RE: nanotech?

Glenn wrote:
>There is a looming issue with carbon nanotubes.  Science News March 19,
>2005 p. 179 reports on the Soc. of Toxicology meeting in New Orleans in
>mid-March on the effects of breathing in carbon nanotubes.  It seems
>that they get into the tiniest airsacs, cause things called granulomas
>to entomb the nanotubes, but that given enough of these the animal dies.
>If the particles get into the blood stream it can cause clots by
>changing the charge carried by the  blood cells surface.Mice also showed
>DNA damage according to the report.  

I've always been wondering about this point because it was
known at least since the early 80s that aromatic hydrocarbons
(benzene, napthaline, etc.) are carcinogenic.

But on theological issues, most of that would potentially be
in the future. Eventually, I would expect it will be possible
to make real nanobots. I'm not clear that we can really
self-assemble a nano-circuit, but in keeping with Moore's
law, technology is being pushed toward EUV (extreme ultraviolet),
and if those efforts are fully successful, they will be able to
eventually push to much smaller line widths than the current
goals. Purification remains a critical issue however: surfaces
are nasty creatures with a "life" of their own.

At any rate, granting this as a reasonable possibility, such
things can surely be used for both good and evil. Delivery
remains a problem, and I guess silicon is not "self replicating"
like carbon, but a lot of mischief can be done all the same.

But while we're on the carbon, eventually, biology will be a
great place for nanotechnology when we can actually engineer
proteins (better called tinkering). An engineer can (in
principle) design an engine, but protein engineers at this
time can't really claim that understand them to this level.
But that will come, and again, we will have ethical issues
that follow. These can self-replicate, and they can also be
used for good and evil purposes.

Judging the behavior of the human race over the course of
_recorded_ history (history in writing), we have not done
well. Our need for God and his Grace to sustain us could
not be more important to the survival of mankind than ever
before. Yet it is now we think we need God less.....

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne

 
Received on Sun Mar 27 19:04:39 2005