Here's another article which is worth reading to get a better idea of the sorts of reasons people have for worrying about nanotechnology and transhumanism. This particular article from a Christian magazine:<br><br><a href="http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11580">
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11580</a><br><br>Relevant quote:<br><br><p> In 2001, the National Science Foundation and other government
agencies convened a meeting of nano-prophets to divine the ways
nanotechnology could improve the human body and mind in the next 10 to
20 years. The meeting headlined representatives from the government,
private sector, and academia, including Mihail Roco, a senior
government adviser on nanotechnology, and Phillip Bond, undersecretary
of commerce for technology.
</p>
<p> After the meeting, the NSF published a 467-page document,
"Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance." <span style="font-weight: bold;">It has been
called both the scariest and the silliest government report ever
printed.</span>
</p>
<p> Its authors predicted that in the next 10 to 20 years,
nanotechnology would allow a broadband connection between the human
brain and machines. It would enable new sports, art forms, and means of
communication; allow the human body to resist stress, sleep
deprivation, disease, and aging; and find ways to exploit the resources
of the moon, Mars, or approaching asteroids. In short, nanotechnology
will solve all the world's problems.
</p>
<p> "The 21st century could end in world peace, universal prosperity,
and evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment," Mr.
Roco and another science adviser claimed in the report's introduction.
"It may be that humanity would become like a single, distributed and
interconnected 'brain.'"
</p>
<p style="font-weight: bold;"> The European Commission and the German Parliament criticized the
U.S. report (called among nano-techies the Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno, or NBIC
report) for being overly futuristic without considering societal and
moral issues. In its own report, the German Parliament noted its bias
toward a pseudo-scientific movement called transhumanism.
Transhumanists believe science, including nanotechnology, will help
humans transcend their mental and physical limitations, including pain
and death.
</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> "These ideas have bled into mainstream science technical thinking,"
says Nigel Cameron, director of the Center on Nanotechnology at the
Chicago-Kent College of Law. Mr. Cameron works to bring together
transhumanism's critics to voice their concerns.</span> He cites the work of
Kevin Warwick as one reason to take transhumanism seriously.
</p>
<p> Mr. Warwick, a professor at the University of Reading in England,
claims to have connected his central nervous system to a computer
during a 2002 experiment. Doctors implanted a tiny electrical sensing
device in a nerve in Mr. Warwick's left arm. The sensor sent and
received signals between his central nervous system and a computer.
According to Mr. Warwick's university website, the implant allowed him
to control a mechanical hand with his own thoughts and movements. He
also sent neural signals to a simpler implant in his wife, who felt
sensation in her arm as a result.
</p>
<p> Mr. Warwick explained his worldview in a 2000 column in Wired: "I
was born human. But this was an accident of fate—a condition merely of
time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change."
</p>
<p> Mr. Cameron points to Mr. Warwick's experiment as evidence the
human-computer connection envisioned in the NBIC report could happen.
But will it? <br></p><p>...</p><br><p> David Guston, director of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society
at Arizona State University, wants to help nanotechnology avoid a mess
like the stem-cell debacle. At the AAAS meeting, he explained the
center's plans to scour scientific journals and interview researchers
about current and upcoming developments in nanotechnology. Center staff
members would share the information with citizen groups and give their
feedback to the scientists. </p>
<p> That could be an important time for those concerned with the
ethical and real-life implications of nanotechnology to step forward.
"There is so little interest in having this conversation in the
churches. Basically people are pro-life, but they think, 'technology is
wonderful and what's for dinner?'" said Mr. Cameron.
</p>
<p> The "Real-Time Technology Assessment" project aims to help
scientists incorporate the public's values in their decisions. At the
least, it will help the public see what is coming before, as Mr. Guston
put it, "out from the lab pops a technology that's relatively cleanly
black-boxed and, oh, society has to deal with it."
</p><br><p><br></p><br>