Talkin' 'bout a (nanotechnological) revolution
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
IEEE Technology and Society 27 (2):37-43 (2008)
It is often claimed that the development of nanotechnology will constitute a “technological revolution” with profound social, economic, and political consequences. The full implications of this claim can best be understood by imagining a scenario in which a political revolutionary made all the same claims that are commonly made by enthusiasts for nanotechnology. I argue that most people would be outraged to learn that the members of an unelected group were planning to radically reshape society in this fashion. I survey a number of arguments that might be used to block this analogy and argue that none of them justify drawing a sharp distinction between social change due to technology and change due to other political causes. Two things follow for discussions of the social impacts of nanotechnology. First, we need to reconsider the appropriateness of the language of technological revolution when talking about nanotechnology. The likely impacts of nanotechnology may be less dramatic than is often claimed. Second, if we do decide that the language of revolution is the appropriate one to use when talking about nanotechnology then we should acknowledge that any such revolution should be delayed until the public has had a chance to make a democratic decision about whether they wish their lives to be transformed in this way.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Chris Groves, Lori Frater, Robert Lee & Elen Stokes (2011). Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 101 (4):525-552.
Anna Julie Rasmussen, Mette Ebbesen & Svend Andersen (2012). Nanoethics—A Collaboration Across Disciplines. NanoEthics 6 (3):185-193.
Similar books and articles
Philip Jenkins (2012). How Blue is Blue? : The Metaphysics of the Blues. Talkin' to Myself Again : A Dialogue on the Evolution of the Blues / Joel Rudinow ; Reclaiming the Aura : B.B. King in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction / Ken Ueno ; Twelve-Bar Zombies : Wittgensteinian Reflections on the Blues / Wade Fox and Richard Greene ; The Blues as Cultural Expression. [REVIEW] In Jesse R. Steinberg & Abrol Fairweather (eds.), Blues -- Philosophy for Everyone: Thinking Deep About Feeling Low. Wiley-Blackwell.
Chris W. Surprenant (2005). A Reconciliation of Kant's Views on Revolution. Interpretation 32 (2):151-169.
Angelica Nuzzo (2011). Arbitrariness and Freedom: Hegel on Rousseau and Revolution,” In: Rousseau and Revolution, Ed. R. Lauristen, M. Thorup, London, Continuum, 2011, 64-82.”. [REVIEW] In M. Lauristen (ed.), Rousseau and Revolution. Continuum.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):101-115.
Krystyna Gorniak-Kocikowska (1996). The Computer Revolution and the Problem of Global Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (2):177-190.
Ulrik B. Nissen (2009). Justice in Nanotechnological Development (Symposium Introduction). NanoEthics 3 (2):119-119.
Soraj Hongladarom (2009). Nanotechnology, Development and Buddhist Values. NanoEthics 3 (2):97-107.
Scott MacDonald (2009). What is Philosophical Theology? In Kevin Timpe (ed.), Arguing bout Religion. Routledge.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-10-22
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?