a pace" since we're talking about OT measurements here... duh.
:: muttering::...freaking dumbasses on digg...kevin... old days... ::/muttering::- d3matt, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1The problem is, the OT doesn't really use scale. It's only recently that we've been able to "grasp" concepts such as millions or even billions.
- jimmiss, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Most people know so little they don't' know about those health risks either I guess.
- joegibes, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2It's because of the "grey goo" that people have heard about through sci-fi literature... Self-multiplying swarms of tiny nano-scale robots that eat the world. See Michael Crichton's Prey for a nice little example.
- cbuddha42, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1I don't think something being a potential health hazard would make it immoral. Maybe to deploy on a mass scale in the air or something, but not to research in a controlled lab.
My guess is the same as the article's. Simply people not seeing the difference between manipulating inanimate objects and materials on the atomic scale and manipulating life. I'm guessing the question didn't specify that the research would be purely focused on smaller implementations of current machines such as shrinking computers. Either that or those polled believe nano tech introduces more opportunities to manipulate life, but that seems a too complicated conclusion for such a majority to reach.
Either way, I think a better designed questionnaire would reveal the moral objection is to "playing God," or creating and modifying life, not to building smaller machines. In fact, I suspect this questionnaire was ambiguously worded on purpose to provide a shock statistic. There is lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics :).
- KMartSheriff, on 02/22/2008, -8/+17Where the hell was this poll taken? The deep south? Burried as inaccurate.
- GramarNatzi, on 02/22/2008, -13/+80Because teeny little robots make baby Jesus cry.
- eclectro, on 02/22/2008, -4/+8No, but I bet a "grey goo" ravaging the planet might.
- EpicSelekta, on 02/22/2008, -15/+4Because teeny robots that decide to replicate each themselves ad nauseum = health hazard to the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
- Herostratos, on 02/22/2008, -1/+7Where shall the robots get the energy to replicate themselves ad nauseum from?
- EpicSelekta, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1The sun? Things are solar powered these days, ya know.
- oddtom, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5We can blacken the skies! Quick, Morpheus, to the Nebakanezer!
- Feazey, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3I always thought it was spelt Nebuchadnezzar. Meh, yet again I'm wrong.
- oddtom, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3No, you're right actually. I royally ***** up on the spelling of that.
- DCJoeDogaswell, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2that has got to be the most hilarious thing I have ever read EVER, if they are not made with solar panels then they could be on the sun for all the good it will do, stop watching matrix and stargate so much, hey I love those films and shows too but I don't believe them as news. LOL
- EpicSelekta, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1The sun? Things are solar powered these days, ya know.
- Herostratos, on 02/22/2008, -1/+7Where shall the robots get the energy to replicate themselves ad nauseum from?
- BeefBaron, on 02/22/2008, -15/+28Same idiots who think sex before marriage is morally unacceptable, and still believe in various gods.
- Antwan718, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Even a computer techie will belive in, the network god, or the windows god. You know you are lying if you havent ever been ***** yourself trying to make something work on a various Windows operating system. Wether there is a religion surrounding them or not i can say that i dont know of any, but in a fix people will say stupid things.
- SHv2, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0I more refer to the network demon, or the windows demon. Makes the problems seem more nefarious and dastardly...
- cbuddha42, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Please sir, prove to me that a matter of personal opinion and one of faith are wrong. So wrong to mark the holder of such beliefs an idiot.
I don't believe either of those things, but some days I hope there is a God to great you when you die just so he can rip you a new one for being such a pompous ass.- diggydougie, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1If god is all powerful it wouldn't need to wait until death to deal someone. And if it has rules about that, then that means that it has to answer to another power greater. What created god? Just admit to yourself that man invented the whole thing and you will be happier. Why would one wish someone's new one ripped in the first place? Whatever did BeefBaron do to you?
- Antwan718, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Even a computer techie will belive in, the network god, or the windows god. You know you are lying if you havent ever been ***** yourself trying to make something work on a various Windows operating system. Wether there is a religion surrounding them or not i can say that i dont know of any, but in a fix people will say stupid things.
- prisoner24601, on 02/22/2008, -6/+67I'm a Christian. I know lots of Christians. I'm happy to stand up and identify myself as one of "those people" who so many here on digg are clearly frustrated with over any number of issues.
I have no problem with nanotechnology. I don't know of a single Christian (and again, I know a LOT of them) that does.
I think there is real reason to question exactly what this survey asked. The question that was posed has NOT been revealed. Doesn't that bother anyone here? Isn't there something in the back of your mind right now thinking: "hey, I wonder exactly what WAS the phrasing of the original question?"- khellendros1984, on 02/22/2008, -5/+23Ditto. Christian, and I have no problem with nanotech. I can't even see where an objection would come from..."dangerous" doesn't mean immoral. Nanotech has some danger to it possibly, but I think its usefulness far outweighs any risk.
- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4The objection to anything that can potentially save lives, or improve the quality of life for a ill person is: "Your playing God!" If we some how improve on the "design" then what does that say about an infinite and all powerful God who supposedly created us? It is one more step toward disbelief. That scares the crap out of fundamentalist.
- obrysii, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6Not if you can reconcile your faith in God and your belief in evolution. To paraphrase what Galileo said, the same God that imbued us with our intellect would not be the god to punish us for using it. In other words, God gave us our sapience and aptitude for science to use it.
- elementop, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3@weeeezzll: As prisoner24601 has so eloquently stated over and over again on this thread, without knowing the actual question that was asked, all we can do is *assume* what the 70% who said nanotechnology is immoral were thinking. No matter what you think, you don't *know* that the people objected to nanotech because they thought scientists were playing God. I'm with prisoner -- I'm a Christian, I am *very* interested in science, and I don't necessarily have a problem with nanotech.
I am, however, reserving judgment until we know a little more how extremely small machines will affect us. Remember, in the 50's, 60's and 70's we thought asbestos was safe...until we discovered that the tiny fibers in asbestos could cause mesothelioma. What are the long term risks of exposure to these devices? Are the benefits worth the risks?
IMHO, a healthy dose of skepticism is, well, healthy. However, I *don't* think that there is a religious reason to reject nanotechnology.
- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4The objection to anything that can potentially save lives, or improve the quality of life for a ill person is: "Your playing God!" If we some how improve on the "design" then what does that say about an infinite and all powerful God who supposedly created us? It is one more step toward disbelief. That scares the crap out of fundamentalist.
- marky125, on 02/22/2008, -4/+8Same with me - heh I think my answer to "why would nanotechnology be morally unacceptable?" would be "Because people are stupid" :/
(perhaps I'm being to callous - a better answer might be "Because people are misinformed and most of the media are ratings-hungry whores")- marky125, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2*too
(dammit!)
- marky125, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2*too
- eclectro, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5Nobody has a problem with nanotech until it floats into your house and transmits what you are up to back to the government. Just sayin'.
- pirloui, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, but that's another problem..
- overridemymind, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4That's not morality, that's normal paranoia... everyone in the universe gets that.
- Antwan718, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1The goverment now already does that, and one of 3000 tv's in america have a neilson chip that whatches you when you watch TV. Face it, as long as there are people with their own ajendas in power they will abuse that power to complete their ajendas.
- rodded, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Are you retarded or just stupid?
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1As small and delicate as I imagine they will be, I am willling to bet they would be easily jammed or otherwise interefered with somehow.
- pirloui, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, but that's another problem..
- pirloui, on 02/22/2008, -3/+4Same here, european christian protestant, and I see no reason for nanotechnology being immoral. Biotech is a little more difficult, but "very small" sure not..
Just while we're here, me nor any christian I know have a problem with evolution / darwinism.- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3The people who have a problem with this stuff are the same ones who had a problem with in vitro fertilization, and artificial insemination. Because conceiving a child was something that only God could kick start. Just remember, this comes from the people who believe that Mary was a virgin, and her egg magically grew into another living being with out the help of a sperm. I imagine you probably see this immaculate conception story as an allegory. That is what happens each time science teaches us a little more about the world around us, more and more parts of religion get carted off to the fairy tale bin. Hopefully then entirety of religion will end up where is belongs, in history books as a fairytale.
- dearjohned, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0As for Mary being a virgin and the impossibility of "her egg magically [growing] into another living being with out the help of a sperm" - have you never heard of parthenogenesis? That's when an egg spontaneously divides and enters the normal cell cycle. Happens all the time. In fact, there is a species of lizards in the southwest US which reproduce entirely through parthenogenesis - they are all female (at least, every single one which has ever had its skirts lifted).
Just sayin'- underdog138, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Since you seem to know a lot about the subject, I charge you to come up with a solution for the little problem of a human being born with 23 missing chromosomes.
- munen123, on 02/22/2008, -15/+15god is an imaginary friend for adults...
- ZeroG52, on 02/22/2008, -1/+7Baptist Christian from Texas here. I see nothing morally wrong with the technology in and of itself. It's the use of said technology in the future that somewhat concerns me, but as far as the development and uses for good I have no objections. We just need to be VERY careful the closer we get to creating something like this.
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Exactly. It's just like any other technology. Nearly anything can be dangerous or evil when used improperly or maliciously.
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -5/+6Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology.
I'm a Christian too.- nullifidian0, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2You're also a spamming troll-like retard for posting the same comment who knows how many times.
- monoa, on 02/22/2008, -6/+2OK, so why not tell us what the question was?
You may have filtered out some of the nonsense of the Judeo Xian myth, but many others have swallowed it whole and want to impose their ignorance on the rest of the planet.- t.toe, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3When it comes to Biblical morality, there is nothing to "swallow whole" about nanotechnology. Myth or no, if someone's sense of morals is based on the Bible, they should have no problem with nanotech.
Also, I find it humorous that you're unwilling to type the name "Christ", preferring "Xian" while calling his religion a myth. I don't believe in Mythras, but I certainly have no qualms about typing his name.
- t.toe, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3When it comes to Biblical morality, there is nothing to "swallow whole" about nanotechnology. Myth or no, if someone's sense of morals is based on the Bible, they should have no problem with nanotech.
- EarlOfLade, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2Now, why don't you use some of that reasoning skill and take long hard scientific look at your religion at the same time? The ONLY viable conclusion if you do when you are honest about it, is that is nothing but 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scifi, you don't think the shows on the SciFi-channel is real now, do you?
- elementop, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3Throughout history, many people *have* taken a long, hard scientific look at their religion and come to the exact *opposite* conclusion you have. Descartes, Pascal, Galileo, Newton (I believe), for example. C.S. Lewis was a dedicated atheist and set out to disprove Christianity once and for all. His conclusion? He couldn't disprove anything, and in fact decided that maybe there was something to this 2000+ year old dude, who, incidentally, was a carpenter, not a goat herder.
And no, I can't think of a single Christian who thinks that the shows on the Sci-Fi channel are real. Scientologists, maybe...but not Christians :D- EarlOfLade, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1* sigh *
"disprove" if hear this word one more time, I swear I'll kill someone.
Is it too much to ask that you have a slightest little clue about what you are talkingn about? No? Ok, I understand.
So, now you can disprove, with 100% certainty that there are not 234 planets in the Andromeda galaxy with bipedal carbon based intelligent life forms on it, can you do that?
- EarlOfLade, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1* sigh *
- mahdaeng, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Wrong topic. You need to post this under "Why I Think Christians Are Anti-Scientific (And Why I Think I Am Superior to Them)".
- elementop, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3Throughout history, many people *have* taken a long, hard scientific look at their religion and come to the exact *opposite* conclusion you have. Descartes, Pascal, Galileo, Newton (I believe), for example. C.S. Lewis was a dedicated atheist and set out to disprove Christianity once and for all. His conclusion? He couldn't disprove anything, and in fact decided that maybe there was something to this 2000+ year old dude, who, incidentally, was a carpenter, not a goat herder.
- dearjohned, on 02/22/2008, -2/+0-Also a christian herel. I'd like to know how God has been proven to not exist. I know that I cannot prove to anyone else that he does, but my own empirical (if non-scientific) efforts have convinced me that he does exist. However, that is besides the point. While I cannot assert scientifically that he does exist, atheists cannot prove that he does not. So, seeing as neither side can prove their point, perhaps we should simply agree to allow the possibility and respect each other when we say "I do (or do not) believe in God."
- kaelyiesta, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1There is a great debate over the logical existence of the christian god. I won't flesh out the entire thing because it has been more rigorously defined already, but it goes something like this:
The bible asserts god has the following attributes. 1) Omnipotence 2) Omniscience 3) Omnibenevolence.
Now add the following fact that it is self evident that there are events outside human will that harm people.
Next use some logic on gods constraints due to those given attributes to show that he would necessarily not let those things happen. Basically, this contradiction shows that at least one of the assertions is wrong, and so the argument concludes that the christian god does not exist, at least not in the way described by the bible. So far the best counter argument from theologists is that you can't use logic on god. Its rather weak retort in my opinion but it seems permissible. You can google this argument yourself, I don't know its official name but it is famous enough that you should be able to find it.
The reason this argument is so powerful is that it uses only what the bible itself asserts, and one fact that no one would consider to dispute, so it uses what christian theologists cannot reject and leaves them stuck with very little wiggle room. Some don't like it because it doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of a god but I myself am satisfied with what it accomplishes. Disproving the existence of any god with any attributes isn't necessary anyhow. Just focusing on the particular god that so many believe in is sufficient for me. I don't feel the urgency to disprove other ones.- mahdaeng, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1This is a tired, old argument that arrogates man's limited understanding over the purposes of God. Proponents of this argument assume that God is an old lady who frets away at the thought of one of her children being harmed. Does God have the power to stop all evil in the world? Certainly. Is it part of His plan to do so? Obviously not. The fact that evil exists in the world does not prove that God does not exist nor that He is powerless. It merely illustrates how very much we dislike evil and long for an escape from it. However, if evil and hardship did not exist (and that includes our own ability to cause evil and hardship), how could we grow and develop? Could it be that God is a truly loving Father concerned more with the ultimate progress of His children than with the occasional skinned knee suffered in learning how to run? It would certainly be easier if He forced everyone to be good, but would it really be better?
- mahdaeng, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I'm Christian, too, but you're posting this under the wrong topic.
- kaelyiesta, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1There is a great debate over the logical existence of the christian god. I won't flesh out the entire thing because it has been more rigorously defined already, but it goes something like this:
- Slovenian6474, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4or they just polled the Amish.
- purzzzell, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1if you're not opposed to nanotechnology, you're not one of "those people" - there are plenty of christians that I find to be perfectly acceptable, then there's a small group I find to be completely obnoxious - obviously, you're part of the former group.
- ICSU, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1So have about you stopped bragging about it here and go talk to your fellow Christians ??
- mahdaeng, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2Same here. I'm a Christian and find nothing at all morally wrong with nanotechnology. I even work in a very related field. I am certainly opposed to harvesting stem cells from fetuses, etc., but what can possibly be immoral about tiny machines? Even considering the possible health risks that some have mentioned here, there is nothing immoral about the technology itself.
- olbap, on 02/22/2008, -4/+2Christians, STFU and get over yourselves and your silly myths. You all posting here might think you're being "open minded" but your very religion is one of the root causes of evil. ***** you and your Jesus.
- barnseyboy12, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5Ohhh the irony: "STFU", "***** you and your Jesus", thank you ohhh enlightened one for showing us the error of our ways.
- DarkWolf54, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Wow. and you call us closed-minded. You do know you are being an absolute moron right now by saying WE are closed-minded and then being closed-minded yourself on the subject of religion
- tony23, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2"hey, I wonder exactly what WAS the phrasing of the original question?"
I wish more people would ask that of ALL surveys. - bobbybobington, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1***** YOU FRANK! That guy ruins everything...
- Orb9, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1I applaud your effort of trying to bring more credibility to Christianity by agreeing with Nanotech
- mahdaeng, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1The credibility of Christianity has nothing to do with nanotechnology.
- khellendros1984, on 02/22/2008, -5/+23Ditto. Christian, and I have no problem with nanotech. I can't even see where an objection would come from..."dangerous" doesn't mean immoral. Nanotech has some danger to it possibly, but I think its usefulness far outweighs any risk.
- sotopheavy, on 02/22/2008, -1/+13Every technology is as good as the one who wields it. nanotech could be unbelievably bad and amazingly good. thats why we hope we don't have a nanotech unibomber.
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -1/+16From TFA: "“Most people have very little objection to building a better computer,” Schuefele says. They’d just prefer a different way to get there."
How, exactly, do you build a better computer without making its components smaller??? This had to have been a misleadingly worded survey - you don't get that kind of cognitive dissonance otherwise.- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -8/+0Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology. - bemenaker, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4The problem with that is 95% of Americans don't know what the fuhq you're talking about when you mention nanoparticles, and we fear what we do not know.....
(OK, I made the stat up, but you get my point) - EarlOfLade, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1You use the biblical miracle material called "gopher-wood"!
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -8/+0Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
- overridemymind, on 02/22/2008, -1/+16Because what they don't tell you is the molecules they use to build the nanorobots with comes from babies...
... wait... - Herostratos, on 02/22/2008, -6/+22For the same "reason" people are against genetically modified crops:
Gut reactions with origins in Hollywood movies.- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -0/+7I like to call it "The Franken-Fear"
- Dgen_X, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Wait,...genetically modified Al Franken nanobots?
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue... - RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I, for one, welcome our new tiny undead robot overlords.
- Dgen_X, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Wait,...genetically modified Al Franken nanobots?
- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -0/+7I like to call it "The Franken-Fear"
- uberkling, on 02/22/2008, -9/+9It's wrong because the greasy, illiterate, morbidly obese, gun-toating hyper-christians that make up the american majority have not even the vaguest understanding of concepts such as technological innovation, improving quality of life, or that dreaded S-word (science) that invented such things as their pickup trucks, cable TV, and the adhesive substance on the back of their "We love Jesus!" bumper stickers.
That's why it's morally unaccaptable. Purely the uninformed stupidity of bible bashers. Nothing new really.- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2i think you meant "bible thumpers" unless your using some non-US slang that I don't know of...
- getbusyliving, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Dug for "greasy, illiterate, morbidly obese, gun-toating hyper-christians"
- alenox, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2ya and i bet those "gun-toting hyper-christians" would have no moral objection to guns, which kill more people than nanotechnology without improving the quality of life as much as nanotech
- kaelyiesta, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Don't be absurd. Guns haven't killed a single person. Lets not swing the other way on the pendulum of stupidity and reject one tool for another when both are only as dangerous as people allow them to be. They're both tools, and both can be used to hurt or help people.
- ParaSwarm, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Dugg for a fine description of 80% of the populace of this country.
- Khannea, on 02/22/2008, -3/+7I certainly don't object. Americans are right, nanotechnology research has no place in the US and belongs in heathen Europe, where I live.
- yunus, on 02/22/2008, -1/+12I blame James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Skynet. People are afraid because of these things.
- shadeOfGrey, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2The terminator was hardly nano.
- diggydougie, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Was too.
- diggydougie, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Don't forget the Borg.
- shadeOfGrey, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2The terminator was hardly nano.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4I just assume it's because all those mouth-breathers don't actually know what nanotechnology really is.
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -9/+0Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology.- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Dugg down for being a repetitious idiot. You made your point several times already, so let it lie. PS - You're probably not as smart as you think you are.
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -9/+0Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
- jugger74, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9Maybe some of you mental midgets should do some research before you you spew your ill conceived uninformed views. The problem with nanotech has nothing to do with religion it has to do with the fact that this is an incredibly dangerous field of study that could create horrific plagues and devastation. Here is a simple scenario that has been put forth to me. Say you have a nanomachine that can break down objects and use the carbon to reproduce itself (because that is how these nanos reproduce) that nano would have the potential to break down anything into the essential building blocks it required. If you think ebola is bad imagine nanos breaking down your entire body to build themselves. Now of course there would be fail safes put in place to stop them from attacking living things but the thing is once released these things take on the same characteristics as any reproducing life form they mutate, evolve and strive to survive just like anything else and there is scientific theory predicting it would be quite easy for any given nano to mutate and cause the end of the world.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/pdfsspring2007/32- ...- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -8/+0dugg for the term mental midgets alone...
as for the article - Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology.- Sprung, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Is there an echo in here?
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah... and the dumbass actually bothered to add his own thought to the copypasta spam... impressive.
- Sprung, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Is there an echo in here?
- alenox, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2yes i'm sure that most americans had this scenario in mind when objecting to nanotech on moral grounds... considering that a majority don't even believe in evolution
/sarcasm - epiccollision, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3the plague of carbon nanotubes?
- fullphaser, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2What idiot would make Carbon the replication element. In fact it'd be rather stupid to use any element on the list that is heavily used by Living Organisms (leaving the radioactive set near the bottom of the periodic table)
- WriterSD, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Thanks Jugger! Now I have a King-esque idea for my next book! :-)
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -8/+0dugg for the term mental midgets alone...
- grgt1994, on 02/22/2008, -0/+7This is pure grandstanding abuse of polling to embarrass a group of people. Most of the intelligent folks here can see that. The pollers clearly wanted to publish an embarrassing account of how uninformed this particular group of people are. Problem is, there is easily 30% (probably far more) who have no idea what nanotechnology is. So when you ask them, "Do you support or oppose the continued scientific development of nanotechnology?" - the question begs a negative response of at least a substantial portion of those uninformed about the concept. Wow, that's a big word, involves science - - - must be scary.
Pose the question appropriately, with reasonable background, and this is a non-story. In fact, the story is not the poll, it's the pollster, the author and the publisher. To the lesser extent, the story is also the diggers who are duped by this sham.- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -7/+0True - the post is Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology.
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -7/+0True - the post is Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -9/+3Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology.- Arramol, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6You officially win the Spam King award. I don't think I've ever seen someone copy-paste the same comment in the same thread as many times as you have just now. Honestly, we heard you the first time. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make people more likely to listen, it annoys them and causes them to regard you as a spammer rather than someone credible.
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4It also causes them to report him :)
- Arramol, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6You officially win the Spam King award. I don't think I've ever seen someone copy-paste the same comment in the same thread as many times as you have just now. Honestly, we heard you the first time. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make people more likely to listen, it annoys them and causes them to regard you as a spammer rather than someone credible.
- ElAssoWipo, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3They questionned Americans.
"Our first reaction was that 70% of people must not know what nanotechnology is"
Therefore it's morally wrong.
Thecarpe is absolutely correct. This is fake news. There is no objection to nanotechnology:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20 ... - fhornplayer, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2Maybe because people fear weaponization? The question may have suggested the development of guns that shoot darts that inject nanites that eat your brain. With every great scientific breakthrough, there is the potential for another deadly weapon. Of course, this means that the internet, airplanes, nuclear energy, etc, are all "morally wrong".
- alienSkull, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4or imagine the development of a gun that shot out a very hard metal object that would tare and rip you brain into mush.. that would be much cheaper then nanites... we better protest that development...
oh wait.- fhornplayer, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1That's exactly what I meant...
- alienSkull, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4or imagine the development of a gun that shot out a very hard metal object that would tare and rip you brain into mush.. that would be much cheaper then nanites... we better protest that development...
- empiric, on 02/22/2008, -4/+6For one thing, it is a likely carcinogen...
http://digg.com/health/And_the_New_Potential_Cance ...
Yay for Digg consistency. X is good if we can mock religion with it, not-X is good if we can mock religion with it.- empiric, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2To be clear, though, I think carcinogenic risks can be mitigated by proper materials management--I mention it as a possible reason as to why people would have the opinion the survey claims in the first place, though, as others have pointed out, without knowing the specific questions, this "survey" is useless. The article doesn't even qualify as "information".
Myself, I'm not "against nanotechnology", and given I'm typing this on a machine with a CPU of 45nm, it would be rather difficult for me to be.
- empiric, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2To be clear, though, I think carcinogenic risks can be mitigated by proper materials management--I mention it as a possible reason as to why people would have the opinion the survey claims in the first place, though, as others have pointed out, without knowing the specific questions, this "survey" is useless. The article doesn't even qualify as "information".
- MrObjectional, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I'm betting that most of the respondents were thinking of nanotech in Hollywood terms. That is, nanotechnology complimenting the human body (inside the body). Bionic people and such.
- an0nym0uz, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1because most Americans in more urban and modern areas such as new york city, LA etc.. dont realize that most of the american population consists of bible belt freaks, and ignorant hillbillies
- fullphaser, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2This is much the same as the time they went around and asked for a ban on DiHydrogen Monoxide. People simply are not aware of general scientific termonlogy and thus instantly assume it is bad, not having any prior knowledge of the topic at hand.
- tony23, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1That DHMO is some really bad stuff. I got a bunch of it falling all around me right now - it has some odd property that makes people drive worse than usual.
- steveboutin, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1because, as stephen hawking pointed out, nanotech will be used eventually to enhance human performance both physically and mentally. tiny robots that help your muscles to rebuild and help your neurons to move data faster. this could create a new class war the likes of which humankind has never seen. natural humans vs. nanotech upgraded humans. scary stuff.
of course, this is just a theory in hawkins' book "a brief history of time," which was written decades ago before nanotech was even relevant. also, most americans haven't read or even heard of this book, so it probably had no influence whatsoever on this poll, and the truth is people are stupid. - Zlorp, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1the idiots calling nano-tech morally wrong are the same people driving F250's and polluting our atmosphere at an alarming rate.
honestly though this is probably *****, just like that poll saying that 20% of americans dont know the earth revolves around the sun? please, did they poll 4 year olds?
is there some sort of agenda to make americans think they're stupid? - snapcase, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1What's really crazy is that this is the second time that we've seen this topic on the top 10 in the last couple of days... and nobody seems to remember.
Three cheers for the nearly non-existent collective short term memory.
- WiseWeasel, on 02/22/2008, -5/+98The only objection I could think of is that newly-created nanoparticles might be a potential health hazard, and that extreme caution would have to be used to contain and test them before releasing into the wild.
- mgilbo1, on 02/22/2008, -8/+57Its called progress and unfortunately you can't stop progress because someone is paranoid of what COULD happen. If that was the case, we'd all be liviing in caves still.
- blast_flame, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Sadly a concept known as the "precautionary principle" that wants to stop progress just because something could happen is getting increasingly popular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_princip ...
I personally go with another principle that goes against this completely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principl ...- jcims, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I'm not sure it's sad, it just needs to be managed. We've had the technology to destroy nearly all life on this planet for 50 years, and the capacity for what, 30? It just gets easier from there.
- blast_flame, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3An axe can be used to murder people, should it have never been invented? Technology can be used in evil ways but that is no reason not to use it in good ways.
- eclectro, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3"Sadly a concept known as the "precautionary principle" that wants to stop progress just because something could happen is getting increasingly popular."
So said the makers of DDT and Absestos.- blast_flame, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3DDT was overall a good invention. It helped reduce malaria deaths until a more healthy option came along. For the precautionary principle to have stopped absestos technological progress would of had to been delayed so long in all forms (you can't restrict only advancement that will go on to cause problems) that thousands would have been killed from causes that science would have prevented.
- execute85, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4DDT isn't as bad as people claim. If used appropriately, it can dramatically reduce malaria deaths. But the precautionary principle/ dumbass principle is preventing its use.
There's quite a bit out there regarding how to judiciously apply it for billions less than other anti-malaria treatments. I first became aware of this issue through Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/0228/01 ...
- jcims, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I'm not sure it's sad, it just needs to be managed. We've had the technology to destroy nearly all life on this planet for 50 years, and the capacity for what, 30? It just gets easier from there.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/22/2008, -2/+10Living in caves without fire. Fire burn hand. Fire bad.
- roomforpanic, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5I like how cavemen always speak rudimentary English.
- heartsblood, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2and use Geico. Even though they pretend not to.
- beclamide, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8Top 5 historical human moral dilemmas:
5) "But what if we moved out of our cave and something eats us?"
4) "What if we made a fire and the whole world goes up in flames?"
3) "What if we made a wheel and it rolls away and squashes someone's toes?"
2) "But metal sinks, so why bother making a boat... let alone an aeroplane out of it?"
1) "We can't possibly travel faster than 30 mph! Our heads would explode!!" - solid12345, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1Is there also sometimes such things as too MUCH progress? I mean what is science trying to prove, do they want to be God and someday create human beings that never age or die, it seems to be that way. I think that is a gross violation of ethics even if the intentions are good.
Look at what progress has brought us now. Sure we have computers, cell phones, television, but at what cost? We sit all day in chairs and work and grow fat. Our modern economic society is a rat race that leads to the division of families, and now we have weapons that can eradicate entire nations off the map.
And remember, for all the jerkoffs who say people who don't believe in global warming are anti-science, technically it was science and technology that got us into our environmental problems in the first place.- sporg, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Your comment seems to be trolling garbage please STFU.
- linuxpenguin, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1It's called moral obligation and unfortunately, if you think something is morally wrong, you shouldn't support it. Science defines what we can do, with no judgment on whether or not it should be done.
Now I'm not saying that this technology is bad or we shouldn't use it (honestly I just glanced at the article). But to say that we should just do what science allows us to is wrong - we need to show some morals, and we need to stop if we don't think something's right. Science might tell me how to build an H-bomb out of household materials, but my moral judgment tells me maybe I shouldn't do it.
- blast_flame, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Sadly a concept known as the "precautionary principle" that wants to stop progress just because something could happen is getting increasingly popular.
- bernandoo, on 02/22/2008, -10/+95Yay for ignorance! Luckily for us, the 70% that think it's morally wrong don't control the grants that keep nanotechnology rolling.
- Hobolord, on 02/22/2008, -7/+1Wait, so I'm ignorant, what could possibly be immoral about a very small robot?
To my knowledge, current plans for nanobots are in medicine, military warfare, and also as seen in the novel "Prey" by Michael Crichton, as tiny mankilling robots.
What's the problem?- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2You know nothing, apparently.
Nanotechnology is not limited to robots - indeed, the more we know about the very small, the less practical we see the concept of building little self-replicating beasties - or, more accurately, the more we notice that we're made up of the best ones possible for our environmental range: DNA. It has more information and can act on it better than our tiniest circutry.
Now, before you start worrying about that: we're presently struggling to build a beastie with a cellulose -> ethanol metabolic chain. We've been doing so for 15 years.
Sure, you can have tiny mankilling robots - but anthrax variants do just as well a job, especially since, medically speaking, creating an antidote or vaccine for your own personnel ahead of time is easy, while doing it in the field is difficult. There's a reason we have laws against using biological weaponry.
As for use in medicine we currently have many forms of modified bacteria producing insulin, enzymes, hormones, etc. You weren't bitching in 1970, were you?- Abomonog, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1The problem with standard medicine is that it is failing. Where nanotechnology is first slated for use, infectious diseases, we are seeing the evolution of drug resistant bacteria and it's very likely that in the next 50 years most current strains will be totally immune to drugs. In this case where we are making the best progress in nanotech is where it will be needed the most, bacterial and viral manipulation. Now we get to why the Christians hate it so much.
The problem with nanotechnology and Christians is not that it will cause Gods wrath, but that it will protect us from God. In fact nanotechnology will utterly end the Apocalypse. See with the ability to manipulate the innards of bacteria or the genetic code of a virus en-masse comes the end of all viral and infectious disease. Without said diseases running rampant at the correct time there can be no Apocalypse, no rapture, no return of Jesus. What?!? No Jesus? OH MY ***** GOD I HATE NANOTECHNOLOGY!!!
It funny how many Christians will pray for the death and suffering of others just so their way. Often they do not even realize what they do. To paraphrase a rather famous prophet. - Abomonog, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1There is a missing "is" in that last post but the script screwed up so I can't edit so the grammar nazis can keep quiet. :) oh yes, and a missing have.
"It is funny how many Christians will pray for the death and suffering of others just so can have their way."
Better...
- Abomonog, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1The problem with standard medicine is that it is failing. Where nanotechnology is first slated for use, infectious diseases, we are seeing the evolution of drug resistant bacteria and it's very likely that in the next 50 years most current strains will be totally immune to drugs. In this case where we are making the best progress in nanotech is where it will be needed the most, bacterial and viral manipulation. Now we get to why the Christians hate it so much.
- overridemymind, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Um... "Military Warfare"... as opposed to.... peacetime... war... fare? And your reference to "Prey"... do you even know what you're talking about? Yes yes, I'm sure we'd program a tiny device to kill off our own species.... and as far as the book... you know -- fiction -- goes... for the machines to make decisions and misinterpret their programming to say, kill a person inadvertantly rather than heal them.... They'd need a type of artificial intelligence that borders sentience.... which is currently impossible. Oh by the way -- I see what you mean by your example of using nanotechnology in medicine for your opinion. I mean, curing the sick and wounded, the terminally ill -- yeah, that's really immoral there.
I mean, how dare people continue to live?
... wait... what?
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2You know nothing, apparently.
- willynilly, on 02/22/2008, -4/+15Oh really? Then where's our funding for stem-cell research?
- bernandoo, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4stem-cell research isn't nanotechnology... if this were about stem-cell research would i have said this? no.
- capiCrimm, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3They do however control the government, or at least choose our latest puppet. On a side note, I'm almost sad I don't disagree with you because your icon looks curiously familiar comrade...
http://davidszondy.com/ephemeral/ingsoc.gif - merreborn, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Honestly, the reaction to this study should be a public education campaign -- thankfully, ignorance is correctable.
If no one explains nanotech to the masses, then can we really blame them for not understanding it?
A NOVA special here, a CBS special report there, and this problem may be corrected. - jtmeyer, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2obviously it's morally unacceptable. Nanotechnology is FAR too small for morals.
- Hobolord, on 02/22/2008, -7/+1Wait, so I'm ignorant, what could possibly be immoral about a very small robot?
- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -10/+25Another example of religious motivations impinging on progress? I'd love to hear someone arguing the amorality of nanotechnology.
- redfox2600, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8I wouldn't be too quick to point the finger at religion, Berkeley was one of the first town to try to regulate it.
- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4For morality reasons?
- mwalker05, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3i would say people think its wrong because they are afraid of it. and they are afraid of it because they have no idea what it means. the only thing they think of when they hear nano technology are movies like "i am legend" star trek episodes, and some other poorly plotted sci fi films.
your religious bigotry is noted though.- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Thank you, but it's not religious bigotry - notice the question mark?
Anyway, I have no problem with religion as long as it doesn't stick its nose in where it doesn't belong. Unfortunately, religion does this all the time, especially where science is concerned. It is not their place to comment or make decisions, or force their ideas onto others.
Furthermore I have come across countless religious people that maintain that a sense of morality can only be held by people of faith. I disagree strongly with this. When I see something scientific that bears no relation to moral issues being shunned for what people believe are moral reasons I tend to associate that with religious points of view (this is just my own experience). This often goes hand in hand with ignorance of the subject in question. I know of nobody who understands nanotech who can even ascribe a moral argument to it.
Finally, considering that >90% of americans believe in god, the devil etc. I'd say it's highly likely that the people objecting to nanotech are both ignorant of what it is and religious, so I support my earlier implications.
Please could you cite some examples of where religion has enhanced technological progress instead of impinging on it?
- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Thank you, but it's not religious bigotry - notice the question mark?
- Psi57, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2There is nothing in the Bible that has a dimension of 10^-9 meters!
- kuhlmeye, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1I'm all for nanotech, but there are plenty of ways it could go wrong somewhere in the future. See Deus Ex as an example.
- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Yes, but is that a good reason to stop researching it? The same could have been said about any technology while it was being developed.
Deus Ex is a fictional example.
- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Yes, but is that a good reason to stop researching it? The same could have been said about any technology while it was being developed.
- mdty, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Derrick Jensen makes a pretty good case against nanotech.
- gordonj, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Against nanotech, or against possible applications? Morality only applies to the ways in which humans use nanotechnology, not the nanotechnology itself. I don't know of Derreck Jensen, so I can't comment on anything he has said about nanotech.
- redfox2600, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8I wouldn't be too quick to point the finger at religion, Berkeley was one of the first town to try to regulate it.
- TexasCanuck, on 02/22/2008, -34/+169I fully expect to get modded down for this, but I think this story perfectly illustrates how most American's are ignorant and borderline retarded.
I bet all the people that voted for Bush in '04 are the ones that find nanotech so offensive.
*Hangs head in shame for living in Texas*- Tyrghast, on 02/22/2008, -4/+18I too live in Texas, a state which i love and adore, yet am continually embarrassed by country music, redneck comedians, and those in public office normally associated with Texas even though they were born and raised elsewhere.
- willynilly, on 02/22/2008, -13/+6I think your misuse of an apostrophe perfectly illustrates the rampant and growing illiteracy that's just one more hallmark of decline.
But yes, Americans are ***** stupid on the whole. And going backward at top speed.- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -2/+15I think your overzealous grammar nazism illustrates the rampant lack of tact and courtesy that's just one more hallmark of our decline.
- yournightmare, on 02/22/2008, -3/+7"Nazism" should be capitalized, and because "tact" and "courtesy" are two separate things, it should be "that are" instead of "that's." You are also referring to two hallmarks, not just one.
- Fordi, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1We're talking a generic nazism, not the nationalistic philosophy, "Nazism", specific to the Nazi party, which would warrant capitalization. Also, 'rampant lack of tact and courtesy' is a singular composite object, so "that's" is valid.
- monoa, on 02/22/2008, -2/+0That should be '"that's".', and not "that's."'.
However, I think there is to many peeple who think there always write when it comes to grammar and speling.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
- yournightmare, on 02/22/2008, -3/+7"Nazism" should be capitalized, and because "tact" and "courtesy" are two separate things, it should be "that are" instead of "that's." You are also referring to two hallmarks, not just one.
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -2/+15I think your overzealous grammar nazism illustrates the rampant lack of tact and courtesy that's just one more hallmark of our decline.
- khellendros1984, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I'd like to see the wording of that survey. My guess would be that they took a non-random sample or skewed the results with some really bizarre choices in words. Americans aren't *that* stupid....although, I suppose I may change my mind on that point once I'm out of college...
- 1town, on 02/22/2008, -2/+680% of americans believe that they are smarter than the average american. That means the majority of people have your mindset: "everyone else is dumbasses, i'm amongst a few exceptions"
- Euler2718, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Source? Not saying I disagree with you though.
- appleseed1234, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I disagree, I'd assume that most people just don't care. I know that I strive to be one of the people who understands the issues.
- bwdd, on 02/22/2008, -0/+190% of statistics are completely made up.
- marky125, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1Lol... I dugg you up out of sympathy :)
- execute85, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Way to take a risk there... going out on a limb to call people/America retarded usually results in massive digg downs.
- ZeroG52, on 02/22/2008, -6/+7Voting for Bush on 2004 does not make anyone ignorant. It simply means that they felt that he was the better choice over John Kerry - a statement that I agree with. Do I 100% love what Bush has done? Absolutely not. But it was the best alternative at the time.
- ShinRaTDR, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6And that conclusion was reached with ignorance.
- dluv, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3waaaahhhhh, someone thinks Bush was better than Kerry, I'm going to whine about it and say they make choices with ignorance, waaaahhhh.
Most liberal minded people sure do seem to like to attack others, even though they claim to hate all forms of war. How funny.- ShinRaTDR, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1It wasn't an attack, it was a statement. How the hell can you support Bush over Kerry without accidentally or deliberately ignoring information on his decisions and history? You can't, If you give 2 ***** about your country and its citizens you can see that Bush is the opposite of what you need, and is not even a competent leader. Somewhere along the line people seemed to forget that being a polarizing ***** is not a good leadership quality, in fact. its contrary to the whole concept of leadership.
- dluv, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3waaaahhhhh, someone thinks Bush was better than Kerry, I'm going to whine about it and say they make choices with ignorance, waaaahhhh.
- ShinRaTDR, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6And that conclusion was reached with ignorance.
- reaper527, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3i voted bush in '04, and i am currently working in a nanotechnology lab, so no, not all the people who voted for bush are anti-progress as you've said.
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2A Halliburton nanotech lab?
- tuxerware, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Nope, faith based nano tech!
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2A Halliburton nanotech lab?
- Brainmodder, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Texas is the least likely place to find people that object to nanotech. In fact there are a great deal of nanotech companies(Texas Intrusments, Zyvex, etc) in Texas. There is a lot of funding for nanotech too, in fact the mayor of Dallas wants to make Dallas the nanotech center of the world.
Everything is bigger in Texas, except for our microchips. - Jeeum, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4"most American's are ignorant"
Oh, the irony.- freshpow, on 02/22/2008, -3/+0Oh my god?! A spelling error? Then obviously everything he said can be just thrown out the window.
- bobbybobington, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1you don't get it do you?
- steveboutin, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1most americans are ignorant, this is true - the problem is most americans think that most americans are ignorant.
- freshpow, on 02/22/2008, -3/+0Oh my god?! A spelling error? Then obviously everything he said can be just thrown out the window.
- steveboutin, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1ron paul, bill hicks, alex jones, and richard linklatter are from texas - SO YOU JUST SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
- Varz, on 02/22/2008, -23/+4In other news 29.5% of Americans have contracted a debilitating illness which causes severe brain damage.
- stilesja, on 02/22/2008, -3/+14Its the 29.5% that support it... 70% have brain damage
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5>_> I get the feeling that Varz is one of the idiots who think morals even enter into it.
- glock22ownr, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1LOL.... Epic ...
- stilesja, on 02/22/2008, -3/+14Its the 29.5% that support it... 70% have brain damage
- jebidiah123, on 02/22/2008, -12/+28Hell if people thought "if gays are allowed to marry, what's next men and sheep?" I am not surprised people believe nanotech is evil. "What's next, People will be born the size of a micrometer, you are playing with fire mister!"
- khellendros1984, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4If there were micrometer-sized people, I'd hire an army to act as my immune system! Treat them well and get immunity to all diseases out of it. Score!
- reaper527, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1"what's next men and sheep?"
actually, it ended up being girls and dogs
http://www.digg.com/odd_stuff/Girl_marries_dog_in_ ...
- stilesja, on 02/22/2008, -5/+28“Most people have very little objection to building a better computer,” Schuefele says. They’d just prefer a different way to get there.
They don't prefer a different way to get there, if the knew what nanotechnology was they wouldn't have a problem. The real response is
“Most people have very little objection to building a better computer,” Schuefele says. They’re just too stupid to understand how.- citizen782, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1As I read the title of the article my first thought was: do the "majority" of Americans even know what nanotechnology actually is? Or does it just sound like something their preacher told them was bad because it has a scientific and genetic ring to it? Without sarcasm I would bet my money on the latter.
- storm72, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Considering that regular church attendance in the US is far lower than portrayed on Digg and elsewhere (less than 50% according to most surveys I've seen), my money is on the former. The media in the US does a horrible job covering issues related to science and technology, which is reflected in the results of this survey.
- insurgente, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Still, around 50% regular attendance is an astronomical number in my eyes. Regular attendance in Scandinavian churches is around 1-3%.
- storm72, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Considering that regular church attendance in the US is far lower than portrayed on Digg and elsewhere (less than 50% according to most surveys I've seen), my money is on the former. The media in the US does a horrible job covering issues related to science and technology, which is reflected in the results of this survey.
- citizen782, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1As I read the title of the article my first thought was: do the "majority" of Americans even know what nanotechnology actually is? Or does it just sound like something their preacher told them was bad because it has a scientific and genetic ring to it? Without sarcasm I would bet my money on the latter.
- virtualme7, on 02/22/2008, -4/+33Basically 70% of Americans are morally against nanotechnology because they don't know what it is so they assume it has to do with genetics.
If you just change the name to "tiny computers" they'll like it.
"the objections are contained to the field itself, not the breakthroughs it could lead to. Overwhelming majorities across religious backgrounds supported the benefits of nanotechnology, anything from computers the size of a pin to stain-resistant pants."- KingGorilla, on 02/22/2008, -1/+7Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I'm just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Sometimes this nanotechnology frightens and confuses me. Are tiny demons being inserted into my veins? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
- Pake, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Actually, the stats I saw from the last article on this said basically: "Is nanotechnology moral? +2 Agree / -2 Don't Agree." The average was +0.11, meaning more than half felt they agreed that it was moral, when you assume a rating of 0 means "No Opinion."
- Gabberwok, on 02/22/2008, -8/+45WWJS: What would Jesus synthesize?
H2O + magic --> CH2OH- redfox2600, on 02/22/2008, -3/+8Why would Jesus make methanol?
- khellendros1984, on 02/22/2008, -2/+22water to wine. C2H5OH would've been the proper molecule though...
- shakbhaji, on 02/22/2008, -1/+13That's not methanol, that's some impossible ion. Methanol = CH3OH
- 471776, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2Wouldn't it be methanal? Well, that's the closest fit anyway.
- cersad, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2No, it has too many hydrogen atoms to be methanal / formaldehyde (CH2O). I think shakbhaji's right, it's like ionized methanol.
- 471776, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah...I forgot about the double bonding. It's been a few years since I took chemistry.
- Gabberwok, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Sorry, left out that first methyl group in my attempt to be witty...
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -2/+11Correction: CH3CH2OH. Without the first hydrocarbon group, it's just methanol.
- Brainmodder, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Ah, yes Homer Simpson's favorite molecule.
- jimmiss, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1Sugar? It's been a while.
- fullphaser, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Methanol; Sugar (or as genarlly assumed glucose) is C6H1206, you'll notice the proportion isn't right 1:3:1 where with simple sugars its 1:2:1
- tazmeister, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Fordi is right.
So if Jebus used that magic, all his followers would have gone blind.
Then again I guess he could just cure it later on, after saying "ooops"- jebidiah123, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Perhaps he is commenting on blind faith?
- redfox2600, on 02/22/2008, -3/+8Why would Jesus make methanol?
- JackStowe, on 02/22/2008, -9/+3How come it becomes morally wrong? I do not know it is. I call it progression. As one buddy says here. I agree.
- Mohdoo, on 02/22/2008, -15/+69That's ***** disgusting. Keep your religious garbage out of my science.
- Philbert, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9And you keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
- frazw, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Hi I'm Officer Reeses, what's going on here?
- khellendros1984, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8I've never seen anything in my religion that said I couldn't make some kickass tiny stuff....even if you interpret everything literally. I don't see why you're being dugg up.
- weeeezzll, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2Well the "Moral Majority" claims to get their "morals" from the Bible, and their religion, thus, "keep your religion out of my science" and "keep your Jesus off my penis, and your Bible off my balls"
- thecarpe, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5Dugg down for complete inaccuracy and misinterpretation of an already bad article. This is just a flamebait article from the Wall Street Urinal to get folks spun up about some vague "moral majority" (obviously another ploy by the man to keep us all down) and to promote Nanotech (hmm, someone using polemic to promote a tech on wall street?! preposterous!!!). If a tech lacks the momentum needed to get fully exposed to market, the quickest way to jump start it is to give it a form of negative publicity from perceived troglodytes.
WISE UP PEOPLE - this article is only printed to say "Nanotech - all the cool kids are doing it!" Nobody is morally opposed to nanotechnology. - IsangMahal, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Agreed. Just keep your critical thinking out of my religion.
- kilikogo, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Why? Why would you believe something if it can be disproved? People like you make me sick to be a human.
- Philbert, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9And you keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!
- bthug7, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6Yeah, I'm against anything that can make lives better...too much baggage.
- daxsymbiont, on 02/22/2008, -7/+57"Most Americans" are idiots then.
- KaJuN4, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4I could have driven down any road anywhere in the country and told you that.
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I strongly suspect bad wording of the question here....
- dukeochutney, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1i dont. obviously youve watched the news in this country or been outside for that matter. morons are everywhere.
- ElbertF, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6Those are probably the same Americans that think Europe is a country and you can eat Bulgaria.
- yournightmare, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5I'm sure there's quite a few of us Americans that actually COULD eat Bulgaria.
- digitalpencil, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Are those the same ones that recommended Clinton for president of Europe? I don't think i've ever been quite so insulted..
- xirtap, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2America doesn't even have the leading science community anymore. Why would anyone care if a bunch of American religious nut cases find it morally wrong, when it's all done in Japan and China?
- digitalpencil, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2TBF, you can't underestimate the work MIT is doing in this field:
http://web.mit.edu/ISN/research/index.html
- digitalpencil, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2TBF, you can't underestimate the work MIT is doing in this field:
- citizen782, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2Why do comments like this get applauded in some threads but in political or finance threads everyone gets offended when Americans are called stupid? I have
never been able to elaborate enough how difficult it is to find honestly intellectual conversation in this country. If your not talking about God or American Idol you can watch eyeballs glaze over as confusion and ignorance set in. What's worse is that most of them DON'T WANT TO KNOW or understand anything requiring actual interpretation or thought.
Like it or not you know I'm right. Just stand in the check out line at a Wal-Mart for five minutes, watch the people around you, and then see if you still feel like arguing against American incompetence. That said, unfortunately their are dumbasses everywhere in the world. We just have a higher concentration here in the rural south (aka Bible Belt).- VeritasAequitas, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I object to your comment! You can talk to a lot of american men about sports too! Because sports are very important and the outcome of every game has drastic affects on society.
ok ok I'll stop I can't handle that much sarcasm this early in the morning, I'm with you, Wal mart is where you see how bad things have gotten in the US its true, I'm moving to a different country as soon as possible, just have to pick one I like more.
- VeritasAequitas, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I object to your comment! You can talk to a lot of american men about sports too! Because sports are very important and the outcome of every game has drastic affects on society.
- jugger74, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2There was never any question about that, Americans as a whole are the dumbest things on 2 legs.
- fhornplayer, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Most Americans being "more than 1000" Americans.
- cerberes, on 02/22/2008, -4/+6I want a google implant in my brain and the only way to get it is through Nanotech! Don't deny me!
- daxsymbiont, on 02/22/2008, -10/+19"Nanotechnology Is Morally Unacceptable"
buried for inaccuracy.- Sprung, on 02/22/2008, -1/+0I imagine the poll question was something like "Do you support the demonic use of Satan's baby-raping nanotechnology to support terrorism and kill God? Oh, and btw it's of the Devil and bad." or some such baloney.
- tazmeister, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3read the article before claiming its inaccurate.
what's inaccurate is people's understanding, not the title or the article.- Pake, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Actually, the stats I saw from the last article on this said basically: "Is nanotechnology moral? +2 Agree / -2 Don't Agree." The average was +0.11, meaning more than half felt they agreed that it was moral, when you assume a rating of 0 means "No Opinion." So the article is actually wrong in that it doesn't provide the true results.
- KloroFormd, on 02/22/2008, -6/+5I'm worried about the nanomachines glitching and disassembling all lifeforms cell by cell.
- ChicagoDS, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3seriously, is anyone else concerned the least bit about this.?
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Well, since you would basically need to produce something that metabolizes organics into an enzyme that would no doubt break itself into pieces, I would say 'no'.
- execute85, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1You mean something like this: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/gastrobo ... (invented last year)
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Well, since you would basically need to produce something that metabolizes organics into an enzyme that would no doubt break itself into pieces, I would say 'no'.
- ChicagoDS, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3SERIOUSLY. we ***** around and kill ourselves off with a computer glitch caused by a 360 update
- blast_flame, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1You are assuming they will be released on today's unprepared world. We will probably have anti-nanite nanites by then that will destroy any malicious or rouge nanites.
- RonBurgundy76, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Can we have pirate- and ninja-nanites?
- Brainmodder, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0The real problem today is not nanobots, which can easily get out-competed by bacteria, but macroscale replicators which are currently capable of 60% replication. Of course, they could solve world poverty, so this is a good thing. See www.reprap.org for more.
- ChicagoDS, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3seriously, is anyone else concerned the least bit about this.?
- ciphex, on 02/22/
