Even though it has nothing to do with … well, anything controversial, moral, or religious … only 30% of adult Americans surveyed thought nanotechnology is “morally acceptible.”
Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.
In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.
Please note that this is akin to questioning whether metallurgy is morally acceptable.
Note that the general looniness is not solely American. We’re just worse. Only 54% of Brits thought nanotechnology is morally acceptable, with 63% in Germany and 72% in France agreeing.
The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.
“They still oppose it,” he says. “They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn’t about informing these people. They are informed.”
The head researcher thinks it has to do with a general melange of science and technology that religious types — more common in the US than in Europe — are dubious about.
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as “playing God” when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
That interpretation isn’t universally accepted (“He specifically chooses to forget about the science-skeptical nature of postmodernists, feminists, environmentalists and countless other non-religious factions. Only about 60 percent of Brits are happy with nanotech, for example, and they’re about as religious as cement.”) Still, whatever the reason, Americans damned well better get over it, or we’re going to be on a short road to the Third World.
My impression is that people tend to be morally opposed to new technology because they think it’s dangerous, not so much because it is contrary to their religious beliefs (if you can find a reference to nanotechnology in historical religious texts of the world, I’ll be surprised).
With respect to nanotechnology in particular, I wonder if people aren’t worried about the “grey goo” scenario that got some play in the press a while ago (see Wikipedia’s article on grey goo).
I think people are also morally opposed to unknown and unpredicted dangers. New technologies seem to have a bad reputation for unknown risks (perhaps deservedly so), and people don’t want the scientists to be trying something new before the risks are better-understood.
Well, we all know that nanotechnology leads to things like super-robots taking over the planet and such. Combine it with cloning, and the Evil Galactic Empire is well on its way. 😉
Perhaps I am particularly dim, but I don’t see a “moral” component to “unknown and unpredicted dangers.” To reckless taking of risks, perhaps — but that involves a free agent making a choice, vs. the simple existence of a technology.
Put another way, there is a moral component to *using* (or misusing) a technology, but not to the technology itself. A hammer is not “right” or “wrong.” Using a hammer to build a house, or break a window, or crush a skull, is morally acceptable (or not).
But perhaps I am more nuanced than the general public (or the survey allowed).
You are definitely more nuanced than the general public. You are a veritable nabob of nuance! You are, however, very humble. (grin!)
I think that those who are less nuanced than you and less bright tend to condemn technologies when they should be condemning the scientists who put others at risk by deploying poorly-understood technologies.
So I think you’re right, and I think that most people fail to make the distinction that you’ve made above. My apologies if I wasn’t clear earlier.
I’d be interested in seeing the study and reading what questions were answered and asked. What possible conclusions can be drawn from such an odd question? As Dave already stated it’s comparable to asking about morality of metallurgy. There is no right or wrong to technology, only the use of it. Which as I stated makes me wonder what questions were asked.
At any rate, I don’t buy the author’s opinion that people are well versed in nanotechnology, so lack of understanding is not the issue. Really? If they’re grouping nanotechnology with stem cell research then there’s a definite misunderstanding of the technology. Not only that, if they think technology is inheritantly right or wrong then they need some schooling on what morality is and what technology is.
In most cases, I think you’re right that there’s no moral component to technology. ***Dave’s hammer example illustrates this kind of case well. But imagine someone is developing new technology for torture. Is such a technology morally neutral? I think it’s arguably not neutral, particularly if there isn’t any way we can see to put that technology to another purpose. For example, if someone is developing new technology to rip people’s fingernails out in the most painful way possible, is that morally neutral?
I would still argue the technology is morally neutral but the use of such technology is not. Maybe there is another application for such technology. Maybe a fingernail ripper can be turned into a gentle splinter puller outer… ;-P yea it’s a stretch, but this argument at it’s root discusses the issue of are people bad or are things bad.
For instance one might argue that papers detailing how to build a hydrogen bomb are evil. Is it the paper that’s evil, or use? I tend to side with people because I’m not a huge fan of limiting or banning such things. It will just lead to an underground of the creation, or will shift production to another country. Take stem cells. Our banning of federal funding on stem cells will not halt the technology, just shift development to another country.
I would be willing to argue that there is no inherent evil in technology, only in its use. Yes, one can create a thought experiment machine that can only be used for what we deem evil purposes — but that remains a reflection of the evil purpose, the intent of the creator or the user, not of the technology itself.
Given the discussion that followed Dave’s original post, I’m tempted to say that it’s possible to be morally against technology. If you’re part of the crowd that sees all actions as being “right” or “wrong,” then claiming something is outside “right” or “wrong” is, almost literally, immoral. Is science outside of morality?
Further, nanotechnology in particular could be considered immoral, as follows: moral systems are not self-determined; they’re created by someone else. In most Christians’ cases, the creator of their morality is considered to be God. Not only does nanotechnology purport to be outside of “right” and “wrong,” but it could potentially infringe on areas normally considered to be God’s turf. Like creating something out of (virtually) nothing. Does anything or anyone who can act in Godlike ways become or have the right to replace God? Christians will probably say “no,” but if the reason God’s in charge is XYZ, and someone can do Y, shouldn’t they at least be able to cut in on the percentage? Or does it just mean that God is less godlike?
Given the discussion that followed Dave’s original post, I’m tempted to say that it’s possible to be morally against technology. If you’re part of the crowd that sees all actions as being “right” or “wrong,” then claiming something is outside “right” or “wrong” is, almost literally, immoral. Is science outside of morality?
Further, nanotechnology in particular could be considered immoral, as follows: moral systems are not self-determined; they’re created by someone else. In most Christians’ cases, the creator of their morality is considered to be God. Not only does nanotechnology purport to be outside of “right” and “wrong,” but it could potentially infringe on areas normally considered to be God’s turf. Like creating something out of (virtually) nothing. Does anything or anyone who can act in Godlike ways become or have the right to replace God? Christians will probably say “no,” but if the reason God’s in charge is XYZ, and someone can do Y, shouldn’t they at least be able to cut in on the percentage? Or does it just mean that God is less godlike?
The problem with this argument is that it starts off with an assumption,
Which is what this debate is over, whether or not systems can be moral. And to state they can be is quite a statement considering systems are non-breathing nor living things.
Furthermore I go back to my original statement that people have limited knowledge and/or are not well versed with nanotechnology and technology in general. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I would think better understanding of both subjects would not lead to a conclusion that either one is moral or immoral.
I don’t want to say that objects are morally wrong in themselves. It’s certainly true that my hypothetical pain maximizing fingernail removal device (PMFRD for short) doesn’t occur “by accident” and isn’t naturally occurring. Someone had to have the intention to use it in order to create it. But at the same time, the PMFRD seems fundamentally different from a hammer, a wrench, or whatever. Those devices were not created with evil intent, and they have many morally acceptable uses as well as many morally unacceptable uses. But the PMFRD, by hypothesis, has no obvious morally acceptable uses. I guess I’d say that “technology” involves more than just physical objects. It also involves intended uses, techniques and contexts of use, and other factors.
If “technology” just means the physical objects, then I agree with you all that no technology is moral or immoral. But if “technology” means more than just the physical objects, then I think it’s possible for some technologies to be moral or immoral (e.g. the PMFRD technology). However, the example of the PMFRD seems to suggest that while it’s possible for a technology to be immoral, nanotechnology isn’t immoral since it was not created with evil intent and it has many morally acceptable uses.
Perhaps the way to think of it is *use* of technology (an action) having a moral component, vs. the technology itself. To go back to what I was saying about metallurgy, metallurgy can be considered evil (immoral) when *used* for evil reasons or to evil ends (e.g., to some folks, the metallurgical product of depleted uranium used as shells is not morally acceptable).
And what about Galactus? (cough)
If morality is about actions (or — and this would be a subject for a long bull session over many beers — motivations behind actions), then to claim that a particular action is outside of morality is (thinking quickly) immoral in and of itself. That’s because actions have consequences, and motivations, and can be measured against codes of conduct (divinely communicated or not). *Things* are not moral or immoral — a rock is a rock, and only has a moral state to the extent that someone would argue that, as part of God’s Creation, “it was good.” But the *use* of a rock (to hit someone over the head; to build a wall, to bury Fortunato down in the cellar) can have a moral dimension.
What I think this comes down to is not necessarily religious, but a “moral” judgment of “‘t’ain’t natural.” Whether understood intellectionally or not, the newness and potentially radical effects of nanotech give it a moral tone amongst both those resistant to change and those who would argue (hopefully mostly in a bygone era) that if man were meant to fly, he’d have wings.
Well if we stick to dictionary definitions of morality we are dealing with ethical decisions of right or wrong essentially, goodness based on a code of conduct, and/or human ethical decisions. Basically to be moral or immoral you or something has to make a conscious decision based on some kind of code.
So in the extreme case of cannibalism, for example, most people in the industrialized world would come to the conclusion that eating another person is immoral. Our codes of conduct or (un)written rules condone such action. In more remote places of the world it is acceptable and likely considered moral by their code or (un)written rules.
In the case of technology that goes into building a PMFRD machine, each piece of technology is an inanimate object. It cannot make a decision based on (un)written rules. Now maybe the machine on a whole could make such decisions with the right amount of AI. But the machine on a whole is not considered technology, rather a machine or AI robot. And different pieces of technology went into creating this machine. And furthermore, the machine was still programmed to make such decisions based on some kind of code. It still had a creator that decided how to give the robot the ability to make decisions.
So I would still conclude that a PMFRD machine is neither moral or immoral, rather it’s creator is.
Here’s another way to look at it (possibly turning it around). The question wasn’t whether something was *moral* but *morally acceptable*. So a PMFRD would not be morally *acceptable*. i.e., someone would not accept it based on moral reasons.
Now, one can still debate whether nanotechnology should be acceptable on a moral basis (I would argue, of course, it should be, subject to particular instances or applications, unlike the irredeemable PMFRD), but that’s different from attributing morality (or immorality) to an inanimate object.
I certainly agree that people and their actions can be moral or immoral. The question is whether or not in addition, technologies can be immoral. The consensus seems to be that they can’t and that only actions can be moral or immoral. I guess you guys aren’t convinced by the differences between the PMFRD and a hammer.
I think you guys are trying to restrict the terms “moral” and “immoral” to apply only to choices made by agents. But I think the terms are in fact used in a broader way than this, and I think that broader usage is correct. Saying that something is moral or immoral is asserting that it has or does not have a particular kind of value (moral value, for lack of a better phrase, not financial or aesthetic value). While agents’ choices can have moral values, other things can too. The PMFRD, for example, has no moral value (or perhaps negative moral value) in something like the way that a machine that destroys money and produces nothing in return would have no financial value (to most of us anyway — I realize the Federal Reserve destroys money after it’s worn out). This value is independent of whether or not anyone ever actually turns on or uses either machine, and seems to come from the fact that the results would be undesirable if we were to turn the machine on. This is like saying that money has value even if it is never spent. That value is somewhat abstract, and depends on the potential to spend the money, but it is still real value.
Actually, I think I disagree with all your points, Dave … 🙂
Financial, moral, and aesthetic value are all subjective, and are all projected upon an object by the observer. (I do believe in an absolute moral value, but I don’t believe that it is a fully discernible property).
So, for example, money has no financial value if it cannot be spent (cf. all those old sitcoms where the suitcase full of money turned out to be worthless Confederate dollars). It has financial value only to someone who can make use of it financially. Similarly, aesthetic value is not intrinsic to any artwork, only projected upon it by the viewer — one need only visit the Tate Modern to see that proven.
(Tom Lehrer is singing “Smut” in my head right now — “To be smut / It must be ut- / terly without redeeming social importance!”)
Similarly, I don’t think an object can be deemed to be moral per se, or immoral / negatively moral. I suspect, just as one could imagine cases where a stack of $50 bills was without financial value, or that suitcase of Confederate bills was actually worth quite a bit of money (as collector’s items; to a time traveller; as part of the new “Confederate Monopoly” craze), I suspect one can imaging a case where moral value could be attributed to the PMFRD — starting with the cliche of needing to resort to the excruciating torture of a person in order to avert a nuclear holocaust that would kill hundreds of thousands. (We could argue about relative morality, etc., but clearly some people could consider that a moral use of such an object.)
But, again, that doesn’t make the PMFRD either a moral or immoral thing — it’s the *use* that is moral or immoral.
Imagine I have a suitcase of money, but I can’t spend it for some reason. I would agree that it has no value. But if I could spend it but choose not to, does it have value? I would say it does, along with all the money in every savings account around the world.
By analogy, I think the PMFRD is immoral since it has (by hypothesis) no morally acceptable potential uses, and it has the potential to be used to torture another person, even if it is not now being used in that way.
I think the preventing-nuclear holocaust scenario is contrary to the assumption that the PMFRD has no morally acceptable uses, but in that case I think it’s a lesser evil to use the PMFRD in such a way, not an unequivocal moral good.
Well, there aren’t a lot of “unequivocal moral goods” out there in the world, alas.
At the risk of being a Nattering Nabob of Nuance, even a thing with no potential moral uses might have moral side-effects. Nuclear weapons (I’m sorry, retaliatory nukking just isn’t moral by any measure I can fathom) did produce MAD, which kept us out of the ash-bin for decades. In other words moral effect may have reflections that travel in an opposite direction across a matrix of objects upon which the effects may land.
But. I cannot be persuaded to say that a nuclear warhead is morally neutral. There is a sort of tipping point below which I will accept ‘evil for good’. The difference between one person and another (as moral judges) could be expressed in terms of the lines they won’t cross.