Categories
Friday
Dec292006

Individual and collective decision making

ipro_team.jpgWhere do we draw the line between enhancement and hubris? As technologies become more complex, that decision must be made not only individually, but collectively. That’s because the complexity of undertakings like space exploration and stem cell research require tremendous investment. It takes the collective resources of an entire nation to reach another planet, but the collective pursuit of complex technologies means that many individuals in a society end up supporting technologies (through taxes) that they do not individually support. Supporting, through our tax dollars, massive programs we disagree with is surely one of the most frustrating aspects of our current form of government. Most Americans, for instance, oppose the war in Iraq, and yet billions of their tax dollars are being siphoned into that endeavor every week.


Commitments like landing a human on Mars suck billions of dollars from education, environment, and other social concerns (NASA’s 2007 budget is $16.8 billion per year.) Similarly, we can choose individually not to engage in < a xhref= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell>stem cell research, but collectively we have crossed the line and accepted the use of early stage human embryos for purely technical purposes, and we pour billions of dollars into this technology every year.


Like space exploration and stem cell research, nanotechnology and biotechnology require huge amounts of capital to deliver successful outcomes. The average biotech product, for example, takes an astounding $1.2 billion to develop. We must decide collectively as a society whether or not to pursue them because only collectively can we muster the resources needed to pursue them. Some technologies, like human cloning, we have said no to, but others move forward regardless of whether or not you or I believe they are the right thing to do.


Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a good example. It is virtually impossible to avoid their use, regardless of individual preference. The collective decision has been made to use them, and while certified organic foods are required in principle to be GMO-free, GMOs have been found in supposedly GMO-free markets. As with GMOs, the complexity of nanotechnology and biotechnology take many decisions about their use out of the hands of the general public and place them in the hands of scientists and politicians.

Thursday
Dec282006

Green technologies to help define 2007

green-products-2007.jpgJWT, the largest advertising agency in the U.S., announced today 70 "in" products, services and trends that will help to define 2007. Green technologies occupy center stage, including:




6. The rise of nanotechnology
7. Sustainable construction/green buildings
8. Hydrogen fuel cell technology
9. Veggie-bus: school buses running on biodiesel fuel

Wednesday
Dec272006

Global warming may have claimed inhabited island

island1.jpgThe disappearance of Lohachara island off the coast of India, once home to 10,000 people, marks the first time an inhabited island has been submerged by rising seas many attribute to global warming.

Wednesday
Dec272006

Global environmental destruction and individual action

rain_forest.jpgIt’s important to recognize that despite our current environmental consciousness and efforts to live sustainably, we continue to destroy our planet’s ecosystems at an alarming rate. Right now, for example, Texas is planning to build coal-burning power plants that will produce 78 million tons annually of the carbon dioxide that leads to global warming, more than entire countries like Sweden. Meanwhile, in Africa’s Congo Basin, forests are disappearing at a rate of 3.7 million acres a year.


These are just two of the headlines received here at Green Technology Forum on the day this story was written. Unfortunately, every day reveals similar bad news for the environment. Taken cumulatively, this amounts to a crisis that threatens the survival of life on earth.


But our actions and the technologies we use can heal as well as harm. Our every action, our every thought, affects the quality of life on earth for all things. Right action begins with knowledge—the knowledge of environmental systems and impacts necessary to guide our actions in the proper direction. The goal of Green Technology Forum is to offer information, insight and ideas that will help you make informed decisions, particularly about emerging super-technologies like nanotechnology and biotechnology, to ensure their responsible use and help heal our planet’s living systems.

Sunday
Dec242006

Life on Mars?

mars.jpgAre there limits beyond which humans should not venture? Many advances in nanotechnology and biotechnology raise this question because they enable us to do things, even to be things, we never could do or be before. They give us the power to manipulate the most fundamental building blocks of nature and the ability to transform anything according to our desires. Many people feel that extreme transformations, such as taking control of our own evolution, violate a fundamental aspect of our humanity instilled by nature or by God. They argue that we should be content with our nature, with our DNA, and with our lot in life. They feel that through our technology we reached a line we should not cross, or have already crossed as we are, for example, currently engineering future generations through genetic diagnosis and selection.



To better understand the argument for limiting human exploration, let’s take it out of the nanoworld, where it can be frustratingly abstract, and apply it to another frontier—outer space. While not as radical a departure as redesigning our DNA, space exploration raises similar concerns for many. Shouldn’t we learn to care for our own world before we venture off to others? How can we justify the billions of dollars required to take us to another planet while people starve on ours?



Many people feel that space exploration offers an exciting frontier to humanity. When, for example, President George W. Bush called for a manned mission to Mars in 2004, the echoes of manifest destiny were obvious. “Two centuries ago,” he said, “Meriwether Lewis and William Clark left St. Louis to explore the new lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. They made that journey in the spirit of discovery, to learn the potential of vast new territory, and to chart a way for others to follow. America has ventured forth into space for the same reasons. We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character.”



An earlier milestone in space exploration was an occasion for at least one observer to offer an opposing view. On July 20, 1969, as Apollo 11 settled onto the surface of the moon, Shunryu Suzuki, abbot of the San Fransisco Zen Center, addressed his students. “If you say, ‘This is a rock from the moon,’ you will be very much interested in it. Actually I don’t think there is a great difference between rocks we have on the earth and those on the moon. Even if you go to Mars, I think you will find the same rocks. I am quite sure about it. So if you want to find something interesting, instead of hopping around the universe like this, enjoy your life in every moment, observe what you have now, and truly live in your surroundings.”



In admonishing his students to focus on enjoying their lives here and now rather than go hopping around the universe in search of something more interesting, Suzuki Roshi seemed to be suggesting limits beyond which the quest for more exotic experience causes us to miss the fullness of the here and now. Bush, in contrast, displays the more typically western attitude that in order to enjoy life we must be free to expand our horizons.



The contrast between these opposing views reminds me of a comment attributed to Brian Eno, who said, “Western religion is one of self-improvement; Eastern religion is one of self-acceptance.” The question with respect to nanotechnology and biotechnology is, how much self-improvement is acceptable. In fact, some of what we consider improvements at the time could prove in the long run not to improve things at all. And, as author Bill McKibben observes, we may even run the risk of losing the “self” in self-improvement if we take it too far, altering ourselves so radically that we lose whatever it is that makes us fundamentally human.