A staggering 70% of Americans, according to a study conducted by Arizona State University, seem to think so. Only 29.5% of American respondents view nanotechnology as morally acceptable! This compares to 54.1% percent in the United Kingdom, 62.7 percent in Germany and 72.1 percent in France. Complete story here.
These findings were presented by Dietram Scheufele, Ph.D. at this year’s annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Scheufele believes that Americans tend to look at nanotechnology in the same light as stem cell research… ultimately viewed by religious folks as “playing God”.
What I found somewhat shocking is that Dr Scheufele said the respondents were well informed about nanotechnology and potential benefits. Yet they still oppose it solely based on their religious beliefs.
While they may be informed on the benefits of nanotechnology, I think religious folk are grossly misinformed (as usual) about the basics. Nanotechnology is essentially working with material at a molecular level. The benefits range from better packaging for foods to aiding in the search for a cure to cancer. For a more complete list of current uses take a look here.
But not all Christians are against nanotechnology. Some Christians have actually embraced the technology. If there’s one thing that can compromise a Christian’s morals, it’s the almighty dollar. Behold yet another feeble Christian attempt to ca$h in on their religion. It is my pleasure to introduce (drum roll please) The NanoBible!
No related posts.
I blame Sci-Fi. Right now most nano-technology fiction on TV and in movies is “nano-technology gone bad.” Like the replicators in Stargate Atlantis. People’s opinions will turn around when the entertainment industry’s representation does.
Maybe the new Knight Rider will help. Its nano-technology make the car bullet-proof and able to change its color. Fancy.
It never cease to amaze me how threatened religious people are by anything that challenges their conception of god. I mean if he is really so all powerful and beyond human conceptions, how is it even theoretically possible to “play god?”
WHAT!?
When I first read about this earlier on, I thought, “What the hell weigh’s morally on Nano technology?”
Not just Nanotubes, which are grown organically; but the whole study and body of Nano-technology? What specifically are they upset about? There are areas and field’s of science that are far more intelligent and world-changing technologies being developed the world over. You don’t know about it, and even if you read an article describing the beggingings of said technology, you would never really understand it’s implications.
Playing God pfft! I see Gasmonso is still illuminating religious ignorance; as this is on par with the whole morans article, posted earlier this week.
Strange, when I heard complaints about nanotechnology it is more along the lines of potential invasion of privacy issues than anything else.
I can’t think of a single thing a christian, as I understand christianity, could have against nanotechnology. My mind boggles.
Now, I know a lot of christians who are *also* paranoid about RFID tags and other new technologies that they don’t understand, but that kind of thing is usually in addition to their christianity, not directly because of it. Those people are usually old and scare easily anyway.
The article says religious people are against it because of their religious beliefs, but I don’t know which religious belief that would be, at least, not for a christian.
Also, based on my experience, the problem christians have with stem cell research is not that humans might be “playing God,” it’s that stems cells will be harvested from embryos, which christians, if they’re good pro-lifers, believe to be a form of human life. So saying, “Look! Christians think stem cell research is ‘playing god,’ and for the same reason, they are against nanotechnology too!” is incorrect.
I read the small article, but not the study. As I understand it, they find correlation between a country’s religious-ness and the peoples view on nano-tech. This doesn’t translate to religious people think nano-tech is morally wrong. The researcher is coming to that interpretation and may have forgotten that correlation does not always imply causation.
Another interpretation could be that people with stronger religious views may think more about the ethics of science. Perhaps they are concerned about nano-tech getting out of control, being misused, or weaponized. This can get lumped into the category with stem cells and bio-tech because like those fields, its a relatively new field. Asking that people just accept new technology because, “Hey its new” is foolish. Its not a bad thing to think before you act.
Now, I would agree that a healthy dose of education about nano-tech could very well address many of the concerns. I feel that the article is more trying to make people mad than it is trying to educate.
The study might be interesting, the article about it is complete FUD in my book.
I’m partially with M. Correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. In this case, I suspect a third aspect that causes both religiosity and fear of technology: Americans are more conservative than Europeans. In fact, if you look at the percentage posted above, acceptance of nano-tech is correlated with how liberal the populace is. Conservatives tend to resist change and embrace tradition. Religion is very traditional and nano-tech has large potential for change. Thus conservatism can cause both the prevalence of religion and the technophobia.
That was, of course, just a hypothesis. There definitely is an anti-intellectual aspect to modern Christianity, and this may be an expression of that attitude. I’d be interested in reading the study to see if the researchers explain why they concluded the causation.
The article said: “Dr. Scheufele believes that Americans with strong religious convictions lump nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research together as a means to enhance human qualities which to them is viewed as “playing Godâ€. He also says these moral qualms are not rooted in a lack of understanding. The respondents were well informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.”
Holy crap! He can read minds!
I wonder if he’s actually spoken with any of these crazy religious people, because I know many, many very, very conservative religious people, and I’ve never heard anything derogatory about nanotech from them. Technology, to them, is pretty much A-OK so long as it doesn’t turn you gay or kill unborn babies. ;-)
I also wonder how he knows that they’re all well-informed about the benefits of nanotech (more detail about the study would be nice). Did he check to see what they thought about potential drawbacks of nanotech? As a previous poster mentioned, when some of these people think nanotech, they may be thinking more along the lines of super-robo-death-viruses rather than tiny robotic healers.
He says they reject it based on religious belief, but the scant detail about the study in that article doesn’t suggest that…it just says they didn’t find it to be “morally acceptable.” As I’m sure most of the posters here would agree, moral objections don’t require religion.
It seems like he obtained a result he didn’t like and then jumped to the conclusion that those damn religious loonies must be behind it. Curse them! It may very well be that he is right, but based on my experience in my religious community, I kinda doubt it.
Indeed. Admittedly, I’m an extremely liberal Christian. However, I work in nanotech for a living. We’re working in fundamental research, but the applications we’re looking at are in medicine and safety equipment.
That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
Although I can see the points M and sid have about correlations and causality (after all, rape and ice cream sales have a positive correlation, but one does not cause the other!), I can’t help but think that the notion of “playing god” has some role in these opinions. The reason I have for this feeling is the stated opinions (in various polls) of those who oppose human cloning and other technological breakthroughs. But this is an old argument. I remember in vitro fertilization being referred to as “playing god.” Indeed, I would posit that the first person to rub two sticks together to make fire was accused of “playing god.” That’s what the game is about: figuring out how the universe works and then using that knowledge to better our lot in life.
But on the subject of nanotech, K. Eric Drexler and Keith Hensen both posit possible immortality through nanotech, and some estimates (yeah, I know, *estimates*) put nanotech-based immmortality within 50 years. I’d be 90; old enough to appreciate rejuvenation, just old enough to be truly grown up. So I’d like to address that (and clone-based, etc., immortality as a sideline). I’d like the chance to determine my own death date (accidents aside). Sure, we’d have to have a vigorous expansion into space to make room for new humans (but we need that anyway, unless we all want to live in abject poverty, which overpopulation is leading to anyway, in absence of new colonies in Sol System); sure, I might get bored (but I doubt it, with a whole universe to explore); sure, there might be limits to what we can do to overcome the death of cells and other medical problems.
But why are there those who, because they don’t want such things, want to prohibit *my* access to them? What gall! “I don’t think humans should live forever, so I won’t let you try.” If there’s one thing you truly own, it is your own damn body. Period. If I get a bad batch of nanobots (a la Trek, Stargate, etc.), well too bad for me. If the tech turns out to be pie in the sky; well, my pie and my sky. I am *very* pro-technology; nihilists and luddites need not apply. Don’t approve of it? Then don’t get it.
I feel from my point of view is that satan will use this nanotech for the purpose of controling people, from the posts i read sums it up to a point. i have copied and pasted some of your comments on this issue. i believe snurp hit it on the head. The Europeans have installed this in humans?! Anyone, is this correct? So, American’s feel that, what they do is no one’s business and tracking them makes no sense. I’m i making sense Irish?
i have to jet, you guys have a nice even or day!
Oh, My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ came to save us. You say this is strange but, i do not. that’s all.
Hey Gasmonso, I think i’ll keep my bible and not that namo bible, that’s just me, that’s all.
your comments below…
“more along the lines of potential invasion of privacy issues than anything else.”
“There are areas and field’s of science that are far more intelligent and world-changing technologies being developed the world over. You don’t know about it, and even if you read an article describing the beggingings of said technology, you would never really understand it’s implications.”
“Americans are more conservative than Europeans.”
“I remember in vitro fertilization”
“there’s one thing you truly own, it is your own damn body. Period”
“I remember in vitro fertilization
“The respondents were well informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.â€
“Perhaps they are concerned about nano-tech getting out of control, being misused, or weaponized.”
Hyrocket–
Satan? Using nanotech to control people? Seriously? In vitro fertilization a tool of the “devil?” Seriously? Using my quote about owning your own body to demonstrate “conservatism” in America? Seriously? Do the people where you are from believe differently? If so, why? Who owns your body, then?
My post here was about the freedom to choose your own destiny; to choose to utilize technology or not, according to your own choice. I have noted in all your posts that you claim to be a Christian. Well, “free will” is an accepted part of Christian thought. Or is this a case of “God gives you free will, but I don’t?” Can’t have it both ways.
Satan? Using nanotech to control people? Seriously?
I don’t think Hyrocket is really a person; I think he is a poorly scripted flameb0t that takes a story’s subject and a few comments, then spews some pro-Christian retoric. Every now and again the bot goes back to read some of the past stories is has commented on, to flame the crowd some more.
Or, it could be a really, really stupid person.
I was tempted to to throw this whole urvey out of the window, and chalk it up to more newsreport inacurracies.
Now that I read hyrocket’s post however, I’m willing to accept people really are that stupid.
To this, there can only be one answer.
http://tinyurl.com/537q9
Post 12, 13 & 14. Did i not ask a question? If you guys wanted me to explain more i would be happy too. But i have to thank you again. Hmmm, you seem to sum up, what i was thinking.
I know where i stand, i am the idiot :)
hyrocket:
You don’t need us to teach you that, just keep reading things you don’t agree with.
Thanks for the virus Alcari
Shaze, I think you are right! I was going to make some comment to Kurt that he should just ignore anything hyrocket says, since it never makes any attempt at coherency. But, I never thought about it being a flamebot. It all makes perfect sense now. From now on, I will consider hyrocket a flamebot and continue to ignore it’s posts.
On the subject at hand though, I firmly believe most christians are against many technological advances purely on a religious grounds. I live in north east Florida, and I am surrounded by them. I get to experience their particular madness on a daily basis.
I get to see crowds of them standing on street corners with their picket signs. Near traffic lights preaching at the captive audience. I laugh and point, and turn my radio up nice and loud for them (I am a metalhead, is there anything more satanic to them?). Most of my family and my wife’s family are christians. I get to listen to their talk.
I have no doubt their preachers are telling them that this or that technology is of satan, and I know they believe anything they hear from the pulpit.
Michael-
I do consider it very possible that Hyrocket is a bot; however, I merely thought that “post” was too good of an opportunity to make some humorous comments — at least I hope they were, let me know — regardless of it’s origins. As to your point that preachers tell followers such junk, I am firmly in agreement. I recall an instance where I was told (in all seriousness) that “Catholics don’t worship Jesus; they worship Mary. Hail, Mary?!” When I pointed out that the “Hail Mary” is an intercessionary prayer (as to a “saint”), and that Catholics are indeed Christians, she said, “Not the right kind!” and laughed uproariously. Since this was an 11-year-old, I knew instantly that this was something some Protestant preacher had filled her head with. If they mock Christians of slightly different beliefs, is it no wonder that these educationally-deprived, hate-filled, and propoganda-spewing preacher-dufuses tell them that the scientific community which makes their modern lives possible is “satanically” driven? And, being filled from infancy with the notion that they must accept anything which comes from the “right” pulpit as fact, is it any wonder that they never question these asinine statements?
It takes a higher IQ than average to get past such nonsense; and that higher-than-average-IQ must first find a question that the pulpit-monsters can’t counter with a sound-byte or quip that sounds comforting.
And, to Corso — the “tinyurl” is a virus link? Just checking . . .
eh??? Not intentionally at least… I’m showing all clear. Then again, might be the might of the great Opera intervening. It link here: http://www.youareanidiot.org/
I had two virus attacks when I opend your link.
Use this one instead. I promise you its safe :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00
Hey Gasmonso, i thought of you and your son. I hope everything is going well with you guys… God Bless!
A parents love for his child, is a wonderful thing, Gasmonso.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Hello to the password gang, too!
Well… You have to admit, Hyrocket do have a sense of humor!
Well, in case it’s not a false positive, I apologise. And your link is indeed good Corso :)
I love Penn & Teller! This is one of my favorite videos on Youtube of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E
My wife doesn’t like them much since there was a video from them supporting George Bush, and according to her he is the anti-christ! :)
I think they are awesome though.
As a child I would get a magnifying glass and play God with the ants. In retrospect…truth does come from the mouth of babes. On a side note, I hate the KJV of the Bible. It’s one of those stupid beliefs people have that “that is how Jesus spoke so it’s the only one I’m going to use.” It’s crappy. Anything translated from Hebrew is crappy because it’s archaic as hell and uses no punctuation. It’s amazing what punctuation can do. “Eats shoots and leaves” versus “Eats, shoots, and leaves.”
This information abot 2/3 of americans thinking nanotech is evil is old information. Below is a link for another university study about nanotechnology. Also, feel free to forward this link to anyone.
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/75546/nanotechnology