|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is nanotechnology immoral?
A recent survey have turned up a result that i found shocking... and bizarre.
According to the survey, only 29.5% of American adults (±3%) believe that nanotechnology is "morally acceptable". i do not have the raw results, so i do not know how many did not answer or said "don't know", but still, that result is... mind-blowing. Only a third of Americans are OK with research into nanotechnology.
America is not alone. Results for other nations were included as well:
To put things in perspective, nanotechnology does indeed have the potential to cause great damage and suffering... but it is also the first technology in human history that is also capable of repairing its own damage. Electricity gave us many benefits, but at the cost of lots of power transmission lines in our environment, radiating EM fields all around us and often messy power generation centres - and electricity cannot fix any of those things, we just have to accept them as part of the package. The internal combustion engine gave us cars, trucks, planes and far more reliable boats, but it also gave us pollution, noise, dangerous roads and plane crashes - and the internal combustion engine cannot prevent or fix any of those things itself. But nanotechnology can. Nanotech can fix all of those problems, and the problems it creates itself (very likely mostly industrial waste chemicals from the manufacturing processes) can be fixed with nanotech. Nanoparticles messed up your lungs? No problem, other nanoparticles could fix the damage. Even if you somehow manage to turn Texas into grey goo - no big loss, really, in the case of Texas it's probably an improvement - but you could halt the spread and begin some kind or reconstruction... with nanotech.
Does nanotechnology have hazards? Yes, of course. But is there anything about those hazards that makes developing the technology so dangerous as to be immoral? i'm not seeing it. And the benefits are so enormous that opposing the technology seems downright idiotic.
It is my hypothesis that the people that call nanotech immoral fall into two camps. One group is just... idiots. There is no better word for them. They don't understand the technology, and neither do they care to. It's science, it's new, it's immoral. End of story. The other groups is slightly more intelligent in that they recognize the danger of nanotech, but may not recognize the benefits. And even if they do recognize the benefits, they can't differentiate between "dangerous" and "immoral". Open heart surgery is very "dangerous", but it is hardly "immoral".
However, the professor who did the survey has another hypothesis:
What do you think? Here are some issues i see being raised here:
According to the survey, only 29.5% of American adults (±3%) believe that nanotechnology is "morally acceptable". i do not have the raw results, so i do not know how many did not answer or said "don't know", but still, that result is... mind-blowing. Only a third of Americans are OK with research into nanotechnology.
America is not alone. Results for other nations were included as well:
- UK: 54.1%
- Germany: 62.7%
- France: 72.1%
To put things in perspective, nanotechnology does indeed have the potential to cause great damage and suffering... but it is also the first technology in human history that is also capable of repairing its own damage. Electricity gave us many benefits, but at the cost of lots of power transmission lines in our environment, radiating EM fields all around us and often messy power generation centres - and electricity cannot fix any of those things, we just have to accept them as part of the package. The internal combustion engine gave us cars, trucks, planes and far more reliable boats, but it also gave us pollution, noise, dangerous roads and plane crashes - and the internal combustion engine cannot prevent or fix any of those things itself. But nanotechnology can. Nanotech can fix all of those problems, and the problems it creates itself (very likely mostly industrial waste chemicals from the manufacturing processes) can be fixed with nanotech. Nanoparticles messed up your lungs? No problem, other nanoparticles could fix the damage. Even if you somehow manage to turn Texas into grey goo - no big loss, really, in the case of Texas it's probably an improvement - but you could halt the spread and begin some kind or reconstruction... with nanotech.
Does nanotechnology have hazards? Yes, of course. But is there anything about those hazards that makes developing the technology so dangerous as to be immoral? i'm not seeing it. And the benefits are so enormous that opposing the technology seems downright idiotic.
It is my hypothesis that the people that call nanotech immoral fall into two camps. One group is just... idiots. There is no better word for them. They don't understand the technology, and neither do they care to. It's science, it's new, it's immoral. End of story. The other groups is slightly more intelligent in that they recognize the danger of nanotech, but may not recognize the benefits. And even if they do recognize the benefits, they can't differentiate between "dangerous" and "immoral". Open heart surgery is very "dangerous", but it is hardly "immoral".
However, the professor who did the survey has another hypothesis:
| Dietram Scheufele wrote: |
| They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed. |
What do you think? Here are some issues i see being raised here:
- What are the dangers of nanotechnology?
- Do the benefits outweigh - or possibly even negate - the dangers?
- Is nanotechnology dangerous?
- Is nanotechnology immoral?
- Do you think the widespread opposition to nanotech is religious?
- If so... exactly what is the religious objection?
- Do you think there are other reasons for labelling nanotech as immoral? (For example, ignorance - saying "immoral" when "risky" is what is really meant?)
- Do you think there are other reasons for why opposition to nanotech is distributed the way it is?
Well I have a problem with any scientific advance being categorised as 'immoral'. It seems to me to be a fundamentally flawed argument.
We could look at this question in general terms or in specific terms.
In general terms then I believe that all knowledge is a good thing. The use to which that knowledge is put can be judged on moral grounds, but the quest for such knowledge is surely not a moral issue (providing, of course, that the methods involved are themselves not morally questionable).
On specific terms then I see no moral problem with this technology. It is non-biological to the best of my knowledge (ie it doesn't present the same issues that, for example, stem-cell research does).
I tend to agree that the opponents fall into two camps - the idiot and the uninformed. The idiot is probably beyond any rational argument, but we may hope that the uninformed may change their opinion.
We could look at this question in general terms or in specific terms.
In general terms then I believe that all knowledge is a good thing. The use to which that knowledge is put can be judged on moral grounds, but the quest for such knowledge is surely not a moral issue (providing, of course, that the methods involved are themselves not morally questionable).
On specific terms then I see no moral problem with this technology. It is non-biological to the best of my knowledge (ie it doesn't present the same issues that, for example, stem-cell research does).
I tend to agree that the opponents fall into two camps - the idiot and the uninformed. The idiot is probably beyond any rational argument, but we may hope that the uninformed may change their opinion.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well I have a problem with any scientific advance being categorised as 'immoral'. It seems to me to be a fundamentally flawed argument.
We could look at this question in general terms or in specific terms. In general terms then I believe that all knowledge is a good thing. The use to which that knowledge is put can be judged on moral grounds, but the quest for such knowledge is surely not a moral issue (providing, of course, that the methods involved are themselves not morally questionable). |
While i agree that in its purest form, all knowledge is good, i can see that technology - practically applicable knowledge - is not always purely about the knowledge, and is certainly not always moral to pursue. the applicable part introduces moral problems. Is it moral to research a way to kill every black man on the planet, but leave everyone else untouched? The knowledge itself is neither moral or immoral, but is pursuing the knowledge similarly guiltless?
More practical is the question of a technology that might produce a benefit - say, whiter teeth - but at the same time might equally well result in a deadly virus that kills a quarter of human kind. The knowledge itself may be amoral, but the pursuit involves potential good and potential harm - both of which must be weighed in context. Is it moral to pursue that line of research?
In my mind, nanotech's potential benefits are so ridiculously enormous, compared to it's potential hazards, that it would be immoral to oppose the research. At the same time, the goal of the research is not harm, it is benefit, so the research itself is also moral. But... i'm curious about other opinions on the matter.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| On specific terms then I see no moral problem with this technology. It is entirely non-biological to the best of my knowledge (ie it doesn't present the same issues that, for example, stem-cell research does). |
Well, "biological" doesn't really apply much below, say, 1000 nanometres. But some aspects of nanotechnology could be viewed as being "bio-ish"... if you squint.
For example, one of the researchers i met is working on a cure for cancer using nanotech that involves custom made particles where one end is a special biological receptor, designed to attach to cancerous cells and cancerous cells only. It's not "biological" per se... but you could look at it that way if you really wanted to.
There may be potential results of nanotech that might be of interest to religious camps - functional immortality, for example. But i would hope that modern religions are not the death cults that writers like Dennett make them out to be - i would hope that they would not have any religious motivation to deny functional immortality to someone who is not part of their religion (even while they may reject it themselves).
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I tend to agree that the opponents fall into two camps - the idiot and the uninformed. The idiot is probably beyond any rational argument, but we may hope that the uninformed may change their opinion. |
i try hard to give religious folk the benefit of the doubt in these matters - some have suggested too hard. That's why i hesitate to buy Scheufele's conclusion - but then i'm stuck with having to explain why 70% of French have no problem compared with 30% of Americans. Granted, the average French person is better educated than the average American, but not by that much. Religion seems to be the only major factor that accounts for that much difference between the two countries.
That's why i suggested an alternate hypothesis - and i ask for other alternatives. Explaining it in terms of the idiots and the uninformed makes rational sense... but does not stand up that well when you consider America vs. France. Does America have more idiots (heh), or more uninformed, or both? And does it have that much more?
i hesitate to accept that.
Yep - I accept the distinction between knowledge per se and technology. I also see the point you make about biology (or lack thereof) though I think this may be stretching it to the point beyond squinting and into the realms of faith goggles...
On the substantive issue - I, like you, tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the religious. I like to think that I am pretty fair in these matters and I have never adopted a 'militant atheist' stance. In this case, however, there is clearly an issue and, although I will refrain from drawing Scheufele's conclusion at the moment, I think there is some case to answer here....
On the substantive issue - I, like you, tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the religious. I like to think that I am pretty fair in these matters and I have never adopted a 'militant atheist' stance. In this case, however, there is clearly an issue and, although I will refrain from drawing Scheufele's conclusion at the moment, I think there is some case to answer here....
I see nothing immoral about it (and I am both a Christian and a U.S. citizen). I honestly believe it to be one of the greatest technological endeavors in human history. The potential benefits are fantastic, and I firmly believe that as the technology develops, benefits we haven't even imagined will emerge. Like only a handful of societies and cultures before us, we stand on the edge of a transformational breakthrough that may alter all civilization.
I read the article but wish I could see the survey itself. Was the survey designed such that one could actually draw a correlation between religious beliefs and one's opinion on nanotech's morality? Or is the connection purely an assumption based upon his perceptions of Americans versus Europeans?
Personally (and without seeing the survey) I think it's due to a lack of information. I talk to people all the time about nanotech because I'm a geek and very excited about it, but find very few people (aside from my limited social network, who naturally share similar interests) with any knowledge of nanotechnology.
Whatever the reason behind it, 30% is very disconcerting.
Respectfully,
M
I read the article but wish I could see the survey itself. Was the survey designed such that one could actually draw a correlation between religious beliefs and one's opinion on nanotech's morality? Or is the connection purely an assumption based upon his perceptions of Americans versus Europeans?
Personally (and without seeing the survey) I think it's due to a lack of information. I talk to people all the time about nanotech because I'm a geek and very excited about it, but find very few people (aside from my limited social network, who naturally share similar interests) with any knowledge of nanotechnology.
Whatever the reason behind it, 30% is very disconcerting.
Respectfully,
M
| Indi wrote: |
| Religion seems to be the only major factor that accounts for that much difference between the two countries.
|
How about popular culture, Science is often portrayed as good intentions gone amuck in sci-fi movies , books ect
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I read the article but wish I could see the survey itself. Was the survey designed such that one could actually draw a correlation between religious beliefs and one's opinion on nanotech's morality? Or is the connection purely an assumption based upon his perceptions of Americans versus Europeans? |
That is a good question. i seriously doubt it was. i'd bet that they just took a random sampling of adults in each country, and asked, "is nanotechnology moral?", and some related questions, and not much else.
But even if that survey did not measure religious beliefs, something must be causing the massive difference between the US and the other countries. If it's not religious... what else can it be? That's what i ask.
Is there something about nanotech that American get, that Brits and Jerries don't - some aspect of the technology that makes it immoral? If the Brits and the Jerries could understand what the Americans do about nanotech, would they agree with them?
Are the Americans just... dumber? Do they not understand nanotech as well as the rest of the world?
Is there something about Americans or America or American culture that makes nanotechnology appear immoral?
Religion is one hypothesis, and yes, it should be tested. But what other hypotheses are there? What else could be tested?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Personally (and without seeing the survey) I think it's due to a lack of information. I talk to people all the time about nanotech because I'm a geek and very excited about it, but find very few people (aside from my limited social network, who naturally share similar interests) with any knowledge of nanotechnology. |
And Brits, Germans and Frenchmen are that much more knowledgeable, on average? i'm not really comfortable with the assumption that Americans are at least twice as stupid as those other countries - not without further support.
i get that most people don't understand nanotech - i am in nanotech, and every time i say what i do, i get a glazed look. i have to explain it frequently. (You'll note that i'm so in the habit that i even did it in the first post here.)
But that doesn't answer the question. We don't know how the survey was worded - maybe it explained nanotech, maybe it didn't. Maybe it explained it well maybe it didn't. But it's pretty safe to assume that however it was done, it was done similarly in all four countries mentioned.
So let's say the survey said nothing about nanotech but the word. Pretend the entire survey was just the question: "Is nanotech immoral?" Still, for some unknown reason, only one in three Americans said yes, while one in two or better did everywhere else. Why? That's what i would like to know. (Along with why anyone would say yes.)
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Whatever the reason behind it, 30% is very disconcerting. |
Disconcerting, you think? i don't know. i think it's shocking, but it doesn't worry me. Unless the 70% that objects can offer me a valid reason for why they object, i don't really care about them. i'll still continue my work, regardless. If public opinion halts funding in the US, i'd just move to France. Let them benefit from my work, and to hell with the Luddite Americans.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | ||
How about popular culture, Science is often portrayed as good intentions gone amuck in sci-fi movies , books ect |
How is the popular culture between France and the US that different that it accounts for a more than two-to-one difference? i watch French movies all the time (just last week i watched Vidocq again), and it's pretty much the same crap Hollywood puts out, just with smaller production values (and possibly with a little less pandering to the "unintelligence" of audiences - meaning they can be slightly harder to follow, and they don't hammer their points home). The messages are pretty much the same, more or less. Certainly many French science fiction writers are as cautious about advancing technology and technological culture as English writers - just see Jean-Claude Dunyach, who has several bleak works translated in English.
The ratio of people who are ok with nanotechnology between France and the US is almost three to one. That's... ridiculous. Even between the UK and the US - two English-speaking countries - have a ratio of almost two-to-one (11 to 6). Are the cultures in those two countries so wildly different?
i don't see it.
| Indi wrote: |
| ... Does nanotechnology have hazards? Yes, of course. But is there anything about those hazards that makes developing the technology so dangerous as to be immoral? I'm not seeing it. And the benefits are so enormous that opposing the technology seems downright idiotic. ... |
Perhaps failing to distinguish between a technology / science and the potential misuse of the same is at least part of the answer. Fitting examples would perhaps be a number of green parties who not only condemn nuclear weapons generally but the use of nuclear energy in any shape or form.
Although I hope I am able to differentiate sufficiently to separate these from a moral perspective, I also can, up to a point, understand the distrust that these technologies generate. Off the cuff I cannot think of a technology or discovery which has not had detrimental side-effects and which we have learned to control and harness by trial and error (or have put to war-time use). Weighing advantages vs. disadvantages has usually convinced us that applying a technology has overall benefits even if some setbacks need to be accepted, but when we reach a point where an error in judgment in the application of a science might have such far-reaching consequences that it can no longer be undone, then it does get tricky. The use of nuclear power has been at least a step towards such a condition and nanotechnology and genetics seems to be the next. It would probably be sensible to consider worst-case scenarios (either through misjudgment or by design). I would suggest that those working in these areas sit down and take the time to consider how they could use their expertise to build the most destructive weapon they are able to fathom and then accept the fact that it will certainly be built and very probably used.
The question is, though, why do citizens of the US overwhelmingly see this technology as immoral whereas citizens of comparible countries (UK, France, Germany etc) do not?
The only explanation which has been offered is religious view. Both Indi and I are reluctant to accept that at face value, but there does seem to be no other logical explanation to date...
The only explanation which has been offered is religious view. Both Indi and I are reluctant to accept that at face value, but there does seem to be no other logical explanation to date...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The question is, though, why do citizens of the US overwhelmingly see this technology as immoral whereas citizens of comparible countries (UK, France, Germany etc) do not?
The only explanation which has been offered is religious view. Both Indi and I are reluctant to accept that at face value, but there does seem to be no other logical explanation to date... |
At least as a hypothesis, I would suggest that Americans are more apt to see these questions in a black & white moral context and not willing to accept gray areas (which is, generally speaking not necessarily wrong), therefore not differentiating between a technology and the (mis-)use thereof. I would suggest that concepts such as patriotism and religion, values taught and cultivated in America more so than in Europe*, tend to manifest themselves in a number of areas, foreign policy being perhaps the most obvious.
I admit though, that the quoted results in the original post do surprise me (and without knowing more about how they were reached, I tend to even question them) since, having lived on both continents, I would have assumed the exact opposite. My impression is that Americans are generally starry-eyed when speaking of potentially breakthrough-technology, with the Europeans* more likely seeing the glass half empty.
On the question of how religion may play a part in this surprising result, I have to pass since "my" America experience was more or less restricted to the east coast urban centers. Of course, seeing statistics on American acceptance of creationism does make one wonder.
*=Europe, meaning in this case western, continental Europe, although even these nations are unique in their own way and not easily lumped together
Is nanotechnology immoral? Of course not. I don't believe that for a second.
Yes, it may be dangerous. Yes, it may have negative effects that human beings have failed to see. Since it is relatively new and hasn't had an immense amount of research (compared to other sciences), there might be negative sides of it that are so far unknown. But that's a different discussion. For the purpose of this question; no, it's not immoral.
Yes, it may be dangerous. Yes, it may have negative effects that human beings have failed to see. Since it is relatively new and hasn't had an immense amount of research (compared to other sciences), there might be negative sides of it that are so far unknown. But that's a different discussion. For the purpose of this question; no, it's not immoral.
Never mind Indi. If things in the US get too bad you can always come and work in my studio. I'll set you up with a set of jeweller's screwdrivers and a really small pair of tweezers 
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The question is, though, why do citizens of the US overwhelmingly see this technology as immoral whereas citizens of comparible countries (UK, France, Germany etc) do not?
The only explanation which has been offered is religious view. Both Indi and I are reluctant to accept that at face value, but there does seem to be no other logical explanation to date... |
Yes, but to be fair, this is very fresh data. The survey is less than six months old, and it was only published two or three weeks ago. A good explanation might be forthcoming, but i can't even begin to guess at what form it might take. As you say, only this religious explanation - as disturbing as it is - seems to work, but i'm an engineer not a social scientist, so maybe i'm missing something obvious.
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| I admit though, that the quoted results in the original post do surprise me (and without knowing more about how they were reached, I tend to even question them) since, having lived on both continents, I would have assumed the exact opposite. My impression is that Americans are generally starry-eyed when speaking of potentially breakthrough-technology, with the Europeans* more likely seeing the glass half empty. |
i was surprised too! ^_^; Amazing, isn't it?
But actually, i'd disagree. i've travelled extensively around the US and even popped across the pond a few times in recent years. As strange as it sounds, the average American is pretty technologically backward. i live in Canada, and we're quite far ahead in several technological areas - and we're quite poor comparatively, and right next door. Europe is even further ahead - and even further are the more cosmopolitan parts of Asia. The average American does not have cause to see this disparity on a day to day basis, usually - but it's a widely held truism in every engineering field i have worked in that if you want something good, you have to go to Europe (and if you want it pretty good, but cheap, go to Asia). You want a roller bearing? Sure, you can get them made in America, but the ones made in Sweden will be way better, and sometimes cheaper. You want a really powerful, small, accurate and cheap servomotor? Don't even bother to check American companies. What about a full blown precision six-axis machine tool? Go to Italy, don't waste your time in the US.
It's not widely publicized, but the major technology development corporations are slowly pulling out of the US (not the focus of the story, but mentioned in passing). This article is more recent, but more of the same. And things don't look too hot for the next generation of American technology either, if the results of future American techies are a good measure. Even at the grassroots level, the average American just doesn't grok technology as well as the average European.
But while this disparity would make a big difference in things relating to fairly current and/or bleeding edge technology, i don't really see it being a big factor when talking about technologies that are so far down the road. Besides, it's not that Americans fear technology (on the surface, anyway), because the average American is blissfully unaware of how far behind the rest of the technological world they are. They believe that they are the leaders of technology in the whole world, even though they're not. So saying they are "afraid" of technology seems to be a difficult position to take. They may not have it, but they sure think they do, and they love the idea.
i wouldn't say either Americans or Europeans are generally pessimistic about technology, at least not on the surface - well, except for the UK. ^_^; For some reason - and this is personal perspective, i can't back it up with numbers - it seems to me that mainland Europeans are much more technologically optimistic than the islanders. They're all cautious about new technology, yes, but i wouldn't call that pessimism. The general attitude - both in North America and Europe - about technology seems to be "well, ok, give it a shot, but be careful". i've talked to a wide cross-section of Americans about nanotechnology, and maybe it's the way i present it, maybe it's that i don't mention the potential hazards at all (because they're so ridiculously small), but i have always had either enthusiastic support, or cautious optimism. The very worst i can recall getting is the hands-off "i want no part in it, but you go for it" attitude, generally from older persons who don't believe they will see the benefits in time anyway.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Never mind Indi. If things in the US get too bad you can always come and work in my studio. I'll set you up with a set of jeweller's screwdrivers and a really small pair of tweezers |
Excellent. i'll bring the micrometer-sized roll of duct tape, and we'll be set!
| Indi wrote: |
| i wouldn't say either Americans or Europeans are generally pessimistic about technology, at least not on the surface - well, except for the UK. ^_^; For some reason - and this is personal perspective, i can't back it up with numbers - it seems to me that mainland Europeans are much more technologically optimistic than the islanders. They're all cautious about new technology, yes, but i wouldn't call that pessimism. |
).
I think the reserve comes partly from a long, often bloody, history (seen it, been there, done it, blew it up, trashed-it and threw it away) and partly from our island geography. If you dig a bit deeper, however, you will find many a chap beavering away in his shed or garage on mechanical/electrical projects - sometimes of great ingenuity and complexity.
The engineering mentality is still very much alive and well. Lift the bonnet of a car, wherever there is a collection of blokes, and they will quickly gravitate to the car and begin offering their services, suggestions and comments
| Indi wrote: |
| ... But actually, i'd disagree. i've travelled extensively around the US and even popped across the pond a few times in recent years. As strange as it sounds, the average American is pretty technologically backward. i live in Canada, and we're quite far ahead in several technological areas - and we're quite poor comparatively, and right next door. Europe is even further ahead - and even further are the more cosmopolitan parts of Asia. The average American does not have cause to see this disparity on a day to day basis, usually - but it's a widely held truism in every engineering field i have worked in that if you want something good, you have to go to Europe (and if you want it pretty good, but cheap, go to Asia). ... |
My areas of interest/expertise are too far removed from this topic so I find it difficult to supply and hard facts but if America's ranking is so low in so many areas, it is surprising that universities are still rated as highly as they are, Nobel and other prizes still seem to be awarded to either US scientists (or those employed / teaching in the US) in a meaningful number and areas such as space-travel and advanced military technology are still on the forefront. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the economic power of the country and its general attraction as a meeting-point and melting-pot for foreign talent but I do find it difficult to believe that this is the main reason.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Excellent. i'll bring the micrometer-sized roll of duct tape, and we'll be set! |
Sorry, can't contribute any useful tools, my only rule when it comes to building something is: "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an ax." (not my quote but can't recall where I picked it up.)
| Indi wrote: | ||||
How is the popular culture between France and the US that different that it accounts for a more than two-to-one difference? i watch French movies all the time (just last week i watched Vidocq again), and it's pretty much the same crap Hollywood puts out, just with smaller production values (and possibly with a little less pandering to the "unintelligence" of audiences - meaning they can be slightly harder to follow, and they don't hammer their points home). The messages are pretty much the same, more or less. Certainly many French science fiction writers are as cautious about advancing technology and technological culture as English writers - just see Jean-Claude Dunyach, who has several bleak works translated in English. The ratio of people who are ok with nanotechnology between France and the US is almost three to one. That's... ridiculous. Even between the UK and the US - two English-speaking countries - have a ratio of almost two-to-one (11 to 6). Are the cultures in those two countries so wildly different? i don't see it. |
I dont see it........... thats probably exactly what the detractors of nano tech are saying
As nanotechnology is ...well..... what is it ? its stronger lighter plastics to self replicating machines capable of turning the world to Goo, as its uses could be so varied I dont think its wrong to say this is simply a position of public trust in science or in this case unknown nanotechnology, rather than place this mistrust in science at the feet of religion or idiocy, popular culture or the scientific community itself are for me more likley to be the seed of this mistrust, which I would agree would be greatly substantiated by any religious connotations but not limited to them.
Popular culture of course has its excuses it can breed mistrust in the form of entertainment, films books ect , and the scientific community has an even more ( in my opinion ) valid excuse for creating mistrust which is keeping secrets, we would'nt want someone who had invented a Earth Gooing nano bot to blurt it out to the whole world in full fact ,so anyone could built it now would we, that would be immoral, so we seem to be left at a catch 22 , science cant blurt out its secrets for moral issues which helps to substantiate the mistrust popular culture breeds through entertainment , I see this question as to ambiguous to gain anything but an ambiguous answer, if the question had indeed been about research into nanotechnology maybe the answer would have been different but given nanotechnology is such a broad field what was the question really about ? .
| Indi wrote: |
| But even if that survey did not measure religious beliefs, something must be causing the massive difference between the US and the other countries. If it's not religious... what else can it be? That's what i ask.
Religion is one hypothesis, and yes, it should be tested. But what other hypotheses are there? What else could be tested? |
I agree that there must be a reason for the difference. Religion is a viable hypothesis, but I am reluctant to embrace that reason. However I’ll concede that it may play a role. The reasons may be more complex though and involve more than simply one cultural marker.
| Indi wrote: |
| And Brits, Germans and Frenchmen are that much more knowledgeable, on average? i'm not really comfortable with the assumption that Americans are at least twice as stupid as those other countries - not without further support.
i get that most people don't understand nanotech - i am in nanotech, and every time i say what i do, i get a glazed look. i have to explain it frequently. (You'll note that i'm so in the habit that i even did it in the first post here.) But that doesn't answer the question. We don't know how the survey was worded - maybe it explained nanotech, maybe it didn't. Maybe it explained it well maybe it didn't. But it's pretty safe to assume that however it was done, it was done similarly in all four countries mentioned. So let's say the survey said nothing about nanotech but the word. Pretend the entire survey was just the question: "Is nanotech immoral?" Still, for some unknown reason, only one in three Americans said yes, while one in two or better did everywhere else. Why? That's what i would like to know. (Along with why anyone would say yes.) |
I too find it hard to believe that Europeans receive more information from the general media on nanotechnology than Americans. That being said, I am only familiar with what I see here in the U.S., which I find to be paltry to say the least.
At the same time, I’m reluctant to blame it on religion, admittedly for a personal reason. As a Christian who loves science, I hate seeing Christianity portrayed as nothing more than a bunch of ignorant morons holding back society’s advancement. After all, the United States as a whole was a lot more religious in the 19th and 20th Centuries than it is now, and during those days the U.S. led the world in significant technological advancements.
But regarding what Professor Scheufele said, I find this anecdotal comment off target:
| RELIGION COLORS AMERICANS' VIEWS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY wrote: |
| 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. |
Christians only disagree with embryonic stem cell research, not adult stem cell research. They believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral for the exact same reason they believe abortion is immoral, it’s killing a human being. Christians as a whole are strong advocates of adult stem cell research. Therefore “Playing God” doesn’t come into play. I personally find the use of such a phrase insulting as it is very antiquated and serves only to portray Christians as, once again, backward thinking morons. But my personal feelings aside, one still cannot completely rule out Scheufele’s hypothesis.
I did find more detailed information on the survey though, but not the survey itself.
The survey posed the question, “For each of the following issues regarding nanotechnology, please tell me if you agree or disagree with it.”
1. Nanotechnology is morally acceptable.
2. Nanotechnology is useful for society.
3. Nanotechnology is riskful for society.
4. Nanotechnology should be encouraged.
Notice that it did not ask, “Is nanotechnology morally unacceptable?” They asked people to agree with the statement, “Nanotechnology is morally acceptable,” a very broad and even ambiguous statement to agree to. Could one not imagine that "Nanotechnology" might include both "moral" and "immoral" applications? The U.S. is a litigious culture, maybe Americans are just hesitant to agree to something so non-specific.
Respondents were able to answer each question with something like “Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, Neutral, Somewhat agree, Strongly Agree.” Zero (0) was the midpoint. +2 represented “Strongly Agree” and -2 represented “Strongly Disagree.”
From what I read (and as I said, unfortunately I could not find the survey itself, just comments by others and even Dietram A. Scheufele’s blog) the 29.5% figure is only those who answered a +2. Overall the United States is positive on thinking nanotech is moral, but obviously not to the degree Europe is. However the article did not mention that the majority of Americans surveyed found nanotechnology morally acceptable. If less than 50% of Americans disagreed with the survey, the bar in the graph below would be below the line, not above. However the article implies that 70% of Americans believe it is immoral!
Source: http://nanopublic.blogspot.com/
Furthermore, according to the survey Americans believe nanotechnology is useful for society and should be encouraged. They also believe nanotechnology is risky, but ironically to a lesser degree than the French and Germans. I think this implies either a lesser understanding of nanotech and its risks, or more optimism for our ability to control those risks.
So the survey shows that Americans strongly believe that nanotech is useful and should be encouraged. However the article implies that public support for nanotech in the United States is in jeopardy. Why?
As mentioned earlier, the UK scored a 54.1% while France scored a 72.1%. However according to Scheufele’s blog, France and Britain both scored below a 5 on a religiosity scale (U.S. respondents average between 8 and 9). If France and Britain are so close on a religiosity index, why the 18% difference in their opinion on nanotech's morality if that is, according to Scheufele’s hypothesis, the primary reason for the low score in the U.S.?
That seems to indicate there is more to it than just religion.
| Indi wrote: | ||
|
As was oft said in the film “The Right Stuff” about jets and rockets, “You know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up.” That is the reason I find it disconcerting. Research depends upon funding. And if public opinion is that negative regarding nanotechnology, then one may assume that such an attitude could also negatively impact funding. That’s a situation which I do not wish to see in the United States.
That being said, the Bush administration made nanotechnology research and development a significant, national priority. So even if an unseen religious movement or mere current against nanotech research exists, it isn’t affecting national policy decisions made by a conservative and professed Christian president.
Respectfully,
M
OK - I'll dive in with my own view on this.
I think the most revealing part of the blog entry is the following;
That seems reasonable - he is acknowledging that the link is not strongly correlated but there certainly does seem to be such a link. I also think the conclusion is probably valid from my own experiences (although obviously I cannot support that with objective data).
Those with fundamental religious views (particularly 'creationists') have been taught by their preachers and community that science contains much which is untrue. This message is inevitable if you are to maintain a literal belief in Genesis, since Genesis is contradicted, not just by evolutionary biology, but by many other sciences and disciplines (geology, cosmology, particle physics etc). The creationist defence of their beliefs involves a wide-ranging attack on science (by necessity) - this can be easily seen by referencing their material on the web.
I can say from direct personal experience* that creationists do encourage scepticism - sometimes abusive dismissal - of science that contradicts or challenges their beliefs. It seems evident to me that this will lead to a scepticism about science in general, since it is often difficult to separate out which elements of science they are against and which not. This would be reflected in the nanotech survey as the blog suggests.
Belief in creationism does seem to be much more prevalent in the US than in Europe. Perhaps, therefore, it is not religiousity per se that is the issue, but more fundamentalist religiousity. This would show through in the statistics as a general correlation but not such a strong one - since there appears to be no explicit filter or representation in the survey for the 'fundamenalism' of religiousity.
All this being said, I agree with Moonspider that this is likely to be more complex than a simple correlation of religion against science (even 'fundamentalist' religion) but I do believe that if we correlate belief in creationism with acceptance of science (and particular developments in science) we would see a much stronger negative correlation.
*I make a point of attending Creationist meetings in my area, in order to see what is being said and, hopefully, correct or refute incorrect statements about science. I will be attending my third such meeting on 31st of this month at Liverpool University where the creationist speaker Ken Ham is giving a presentation.
I think the most revealing part of the blog entry is the following;
| Quote: |
| First, our data showed a weak link between religiosity and attitudes toward nanotech and nano funding. And that most likely reflects a general reservation toward science among religious respondents. |
That seems reasonable - he is acknowledging that the link is not strongly correlated but there certainly does seem to be such a link. I also think the conclusion is probably valid from my own experiences (although obviously I cannot support that with objective data).
Those with fundamental religious views (particularly 'creationists') have been taught by their preachers and community that science contains much which is untrue. This message is inevitable if you are to maintain a literal belief in Genesis, since Genesis is contradicted, not just by evolutionary biology, but by many other sciences and disciplines (geology, cosmology, particle physics etc). The creationist defence of their beliefs involves a wide-ranging attack on science (by necessity) - this can be easily seen by referencing their material on the web.
I can say from direct personal experience* that creationists do encourage scepticism - sometimes abusive dismissal - of science that contradicts or challenges their beliefs. It seems evident to me that this will lead to a scepticism about science in general, since it is often difficult to separate out which elements of science they are against and which not. This would be reflected in the nanotech survey as the blog suggests.
Belief in creationism does seem to be much more prevalent in the US than in Europe. Perhaps, therefore, it is not religiousity per se that is the issue, but more fundamentalist religiousity. This would show through in the statistics as a general correlation but not such a strong one - since there appears to be no explicit filter or representation in the survey for the 'fundamenalism' of religiousity.
All this being said, I agree with Moonspider that this is likely to be more complex than a simple correlation of religion against science (even 'fundamentalist' religion) but I do believe that if we correlate belief in creationism with acceptance of science (and particular developments in science) we would see a much stronger negative correlation.
*I make a point of attending Creationist meetings in my area, in order to see what is being said and, hopefully, correct or refute incorrect statements about science. I will be attending my third such meeting on 31st of this month at Liverpool University where the creationist speaker Ken Ham is giving a presentation.
You have always people who are against new methods in science. As long as this new technology will not be abused for bad reasons. I don't see why i should be against it. If we can use this technology to cure difficult sicknesses or when normal surgery can't help, i vote that this technology should be used as soon as possible.
Let me give an example: euh... damn i can't find one!!
I think that many of you agree with me that this technology has great potential especially in the medical science.
Let me give an example: euh... damn i can't find one!!
I think that many of you agree with me that this technology has great potential especially in the medical science.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
All this being said, I agree with Moonspider that this is likely to be more complex than a simple correlation of religion against science (even 'fundamentalist' religion) but I do believe that if we correlate belief in creationism with acceptance of science (and particular developments in science) we would see a much stronger negative correlation. |
So 46% or so of British people are "fundamentalist creationists"................ are you being serious ?
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
*I make a point of attending Creationist meetings in my area, in order to see what is being said and, hopefully, correct or refute incorrect statements about science. I will be attending my third such meeting on 31st of this month at Liverpool University where the creationist speaker Ken Ham is giving a presentation. |
You're going to go and see that guy? That guy is even criticized within the Christian community.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
You're going to go and see that guy? That guy is even criticized within the Christian community. |
As somebody who thinks he is a dishonest charlatan I have two choices - ignore or engage. I choose to engage. That means taking time out to attend meetings and, hopefully, put the arguments against the nonsense being peddled. Creationists often rely on the silence of the scientific community. Many scientists refuse to engage with them at all, largely because their contributions are often twisted and used out of context. Richard Dawkins, for example, ceased debating creationists some while ago. I understand his reasons and I sympathise with his decision but I choose to engage them and attempt to put the scientific case (not that I am comparing myself to RD).
| Tumbleweed wrote: | ||
So 46% or so of British people are "fundamentalist creationists"................ are you being serious ? |
PS - esimates of the number of creationists in the UK vary. There is strong evidence that the rise in the Muslim population has increased the total markedly - many Muslims do not accept evolution. Prof Michael Reiss puts the numbers at around 10%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
|
I saw you as saying that a correlation with "creationist religion" was more likely than just "religion" to give a better answer to why people thought of this as immoral, obviously not quite clear enough for me.......but It does give you the oppertunity for more sarcasm.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I saw you as saying that a correlation with "creationist religion" was more likely than just "religion" to give a better answer to why people thought of this as immoral, obviously not quite clear enough for me.......but It does give you the oppertunity for more sarcasm. |
Sarcasm - saying the opposite of what was intended, particularly to mock.
Where did I use sarcasm?
Yes - I do think there will be a stronger correlation with creationism than with religion per se. That does not mean that it will be 1 to 1 - there are clearly people who are suspicious of science on grounds other than religion. I predict, however, that most creationists are suspicious of science, and that many would show up in this survey as thinking nanotech was immoral.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Sarcasm - saying the opposite of what was intended, particularly to mock. Where did I use sarcasm? |
Sorry ,I ment pedantic....
What were you saying then ? , If I have the wrong end of the stick and my above reply is still wrong do you think you could come down to laymens terms so I can understand you, please Sir
Omg.... stop editing your posts Bikerman
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
Yes - I do think there will be a stronger correlation with creationism than with religion per se. That does not mean that it will be 1 to 1 - there are clearly people who are suspicious of science on grounds other than religion. I predict, however, that most creationists are suspicious of science, and that many would show up in this survey as thinking nanotech was immoral. |
Most people are suspicious of science, especially new and unknown ,but I think its more a matter of what science has done in the past rather than anything any religion says, but as I said in my first post any religious convictions would strenghten any negative attitude toward science.
Last edited by Tumbleweed on Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:53 am; edited 1 time in total
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Sorry ,I ment pedantic.... |
| Quote: |
| What were you saying then ? , If I have the wrong end of the stick and my above reply is still wrong do you think you could come down to laymens terms so I can understand you, please Sir
Omg.... stop editing your posts Bikerman |
Sorry - an afterthough. I trust it explains my position on this though..
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Most people are suspicious of science, especially new and unknown ,but I think its more a matter of what science has done in the past rather than anything any religion says, but as I said in my first post any religious convictions would strenghten any negative attitude toward science. |
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
Sorry - an afterthough. I trust it explains my position on this though.. |
Yes , that if any creationists were asked if an unknown potentially planet destroying science is immoral, there answer would show up in this survey as part of the "its immoral" side, but whos answer wouldnt ?, of course they were not asked that but anyone could read such an ambiguous question as such when the general public perception of nanotechnology is its a technology with such great potential...But really is'nt this is an issuse with public perception of nanotechnology before its a religious issue ?.......I sort of fail to see why religion would play a major role in the results and would probably be responsible for a figure more akin with that in your link 1 in 10 (4.6% of the British 46%)
so would I be wrong in saying 41 or so percent answered for none religious reasons ?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Yes , that if any creationists were asked if an unknown potentially planet destroying science is immoral, there answer would show up in this survey as part of the "its immoral" side, but whos answer wouldnt ?, of course they were not asked that but anyone could read such an ambiguous question as such when the general public perception of nanotechnology is its a technology with such great potential...But really is'nt this is an issuse with public perception of nanotechnology before its a religious issue ?.......I sort of fail to see why religion would play a major role in the results and would probably be responsible for a figure more akin with that in your link 1 in 10 (4.6% of the British 46%)so would I be wrong in saying 41 or so percent answered for none religious reasons ? |
If you are saying that religion does not play a major role, then I'm perfectly willing to hear how you explain the differences in poll numbers between the US and Europe.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
If you are saying that religion does not play a major role, then I'm perfectly willing to hear how you explain the differences in poll numbers between the US and Europe. |
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
|
I dont see it........... thats probably exactly what the detractors of nano tech are saying
As nanotechnology is ...well..... what is it ? its stronger lighter plastics to self replicating machines capable of turning the world to Goo, as its uses could be so varied I dont think its wrong to say this is simply a position of public trust in science or in this case unknown nanotechnology, rather than place this mistrust in science at the feet of religion or idiocy, popular culture or the scientific community itself are for me more likley to be the seed of this mistrust, which I would agree would be greatly substantiated by any religious connotations but not limited to them. Popular culture of course has its excuses it can breed mistrust in the form of entertainment, films books ect , and the scientific community has an even more ( in my opinion ) valid excuse for creating mistrust which is keeping secrets, we would'nt want someone who had invented a Earth Gooing nano bot to blurt it out to the whole world in full fact ,so anyone could built it now would we, that would be immoral, so we seem to be left at a catch 22 , science cant blurt out its secrets for moral issues which helps to substantiate the mistrust popular culture breeds through entertainment , I see this question as to ambiguous to gain anything but an ambiguous answer, if the question had indeed been about research into nanotechnology maybe the answer would have been different but given nanotechnology is such a broad field what was the question really about ? . |
My thoughts on that are here...if you could be bothered to read my words
But I agree , I have far to little information on the sample selection, but prof who ever said they were informed about the benefits of nano tech, but were the potential harms left to the imagination ?
who informed them ? about what aspects of nano tech ? does the addition of that information change the question ?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| My thoughts on that are here...if you could be bothered to read my words
But I agree , I have far to little information on the sample selection, but prof who ever said they were informed about the benefits of nano tech, but were the potential harms left to the imagination ? who informed them ? about what aspects of nano tech ? does the addition of that information change the question ? |
I read your words the first time around- I just cannot see how they address the question at all. Let me repeat it;
How do you account for the difference between the US and Europe? Are you saying that US popular culture is so different from European culture that this accounts for the difference?
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I read your words the first time around- I just cannot see how they address the question at all. Let me repeat it; How do you account for the difference between the US and Europe? Are you saying that US popular culture is so different from European culture that this accounts for the difference? |
Yes more so than religion, in fact I Have said it more than once in more than one post, please tell me how you fail to see it addressing the issue If You would be so kind
In fact tell me what the issue is, and how scheifer (ok thats probably not his name) came to the conclusion religion played any part in the answers other than conjecture against the old enemy
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Yes more so than religion, in fact I Have said it more than once in more than one post, please tell me how you fail to see it addressing the issue If You would be so kind |
| Quote: |
|
In fact tell me what the issue is, and how scheifer (ok thats probably not his name) came to the conclusion religion played any part in the answers other than conjecture against the old enemy |
firstly you say
| Quote: |
| I dont think its wrong to say this is simply a position of public trust in science or in this case unknown nanotechnology |
Then you say
| Quote: |
| Popular culture of course has its excuses it can breed mistrust in the form of entertainment, films books ect |
Assuming the large difference in the results of the survey is simply a result of differences in popular culture seems to me to be extremely unlikely, and to raise as many questions as it answers.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:50 pm; edited 2 times in total
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
In fact tell me what the issue is, and how scheifer (ok thats probably not his name) came to the conclusion religion played any part in the answers other than conjecture against the old enemy |
firstly you say
| Quote: |
| I dont think its wrong to say this is simply a position of public trust in science or in this case unknown nanotechnology |
Then you say
| Quote: |
| Popular culture of course has its excuses it can breed mistrust in the form of entertainment, films books ect |
Assuming the large difference in the results of the survey is simply a result of differences in popular culture seems to me to be extremely unlikely, and to raise as many questions as it answers.[/quote]
Tumbleweed wrote:
As nanotechnology is ...well..... what is it ? its stronger lighter plastics to self replicating machines capable of turning the world to Goo, as its uses could be so varied I dont think its wrong to say this is simply a position of public trust in science or in this case unknown nanotechnology, rather than place this mistrust in science at the feet of religion or idiocy, popular culture or the scientific community itself are for me more likley to be the seed of this mistrust, which I would agree would be greatly substantiated by any religious connotations but not limited to them
I also wrote................
Popular culture of course has its excuses it can breed mistrust in the form of entertainment, films books ect , and the scientific community has an even more ( in my opinion ) valid excuse for creating mistrust which is keeping secrets, we would'nt want someone who had invented a Earth Gooing nano bot to blurt it out to the whole world in full fact ,so anyone could built it now would we, that would be immoral, so we seem to be left at a catch 22 , science cant blurt out its secrets for moral issues which helps to substantiate the mistrust popular culture breeds through entertainment.
And then.........
I see this question as to ambiguous to gain anything but an ambiguous answer, if the question had indeed been about research into nanotechnology maybe the answer would have been different but given nanotechnology is such a broad field what was the question really about ? .
If I am not making my point how I feel on the issue or you do disagree please make a point that deserves an answer
or even answer my direct questions if you feel you need to take a stance against what I am saying.| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| As nanotechnology is ...well..... what is it ? its stronger lighter plastics to self replicating machines capable of turning the world to Goo, as its uses could be so varied I dont think its wrong to say this is simply a position of public trust in science or in this case unknown nanotechnology, rather than place this mistrust in science at the feet of religion or idiocy, popular culture or the scientific community itself are for me more likley to be the seed of this mistrust, which I would agree would be greatly substantiated by any religious connotations but not limited to them |
| Quote: |
|
I also wrote................ Popular culture of course has its excuses it can breed mistrust in the form of entertainment, films books ect , and the scientific community has an even more ( in my opinion ) valid excuse for creating mistrust which is keeping secrets, we would'nt want someone who had invented a Earth Gooing nano bot to blurt it out to the whole world in full fact ,so anyone could built it now would we, that would be immoral, so we seem to be left at a catch 22 , science cant blurt out its secrets for moral issues which helps to substantiate the mistrust popular culture breeds through entertainment. |
| Quote: |
| I see this question as to ambiguous to gain anything but an ambiguous answer, if the question had indeed been about research into nanotechnology maybe the answer would have been different but given nanotechnology is such a broad field what was the question really about ? .
|
| Moonspider wrote: | ||
I agree that there must be a reason for the difference. Religion is a viable hypothesis, but I am reluctant to embrace that reason. However I’ll concede that it may play a role. The reasons may be more complex though and involve more than simply one cultural marker. |
i'm... confused.
Scheufele gave you the answer. From his own lips. He explains - explicitly and with supporting documentation - what the real "cultural marker" is. Do you just not agree with it? i can't even guess, because you seem to have missed it completely - or at least, you don't mention it at all.
Observe:
| Moonspider wrote: |
| At the same time, I’m reluctant to blame it on religion, admittedly for a personal reason. As a Christian who loves science, I hate seeing Christianity portrayed as nothing more than a bunch of ignorant morons holding back society’s advancement. After all, the United States as a whole was a lot more religious in the 19th and 20th Centuries than it is now, and during those days the U.S. led the world in significant technological advancements. |
Comparing the cultural behaviours of a hundred years ago, or two hundred years ago, with today is a fallacy. For starters, yes the US was "more religious" back in the 19th century (and early 20th) than it was today, but it was religious in a different way. It is not enough information to simply say (random numbers for example) 95% of Americans were religious in 1808 where as 70% of Americans are religious in 2008, and then conclude Americans were "more religious" two hundred years ago. The key metric - the one that Dr. Scheufele specifically mentions, by the way - is the quality of that religious belief. If, of those 95%, only 10% are strongly religious, but of the 70%, 50% or more are strongly religious... which population is "more religious" then?
As you see, the answer depends on precisely what metric you use to measure religiosity. i (mistakenly) assumed that Scheufele was using a simply head count of who said they were religious. i was wrong, and Scheufele's blog entry explains why. (In fact, Scheufele's blog entry seems to be answering to a general misunderstanding that i was only a single case of.) Scheufele correlated strong religiosity to distrust of nanotech - not simply religiosity, strong religiosity.
And using that metric and a little bit of checking up on my own, i can see where his position comes from, and how nicely the data supports it.
| Moonspider wrote: | ||
But regarding what Professor Scheufele said, I find this anecdotal comment off target:
Christians only disagree with embryonic stem cell research, not adult stem cell research. They believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral for the exact same reason they believe abortion is immoral, it’s killing a human being. Christians as a whole are strong advocates of adult stem cell research. Therefore “Playing God” doesn’t come into play. I personally find the use of such a phrase insulting as it is very antiquated and serves only to portray Christians as, once again, backward thinking morons. But my personal feelings aside, one still cannot completely rule out Scheufele’s hypothesis. |
i'm not sure where you get your numbers from when you make claims like "Christians as a whole are strong advocates of adult stem cell research". It certainly doesn't jive with the Vatican's latest press release, detailing "genetic engineering" as one of the "new seven deadly sins". Oh i know most Christian groups have made statements that they condemn embryonic stem cell research, but adult stem cell research is ok... but it's a long road from "we don't condemn that" to "we strongly advocate that".
But anyway, you're chasing straw men and red herrings. Scheufele's hypothesis has nothing to do with "Christians as a whole", and he explicitly says so.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I did find more detailed information on the survey though, but not the survey itself.
The survey posed the question, “For each of the following issues regarding nanotechnology, please tell me if you agree or disagree with it.” 1. Nanotechnology is morally acceptable. 2. Nanotechnology is useful for society. 3. Nanotechnology is riskful for society. 4. Nanotechnology should be encouraged. |
For me, the only interesting revelation from the blog and the linked material was how nanotech was defined:*
| 64.3 Eurobarometer survey wrote: |
| Nanotechnology: involves the construction of tiny structures and devices by manipulating individual molecules and atoms. Some applications of nanotechnology include: turning sea water into drinking water, implantable surgical devices to measure things like blood pressure, molecules to make wrinkle resistant clothes, and cosmetics that are absorbed by the skin. |
This definition is from the European survey, not the one that Scheufele did, but Scheufele states that he tried to "parallel" the wording, so i'll assume he did just that.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Notice that it did not ask, “Is nanotechnology morally unacceptable?” They asked people to agree with the statement, “Nanotechnology is morally acceptable,” a very broad and even ambiguous statement to agree to. Could one not imagine that "Nanotechnology" might include both "moral" and "immoral" applications? The U.S. is a litigious culture, maybe Americans are just hesitant to agree to something so non-specific. |
i... don't really see what any of your point is? However you try to spin it, Europeans are way more enthusiastic about nanotech than Americans. What caused that? Specificity? Why would the Americans find it so much more vague than Europeans? It just doesn't add up. (Even more damning, it's no big secret - having been shown in dozens of other surveys - that the opposite of what you claim is true... Americans are far more likely to see in black or white than Europeans. Which would mean that the Europeans would have been the ones hung up on this ambiguity you claim exists... not the Americans. But that's obviously not what happened.)
But again, Scheufele gives the answer in his blog... and it's not perceived ambiguity or tendency to sue.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| From what I read (and as I said, unfortunately I could not find the survey itself, just comments by others and even Dietram A. Scheufele’s blog) the 29.5% figure is only those who answered a +2. Overall the United States is positive on thinking nanotech is moral, but obviously not to the degree Europe is. However the article did not mention that the majority of Americans surveyed found nanotechnology morally acceptable. If less than 50% of Americans disagreed with the survey, the bar in the graph below would be below the line, not above. However the article implies that 70% of Americans believe it is immoral! |
Er, no. Neither the article nor anything discussed here makes that implications. The article is incomplete, but clear about what it does state - it says only how many of each nationality said yes to "morally acceptable". It doesn't "imply" that everyone else said no. Why would you even think that? (The evil part of me wants to point out the black-or-white thing i mentioned above, but....) My own intro post dispels that possibly implication in the second sentence.
Yes, the article does imply that the 30% was "yes" and not just "strongly yes", but does that change anything? No, not really.
You are hung up on comparing Americans to Americans. You are concerned that the 30% means that most Americans are backwards... implicitly comparing them to other Americans (because that's where the 30% came from)... and you are determinedly trying to point out things that undermine that possibility (for example that the 30% means "strongly yes", not "yes", and in general, "yes" was above 50%). i am not making an argument to that effect, and as near as i can tell, no one else here is - in fact, Bikerman has repeatedly tried to hammer the point home that that is not what we are talking about. The question being asked here is not why so few Americans think nanotech is morally acceptable. The question being asked here is why so few Americans think nanotech is morally acceptable compared to the Europeans.
i don't care if it turns out in the end the same percentage of Americans and Europeans voted "yes" (for example, if 30% of Americans and 60% of Europeans voted "strongly yes" and 40% of Americans and 10% of Europeans voted "sorta yes", giving both 70% for "yes" total). What i care about is why there is such a difference in the results between the US and Europe. Even if it is only "strongly yes" and not just "yes", the fact remains that - except for the UK - more than 2:1 felt "strongly yes" in each case between the US and Europe (and the UK was pretty close to 2:1). The question being asked here - the same question Scheufele brings up (and discusses in his blog) is why does that happen.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Furthermore, according to the survey Americans believe nanotechnology is useful for society and should be encouraged. They also believe nanotechnology is risky, but ironically to a lesser degree than the French and Germans. I think this implies either a lesser understanding of nanotech and its risks, or more optimism for our ability to control those risks. |
i understand that you are trying to use this evidence to make your argument of defending Americans of being ignorant and backward - which (as i explain above) is misguided because we don't have the information necessary to condemn them as ignorant and backward. For all we know 30% answered "yes, it's morally acceptable", 0% answered "no, it's unacceptable" and 70% answered "who cares?/don't know". Without the raw data, any debate on that topic is a waste of time.
You're making arguments that no one can comment on because we simply don't have any relevant data. We can't talk about the relationship between the "acceptable" and "risky" answers for any given country because we don't have that data. How many said yes/no/maybe, what is the relationship between yes on one metric and yes on the other... we don't know! The only things we can talk about are those things we have data for. i suppose we could talk about the fact that France finds nanotech riskier than the US... but we can't relate that to how they each stand on the morality of it until we know the relationship between a vote on riskiness to morality. And no, it's not obvious. Performing first aid on a badly injured and bleeding man at an accident is very risky (what if he has AIDS? what if some other part of the building comes down while you're helping/another car crashes into the existing wreck?), but it's clearly moral - meanwhile there is very little risk of killing a child in a situation were there are no witnesses, no chance of leaving evidence and you have an alibi elsewhere, but it's clearly immoral.
The only information we have is that Europeans are way more morally tolerant of nanotech (and even the new information about the "yes"/"strongly yes" thing does not change that). And that is the only question that we have been discussing, so far. (Although, there are certainly other relevant topics - some of which are listed in the first post.) i don't care if Americans are mostly in favour of it or not... i care only that they are far less in favour of it than Europeans, and i want to know why.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| So the survey shows that Americans strongly believe that nanotech is useful and should be encouraged. However the article implies that public support for nanotech in the United States is in jeopardy. Why? |
Again, the article makes no such implication. You are putting that there yourself. All the article says is that religion influences the acceptance of nanotech. Nothing more, nothing less. The only concern about the public that is raised is how to nanotech should be explained to clear the misunderstanding up. The issue of support is never even obliquely mentioned. Read it again and see for yourself.
As for my first post here, i don't mention support either! My concern is what the cause of negative perceptions might be. In fact, i don't even ask why Americans are more concerned than Europeans - i ask why anyone might be call it immoral. The only reason i care about the obvious disparity between America and Europe is that i thought it might highlight where the objection comes from. (And it did, but i was looking in the wrong place. Scheufele's blog set me right.)
| Moonspider wrote: |
| As mentioned earlier, the UK scored a 54.1% while France scored a 72.1%. However according to Scheufele’s blog, France and Britain both scored below a 5 on a religiosity scale (U.S. respondents average between 8 and 9). If France and Britain are so close on a religiosity index, why the 18% difference in their opinion on nanotech's morality if that is, according to Scheufele’s hypothesis, the primary reason for the low score in the U.S.?
That seems to indicate there is more to it than just religion. |
Er... no. ^_^;
Ok, first... let's deal with the really bad math and wishful thinking. In your words: "... according to Scheufele’s blog, France and Britain both scored below a 5 on a religiosity scale (U.S. respondents average between 8 and 9). If France and Britain are so close on a religiosity index...". i'll stop you there and ask... say what? All Scheufele said was France and Britian scored "below a 5". France could have got 0.1 and Britain could have got 4.4. On a ten point scale. So... where did this "so close" thing come from?
Second, you are misstating Scheufele's hypothesis. Granted i made the same mistake from the original article, but i think i can be forgiven that because the article is vague about the details. But you read his blog entry, where it explicitly states what his hypothesis is. In fact, it starts in the paragraph right below the one you got that data from. ^_^; He says (i will compact it, but you can follow, starting from "And these differences are at least consistent..."): "Ok, sure, America is obviously more religious than Europe, but just comparing the general overall numbers gives you hints but proves nothing. But we can use the hints to look for more info. And I (Scheufele) am working on that right now. What we've got so far is that we know that religion influences people's views of science. But it's not just a simple matter of 'if you're religious, you don't trust science'. It's a case of 'if you're slightly religious, it does not affect your trust of science, but if you're highly religious, it does'."
Look, let me give you Scheufele's own words: "And again, this is not just about a simple correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward science, which is important in its own right. But in this case, we're talking about a link between benefit perceptions and attitudes that varies depending on respondents' levels of religiosity." (Emphasis mine.)
Do you see it now?
Now, working on the assumption that that's clear, let's turn to what raw data we have. As you mentioned, both the UK and France scored "below a 5" on the religiosity scale. The actual numbers are 4.40 (France), 4.92 (UK) 8.47 (US) (scale of 10 on how religious the "average person" is). But remember, according to Scheufele, what we should be comparing is the number of people who are very religious, not just averages of all religious people. The numbers of very religious people are: 8.3% (France) 13.9% (UK) 58.2% (US). Those are just the extremes, the "10s" on the scale of 10. The rough relationship is the same for the 9s, and things stabilize in the 8's and 7s.
There it is. There, finally, is a hypothesis that makes sense. It's not religion that makes people reluctant to consider nanotech immoral, but being very religious. The more religious you are, the more likely you are to be opposed to nanotech. That is Scheufele's argument, and it makes sense to me.
What it tells me is that there really is nothing in nanotech that people find immoral. The religion causes the perception, but only when it is strong enough to overcome perception of the obvious benefits of nanotech.
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||
As was oft said in the film “The Right Stuff” about jets and rockets, “You know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up.” That is the reason I find it disconcerting. Research depends upon funding. And if public opinion is that negative regarding nanotechnology, then one may assume that such an attitude could also negatively impact funding. That’s a situation which I do not wish to see in the United States. |
As i've already mentioned, i'm not the least bit concerned about the public perception of nanotech. It won't really affect funding. Why? Because the people that really control the funding aren't so stupid as to be blinded by spurious religious beliefs. If the opposition gets to be so loud and the pressure so intense that the will of the uneducated masses becomes policy by means of political pressure... well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the short term at least, even if people do say "immoral", they do so from a position of such extreme ignorance that it won't survive public debate. The first group that steps up to try and prevent funding to nanotech will be taken to task for why, and i seriously doubt they will stand up to the challenge.
Scheufele is looking ahead in that respect, looking to undermine the crazies before they bother to mobilize a coherent opposition. He is trying to discover not only what the attitudes are, but why they are, and how we can present the technology in a way that prevents the crazies from objecting. i can't say for sure that such an effort is necessary, but it might be, and even if not, i certainly don't object to it.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| That being said, the Bush administration made nanotechnology research and development a significant, national priority. So even if an unseen religious movement or mere current against nanotech research exists, it isn’t affecting national policy decisions made by a conservative and professed Christian president. |
And again....
Scheufele said clearly that strong religious conviction is the key, not just religious conviction. If any group moves to prevent nanotechnological research, they will have to stand against both the non-religious and the so-so-religious. It will be a hell of a fight.
The Bush administration is not completely stupid. They can surely see that doing anything to prevent nanotechnology research would polarize the hell out of the country, and very likely hand the opposition the government on a platter. They're already being taken to task for opposing embryonic stem cell research and genetic engineering. What's the logical thing to do? Well, dur, throw your support behind a technology that - even though it's controversial - is not strongly opposed (yet) by your core constituency: thus throwing a bone to the other guys, "hey, we're not 'anti-science', we're just 'anti-embryonic research'... see? this nanotechnology is also controversial, but we support it! so a vote for us is not a vote against science!".
Honestly, political groups in general are pretty plainly obvious, but the Bush administration is downright transparent.
| Bikerman wrote: |