Talk:Impact of nanotechnology
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Environment||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Alternative Views|
I marked this article as NPOV because it does not say anything in favor of Nanotechnology. 188.8.131.52 18:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it is non-NPOV, but you forgot to add the tag. I've done so. I'll be back later to try and start improving the page. GutterMonkey 07:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is waaay too long to fold back into the main article - in fact, I was considering moving more material out from the main article into this one. I'd much rather improve this article by making it more neutral than gloss over the issues by moving or renaming it. Antony-22 (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is more than an issue of tone, because that the field(s) of "nanotech" are so large and wide-ranging that nothing much seems to separate the implications of nanotech from issues of technology in general. Initial research and perhaps manufacture is mostly done on a molecular scale? There should be more time spent on what issues are specific to nanotechnology, or perhaps evisioning the possibility that "nanotech" has become a meaningless buzzword that describes any science done with powerful microscopes.Cuvtixo (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- In response to the comments in this section that this article is too negative, actually List of nanotechnology applications could be viewed in a similar but opposite way - as too positive. This article provides some needed balance to that. Let's face it lots of knowledgeable people are raising serious concerns about nanotechnology. "Believe me,' Holtz says from her home office in Toronto, 'everybody who has any kind of scientific background, and paying attention to nano, is aware of all this. I certainly worry about it.'" . Changing the article title to Risks of Nanotechnology would seem appropos to me. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You could add a discussion on how "self-replicator countermeasures" are first responsibly described in the first maker of such a device Charles Michael Collins . Who else would know how to control them than the fist maker, would someone less qualified be allowed to? Pointed out in depth there at the only site (Geocities) that has not been deleted on him... and how the United States Government is trying to bust the international PCT patent and steal it . Government corruption and unbridled power are the real nefarious players on the field. Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCB) actually grabbed him for questioning (see # N004860 United States District Court case at Quantico FBI headquarters where he was kidnapped then dragged onto the MCB Base for hard interrogations and accused of crimes later thrown out with prejudice in the high court, accused of "paranoia" just for talking about having a self-replicator, the Abu Ghraib prison crazys.. Mass hysteria is another discussion point once self-replicators are known to be extant by the public. Look at the Uni-bomber case and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), also known as "Elves" or "The Elves", they have hounded Mr. Collins for years. Balancing it out is the best policy, with a level headed approach, unlike the radically paranoid ELF styled groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 10 June 2008
- FYI: 18.104.22.168 = Charles M Collins Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone entered nanosocialism as the main article category for A need for regulation? section under Health Implications. Nanosocialism is actually a very small stub- not a complete article. I suspect the label was coined to arouse ideological argument and isn't a useful or even legitimate term for describing the implications of nanotech outside of science fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuvtixo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 January 2008
- That's a fair criticism. I've actually been thinking of renaming Nanosocialism to Regulation of nanotechnology and merging in a bunch of the material from this article, since it's getting pretty long. Antony-22 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"Grey goo" is not a potential risk.
- Can you expand on that comment? According to grey goo, "Grey goo is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all matter on Earth while building more of themselves". -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Putting POV issues to rest
There have been presistent complaints that this article focuses too much on the negative implications of nanotechnology. I did a bit of thinking and realized that the positive implications are in face all the potential applications, so I've done some reorganization to feature both the risks and applications in this article.
Additionally, I split a bunch of material into three subarticles on the health, envrionmental, and societal implications. Each of them contains both the risks and the potenial applications with wikilinks to appropriate subarticles. There is also a new navbox to link them all together.
These articles still need a lot of work, but hopefully these changes have lead to a suite of more focused and more balanced articles.
Unsourced, spurious overgeneralization
I removed the following paragraph from the article:
"On the structural level, critics of nanotechnology point to a new world of ownership and corporate control opened up by nanotechnology. The claim is that, just as biotechnology's ability to manipulate genes went hand in hand with the patenting of life, so too nanotechnology's ability to manipulate molecules has led to the patenting of matter."
Please do not placing back without sourcing.
"Life" or "Matter" themselves can't be patented. A patent can only claim a right over specific uses, applications, or manufacturing processes of a given compound ("matter") or microorganism ("life"). And all of that can only be done in exchange for explaining the new INVENTION in detail. The expression "patenting matter" and "patenting life" make it sound like a supposed greedy corporation could put patents on everyday life forms or materials, that can't be farther from the truth.
Furthermore, patents are case by case legal monopolies, they're not worldwide, and they don't (and can't) cover every conceivable permutation of use and production means of a new invention. I was tempted to remove the entire paragraph but I just removed the most offensive bit.
As I said, don't put back without a proper source, such that the reader can judge on his own merits if the person QUOTED is saying something reasonable or not. Gratuitous and unsourced overgeneralizations in an encyclopedia are uncalled for Pentalis (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Environmental implications of nanotechnology which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)