Quantcast

Religion dictates that Nanotechnology is morally unnaceptable???

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
WTF? 70.5% of Americans surveyed said they think nanotechnology is morally unacceptable. The results of the survey were about the opposite in Europe with 50.4% of UK residents, 62.7 % of Germans, and 72.1% of the French responding that the technology is morally acceptable. The article theorizes that American religiosity is partly to blame, suggesting that nanotech is lumped in with biology and other sciences seen to be used in the obviously evil pursuit of improving our lot, in part, by creating compounds that don't exist in nature.

Of course, the sample size is small, and who knows how the study was conducted. My personal theory is that the avg. American is f-ing retarded, doesn't know what nanotechnology is, and is more worried about the price of gas than emerging technologies. I'm fairly sure these same moral objectors will use medications and products derived from nanotech as they become available. In fact, they may already be doing so.

Link to Article

On a similar tack, I heard an amusing quote recently about GWB not believing in evolution, but as soon as the bird flu appeared on the scene and posed a threat, he turned to scientists and said, "We need to know how fast this thing is mutating!"


Why the big difference?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."

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.
 

r464

Turbo Monkey
Oct 17, 2006
2,608
0
Earth
My guess is that 80% or more could not define nanotechnology.

If you don't know what it is, hate it. That's the American way.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Wow. I always knew those Easton carbon bars were evil, but I thought it was the high price tag. Now I know it was teh nanotechnology - CNT is the devil's work:crazy:
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,791
1
Claremont, CA
Well, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent individual and I have pretty much no idea what nanotechnology is.

But I am in divinity school, so I guess I'm supposed to hate it.
 

CrabJoe StretchPants

Reincarnated Crab Walking Head Spinning Bruce Dick
Nov 30, 2003
11,569
422
Groton, MA
Well, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent individual and I have pretty much no idea what nanotechnology is.

But I am in divinity school, so I guess I'm supposed to hate it.
Nano = 10^-9

Really small things. Small anything; motors, computer chips, robots, everything.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Well, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent individual and I have pretty much no idea what nanotechnology is.

But I am in divinity school, so I guess I'm supposed to hate it.

It's a device that shrinks Satan down and injects him into your body to get rid of the diseases and ailments that God bestowed upon you in his infinite wisdom.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
It's also the combination of nanotech as part of the triumvirate of evil: Stem Cell research, Biology and Nano...

Counterbalanced by Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Yin and Yang, the world spins on.
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,199
4
We're Americans, anything small sucks...bigger is better, right?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
i'm disappointed in sciencedaily. a sample set of around a thousand, with no indication as to the demographic or the phrasing of the question(s)? did they go to a sprint car race in wetumpka alabama & poll rednecks in the parking lot?

but we're supposed to take at face value another "belief": that of Scheufele's assertion it's these plebes' beliefs that explain their ignorance?

reads like a hit piece; me no likey
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
and another thing: they equate morality with religion. well that puts them in quite a spot if you think about it: no religion == no morality, or so they claim.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
and another thing: they equate morality with religion. well that puts them in quite a spot if you think about it: no religion == no morality, or so they claim.
I think rather than no religion= no morality, they are saying religion often dictates what is considered moral or not based on a closed perspective, i.e Galileo and Copernicus committed heresy by suggesting something that while true, ran counter to Church dogma. A current equivalent taking other perspectives into consideration: for Catholics, contraception = immoral and a sin, while for Episcopalians that's simply not true. I think you could make an effective argument that given the miseries of unwanted babies (check out what's happened to the thousands of unwanted children in Romania, born when Chauchescu(sp?) banned contraception.) and spreading HIV and other std's that the Catholic stance is "immoral." Of course, this doesn't accommodate their view, to quote "The Meaning of Life," that "Every sperm is sacred."

I think the main thrust, on the heels of using contraception as an example, of the article was to point out the extreme distrust of science engendered in much of American religion. On the sample size and methods, I agree w/ you. In fact, it's shocking how small sample sizes are for so many of the polls and studies quoted by the major news outlets.

I do think that the premise that nanotech is immoral is absurd. You could make the argument that releasing nano sized particles into ground soils or wastewater in an unchecked form of new pollution is immoral, but I think the kneejerk reaction/concept that using our brains in any other manner than to venerate or tithe to be sinful or immoral is the truly repellent and immoral idea in the room.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
I think rather than no religion= no morality, they are saying religion often dictates what is considered moral or not based on a closed perspective
you're being charitable, and i'm sure if the direct question was put to the author, he would concur with your interpretation. he just offered it up in a clumsy manner. would you suggest that due to the church's silence on nanotechnology that this is correlated to heresy? talk about a close-minded pov. it appears as though he hasn't done the necessary rigorous work to find this out, which doesn't reflect well upon his camp.
A current equivalent taking other perspectives into consideration: for Catholics, contraception = immoral and a sin, while for Episcopalians that's simply not true.
but for both, sex outside of marriage is also a sin. catholics are merely adhering to that doctrine to the extreme by naming the use of contraception as a sin, and are not giving any ground. i enjoyed the fruits of their ignorance with my first girlfriend, who was very catholic & easily manipulated. the thought of contraception would send her stuttering into hail marys & our fathers, but flesh-on-flesh caused her no noticeable spiritual dissonance
(check out what's happened to the thousands of unwanted children in Romania, born when Chauchescu(sp?) banned contraception.)
he & his wife got quite the appropriate christmas gift, eh?
and spreading HIV and other std's that the Catholic stance is "immoral."
and again, if they weren't doing what was (in the unblinking eyes of the church) immoral, this wouldn't be the problem that it is today.
I think the main thrust, on the heels of using contraception as an example, of the article was to point out the extreme distrust of science engendered in much of American religion. On the sample size and methods, I agree w/ you. In fact, it's shocking how small sample sizes are for so many of the polls and studies quoted by the major news outlets.
if i were in charge of this study, i would have ensured a good quality of the sample (multiple faiths in multiple economic classes in multiple cities), like anyone else i assume. and maybe it was done, but i see no indication from the article that it was. and i reckon 1,000 or so would be sufficient if, again, the sample was fair.
I do think that the premise that nanotech is immoral is absurd. You could make the argument that releasing nano sized particles into ground soils or wastewater in an unchecked form of new pollution is immoral, but I think the kneejerk reaction/concept that using our brains in any other manner than to venerate or tithe to be sinful or immoral is the truly repellent and immoral idea in the room.
true. for when nanotechnology is used to save or improve lives, how can it be anything but moral?

guess that makes me a heretic.