Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing

"Nanotechnology is a branch of science that deals with particles 1-100 nanometers in size. Experts believe possible dangers of nanotechnology lie in how these tiny particles might interact with the environment, and more importantly, with the human body. Billions of dollars are being spent to incorporate nanoparticles into products that are already being marketed to the public; when this investment is compared to the the comparatively scant research into nanotech health issues, some scientists become concerned."

                                           Web wiseGEEK. 30 december 2012. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-possible-dangers-of-nanotechnology.htm>.

Please read the articles:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-possible-dangers-of-nanotechnology.htm

 http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm

Please watch the video:

"If potential benefits of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) sound too good to be true, there is one caveat — the potential dangers of molecular nanotechnology. When nanofactories can arrange atoms into structures — playing with the building blocks of life itself, or in this case nanoblocks -- theoretically anything allowable by the laws of physics can be created fast and cheap. Requirements include a few square feet for the nanofactory, the software, and an electrical outlet. 

Criminals, terrorists, disturbed individuals, governments, and antisocial groups of all stripes would be incredibly empowered by such technology. Additional potential dangers of molecular nanotechnology threaten the economy, environment, human rights, and world peace. The rush to gain supremacy through nanoweaponry could lead to a new arms race, while attempts to stranglehold the technology would likely result in independent, covert development. Unilateral, "open-source" international cooperation is another option that runs its own risks, and control in the public sector could lead to inequitable benefits and an Orwellian society. The probability factor of certain potential dangers of molecular nanotechnology will be higher than others, but all are possible within a scope of circumstances that, without prevention through forethought and planning, could feasibly come to pass. Some dangers cannot be discounted even with said planning, while others can reasonably be assumed to be goals of recognized subversive elements."

30 december 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJXRjEPEhL0>.

Would this be plausible?

Is there already an actual nanobot in practical use? or at least a robot that is as small as a pebble?

We can not just live the way we live now? Is not that good enough?

What are the Possible Dangers of Nanotechnology?  

Your opinion? 

Happy New Year:)

Week 5

Read an article of your  interest at http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications
 and present/discuss it on the blog.

Rhyme and reason

"The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way, (...) The two are incompatible."

Do you agree with these statements?

If you are not sure, take a look at this article:
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228441.000-rhyme-and-reason-the-victorian-poet-scientists.html?full=true

Do you think it is possible to use art in order to make science more popular and comprehensible? Are scientists capable of creating such art, or is it more like a private joke, which can be understood only by a small group of people?

You can also get familar with some modern attempts, like the ones available here:
http://sciencepoems.net/

"There once was a man who loved math, who thought he was Sylvia Plath…" ;)

What's invisible?

They say, that life's a cup - but every time when I look closely at - I can see, that it's a more complicated structure. I'm not a huge fan of physics, but our reality is so amazing! We can see stars and planets but we cant see what holds them apart. We can see each other faces, but it's really hard to see our thoughts.

This week I suggest you watch an interesting&mind blowing animation, which shows that we know nothing! Sit down and imagine how much we can not imagine :).

So what's invisible? More than you think
by John Lloyd



Questions:

1. Do you have any idea how consciousness works?

2. Do you think that we have free will, or rather operate in a deterministic way?

3. Do you think that the biggest technological revolution is already behind us?

4. The fact that so many things we do not know more scares or inspires you?





So why are we here? and what are we going to do about it? :)

Spoiler: "We are here on Earth to help others. What the others are here for, I've NO idea" ;].

Money doesn’t buy happiness. Or does it?

This phrase is probably well-known to all of you and when you think about it, is seems just about right. But what if you consider this in the context of giving money to others to make yourself feel good? It will soon be Christmas and this subject seems quite relevant especially at this time of year. 

The argument is that money can buy you happiness. The question is what you spend it on. The experiment that Michael Norton talks about in the TED talk for example, has proven that spending money on other people makes you happier in the long run than spending it on yourself. The amount does not matter – it’s the gesture that counts. It has also been observed that people who give money to charity are happier with their lives in general than those who do not. Have you ever thought about the correlation between these two things?

Here's the video:

Of course, giving and helping others, especially those in need is good – but is it fully altruistic? Sandro Contenta suggests that we are evolutionarily tuned to doing things that benefit others because it makes us feel good about ourselves and opens the possibility that people might return the favour in the future. Also, it helps us live up to the positive view of ourselves – in our eyes, and in the eyes of others:

http://www.thestar.com/living/christmas/article/742534--selfish-giving-charity-s-dark-side

So is charity selfish? From personal experience, I recently had an initiative at my company to participate in the “Szlachetna paczka” project. We gathered items of need for a chosen family and packed them in carton boxes for them to be delivered to a warehouse of the institution that organizes the campaign and then be delivered to the family by their own volunteers. “What a pity” I thought, “that we can’t see the reaction of the family when they get the package”. Now that I think about it, I caught myself thinking the same thing that Tim Harford’s talks about in his article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_undercover_economist/2006/10/charity_is_selfish.single.html

– that it’s more important that the family gets the items it needs than that I make myself feel good by delivering it personally. 

It’s interesting to consider the thought that: “If people really were altruistic, there would be much less volunteering”. If people who volunteer would spend that time on doing overtime instead for example, to earn more and give that money to organizations specializing in charity, they would have a bigger impact than they have volunteering themselves. But volunteering yourself makes you feel good. It’s interesting that in fact, “the closer you look at charitable giving, the less charitable it appears to be”.

Discuss the ideas presented in the articles and the TED talk. Write about your own experiences.

Doing Scientific Experiments

Read and watch the presentation Death Game http://uwb2m-s.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-game.html
and comment on it here.
Do such experiments reveal people's true nature? Should scientists be allowed to do such research?

Why You Can’t Vote Online

For this week, I've chosen the topic of voting over the Internet in elections.
Please read the two articles below and discuss the questions.

Fundamental security problems aren’t solved, computing experts warn.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506741/why-you-cant-vote-online/

Estonian Elections 2011
Link


Questions:

1. Would you like to be able to vote online in elections? Please explain why or why not.

2. Do you think voter turnout would increase if online voting was possible? Is more people voting something worth pursuing? How do you feel about mandatory voting with sanctions when you fail to vote?

3. Is online voting adding unnecessary complexity or can it simplify the process of voting and counting votes?

4. Does the Estonian example convince you that securing electronic voting in general elections is possible?

5. What other areas of e-Government would you like to see being improved in Poland?