Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Given their "lead", it is absolutely inimical to the interests of the US [[military-industrial complex]] to see open debate of such technologies, or of their [[technology relenquishment|relenquishment]] along lines Joy advises, or a cessation of research in certain fields as Rees has advised. The debate over whether [[nanotechnology]] requires a [[Precautionary Principle]] approach has been marked by strong positions taken by the [[Texas Nanotechnology Initiative]] and [[National Nanotechnology Initiative]] that [[molecular engineering]] does not lead necessarily to [[dangerous technology]] such as [[artificial life]], while the [[ETC Group]] and [[Center for Responsible Nanotechnology]] take the opposite position. The [[Foresight Institute]] has taken a middle position but is often discredited by the cautionary side for its pointing out and then ignoring ethics issues, and for the promoters for pointing them out at all.
What is truly remarkable is that these increasingly public debates which have gone on for years, are successfully kept out of the spolight spotlight reserved for "NBC" threats. This suggests that the [[public relations crisis]] of US complicity in spreading [[dangerous technology]] has, so far, been quite successfully managed.
== Other Related SourceWatch Resources ==
