What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.444 Comments
- rkbabang, on 02/20/2008, -41/+429The title should have been: "66% of Americans are complete ***** morons". Just look at the presidential primary results so far.
- FSUCHEEF, on 02/20/2008, -3/+354How is making something really small immoral??
- dannyapplesauce, on 02/20/2008, -6/+248a majority of old people are scared of the internet, let alone a word like nano-technology which they have no idea of what it is.
- alk509, on 02/20/2008, -5/+194I refuse to believe 66% of Americans are this ***** stupid based on a survey of 1000 people about which no other details are provided.
- SysstemLord, on 02/20/2008, -2/+155It really doesn't make sense. The only explanation I see is that they didn't understand the question and they have no clue what nanotechnology is and if someone is asking whether it's moral or not, then there must be something about it.
- alex0r, on 02/20/2008, -48/+195The same 2/3 voted for Bush
- Proteus1935, on 02/20/2008, -2/+137Transistors feel pain!
- OpenFuture, on 02/20/2008, -3/+129Because people are stupid.
- badjokes, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1131. University of Wisconsin performs research
2. ???
3. 2/3 of Americans believe nanotechnology is immoral.
well can't argue with the facts... im sure an idiot would find this article to be empirical. - DarkerMaster, on 02/20/2008, -5/+104ask those same people WHY they think it is morally unacceptable. you will get a mixture of people saying "because" and others who will try and act like they know something and will just make a complete ass of themselves
- cookingboy, on 02/20/2008, -8/+104"2/3 of Americans think science is morally unacceptable"
- neognostic, on 02/20/2008, -3/+94The first 1000 people who went through the doors of the Creation Museum.
- jd5alive, on 02/20/2008, -1/+73Correction:
2/3 of Americans have no clue what nanotechnology even means. - WaltGoshert, on 02/20/2008, -8/+71WTF?... And in a related poll, 2/3 of Americans are now officially nano-minded morons.
- wrestlingnrj, on 02/20/2008, -2/+54Am I the only one who is confused as to why there is even a moral question on nanotechnology? Is it morally unacceptable to destroy something that is made of circuits?
- davestar, on 02/20/2008, -10/+57these same people would probably vote to end women's suffrage
- thelastcivilian, on 02/20/2008, -1/+43I am vehemently opposed to terrorists using nanotechnology to create miniature armies from stem cells.
- KarlH, on 02/20/2008, -1/+42Some people just have a problem with shrinkage.
- Scienceisfun, on 02/20/2008, -0/+34You can say that about pretty much any technology.
- Tiak, on 02/20/2008, -5/+37WTF is "natural technology"?... Isn't technology, by definition, not natural?
- bunki8, on 02/20/2008, -0/+32More thorough article:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/14773 - inactive, on 02/20/2008, -0/+31A bird's nest is bird technology, yet we still call it natural. Just because ours can get a bit more intricate doesn't make it any different.
Natural is a loaded word anyhow. - dn11, on 02/20/2008, -9/+38*disgruntled Ron Paul fan
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -1/+29By that logic, the first cave man who developed the fine art of banging rocks together was immoral.
- korashime2001, on 02/20/2008, -5/+31"Most Americans want the benefits of science, but they don't support science itself." Stem Cell research and space exploration, are just two examples sciences that American's, who don't have two brain-cells to rub together, outright fight to keep from coming to fruition. Only in America is being call and "Einstein" considered an insult.
- Lazydriver, on 02/20/2008, -0/+26I personally, even if I was a Christian, would prefer automated robots to clear arteries then open heart surgery.
We'll live longer. To me, as an Atheist, who views this life as the only shot of good things I'll ever be able to do, THAT'S, a good thing. If you Christians want to die off, feel free to, but I'm staying here for great and great-great grandchildren if I can. - DarkerMaster, on 02/20/2008, -8/+32MAKE BABIES
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/20/2008, -0/+20I would have to see the questions before making any conclusion about this. My educated guess is the questions were more fishy than the answers.
- madeingermany, on 02/20/2008, -2/+22When you constantly have to defend your BS viewpoints, you think you get tricked with every question.... so if in doubt: Everything remotely scientific is morally objectionable.
I suspect the same mechanism was at play with the flat earth episode of Sherri Shepherd on The View. - RuthlessPirate, on 02/20/2008, -0/+19That and Dihydrogen monoxide.
- Tiak, on 02/20/2008, -2/+21If the sampled individuals were picked randomly, statistics says otherwise.
- mb96net, on 02/20/2008, -0/+19What a ridiculous question? It's like asking if ladders are morally acceptable. A technology is just a thing, it could theoretically be used in an immoral method but the thing itself can't be immoral...
FTA...
In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology. - GothAlice, on 02/20/2008, -0/+19You've hit the mark - people who are ultra-conservative about any technology / science remotely life-extending will simply die out, leaving behind the more liberal.
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -3/+22I think most of those are Texans. For them, everything has to be big big big !
- loopis, on 02/20/2008, -4/+22Nanoo Nanoo
- Innisskillin, on 02/20/2008, -1/+19Easy. Program the nanobots to change their minds for them.
- stalefries, on 02/20/2008, -2/+201: Your mom.
/sarcasm - anteyekon4myst, on 02/20/2008, -11/+28Buried for inaccurate...2/3 of Americans think.....lol
- sfazzio, on 02/20/2008, -1/+18While I agree with the sentiment, I think the title is kinda off. I did some searching and found that the study only concluded that only 1/3 approved of nanotech. That leaves 2/3 split between people who disapprove of nanotech and (what i'm guessing is the much larger group) people who don't know what the hell nanotech is.
- Cryoniq, on 02/20/2008, -1/+17We are Borg, we will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.
- staxofmax, on 02/20/2008, -0/+16What the hell is the premise of the survey? Is their next area of study determining American opinions on the morality of the color orange?
- staxofmax, on 02/20/2008, -0/+15I think it would be more accurate to say that 66% of people who agree to participate in ***** stupid surveys are ***** stupid.
- DoodleMaster, on 02/20/2008, -5/+20Empirical evidence: Any senile old person
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -1/+16WTF? I mean, I could argue that because we're naturally inclined to develop technology, ALL technology is therefore "natural."
- HueytheFreeman, on 02/20/2008, -0/+15ORANGE? YOU HORRIBLE PERSON. WHY WOULD YOU EVEN SUGGEST THAT!?
- clearzen, on 02/20/2008, -7/+21This just in. 60% of statistics are made up
- Jforsyth89, on 02/20/2008, -0/+14Is there a line in the bible that says "Thou shalt not make really tiny thingamajigs" or something? I don't see logic of any kind here, be it scientific or religious.
- azAZ09, on 02/20/2008, -11/+25The shrub only "won" by 51.86 % of the popular vote-- not 2/3, and only won the electoral count with widespread fraud. Don't even joke about it --he was never that popular.
The linked article is pretty light on details about the study, methodology, and interpretation of results.Even though it takes a critical tone It does not link to the original study, so we may ridicule it properly. The fact that the study would be structured in a way to specifically ask public opinion of the morality of such a broad topic suggests that this is a subtle way to inject FUD into the public discourse. Thanks for facilitating. Engadget=FAIL
note - This does not excuse the 2/3 of (x) 'murkins polled. - scy1192, on 02/20/2008, -1/+14I don't want women to suffer, so yes I'd vote for abolishing women's suffrage
- yohnstoppable, on 02/20/2008, -2/+15Only 1000 people? What questions were asked exactly? Where were these people polled from? It says they based this on religious beliefs, but doesn't specify how something small would have moral implications. It says people were "well informed" of nanotechnology, but doesn't go into much detail. This was of course taken from the more detaield article listed above
In fact, is there any kind of evidence/data for this study at all besides a quick summary? Buried as inaccurate -
Show 51 - 100 of 446 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is