Even though I like the word appropriate technology , clean
technology , people technology , , intermediate technology Gandhian
and Budist technology of my native place , we can call this finally
all these one as Social technology as this is an method , as
this an philosophy and principles compared to the other as
conventional technology. machine and chemical based technology.
Nano technology is every where in the world of the conventional
technology development groups as for them ,the technology is the end
products not related with the way they are appropriate or not.
We are inovolved some work in using micro capsules to make
alcohol based on the natural polymers .Surely Nano technology can be
social , making the biofuel every where But the group that develope
look the convencional way of the market system for the people who have
more money .Surely Nano technology , like Biotechnology has role to
play for biofuel production too as social technology , but very few
group care for the same. Thus the fear is well fonded.
sd
Pannirselvam P.V
Social technology Person for the Global Green future
Brasil
On 5/5/05, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> I think your fears are well-founded. I like your applying appropriate
> technology principles to nanotech, great! I'd agree appropriate
> technology is a philosophy, though maybe not only a philosophy. We've
> discussed it before here in terms of Buddhist technology, and also
> Gandhi, interesting.
>
> The question, I suppose, is whether one is for or against nanotech,
> but I don't think that makes sense. Technology is neutral, in
> essence, but how it's applied, by whom, for what, and at whose
> expense, is another matter.
>
> This is from a previous message about GMOs:
>
> >GM still is a very promising technology, but not in the hands of the
> >likes of Monsanto, as is very obvious. With their slant on things
> >and their history, we don't need any more Brave New Worlds brought
> >to us by the Monsanto's and Dow's of this world any more than we
> >need a 21st Century sponsored by Big Oil. It's to be hoped that the
> >fully justifiable public outcry against Monsanto's antics with GMOs
> >aren't going to permanently discredit the technology in the public
> >eye and put it out of bounds. I think the same applied to nanotech.
> >
> >This publication by ETC with the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, on the
> >technological challenges of the 21st Century, sets the scene well.
> >It's very good, covers GE, nanotech and more:
> >ETC Century: Erosion, Technological Transformation, and Corporate
> >Concentration in the 21st Century
> >http://etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=159
>
> I enjoyed that book, pdf download or hard copy free for the postage.
>
> How familiar are you with the Precautionary Principle Mike? And the
> debate around it, especially in the US now - precaution vs risk
> assessment, mainly. Very interesting. With this fairly typical of the
> backdrop (from another post): "News: Forty public policy groups have
> this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that
> humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from
> ExxonMobil."
>
> There are good resources on the Precautionary Principle online. And
> on my hard disk too. Maybe I'll do a roundup.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
>
> >"No one denies that nanotech will produce real benefits, but, based on
> >the history of nuclear power, biotechnology and the chemical
> >industry, skeptics are calling for a precautionary approach. The
> >resulting clash of philosophies..."
> >
> >(IMO) There is a hidden message in these words. Every time I see an
> >article on nanotech, I flinch. It's not because I deny it's
> >potential, but because it has been the new buzz word in some
> >circles. I sometimes convince myself that the reason some trade
> >magazines have an infatuation with this, is because they've found a
> >quick way to blow off their responsibilities for the next issue. All
> >they have to do is read how sensational it is in a few other
> >publications, then re-package it. Remember turning on the radio and
> >saying "Oh crap! Not that song again!"? I have no doubt that on come
> >occasions, it has taken real estate from magazines that could have
> >reported on technologies from which people could immediately
> >benefit. Personally, the timing on this couldn't be better for me.
> >After recently discovering the philosophy (I think I'm correct by
> >calling it a philosophy) of appropriate technologies, one could
> >debate where nanotech belongs as a priority and to what extent the
> >possibility exists
> > for it to divert attention away from more economical and readily
> >available solutions to problems in human civilization.
> >
> >Am I venting? Yep.
> >Am I right? Sometimes :-)
> >
> >Maybe I'm overreacting. However, I have no doubt that the problem
> >exists. I just have a hard time figuring out how big t
