Select Page ::

A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence

Posted on May 13, 2016 by Danzig

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Stephanie Haack is director of communications for the Computer Museum in Boston.

The quest for artificial intelligence is as modern as the frontiers of computer science and as old as Antiquity. The concept of a "thinking machine" began as early as 2500 B.C., when the Egyptians looked to talking statues for mystical advice. Sitting in the Cairo Museum is a bust of one of these gods, Re-Harmakis, whose neck reveals the secret of his genius: an opening at the nape just big enough to hold a priest. Even Socrates sought the impartial arbitration of a "thinking machine." In 450 B.C. he told Euthypro, who in the name of piety was about to turn his father in for murder, "I want to know what is characteristic of piety ... that I may have it to turn to, and to use as a standard whereby to judge your actions and those of other men." Automata, the predecessors of today's robots, date back to ancient Egyptian figurines with movable limbs like those found in Tutankhamen's tomb. Much later, in the fifteenth century A.D., drumming bears and dancing figures on clocks were the favorite automata, and game players such as Wolfgang von Kempelen's Maezel Chess Automaton reigned in the eighteenth century. (Kempelen's automaton proved to be a fake; a legless master chess player was hidden inside.) It took the invention of the Analytical Engine by Charles Babbage in 1833 to make artificial intelligence a real possibility. Babbage's associate, Lady Lovelace, realized the profound potential of this analyzing machine and reassured the public that it could do nothing it was not programmed to do. Artificial intelligence (AI) as both a term and a science was coined 120 years later, after the operational digital computer had made its debut. In 1956 Allen Newell, J. C. Shaw and Herbert Simon introduced the first AI program, the Logic Theorist, to find the basic equations of logic as defined in Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. For one of the equations, Theorem 2.85, the Logic Theorist surpassed its inventors' expectations by finding a new and better proof. Suddenly we had a true "thinking machine"-one that knew more than its programmers.

The Dartmouth Conference An eclectic array of academic and corporate scientists viewed the demonstration of the Logic Theorist at what became the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. The attendance list read like a present-day Who's Who in the field: John McCarthy, creator of the popular AI programming language LISP and director of Stanford University's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; Marvin Minsky, leading AI researcher and Donner Professor of Science at M.I.T.; Claude Shannon, Nobel Prize-winning pioneer of information and AI theory, who was with Bell Laboratories. By the end of the two-month conference, artificial intelligence had found its niche. Thinking machines and automata were looked upon as antiquated technologies. Researchers' expectations were grandiose, their predictions fantastic. "Within ten years a digital computer will be the world's chess champion," Allen Newell said in 1957, "unless the rules bar it from competition." Isaac Asimov, writer, scholar and author of the Laws of Robotics, was among the wishful thinkers. Predicting that AI (for which he still used the term "cybernetics") would spark an intellectual revolution, in his foreword to Thinking by Machine by Pierre de Latil he wrote:

Cybernetics is not merely another branch of science. It is an intellectual revolution that rivals in importance the earlier Industrial Revolution. Is it possible that just as a machine can take over the routine functions of human muscle, another can take over the routine uses of human mind? Cybernetics answers, yes.

Getting Smarter Artificial intelligence research has progressed considerably since the Dartmouth conference, but the ultimate AI system has yet to be invented. The ideal AI computer would be able to simulate every aspect of learning so that its responses would be indistinguishable from those of humans. Alan M. Turing, who as early as 1934 had theorized that machines could imitate thought, proposed a test for AI machines in his 1950 essay "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." The Turing Test calls for a panel of judges to review typed answers to any question that has been addressed to both a computer and a human. If the judges can make no distinctions between the two answers, the machine may be considered intelligent. It is 1984 as this is being written. A computer has yet to pass the Turing Test, and only a few of the grandiose predictions for artificial intelligence have been realized. Did Turing and other futurists expect too much of computers? Or do AI researchers just need more time to develop their sophisticated systems? John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky remain confident that it is just a matter of time before a solution evolves, although they disagree on what that solution might be. Even the most sophisticated programs still lack common sense. McCarthy, Minsky and other Al researchers are studying how to program in that elusive quality-common sense. McCarthy, who first suggested the term "artificial intelligence," says that after thirty years of research AI scholars still don't have a full picture of what knowledge and reasoning ability are involved in common sense. But according to McCarthy we don't have to know exactly how people reason in order to get machines to reason. McCarthy believes that a sophisticated programmed language of mathematical logic will eventually be capable of common-sense reasoning, whether or not it is exactly how people reason. Minsky argues that computers can't imitate the workings of the human mind through mathematical logic. He has developed the alternative approach of frame systems, in which one would record much more information than needed to solve a particular problem and then define which details are optional for each particular situation. For example, a frame for a bird could include feathers, wings, egg laying, flying and singing. In a biological context, flying and singing would be optional; feathers, wings and egg laying would not. The common-sense question remains academic. No current program based on mathematics or frame systems has common sense. What do machines think? To date, they think mostly what we ask them to.

S. H.

Read the original here:

A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence

Alabama Aerospace | Fasteners & Components, Stocking …

Posted on May 13, 2016 by Danzig

Alabama Aerospace receives gold Boeing Performance Excellence Award

Huntsville, AL 2/18/13 Alabama Aerospace today announced that it has received a 2012 Boeing Performance Excellence Award. The Boeing Company issues the award annually to recognize suppliers who have achieved superior performance. Alabama Aerospace maintained a Gold composite performance rating for each month of the 12-month performance period, from Oct. 1, 2011, to Sept. 30, 2012.

This year, Boeing recognized 594 suppliers who achieved either a Gold or Silver level Boeing Performance Excellence Award. Alabama Aerospace is one of only 153 suppliers to receive the Gold level of recognition.

We are extremely honored to receive this award from Boeing for 100% quality and on-time delivery. This is a testament to the hard work and dedication displayed by our employees. Receiving this award reinforces our commitment to quality, service, and continuous improvement.

Since 1995 Alabama Aerospace supplies mil-spec and commercial hardware along with electromechanical hardware to Boeing and the aerospace and defense community. Alabama Aerospace is an ISO9001:2008 and AS9120 certified company.

102 Skylab DR. Huntsville, AL 35806

For more information on the Boeing Performance Excellence Award, visit http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/supplier_portal/bpea.html

Contact: Randy Griffin

Sales Manager

Alabama Aerospace

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

6/13/13 Please visit and like our new Facebook Page

4/19/2013 Beta Product Videos:

4/3/2013 Alabama Aerospace is proud to present our new offering of Beta Professional Hand Tools. Please click on the logo below to browse our selection of Beta Tools.

We fill all types of customer requests from the one line order to a complete Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) Program.

See the rest here:

Alabama Aerospace | Fasteners & Components, Stocking ...

Aerospace Industry in Alabama – Amazing Alabama

Posted on May 13, 2016 by Danzig

Alabama's diversified aerospace industry spans from Mobile on the Gulf Coast to Huntsville in the north. A whos who of marquee industry names among the 300 aerospace and defense companies in Alabama include: Airbus, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, Bell Helicopter, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, GE Aviation, Airbus Military, GKN, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Goodrich, Teledyne Brown, Pratt & Whitney and Raytheon.

Huntsville has been an aerospace hub for decades, with 44,000 currently employed in the aerospace/defense industry, housing the highest number of engineers per capita in the United States. Farther south in Montgomery, Maxwell Air Force Base and its Gunter Annex employ more than 12,500 military and civilian personnel with an estimated economic impact of more than $1.5 billion. At Fort Rucker in southeast Alabama between Ozark and Daleville, the worlds largest helicopter training installation can be found.

Brookley Aeroplex in Mobile has developed into an aerospace cluster including ST Aerospace, Airbus Engineering Center and AVIC International (formerly Continental Motors).

On June 2, 2012, the statewide aerospace industry was solidified when Airbus chose Brookley as the site to build its first aircraft assembly plant in the United States, which has firmly put Alabama on the international map for aerospace and aviation.

Airbus

A ceremony in April 2013 marked the beginning of construction for the $600 million Airbus facility in Mobile, with aircraft assembly scheduled to begin in 2015 and the first delivery targeted for 2016. The European plane manufacturer, a unit of European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS), will build the popular A320 single-aisle, twin-engine family of aircraft. Airbus had booked nearly 2,700 orders for new engine option aircraft as of July 2014, comprising an important percentage of the more than 10,300 overall orders logged by Airbus for the entire A320 family. The plant is expected to create up to 1,000 permanent jobs and nearly 3,200 construction jobs.

ST Aerospace

Brookley also houses ST Aerospace, which is able to accommodate nine wide-body and 10 narrow-body airliners at the same time beneath 600,000 square feet of hangar space.

ST Aerospace modifies, refurbishes and repairs an array of planes, from the old-but-reliable workhorse DC-9 to the Airbus family of airliners A310, A320; A330 to the wide-bodied A340, Boeings 747, 767, 777 and the DC10, MD10 and MD11.

Lockheed Martin

In the southeast Alabama town of Troy, Lockheed Martin manufactures, assembles and tests many of its missile programs on a 3,800-acre facility. The plant has 340,000 square feet of manufacturing space and 315 employees supporting multiple production and engineering development for the Javelin; Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM); and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor missile. The facility previously assembled the Longbow, PAC-2, AGM-142, Predator and Short Range Assault Weapon (SRAW) missiles.

United Launch Alliance (ULA)

Located in Decatur, near Huntsville, United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and the Boeing Company that builds the Atlas and Delta rocket launch vehicles. ULA brings together two of the launch industrys most experienced and successful teams to provide reliable, cost-efficient space launch services for the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and commercial customers. In addition, ULA continues to work with NASA to prepare the Atlas V vehicle for future human spaceflight.

Fort Rucker

The worlds largest helicopter training installation is in southeast Alabama between Ozark and Daleville at Fort Rucker, employing over 8,000 military and civilian personnel. The United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence is a 63,000-acre facility that has trained military, civilian and international personnel in aviation-related and leadership skills since 1955.

Fort Rucker is comprised of the Garrison Command and the following U.S. Army functions: Aviation Center and School, Safety Center, Warrant Officer Career College, Aviation Technical Test Center, Air Traffic Services Command, Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Aeromedical Center and other resident organizations focused on Army Aviation.

A unique partnership between Fort Rucker and Computer Sciences Corporation is the Flight School XXI program featuring 48 flight simulators depicting battlefield and go to war conditions for helicopter flight training.

Redstone Aresenal

Redstone traces its beginnings as a chemical ammunition production facility during World War II and has since been the focal point of the Army's rocket and missile programs. Dr. Wernher von Braun and his team of German rocket experts developed the Redstone Rocket, the first U.S. operational ballistic missile, at Redstone Arsenal, setting the stage for creation of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Saturn V engines were also built there and tested for the Apollo moon landing program.

Redstone's 38,000 acres adjacent to Huntsville are home to over 35,000 employees working for 60 federal organizations and contractor operations, including: U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSCF), the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), two Program Executive Offices (PEOs), and Defense Intelligence Agency.

Marshall Space Flight Center

Headquartered on 1,800 acres at Redstone Arsenal, Marshall employs over 6,000 civil service and contract workers with an annual budget of $2.2 billion engaged in the following: Payload Operations Center for the International Space Station, Propulsion Research Laboratory, Space Optics Manufacturing Technology Center, Chandra X-ray Observatory and Engineering Directorate (research and development for all Marshall engineering functions). Marshall Space Flight Center generated a statewide economic impact of $2.8 billion in 2010. Defense Department contracts the same year topped the $8 billion mark across the state.

Marshalls focus is on: propulsion/transportation systems; research and development of new propulsion technologies; living/working in space (International Space Station systems for air and water and around-the-clock ISS science command post from Marshall's Payload Operations Center); understanding the world and beyond (large space telescopes, weather observations and forecasting).

Maxwell Air Force Base

Site of the nations first civilian flying school founded by Orville and Wilbur Wright, Maxwell Air Force Base and its Gunter Annex employ more than 12,500 military and civilian personnel on more than 4,150 acres with an estimated annual economic impact of more than $2.6 billion. Maxwell is home to Air University, the intellectual and leadership center of the Air Force, and the Air Force Reserve Commands 908th Airlift Wing featuring the C-130. Gunter houses enlisted noncommissioned officer academies, the Air Force Program Executive Office for Business and Enterprise Systems and provides support for Air Force computer systems.

Alabamas major universities offer numerous engineering degrees including: aerospace, aeronautical and astronautical/space, mechanical, and materials. In 2011, 1,081 students graduated in aerospace, materials, mechanical, industrial, and electrical engineering at Alabamas four-year institutions.

Institutions with aerospace cirriculums include:

Alabama Aviation Training Center

The Alabama Aviation Center (AAC), a unit of Enterprise State Community College, is Alabamas only comprehensive aviation maintenance training program for airframe and power plant (A&P) and avionics. Programs include Airframe Technology, Powerplant Technology, and General Aviation.

The main campus is near Ft. Rucker in Ozark, with satellite campuses at Brookley Aeroplex in Mobile, Albertville, Andalusia, and Decatur.

Updated: July 28, 2014

Alabama Aerospace Manufacturing, LLC – HOME

Posted on May 13, 2016 by Danzig

Welcome to Alabama Aerospace Manufacturing, LLC

Alabama Aerospace Manufacturing, LLC was founded in 2010 to provide the aerospace industry with quality, cost-efficient detail components and assemblies.

With the current fiscal challenges in the military as well as in the commercial and general aviation sectors, the aerospace industry is looking to reduce costs to help save programs, continue growth and stay profitable. With the Primes moving fabrication, processing, and even some assembly capabilities out-of-house over the last 20 years, they more and more look to the supply base to achieve these cost reductions by consolidating work to reliable, cost efficient, suppliers. However, many of the suppliers in the industry have either gone out of business or have been bought by larger companies, thereby increasing overhead costs.

As a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, Alabama Aerospace Manufacturing believes it is well-positioned to help companies achieve these cost reduction goals for the following reasons:

The southeastern U.S. is seeing significant growth in the aerospace industry due to these factors, and AAM is committed to becoming the Supplier of Choice to our customers as well as the Employer of Choice for the local workforce. Alabama Aerospace Manufacturing will consistently deliver quality products to our customers that meet or exceed their expectations. Our teams goal is to deliver quality products on time, every time.

We ask you to look over our capabilities and give us an opportunity to meet your requirements. Please contact us and let us know how we can help you.

Go here to see the original:

Alabama Aerospace Manufacturing, LLC - HOME

Rawls and Nozick: Liberalism Vs Libertarianism

Posted on May 12, 2016 by Danzig

Image via Wikipedia

These days , in the occasional university philosophy classroom, the differences between Robert Nozicks Anarchy, State, and Utopia (libertarianism) and John Rawls A Theory of Justice (social liberalism) are still discussed vigorously. In order to demonstrate a broad spectrum of possible political philosophies it is necessary to define the outer boundaries, these two treatises stand like sentries at opposite gatesof the polis

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Rawls presents an account of justice in the form of two principles: (1) liberty principle= peoples equal basic liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience (religion), and the right to vote should be maximized, and (2) difference principle= inequalities in social and economic goods are acceptable only if they promote the welfare of the least advantaged members of society. Rawls writes in the social contract tradition. He seeks to define equilibrium points that, when accumulated, form a civil system characterized by what he calls justice as fairness. To get there he deploys an argument whereby people in an original position (state of nature), make decisions (legislate laws) behind a veil of ignorance (of their place in the society rich or poor) using a reasoning technique he calls reflective equilibrium. It goes something like: behind the veil of ignorance, with no knowledge of their own places in civil society, Rawls posits that reasonable people will default to social and economic positions that maximize the prospects for the worst off feed and house the poor in case you happen to become one. Its much like the prisoners dilemma in game theory. By his own words Rawls = left-liberalism.

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, libertarian response to Rawls which argues that only a minimal state devoted to the enforcement of contracts and protecting people against crimes like assault, robbery, fraud can be morally justified. Nozick suggests that the fundamental question of political philosophy is not how government should be organized but whether there should be any state at all, he is close to John Locke in that government is legitimate only to the degree that it promotes greater security for life, liberty, and property than would exist in a chaotic, pre-political state of nature. Nozick concludes, however, that the need for security justifies only a minimal, or night-watchman, state, since it cannot be demonstrated that citizens will attain any more security through extensive governmental intervention. (Nozick p.25-27)

the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection. (Nozick Preface p.ix)

Differences:

Similarities:

Some Practical Questions for Rawls:

Some Practical Questions for Nozick:

Read The Liberal Imagination of Frederick Douglass for an excellent discussion on the state of liberalism in America today.

Citations:

Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Robert Nozick. Basic Books. 1974

A Theory of Justice. John Rawls. Harvard University Press. 1971

Disclaimer: This is a forum for me to capture in digital type my understanding of various philosophies and philosophers. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the interpretations.

Like Loading...

View post:

Rawls and Nozick: Liberalism Vs Libertarianism

Redesigning the World: Ethical Questions About Genetic …

Posted on May 12, 2016 by Danzig

Redesigning the World Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering

Ron Epstein 1

INTRODUCTION

Until the demise of the Soviet Union, we lived under the daily threat of nuclear holocaust extinguishing human life and the entire biosphere. Now it looks more likely that total destruction will be averted, and that widespread, but not universally fatal, damage will continue to occur from radiation accidents from power plants, aging nuclear submarines, and perhaps the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons by governments or terrorists.

What has gone largely unnoticed is the unprecedented lethal threat of genetic engineering to life on the planet. It now seems likely, unless a major shift in international policy occurs quickly, that the major ecosystems that support the biosphere are going to be irreversibly disrupted, and that genetically engineered viruses may very well lead to the eventual demise of almost all human life. In the course of the major transformations that are on the way, human beings will be transformed, both intentionally and unintentionally, in ways that will make us something different than what we now consider human.

Heedless of the dangers, we are rushing full speed ahead on almost all fronts. Some of the most powerful multinational chemical, pharmaceutical and agricultural corporations have staked their financial futures on genetic engineering. Enormous amounts of money are already involved, and the United States government is currently bullying the rest of the world into rapid acceptance of corporate demands concerning genetic engineering research and marketing.

WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING

What are genes?

Genes are often described as 'blueprints' or 'computer programs' for our bodies and all living organisms. Although it is true that genes are specific sequences of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) that are central to the production of proteins, contrary to popular belief and the now outmoded standard genetic model, genes do not directly determine the 'traits' of an organism.1a They are a single factor among many. They provide the 'list of ingredients' which is then organized by the 'dynamical system' of the organism. That 'dynamical system' determines how the organism is going to develop. In other words, a single gene does not, in most cases, exclusively determine either a single feature of our bodies or a single aspect of our behavior. A recipe of ingredients alone does not create a dish of food. A chef must take those ingredients and subject them to complex processes which will determine whether the outcome is mediocre or of gourmet quality. So too the genes are processed through the self-organizing ('dynamical') system of the organism, so that the combination of a complex combination of genes is subjected to a variety of environmental factors which lead to the final results, whether somatic or behavioral.2

a gene is not an easily identifiable and tangible object. It is not only the DNA sequence which determines its functions in the organisms, but also its location in a specific chromosomal, cellular, physiological and evolutionary context. It is therefore difficult to predict the impact of genetic material transfer on the functioning of the extremely tightly controlled, integrated and balanced functioning of all the tens of thousands of structures and processes that make up the body of any complex organism.3

Genetic engineering refers to the artificial modification of the genetic code of a living organism. Genetic engineering changes the fundamental physical nature of the organism, sometimes in ways that would never occur in nature. Genes from one organism are inserted in another organism, most often across natural species boundaries. Some of the effects become known, but most do not. The effects of genetic engineering which we know are ususally short-term, specific and physical. The effects we do not know are often long-term, general, and also mental. Long-term effects may be either specific4 or general.

Differences between Bioengineering and Breeding

The breeding of animals and plants speeds up the natural processes of gene selection and mutation that occur in nature to select new species that have specific use to humans. Although the selecting of those species interferes with the natural selection process that would otherwise occur, the processes utilized are found in nature. For example, horses are bred to run fast without regard for how those thoroughbreds would be able to survive in the wild. There are problems with stocking streams with farmed fish because they tend to crowd out natural species, be less resistant to disease, and spread disease to wild fish.5

The breeding work of people like Luther Burbank led to the introduction of a whole range of tasty new fruits. At the University of California at Davis square tomatoes with tough skins were developed for better packing and shipping. Sometimes breeding goes awry. Killer bees are an example. Another example is the 1973 corn blight that killed a third of the crop that year. It was caused by a newly bred corn cultivar that was highly susceptible to a rare variant of a common leaf fungus.6

Bioengineers often claim that they are just speeding up the processes of natural selection and making the age-old practices of breeding more efficient. In some cases that may be true, but in most instances the gene changes that are engineered would never occur in nature, because they cross natural species barriers.

HOW GENETIC ENGINEERING IS CURRENTLY USED

Here is a brief summary of some of the more important, recent developments in genetic engineering.7

1) Most of the genetic engineering now being used commercially is in the agricultural sector. Plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides, to have built in pesticide resistance, and to convert nitrogen directly from the soil. Insects are being genetically engineered to attack crop predators. Research is ongoing in growing agricultural products directly in the laboratory using genetically engineered bacteria. Also envisioned is a major commercial role for genetically engineered plants as chemical factories. For example, organic plastics are already being produced in this manner.8

2) Genetically engineered animals are being developed as living factories for the production of pharmaceuticals and as sources of organs for transplantation into humans. (New animals created through the process of cross-species gene transfer are called xenographs. The transplanting of organs across species is called xenotransplantation.) A combination of genetic engineering and cloning is leading to the development of animals for meat with less fat, etc. Fish are being genetically engineered to grow larger and more rapidly.

3) Many pharmaceutical drugs, including insulin, are already genetically engineered in the laboratory. Many enzymes used in the food industry, including rennet used in cheese production, are also available in genetically engineered form and are in widespread use.

4) Medical researchers are genetically engineering disease carrying insects so that their disease potency is destroyed. They are genetically engineering human skin9 and soon hope to do the same with entire organs and other body parts.

5) Genetic screening is already used to screen for some hereditary conditions. Research is ongoing in the use of gene therapy in the attempt to correct some of these conditions. Other research is focusing on techniques to make genetic changes directly in human embryos. Most recently research has also been focused on combining cloning with genetic enginering. In so-called germline therapy, the genetic changes are passed on from generation to generation and are permanent.

6) In mining, genetically engineered organisms are being developed to extract gold, copper, etc. from the substances in which it is embedded. Other organisms may someday live on the methane gas that is a lethal danger to miners. Still others have been genetically engineered to clean up oil spills, to neutralize dangerous pollutants, and to absorb radioactivity. Genetically engineered bacteria are being developed to transform waste products into ethanol for fuel.

SOME DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS' OPINIONS

In the 1950's, the media was full of information about the great new scientific miracle that was going to make it possible to kill all of the noxious insects in the world, to wipe out insect-born diseases and feed the world's starving masses. That was DDT. In the 1990's, the media is full of information about the coming wonders of genetic engineering. Everywhere are claims that genetic engineering will feed the starving, help eliminate disease, and so forth. The question is the price tag. The ideas and evidence presented below are intended to help evaluate that central question.

Many prominent scientists have warned against the dangers of genetic engineering. George Wald, Nobel Prize-winning biologist and Harvard professor, wrote:

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution.

Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms The results will be essentially new organisms. Self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled

Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors.

It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.10

Erwin Chargoff, an eminent geneticist who is sometimes called the father of modern microbiology, commented:

The principle question to be answered is whether we have the right to put an additional fearful load on generations not yet born. I use the adjective 'additional' in view of the unresolved and equally fearful problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. Our time is cursed with the necessity for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decisions. Is there anything more far-reaching than the creation of forms of life? You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosals; you may even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you cannot recall a new form of life. Once you have constructed a viable E. coli cell carry a plasmid DNA into which a piece of eukaryotic DNA has been spliced, it will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard-of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it.11

It appears that the recombination experiments in which a piece of animal DNA is incorporated into the DNA of a microbial plasmid are being performed without a full appreciation of what is going on. Is the position of one gene with respect to its neighbors on the DNA chain accidental or do they control and regulate each other? Are we wise in getting ready to mix up what nature has kept apart, namely the genomes of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.

The worst is that we shall never know. Bacteria and viruses have always formed a most effective biological underground. The guerrilla warfare through which they act on higher forms of life is only imperfectly understood. By adding to this arsenal freakish forms of life-prokyarotes propagating eukaryotic genes-we shall be throwing a veil of uncertainties over the life of coming generations. Have we the right to counteract, irreversibly, the evolutionary wisdom of millions of years, in order to satisfy the ambition and curiosity of a few scientists?

This world is given to us on loan. We come and we go; and after a time we leave earth and air and water to others who come after us. My generation, or perhaps the one preceding mine, has been the first to engage, under the leadership of the exact sciences, in a destructive colonial warfare against nature. The future will curse us for it.12

In contrast, here are two examples of prominent scientists who support genetic engineering. Co-discoverer of the DNA code and Nobel Laureate Dr. James D. Watson takes this approach:

On the possible diseases created by recombinant DNA, Watson wrote in March 1979: 'I would not spend a penny trying to see if they exist' (Watson 1979:113). Watson's position is that we must go ahead until we experience serious disadvantages. We must take the risk of even a catastrophe that might be hidden in recombinant DNA technology. According to him that is how learning works: until a tiger devours you, you don't know that the jungle is dangerous.13

What is wrong with Watson's analogy? If Watson wants to go off into the jungle and put himself at risk of being eaten by a tiger, that is his business. What gives him the right to drag us all with him and put us at risk of being eaten? When genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment, they put us all at risk, not just their creators.

The above statement by a great scientist clearly shows that we cannot depend on the high priests of science to make our ethical decisions for us. Too much is at stake. Not all geneticists are so cavalier or unclear about the risks. Unfortunately the ones who see or care about the potential problems are in the minority. That is not really surprising, because many who did see some of the basic problems would either switch fields or not enter it in the first place. Many of those who are in it have found a fascinating playground, not only in which to earn a livelihood, but also one with high-stake prizes of fame and fortune.

Watson himself saw some of the problems clearly when he stated:

This [genetic engineering] is a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. The belief thatscience always moves forward represents a form of laissez-faire nonsense dismally reminiscent of the credo that American business if left to itself will solve everybody's problems. Just as the success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead, neither does every scientific advance automatically make our lives more 'meaningful'.14

Although not a geneticist, Stephen Hawking, the world-renowned physicist and cosmologist and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England (a post once held by Sir Isaac Newton), has commented often and publicly on the future role of genetic engineering. For example:

Hawking, known mostly for his theories about the Big Bang and black holes, is focusing a lot these days on how humanity fits into the future of the universe--if indeed it fits at all. One possibility he suggests is that once an intelligent life form reaches the stage we're at now, it proceeds to destroy itself. He's an optimist, however, preferring the notion that people will alter DNA, redesigning the race to minimize our aggressive nature and give us a better chance at long-term survival. ``Humans will change their genetic makeup to give them more intelligence and better memory,'' he said.15

Hawking assumes that, even though humans are about to destroy themselves, they have the wisdom to know how to redesign themselves. If that were the case, why would we be about to destroy ourselves in the first place? Is Hawking assuming that genes control IQ and memory, and that they are equivalent to wisdom, or is Hawking claiming there is a wisdom gene? All these assumptions are extremely dubious. The whole notion that we can completely understand what it means to be human with a small part of our intellect, which is in turn a small part of who we are is, in its very nature, extremely suspect. If we attempt to transform ourselves in the image of a small part of ourselves, what we transform ourselves into will certainly be something smaller or at least a serious distortion of our human nature.

Those questions aside, Hawking does make explicit that, for the first time in history, natural evolution has come to an end and has been replaced by humans meddling with their own genetic makeup. With genetic engineering science has moved from exploring the natural world and its mechanisms to redesigning them. This is a radical departure in the notion of what we mean by science. As Nobel Prize winning biologist Professor George Wald was quoted above as saying: "Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain."16

Hawking's views illustrate that even brilliant scientists, whose understanding of science should be impeccable, can get caught in the web of scientism. "Scientism"17 refers to the extending of science beyond the use of the scientific method and wrongly attempting to use it as the foundation for belief systems. Scientism promotes the myth that science is the sole source of truth about ourselves and the world we live in.

Most scientific research is dependent on artificial closed system models, yet the cosmos is an open system. Therefore, there are a priori limitations to the relevance of scientific data to the open system of the natural world. What seems to be the case in the laboratory may or may not be valid in the natural world.17a Therefore, we cannot know through scientific methodology the full extent of the possible effects of genetic alterations in living creatures.18

If science is understood in terms of hypotheses from data collected according to scientific method, then the claims of Hawking in the name of science extend far beyond what science actually is. He is caught in an unconscious web of presuppositions and values that deeply affect both his hypotheses and his interpretation of data. It is not only Hawking who is caught in this web but all of us, regardless of our philosophical positions, because scientism is part of our cultural background that is very hard to shake. We all have to keep in mind that there is more to the world than what our current crop of scientific instruments can detect.

Hawking's notions are at least altruistic. Perhaps more dangerous in the short run are projected commercial applications of so-called 'designer genes': gene alterations to change the physical appearance of our offspring to more closely match cultural values and styles. When we change the eye-color, height, weight, and other bodily characteristics of our offspring, how do we know what else is also being changed? Genes are not isolated units that have simple one-to-one correspondences.19

SOME SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING

Here are a few examples of current efforts in genetic engineering that may cause us to think twice about its rosy benefits.

The Potential of Genetic Engineering for Disrupting the Natural Ecosystems of the Biosphere

At a time when an estimated 50,000 species are already expected to become extinct every year, any further interference with the natural balance of ecosystems could cause havoc. Genetically engineered organisms, with their completely new and unnatural combinations of genes, have a unique power to disrupt our environment. Since they are living, they are capable of reproducing, mutating and moving within the environment. As these new life forms move into existing habitats they could destroy nature as we know it, causing long term and irreversible changes to our natural world.20

Any child who has had an aquarium knows that the fish, plants, snails, and food have to be kept in balance to keep the water clear and the fish healthy. Natural ecosystems are more complex but operate in a similar manner. Nature, whether we consider it to be conscious or without consciousness, is a self-organizing system with its own mechanisms.21 In order to guarantee the long-term viability of the system, those mechanisms insure that important equilibria are maintained. Lately the extremes of human environmental pollution and other human activities have been putting deep strains on those mechanisms. Nonetheless, just as we can clearly see when the aquarium is out of kilter, we can learn to sensitize ourselves to Nature's warnings and know when we are endangering Nature's mechanisms for maintaining equilibria. We can see an aquarium clearly. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of our senses in detecting unnatural and often invisible change, we may not become aware of serious dangers to the environment until widespread damage has already been done.

Deep ecology22 and Gaia theory have brought to general awareness the interactive and interdependent quality of environmental systems.22a No longer do we believe that isolated events occur in nature. Each event is part of a vast web of inter-causality, and as such has widespread consequences within that ecosystem.

If we accept the notion that the biosphere has its own corrective mechanisms, then we have to look at how they work and the limitations of their design. The more extreme the disruption to the self-organizing systems of the biosphere, the stronger the corrective measures are necessary. The notion that the systems can ultimately deal with any threat, however extreme, is without scientific basis. No evidence exists that the life and welfare of human beings have priority in those self-organizing systems. Nor does any evidence exist that anything in those systems is equipped to deal with all the threats that genetically engineered organisms may pose. Why? The organisms are not in the experience of the systems, because they could never occur naturally as a threat. The basic problem is a denial on the part of many geneticists that genetically engineered organisms are radical, new, and unnatural forms of life, which, as such, have no place in the evolutionarily balanced biosphere.

Viruses

Plant, animal and human viruses play a major role in the ecosystems that comprise the biosphere. They are thought by some to be one of the primary factors in evolutionary change. Viruses have the ability to enter the genetic material of their hosts, to break apart, and then to recombine with the genetic material of the host to create new viruses. Those new viruses then infect new hosts, and, in the process, transfer new genetic material to the new host. When the host reproduces, genetic change has occurred.

If cells are genetically engineered, when viruses enter the cells, whether human, animal, or plant, then some of the genetically engineered material can be transferred to the newly created viruses and spread to the viruses' new hosts. We can assume that ordinary viruses, no matter how deadly, if naturally produced, have a role to play in an ecosystem and are regulated by that ecosystem. Difficulties can occur when humans carry them out of their natural ecosystems; nonetheless, all ecosystems in the biosphere may presumably share certain defense characteristics. Since viruses that contain genetically engineered material could never naturally arise in an ecosystem, there is no guarantee of natural defenses against them. They then can lead to widespread death of humans, animals or plants, thereby temporarily or even permanently damaging the ecosystem. Widespread die-off of a plant species is not an isolated event but can affect its whole ecosystem. For many, this may be a rather theoretical concern. The distinct possibility of the widespread die-off of human beings from genetically engineered viruses may command more attention.23

Biowarfare

Secret work is going forward in many countries to develop genetically engineered bacteria and viruses for biological warfare. International terrorists have already begun seriously considering their use. They are almost impossible to regulate, because the same equipment and technology that are used commercially can easily and quickly be transferred to military application.

The former Soviet Union had 32,000 scientists working on biowarfare, including military applications of genetic engineering. No one knows where most of them have gone, or what they have taken with them. Among the more interesting probable developments of their research were smallpox viruses engineered either with equine encephalitis or with Ebola virus. In one laboratory, despite the most stringent containment standards, a virulent strain of pneumonia, which had been stolen from the United State military, infected wild rats living in the building, which then escaped into the wild.24

There is also suggestive evidence that much of the so-called Gulf War Syndrome may have been caused by a genetically engineered biowarfare agent which is contagious after a relatively long incubation period. Fortunately that particular organism seems to respond to antibiotic treatment.25 What is going to happen when the organisms are purposely engineered to resist all known treatment?

Nobel laureate in genetics and president emeritus of Rockefeller University Joshua Lederberg has been in the forefront of those concerned about international control of biological weapons. Yet when I wrote Dr. Lederberg for information about ethical problems in the use of genetic engineering in biowarfare, he replied, "I don't see how we'd be talking about the ethics of genetic engineering, any more than that of iron smelting - which can be used to build bridges or guns."26 Like most scientists, Lederberg fails to acknowledge that scientific researchers have a responsibility for the use to which their discoveries are put. Thus he also fails to recognize that once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot coax it back in. In other words, research in genetic engineering naturally leads to its employment for biowarfare, so that before any research in genetic engineering is undertaken, its potential use in biowarfare should be clearly evaluated. After they became aware of the horrors of nuclear war, many of the scientists who worked in the Manhattan project, which developed the first atomic bomb, underwent terrible anguish and soul-searching. It is surprising that more geneticists do not see the parallels.

After reading about the dangers of genetic engineering in biowarfare, the president of the United States, Bill Clinton, became extremely concerned, and, in the spring of 1998, made civil defense countermeasures a priority. Yet, his administration has systematically opposed all but the most rudimentary safety regulations and restrictions for the biotech industry. By doing so, Clinton has unwittingly created a climate in which the production of the weapons he is trying to defend against has become very easy for both governments and terrorists.27

Plants

New crops may breed with wild relatives or cross breed with related species. The "foreign" genes could spread throughout the environment causing unpredicted changes which will be unstoppable once they have begun. Entirely new diseases may develop in crops or wild plants. Foreign genes are designed to be carried into other organisms by viruses which can break through species barriers, and overcome an organism's natural defenses. This makes them more infectious than naturally existing parasites, so any new viruses could be even more potent than those already known.

Ordinary weeds could become "Super-weeds": Plants engineered to be herbicide resistant could become so invasive they are a weed problem themselves, or they could spread their resistance to wild weeds making them more invasive. Fragile plants may be driven to extinction, reducing nature's precious biodiversity. Insects could be impossible to control. Making plants resistant to chemical poisons could lead to a crisis of "super pests" if they also take on the resistance to pesticides.

The countryside may suffer even greater use of herbicides and pesticides: Because farmers will be able to use these toxic chemicals with impunity their use may increase threatening more pollution of water supplies and degradation of soils.

Plants developed to produce their own pesticide could harm non-target species such as birds, moths and butterflies. No one - including the genetic scientists - knows for sure the effect releasing new life forms will have on the environment. They do know that all of the above are possible and irreversible, but they still want to carry out their experiment. THEY get giant profits. All WE get is a new and uncertain environment - an end to the world as we know it.29

When genetically engineered crops are grown for a specific purpose, they cannot be easily isolated both from spreading into the wild and from cross-pollinating with wild relatives. It has already been shown30 that cross-pollination can take place almost a mile away from the genetically engineered plantings. As has already occurred with noxious weeds and exotics, human beings, animals and birds may accidentally carry the genetically engineered seeds far vaster distances. Spillage in transport and at processing factories is also inevitable. The genetically engineered plants can then force out plant competitors and thus radically change the balance of ecosystems or even destroy them.

Under current United States government regulations, companies that are doing field-testing of genetically engineered organisms need not inform the public of what genes have been added to the organisms they are testing. They can be declared trade secrets, so that the public safety is left to the judgment of corporate scientists and government regulators many of whom switch back and forth between working for the government and working for the corporations they supposedly regulate.31 Those who come from academic positions often have large financial stakes in biotech companies, 32 and major universities are making agreements with biotech corporations that compromise academic freedom and give patent rights to the corporations. As universities become increasingly dependent on major corporations for funding, the majority of university scientists will no longer be able to function as independent, objective experts in matters concerning genetic engineering and public safety.32a

Scientists have already demonstrated the transfer of transgenes and marker genes to both bacterial pathogens and to soil fungi. That means genetically engineered organisms are going to enter the soil and spread to whatever grows in it. Genetically engineered material can migrate from the roots of plants into soil bacteria, in at least one case radically inhibiting the ability of the soil to grow plants.33 Once the bacteria are free in the soil, no natural barriers inhibit their spread. With ordinary soil pollution, the pollution can be confined and removed (unless it reaches the ground-water). If genetically engineered soil bacteria spreads into the wild, the ability of the soil to support plant life may seriously diminish.33a It does not take much imagination to see what the disastrous consequences might be.

Water and air are also subject to poisoning by genetically engineered viruses and bacteria.

The development of new genetically engineered crops with herbicide resistance will affect the environment through the increased use of chemical herbicides. Monsanto and other major international chemical, pharmaceutical, and agricultural corporations have staked their financial futures on genetically engineered herbicide-resistant plants.33b

Recently scientists have found a way to genetically engineer plants so that their seeds lose their viability unless sprayed with patented formulae, most of which turn out to have antibiotics as their primary ingredient. The idea is to keep farmers from collecting genetically engineered seed, thus forcing them to buy it every year. The corporations involved are unconcerned about the gene escaping into the wild, with obvious disastrous results, even though that is a clear scientific possibility.34

So that we would not have to be dependent on petroleum-based plastics, some scientists have genetically engineered plants that produce plastic within their stem structures. They claim that it biodegrades in about six months.35 If the genes escape into the wild, through cross-pollination with wild relatives or by other means, then we face the prospect of natural areas littered with the plastic spines of decayed leaves. However aesthetically repugnant that may seem, the plastic also poses a real danger. It has the potential for disrupting entire food-chains. It can be eaten by invertebrates, which are in turn eaten, and so forth. If primary foods are inedible or poisonous, then whole food-chains can die off.36

Another bright idea was to genetically engineer plants with scorpion toxin, so that insects feeding on the plants would be killed. Even though a prominent geneticist warned that the genes could be horizontally transferred to the insects themselves, so that they might be able to inject the toxin into humans, the research and field testing is continuing.37

Animals

The genetic engineering of new types of insects, fish, birds and animals has the potential of upsetting natural ecosystems. They can displace natural species and upset the balance of other species through behavior patterns that are a result of their genetic transformation.

One of the more problematic ethical uses of animals is the creation of xenographs, already mentioned above, which often involve the insertion of human genes. (See the section immediately below.) Whether or not the genes inserted to create new animals are human ones, the xenographs are created for human use and patented for corporate profit with little or no regard for the suffering of the animals, their felings and thoughts, or their natural life-patterns.

Use of Human Genes

As more and more human genes are being inserted into non-human organisms to create new forms of life that are genetically partly human, new ethical questions arise. What percent of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human? For instance, how many human genes would a green pepper38 have to contain before one would have qualms about eating it? For meat-eaters, the same question could be posed about eating pork. If human beings have special ethical status, does the presence of human genes in an organism change its ethical status? What about a mouse genetically engineered to produce human sperm39 that is then used in the conception of a human child?

Several companies are working on developing pigs that have organs containing human genes in order to facilitate the use of the organs in humans. The basic idea is something like this. You can have your own personal organ donor pig with your genes implanted. When one of your organs gives out, you can use the pig's.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a set of xenotransplant guidelines in September of 1996 that allows animal to human transplants, and puts the responsibility for health and safety at the level of local hospitals and medical review boards. A group of 44 top virologists, primate researchers, and AIDS specialists have attacked the FDA guidelines, saying, "based on knowledge of past cross-species transmissions, including AIDS, Herpes B virus, Ebola, and other viruses, the use of animals has not been adequately justified for use in a handful of patients when the potential costs could be in the hundreds, thousands or millions of human lives should a new infectious agent be transmitted."40

England has outlawed such transplants as too dangerous.41

Humans

Genetically engineered material can enter the body through food or bacteria or viruses. The dangers of lethal viruses containing genetically engineered material and created by natural processes have been mentioned above.

The dangers of generating pathogens by vector mobilization and recombination are real. Over a period of ten years, 6 scientists working with the genetic engineering of cancer-related oncogenes at the Pasteur Institutes in France have contracted cancer.42

Non-human engineered genes can also be introduced into the body through the use of genetically engineered vaccines and other medicines, and through the use of animal parts genetically engineered with human genes to combat rejection problems.

Gene therapy, for the correction of defective human genes that cause certain genetic diseases, involves the intentional introduction of new genes into the body in an attempt to modify the genetic structure of the body. It is based on a simplistic and flawed model of gene function which assumes a one-to-one correspondence between individual gene and individual function. Since horizontal interaction43 among genes has been demonstrated, introduction of a new gene can have unforeseen effects. Another problem, already mentioned, is the slippery slope that leads to the notion of designer genes. We are already on that slope with the experimental administration of genetically engineered growth hormone to healthy children, simply because they are shorter than average and their parents would like them to be taller.44

A few years ago a biotech corporation applied to the European Patent Office for a patent on a so-called 'pharm-woman,' the idea being to genetically engineer human females so that their breast-milk would contain specialized pharmaceuticals.44a Work is also ongoing to use genetic engineering to grow human breasts in the laboratory. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that not only would they be used for breast replacement needed due to cancer surgery, but also to foster a vigorous commercial demand by women in search of the "perfect" breasts.45 A geneticist has recently proposed genetically engineering headless humans to be used for body parts. Some prominent geneticists have supported his idea.46

Genetically Engineered Food

Many scientists have claimed that the ingestion of genetically engineered food is harmless because the genetically engineered materials are destroyed by stomach acids. Recent research47 suggests that genetically engineered materials are not completely destroyed by stomach acids and that significant portions reach the bloodstream and also the brain-cells. Furthermore, it has been shown that the natural defense mechanisms of body cells are not entirely effective in keeping the genetically engineered substances out of the cells.48

Some dangers of eating genetically engineered foods are already documented. Risks to human health include the probable increase in the level of toxins in foods and in the number of disease-causing organisms that are resistant to antibiotics.49 The purposeful increase in toxins in foods to make them insect-resistant is the reversal of thousands of years of selective breeding of food-plants. For example when plants are genetically engineered to resist predators, often the plant defense systems involve the synthesis of natural carcinogens.50

Industrial mistakes or carelessness in production of genetically engineered food ingredients can also cause serious problems. The l-tryptophan food supplement, an amino acid that was marketed as a natural tranquilizer and sleeping pill, was genetically engineered. It killed thirty-seven people and permanently disabled 1,500 others with an incurable nervous system condition known as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS).51

Dr. John Fagan has summarized some major risks of eating genetically engineered food as follows:

the new proteins produced in genetically engineered foods could: a) themselves, act as allergens or toxins, b) alter the metabolism of the food producing organism, causing it to produce new allergens or toxins, or c) causing it to be reduced in nutritional value.a) Mutations can damage genes naturally present in the DNA of an organism, leading to altered metabolism and to the production of toxins, and to reduced nutritional value of the food. b) Mutations can alter the expression of normal genes, leading to the production of allergens and toxins, and to reduced nutritional value of the food. c) Mutations can interfere with other essential, but yet unknown, functions of an organisms DNA.52

Basically what we have at present is a situation in which genetically engineered foods are beginning to flood the market, and no one knows what all their effects on humans will be. We are all becoming guinea pigs. Because genetically engineered food remains unlabeled, should serious problems arise, it will be extremely difficult to trace them to their source. Lack of labeling will also help to shield the corporations that are responsible from liability.

Futurism | Arthistory.net

Posted on May 12, 2016 by Danzig

An Italian poet named Emilio Filippo Tommaso (1876-1944) established Futurism in 1908. He envisioned a new society that would make a complete rupture with the present and the past even as the world underwent rapid changes in the new century. Tomasso imagined a perfect world, a utopia that included new art and literary forms. In essence, the new society would replace past social norms and offer something better for art and poetry. In his Futurist Manifesto in 1909, Tommaso elaborated more on the Futurist vision, including the Four Post-Modernizations.

Umberto Boccioni (1882-1916) created and embodied the Futurism painting form with his paintings The City Rises (1910) and States of Mind (1911-1912). The latter features red, blue, and white as the dominant colors and includes humans in motion and futuristic buildings under construction at the top of the canvas. The elements of Futurism are embedded in the complex composition. Many colors break up and come together to portray a man shown from behind. He looks like can pull the observer into the future. Boccioni also sculpted a bronze cast in 1913 called Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, which now resides in the Museum of Modern Art. This human figure also embodies motion, a central concept of Futurism.

The Dada artist and writer, Marcel Duchamp, was the brilliant organizer of the Dadaists and the author of the Dada Manifesto. He had a brilliant older brother whose sculptures exhibit the impact of Futurism. Raymond Duchamp-Villon (1876-1918) created the magnificent bronze sculpture which was both mechanical and unique. He chose the simple name The Horse (1914), understating the complexity of this three-dimensional form as a complex representation of how humanity is propelling itself into an uncertain future.

It is hard to believe sometimes that the Dadaists and the Futurists, including the Duchamp brothers were creating such revolutionary work only a couple years after Braque and Picasso introduced Cubism to the Paris art world in the midst of the First World War. Joseph Stella also reverberated the Futurist sense of rhythm and motion in his painting, Battle of Lights, Coney Island painting (1914). Some historians even argue that Futurism even impacted Picassos Synthetic Cubism.

Architecture gave a vision to the idea of a futuristic city. Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright built models of their visions for a futuristic metropolis. However, these elaborate plans were never built. Wrights plan is reminiscent of the city of the future one sees when riding the Mass Transit Authority through Walt Disney Worlds Space Mountain.

Visit link:

Futurism | Arthistory.net

Nanotechnology – The New York Times

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Nanotechnology: The Basics – Rice University | Coursera

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

About the Course

Nanotechnology is an exciting research area that spans disciplines from electrical engineering to biology. Over the last two decades the basic science of this area has launched new technologies, the first examples of which are finding their way into commercial products. This four week course will provide students with a bird's eye view into this fast moving area and leave students with an appreciation of the importance and foundation of super-small materials and devices.

Nanotechnology: The Basics Week 1: Small, strange and useful! This first week we will introduce nanotechnology. As you will learn, defining the term itself can be a challenge and the discipline has a rich and somewhat controversial history. We will conclude the week with a tour of the different types of materials in the nanotechnology pantheon that sets up the class for the weeks to come.

Week 2: Electronics when materials are super small. There is no doubt our lives have been changed by the small and powerful computers we now use in everything from our cell phones to our coffeemakers. This week you will learn how nanotechnology has been a part of this revolution and what the limits are to making wires and transistors super, super small.

Week 3: How magnets change when they are made small. Magnetism is quite mysterious and the foundation of such cool technologies as flash drives and MRI imaging. Nanotechnology has played a crucial role in advancing all of these diverse applications and in week 3 you'll gain some insight into how that is possible.

Week 4: Shedding light on nanoscale materials and photonics. Compared to electrons, photons are difficult things to trap and control with normal materials. Nanomaterials offer completely new approaches to manipulating light. Whether its through diffraction, or plasmonics, nanotechnology can provide new capabilities for solid state lasers as well as super resolution microscopes.

We expect some knowledge of freshman chemistry and physics, as well as algebra. Access to a spreadsheet program would also be of value. However, we recognize that for some interested participants this knowledge may be rusty and will provide where possible optional review videos to go over terminology and concepts relevant to the week's material.

Every week students will be expected to view between6 and9 video lectures which are about 10 minutes each; optional refresher lectures will sometimes be added to provide background on concepts relevant for the week. Most lectures will have integrated questions to keep students engaged, and these will not count towards any grade. There will also be weekly 'basic'quizzes and a final exam for students seeking a statement of accomplishment. For those seeking a statement of accomplishment with distinction, 'in-depth' quizzes and a peer-graded project will be required in addition to the statement of accomplishment criteria. Students will have two weeks to complete every assignment once its posted, and eight late days to apply as needed.

Link:

Nanotechnology: The Basics - Rice University | Coursera

Nanotechnology – US Forest Service Research & Development

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Small and the Technology of Small

Nano is small, really, really, small. It comes from a Greek word meaning dwarf. One nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a meter (1 meter = 39.4 inches).

A nanometer is much, much smaller than a spot on a lady bug. An ant is about 5,000,000 nm (0.2 inches) long; human hair is about 100,000 nm (0.004 inches) wide; and an atom is approximately 1 nm.

Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Unusual physical, chemical, and biological properties can emerge in materials at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology also encompasses any nanoscale systems and devices and unique systems and devices that are involved in the manufacturing of nanoscale materials.

As an enabling technology, nanotechnology has the potential to benefit all aspects of forestry and forest products: from plants, forest management, harvesting, forest operations, wood-base products, application of wood-based products to the understanding of consumer behavior. In international conferences, scientists have briefly touched upon the ideas of using nanotechnology enabled products in resolving issue of international interest such as climate change (nanotechnology enabled sensors for example), energy efficiency (nanotechnology enabled catalysts for example) and water resources (nanotechnology enabled water harvesting for example). The forest products industry has identified nanotechnology as one of the technologies that will enable new products and product features.

The industry has goals to create new bio-based composites and nanomaterials, and to achieve improvement in the performance-to-weight ratio of paper and packaging products through nanotechnology and nanotechnology-enabled new paper features such as optical, electronic, barrier, sensing thermal and surface texture.

Due to its ability to reduce carbon footprints of petroleum based products, renewable forest-based nanocelluloses, together with other natural-occurring nanocelluloses, have been the subject of active research and development internationally. Often requested by user industries, nanocellulose has found its way in the research and development of plastics, coatings, sensors, electronics, automobile body and aerospace materials, medical implants and body armor. In the future, we can claim plastics, cellular telephones, medical implants, body armors and flexible displays as forest products.

Lux Research estimated that by 2015, US$3.1 trillion worth of products will have incorporated nanotechnology in their value chain. Successful realization of this technology using sustainable forest-based products will increase use of materials from renewable resources and decrease reliance on petroleum-based products and other non-renewable materials. With adequate investing in Forest Service nanotechnology R&D, the forest products industry envisions replacing the 300,000 jobs lost since 2006 with skilled workers, many of them in rural America - using materials we can grow, transport, and assemble into finished products in the United States more efficiently than nearly anywhere else in the world.

Excerpt from:

Nanotechnology - US Forest Service Research & Development

Nanotechnology : ATS

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Considered futuristic a just a few years ago, nanotechnology where scientists utilize nano-sized objects measuring less than 1/100,000 the width of a human hair today is showing great promise in areas such as medicine, materials science and defense technology.

The Technions Russell Berrie Nanotechnology Institute is a world-leader in nanotechnology research having made seminal discoveries in the field.

Prof. Ester Segal and a team of Israeli and American researchers find that silicon nanomaterials used for the localized delivery of chemotherapy drugs behave differently in cancerous tumors than they do in healthy tissues. The findings could help scientists better design such materials to facilitate the controlled and targeted release of the chemotherapy drugs to tumors.

Associate Professor Alex Leshansky of the Faculty of Chemical Engineering is part of an international team that has created a tiny screw-shaped propeller that can move in a gel-like fluid, mimicking the environment in a living organism. The breakthrough brings closer the day robots that are only nanometers billionths of a meter in length, can maneuver and perform medicine inside the human body and possibly inside human cells.

Prof. Amit Miller and a team of researchers at the Technion and Boston University have discovered a simple way to control the passage of DNA molecules through nanopore sensors. The breakthrough could lead to low-cost, ultra-fast DNA sequencing that would revolutionize healthcare and biomedical research, and spark major advances in drug development, preventative medicine and personalized medicine.

To read more Technion breakthroughs in nanotechnology, please click here.

For more information, please contact breakthroughs@ats.org.

Originally posted here:

Nanotechnology : ATS

NASA – Nanotechnology

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Ultrasensitive Label-Free Electronic Biochips Based on Carbon Nanotube Nanoelectrode Arrays The potential for low-cost disposable chips for rapid molecular analysis using handheld devices is ideal for space applications. + Read More Bulk Single-walled Carbon Nanotube Growth Carbon nanotubes can play a variety of roles in future space systems, including wiring, high-strength lightweight composite materials, thermal protection and cooling systems and electronics/sensors. + Read More CAD for Miniaturized Electronics and Sensors Computer-aided design of nanoscale devices and sensors is a cost effective way to infuse emerging nanoelectronics technologies in on-board information processing. + Read More Carbon Nanotube Field Emitters We are developing Carbon Nanotube (CNT) field emitters to improve their efficiency and durability. Current densities of ~1A/cm2 have been measured from these emitters. + Read More Nanoengineered Heat Sink Materials Advanced thermal materials will radically improve the performance of devices and instruments such as high-performance computers and high power optical components used in exploration hardware. + Read More Human-Implantable Thermoelectric Devices We are developing thermoelectric power sources that will be able to generate power from even a small temperature gradient, such as temperature variations available internally and externally throughout the human body. + Read More Automatic Program Synthesis for Data Monitors and Classifiers The AutoBayes and AutoFilter program synthesis systems can automatically generate efficient, certified code for data monitors from compact specifications. The tools enable advanced on-board statistical data analysis algorithms and highly flexible ISHM. + Read More Carbon Nanotubes for Removal of Toxic Gases in Life Support Systems Single walled carbon nanotubes can greatly increase the catalytic efficiency and decrease the mass and energy requirements of life support systems on future space missions, allowing new thermal processes for waste management and resource recovery. + Read More Carbon Nanotube Sensors for Gas Detection A nanosensor technology has been developed using nanostructures: single walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs), combined with a silicon-based microfabrication and micromachining process. + Read More Carbon Nanotubes as Vertical Interconnects A bottom-up approach is developed to integrate vertically aligned carbon nanotubes (CNTs) into nanoscale vertical interconnects, which can conduct much higher currents and enable more layers for Si-based integrated circuit (IC) chips. + Read More Nanoelectronics for Logic and Memory Nanowire-based electronic devices offer great potential to implement future integrated nanoelectronic systems for both on-board computing and information storage. + Read More Nonvolatile Molecular Memory Approaching the limits in miniaturization for ultra-high density, low power consumption media, this capability may enable orders of magnitude increases in on-board data storage capabilities that are compatible with space exploration system resource limitations of mass, power and volume. + Read More Large-Scale Fabrication of Carbon Nanotube Probe Tips for Space Imaging and Sensing Applications An innovative approach has been developed that combines nanopatterning and nanomaterials synthesis with traditional silicon micromachining technologies for large-scale fabrication of carbon nanotube (CNT) probe tips. + Read More Nano and Micro Fabrication Process Modeling Development of manufacturable technologies for nanoelectronics and MEMS devices for advanced computing and sensing applications presents significant challenges. + Read More Nanoelectronics for Space Extracting a signal from radiation resistant devices or nanoscale devices for NASA mission is highly challenging. We study the electrode-device contact systematically. + Read More Solid-state Nanopores for Gene Sequencing he objective of this project is to develop a revolutionary device that can sequence single molecules of nucleic acid, DNA or RNA, at a rate of a million bases per second by electrophoresis of the charged polymers through a solid-state nanopore channel of molecular dimensions. + Read More Nanoscale Mass Transport and Carbon Nanotube Based Membranes Carbon nanotube based membranes known as buckypaper may be used as filter media for analytical mission instruments or implantable device support for astronaut health monitoring. + Read More Nanotechnology at Ames The Life Sciences Division at NASA Ames Research Center conducts research and development in nanotechnology to address critical life science questions. + Read More Optoelectronics and Nanophotonics Developing smaller, faster, and more efficient lasers, detectors, and sensors through first-principle design, nanoscale engineering, and prototyping for space communications, computing, lidar ranging, and spectroscopic profiling applications. + Read More Plasma Diagnostics A standardized plasma diagnostic reactor, known as the "GEC Cell" is equipped with a wide range of diagnostics for measuring and understanding plasma physics and chemistry for a variety of low temperature plasmas + Read More Thermal, Radiation and Impact Protective Shields (TRIPS) Nanotechnology is providing new concepts for multipurpose shields against the triple threats of Aeroheating during atmospheric entry, Radiation (Solar and Galactic Cosmic Rays) and Micrometeoroid/Orbital Debris (MMOD) strikes. + Read More

Continued here:

NASA - Nanotechnology

Erie Community College :: Nanotechnology

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

The Nanotechnology AAS degree program is designed to help prepare students from a broad range of disciplines for careers in fields involving Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is engineering at theatomiclength scale, a size range which until recently was only available to nature. Being able to engineer such small structures opens the door to a multitude of new opportunities in the fields of electronic and semiconductor fabrication technology, micro-technology labs, material science labs, chemical technology, biotechnology, biopharmaceutical technology, and environmental science.

Students will study electronic device and circuit behavior, basic chemistry and fabrication techniques used to create micron and submicron scale structures. Techniques covered include reactive ion etching, metallization, thick and thin film deposition and photolithography.

Graduates will enter the job market with the skills necessary for positions in the following areas:

Upon graduation with an Associate in Applied Science degree in Nanotechnology, the graduate will be qualified in working with the following items and their associated tasks:

Total Degree Credits: 63.0

First Year, Fall Semester NS 100 - Introduction to Nanotechnology Credit Hours: 3 BI 110 - Biology I Credit Hours: 3 BI 115 - Laboratory for BI 110 Credit Hours: 1.5 EL 118 - Electrical Circuits I Credit Hours: 2 EN 110 - College Composition Credit Hours: 3 MT 125 - College Mathematics Credit Hours: 4

First Year, Spring Semester CH 180 - University Chemistry I Credit Hours: 3 CH 181 - Lab for CH 180 Credit Hours: 1.5 MT 126 - College Mathematics II Credit Hours: 4 PH 270 - College Physics I Credit Hours: 4.5 PH 271 - Lab for PH 270 Credit Hours: (Included in the 4.5 credit hours for PH 270) Social Science or Humanities Elective Credit Hours: 3

Second Year, Fall Semester NS 201 - Materials, Safety and Equipment Overview for Nanotechnology Credit Hours: 3 EL 158 - Electrical Circuits II Credit Hours: 3 EL 159 - Lab for EL 158 Credit Hours: 1 PH 272 - College Physics II Credit Hours: 4.5 PH 273 - Lab for PH 272 Credit Hours: (Included in the 4.5 credit hours for PH 272) Approved Elective Credit Hours: 4*

Second Year, Spring Semester NS 202 - Basic Nanotechnology Processes Credit Hours: 3 NS 203 - Characterization of Nanotechnology Structures and Materials Credit Hours: 3 NS 204 - Materials in Nanotechnology Credit Hours: 3 NS 205 - Patterning for Nanotechnology Credit Hours: 3 NS 206 - Vacuum Systems and Nanotechnology Applications Credit Hours: 3

*Approved Electives: BI 230/231 Microbiology and Lab (4 credits); CH 182/183 University Chemistry II and Lab (4.5 credits); EL 154/155 Electronics I and Lab (4 credits); IT 126 Statistical Process Control (3 credits) and IT 210 Industrial Inspection/Metrology(2 credits); MT 143 Introductory Statistics I (4 credits); MT 180 Pre-Calculus Mathematics (4 credits)

More here:

Erie Community College :: Nanotechnology

Learn About Nanotechnology in Cancer

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Nanotechnologythe science and engineering of controlling matter, at the molecular scale, to create devices with novel chemical, physical and/or biological propertieshas the potential to radically change how we diagnose and treat cancer. Although scientists and engineers have only recently (ca. 1980's) developed the ability to industrialize technologies at this scale, there has been good progress in translating nano-based cancer therapies and diagnostics into the clinic and many more are in development.

Nanoscale objectstypically, although not exclusively, with dimensions smaller than 100 nanometerscan be useful by themselves or as part of larger devices containing multiple nanoscale objects. Nanotechnology is being applied to almost every field imaginable including biosciences, electronics, magnetics, optics, information technology, and materials development, all of which have an impact on biomedicine. Explore the world of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology can provide rapid and sensitive detection of cancer-related targets, enabling scientists to detect molecular changes even when they occur only in a small percentage of cells. Nanotechnology also has the potential to generate unique and highly effective theraputic agents. Learn about nanotechnology in cancer research

The use of nanotechnology for diagnosis and treatment of cancer is largely still in the development phase. However, there are already several nanocarrier-based drugs on the market and many more nano-based therapeutics in clinical trials. Read about current developments

Here is the original post:

Learn About Nanotechnology in Cancer

Nanotechnology – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on a near-atomic scale to produce new structures, materials and devices. The technology promises scientific advancement in many sectors such as medicine, consumer products, energy, materials and manufacturing. Nanotechnology is generally defined as engineered structures, devices, and systems. Nanomaterials are defined as those things that have a length scale between 1 and 100 nanometers. At this size, materials begin to exhibit unique properties that affect physical, chemical, and biological behavior. Researching, developing, and utilizing these properties is at the heart of new technology.

Workers within nanotechnology-related industries have the potential to be exposed to uniquely engineered materials with novel sizes, shapes, and physical and chemical properties. Occupational health risks associated with manufacturing and using nanomaterials are not yet clearly understood. Minimal information is currently available on dominant exposure routes, potential exposure levels, and material toxicity of nanomaterials.

Studies have indicated that low solubility nanoparticles are more toxic than larger particles on a mass for mass basis. There are strong indications that particle surface area and surface chemistry are responsible for observed responses in cell cultures and animals. Studies suggests that some nanoparticles can move from the respiratory system to other organs. Research is continuing to understand how these unique properties may lead to specific health effects.

NIOSH leads the federal government nanotechnology initiative. Research and activities are coordinated through the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) established in 2004.

See the article here:

Nanotechnology - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Ethics of Nanotechnology – Santa Clara University

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Introduction

Imagine a world in which cars can be assembled molecule-by-molecule, garbage can be disassembled and turned into beef steaks, and people can be operated on and healed by cell-sized robots. Sound like science fiction? Well, with current semiconductor chip manufacturing encroaching upon the nanometer scale and the ability to move individual atoms at the IBM Almaden laboratory, we are fast approaching the technological ability to fabricate productive machines and devices that can manipulate things at the atomic level. From this ability we will be able to develop molecular-sized computers and robots, which would give us unprecedented control over matter and the ability to shape the physical world as we see fit. Some may see it as pure fantasy, but others speculate that it is an inevitability that will be the beginning of the next technological revolution.

Laboratories, such as the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility (SNF), have already been researching nanofabrication techniques with applications in fiber optics, biotechnology, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), and wide variety of other research fields relevant to today's technology. MEMS, "tiny mechanical devices such as sensors, valves, gears, mirrors, and actuators embedded in semiconductor chips", are particularly interesting because they are but a mere step away from the molecular machines envisioned by nanotechnology. MEMS are already being used in automobile airbag systems as accelerometers to detect collisions and will become an increasing part of our everyday technology.

In 1986, a researcher from MIT named K. Eric Drexler already foresaw the advent of molecular machines and published a book, Engines of Creation, in which he outlined the possibilities and consequences of this emerging field, which he called nanotechnology. He was inspired by Nobel laureate Richard Feynman's 1959 lecture, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, about miniaturization down to the atomic scale. Since then, Drexler has written numerous other books on the subject, such as Unbounding the Future, and has founded the Foresight Institute, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the responsible development of nanotechnology. It hosts conferences and competitions to raise the awareness of nanotechnology and the ethical issues involved in its development.

Today, nanotechnology research and development is quite wide spread, although not high profile yet. Numerous universities, such as Univ. of Washington and Northwestern Univ., have established centers and institutes to study nanotechnology, and the U.S. government has created an organization, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), to monitor and guide research and development in this field. In fact, as noted in an April 2001 Computerworld article, the Bush administration increased funding to nanoscale science research by 16% through its National Science Foundation (NSF) budget increase. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the NSF are currently the two largest sources of funding for nanotechnology research and have an enormous influence on the direction of scientific research done in the United States. With so many resources dedicated to its development, nanotechnology will surely have an impact within our lifetime, so it is important to examine its ethical implications while it is still in its infancy.

What is Nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology, also called molecular manufacturing, is "a branch of engineering that deals with the design and manufacture of extremely small electronic circuits and mechanical devices built at the molecular level of matter." [Whatis.com] The goal of nanotechnology is to be able to manipulate materials at the atomic level to build the smallest possible electromechanical devices, given the physical limitations of matter. Much of the mechanical systems we know how to build will be transferred to the molecular level as some atomic analogy. (see nanogear animation on the right)

As envisioned by Drexler, as well as many others, this would lead to nanocomputers no bigger than bacteria and nanomachines, also known as nanites (from Star Trek: The Next Generation), which could be used as a molecular assemblers and disassemblers to build, repair, or tear down any physical or biological objects.

In essence, the purpose of developing nanotechnology is to have tools to work on the molecular level analogous to the tools we have at the macroworld level. Like the robots we use to build cars and the construction equipment we use to build skyscrapers, nanomachines will enable us to create a plethora of goods and increase our engineering abilities to the limits of the physical world.

Potential Benefits...

It would not take much of a leap, then, to imagine disassemblers dismantling garbage to be recycled at the molecular level, and then given to assemblers for them to build atomically perfect engines. Stretching this vision a bit, you can imagine a Star Trek type replicator which could reassemble matter in the form of a juicy steak, given the correct blueprints and organization of these nanomachines.

Just given the basic premises of nanotechnology, you can imagine the vast potential of this technology. Some of it's more prominent benefits would be:

Along with all the obvious manufacturing benefits, there are also many potential medical and environmental benefits. With nanomachines, we could better design and synthesize pharmaceuticals; we could directly treat diseased cells like cancer; we could better monitor the life signs of a patient; or we could use nanomachines to make microscopic repairs in hard-to-operate-on areas of the body. With regard to the environment, we could use nanomachines to clean up toxins or oil spills, recycle all garbage, and eliminate landfills, thus reducing our natural resource consumption.

Potential Dangers...

The flip side to these benefits is the possibility of assemblers and disassemblers being used to create weapons, be used as weapons themselves, or for them to run wild and wreak havoc. Other, less invasive, but equally perilous uses of nanotechnology would be in electronic surveillance.

Weapons are an obvious negative use of nanotechnology. Simply extending today's weapon capabilities by miniaturizing guns, explosives, and electronic components of missiles would be deadly enough. However, with nanotechnology, armies could also develop disassemblers to attack physical structures or even biological organism at the molecular level. A similar hazard would be if general purpose disassemblers got loose in the environment and started disassembling every molecule they encountered. This is known as "The Gray Goo Scenario." Furthermore, if nanomachines were created to be self replicating and there were a problem with their limiting mechanism, they would multiply endlessly like viruses. Even without considering the extreme disaster scenarios of nanotechnology, we can find plenty of potentially harmful uses for it. It could be used to erode our freedom and privacy; people could use molecular sized microphones, cameras, and homing beacons to monitor and track others.

Ethical Issues & Analysis

With such awesome potential dangers inherent in nanotechnology, we must seriously examine its potential consequences. Granted, nanotechnology may never become as powerful and prolific as envisioned by its evangelists, but as with any potential, near-horizon technology, we should go through the exercise of formulating solutions to potential ethical issues before the technology is irreversibly adopted by society. We must examine the ethics of developing nanotechnology and create policies that will aid in its development so as to eliminate or at least minimize its damaging effects on society.

Ethical Decision Making Worksheet

Most relevant facts

We are reaching a critical point where technology will enable us to build complex molecular machines. Molecular assemblers and disassemblers could be developed from this technology, which would have great potential for both good and bad. The two greatest threats from development of nanotechnology are catastrophic accidents and misuse.

Professional Issues

Legal/Policy Issues

Ethical Issues

Stakeholders

Possible Actions

Consequences

Individual Rights/Fairness

The second and third options seem to be the most prudent course of action since the second option is commonly done now for emerging technologies and the third option consciously prevents designs that could lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

Common Good

The second and third options also seem to advance the most common good since the second option involves promoting ethics within the research community and the third option is a set of design principles to discourage unethical or accidental uses of nanotechnology.

Final Decision

Nanotechnology research should be allowed to continue but with a non-government advisory council to monitor the research and help formulate ethical guidelines and policies. Generally, nanomachines should NOT be designed to be general purpose, self replicating, or to be able to use an abundant natural compound as fuel. Furthermore, complex nanomachines should be tagged with a radioactive isotope so as to allow them to be tracked in case they are lost.

Conclusion

It would be difficult to deny the potential benefits of nanotechnology and stop development of research related to it since it has already begun to penetrate many different fields of research. However, nanotechnology can be developed using guidelines to insure that the technology does not become too potentially harmful. As with any new technology, it is impossible to stop every well funded organization who may seek to develop the technology for harmful purposes. However, if the researchers in this field put together an ethical set of guidelines (e.g. Molecular Nanotechnology Guidelines) and follow them, then we should be able to develop nanotechnology safely while still reaping its promised benefits.

References

Drexler, K. Eric Engines of Creation. New York: Anchor Books, 1986.

Drexler, K. Eric Unbounding the Future. New York: Quill, 1991.

Feynman, Richard P. There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. 03 March 2002. http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html

The Foresight Institute. 03 March 2002. http://www.foresight.org/

Institute for Molecular Manufacturing. 03 March 2002. IMM.org

National Nanotechnology Initiative. 03 March 2002. http://www.nano.gov/

Thibodeau, Patrick. "Nanotech, IT research given boost in Bush budget". 03 March 2002. (April 11, 2001) CNN.com

[Definitions]. 03 March 2002. Whatis.com

View original post here:

The Ethics of Nanotechnology - Santa Clara University

Nanomedicine Fact Sheet – Genome.gov | National Human …

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Danzig

Nanomedicine Overview

What if doctors had tiny tools that could search out and destroy the very first cancer cells of a tumor developing in the body? What if a cell's broken part could be removed and replaced with a functioning miniature biological machine? Or what if molecule-sized pumps could be implanted in sick people to deliver life-saving medicines precisely where they are needed? These scenarios may sound unbelievable, but they are the ultimate goals of nanomedicine, a cutting-edge area of biomedical research that seeks to use nanotechnology tools to improve human health.

Top of page

A lot of things are small in today's high-tech world of biomedical tools and therapies. But when it comes to nanomedicine, researchers are talking very, very small. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, too small even to be seen with a conventional lab microscope.

Top of page

Nanotechnology is the broad scientific field that encompasses nanomedicine. It involves the creation and use of materials and devices at the level of molecules and atoms, which are the parts of matter that combine to make molecules. Non-medical applications of nanotechnology now under development include tiny semiconductor chips made out of strings of single molecules and miniature computers made out of DNA, the material of our genes. Federally supported research in this area, conducted under the rubric of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, is ongoing with coordinated support from several agencies.

Top of page

For hundreds of years, microscopes have offered scientists a window inside cells. Researchers have used ever more powerful visualization tools to extensively categorize the parts and sub-parts of cells in vivid detail. Yet, what scientists have not been able to do is to exhaustively inventory cells, cell parts, and molecules within cell parts to answer questions such as, "How many?" "How big?" and "How fast?" Obtaining thorough, reliable measures of quantity is the vital first step of nanomedicine.

As part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund [nihroadmap.nih.gov], the NIH [nih.gov] has established a handful of nanomedicine centers. These centers are staffed by a highly interdisciplinary scientific crew, including biologists, physicians, mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists. Research conducted over the first few years was spent gathering extensive information about how molecular machines are built.

Once researchers had catalogued the interactions between and within molecules, they turned toward using that information to manipulate those molecular machines to treat specific diseases. For example, one center is trying to return at least limited vision to people who have lost their sight. Others are trying to develop treatments for severe neurological disorders, cancer, and a serious blood disorder.

The availability of innovative, body-friendly nanotools that depend on precise knowledge of how the body's molecular machines work, will help scientists figure out how to build synthetic biological and biochemical devices that can help the cells in our bodies work the way they were meant to, returning the body to a healthier state.

Top of page

Last Updated: January 22, 2014

Go here to see the original:

Nanomedicine Fact Sheet - Genome.gov | National Human ...

Libertarianismus Wikipedie

Posted on May 5, 2016 by Danzig

Libertarianismus je oznaen pro skupinu politickch ideologi, kter odmtaj donucovn a naopak vyzdvihuj politickou i obecnou svobodu a aktivitu skrze dobrovoln obansk sdruen i spolky. Dle se zasazuj o spolenost s minimlnmi zsahy sttu nebo v krajnch ppadech o spolenost zcela bez sttnho zzen.

Pojem libertarianismus (v etin se tento termn pouv zdka, zde znamen krajn variantu a pokraovn liberalismu) se nkdy obecn uv ve spojitosti se silnou touhou po svobod, bez ohledu na politick pesvden, a jako termn v mnohem um slova smyslu oznauje (zejmna v USA) intelektuln-politick hnut, kter oivuje a dl rozvj klasick i evropsk liberalismus. Libertarini obhajuj individualismus a voln obchod. Zdrazuj dleitost nevynucenho socilnho podku a ztotouj se s morlnm odporem ke sttu, kter disponuje svou "krutou" a donucovac funkc. Je pro n charakteristick, e dvaj pednost neintervenn zahranin politice nejen z obavy ped zahraninm avanturismem, ale pro jej spojen s vlkou, s nrstem sttn moci a se ztrtou vnitnch svobod. Nkte libertarini ve svm odporu ke sttu dospj a k anarchismu.[1]

Politicky se libertarianismus nkdy chybn zamuje za modern, trn orientovan konzervatismus. Spolen vyznvaj dleitost trnch vztah i voluntarismus, ale libertarini si zskali inteligenci, na kterou se konzervativci odvolvaj, zvlt v ekonomickch problmech.[zdroj?] Mimo oblast ekonomiky se vak libertarini od konzervativc oste odliuj, zvlt v pojet zahranin politiky a problmech individuln svobody.[1]

Libertarianismus se d chpat jako soust irho proudu liberalismu, tedy jedn ze t nejvlivnjch politickch filosofi 19. stolet. Liberalismus bhem svho vvoje prodlal hlubok zmny a v souasnosti jde o soubor nkolika od sebe velmi odlinch smr vetn libertarianismu, ale i klasickho liberalismu a egalitrnho liberalismu.

Liberalismus 19. stolet, dnes oznaovan jako klasick, byl ve svm politickm ztlesnn stanoviskem pedevm nov emancipovanch vych a stednch vrstev a jako takov stl v protikladu nejen k politickmu konzervatismu, ale velmi zhy tak vi marxismu a jinm verzm socialismu. lo o liberalismus nejen politick, ale v nemen me i ekonomick, v nm dleit msto psluelo poadavku, aby byly odstranny vechny pekky pro ekonomickou innost jednotlivc uvnit sttu i v mezinrodnm mtku.

Liberln pojet politick svobody se velmi zhy spojilo s ideou demokracie a v podob liberln demokracie se rozilo do velk sti souasnho svta. Mylenka svobody vak me bt interpretovna rzn a neexistuje politick filosofie, kter by ochotn nenabdla vlastn definici svobody. V ppad klasickho liberalismu je takovou definic tzv. negativn pojet svobody, tj. takov, kter svobodu chpe jako absenci vnjch omezen jednn.[2]

Klasick liberalismus 19. stolet m krom nsledovnk egalitrn-liberlnch i takov, kte nadle pikldaj maximln vhu mylence svobody v urit specifick interpretaci a ktei jsou v poslednch desetiletch oznaovni jako neoliberlov a libertarini.[2]

I kdy z liberalismu vychzej a maj s nm mnoho spolenho, tyto mylenkov smry se nazvaj jinak v dsledku vznamovho posunu termnu liberln v USA smrem doleva, aby nedochzelo k zmnm. Oba tyto proudy se sten pekrvaj, ale nejsou toton. Neoliberalismus erp svou inspiraci pedevm z ekonomick teorie a jeho vedoucmi pedstaviteli jsou ekonomov jako Friedrich August von Hayek a Milton Friedman. Libertarianismus je sloitjm tvarem, protoe vedle klasickho politickho a ekonomickho liberalismu se v nm uplatuje tak vliv anarchismu a libertarinskho socialismu.[3]

lenov americk Demokratick strany bvaj asto oznaovni za liberly, piem pojem liberl je v americk politick tradici odlin od pevaujcho evropskho chpn. Evropsk typ liberalismu by v Americe byl spe oznaovn prv za libertarianismus. Liberalismus v americkm pojet je sociln a kulturn orientovan a pikld vznam stt pi een cel ady otzek. Stt m do znan mry zodpovdnost za takov otzky, jako je usnadnn integrace menin, za rove vzdln a za zajitn rovnosti ve smyslu vyrovnvn potench anc. Tento proud je blzk evropsk sociln demokracii, resp. v poslednch letech meme hovoit o sbliovn pedevm ze strany nkterch evropskch stran, zejmna Labour Party ve Spojenm krlovstv.[2]

Souasn libertarianismus je komplexn a d se o nm uvaovat jako o celku, jen se skld ze t mezi sebou voln propletench pramen. Na prvnm mst figuruje akademicky oiven klasick liberalismus z obdob po 2. svtov vlce. Klovou lohu v nm sehrla dla Miltona Friedmana a Friedricha Hayeka. Jin, dleit vznam pedstavovaly kritiky veejnho vnmn od Jamese M. Buchanana a Gordona Tullocka, kter napadaly vldn model benevolentnho despoty a vyhledvn penz pro jej leny, ale i prce mnoha dalch trn orientovanch ekonom, nap. Richarda Posnera a Henryho Manna, a jejich vahy o prvu a ekonomice, dle pak vahy Richarda Epsteina o stavn jurisprudenci, stejn tak jako dlo Anarchie, stt a utopie Roberta Nozicka, zaloen na prvu a podporujc Buchanana, a nakonec i fundovan kritika Thomase Szasze, kter se zamila na zneuvn psychiatrie.

Druhm zdrojem je fakt, e v americk kultue existuje siln individualistick proud, kter zmohutnl dky nejrznjm intelektulnm poinm. V USA zdomcnly ideje, kter maj svj pvod ji v pozdn scholastickm mylen pes anglick levellery a Johna Locka, Ameriany Thomase Paina a Thomase Jeffersona, dle pak ve francouzskm liberalismu, jacksoninsk sociln teorii a manchesterskm liberalismu Richarda Cobdena, Johna Brighta, Herberta Spencera a Benjamina Tuckera. Ve 20. stolet pedstavuj nejdleitj zdroje H. L. Mecken, Albert J. Nock, izolacionismus star pravice, Ludwig von Mises a rakout ekonomov svobodnho trhu i spisovatelka a filosofka Ayn Randov. Souasnou vlivnou osobnost je Murray Rothbard, autor mnoha dl na toto tma.

Tet zdroj pedstavuje skutenost, e ve svt existuje politick hnut libertarin, kter erp z rozmanitch a pestrch individualistickch a promnnch proud americkho ivota, z opozinch kruh odprc vietnamsk vlky a vojenskch odvod, z ad odprc zdann a ppadu tvrd mny a po mnohdy nboensky inspirovan rodinn hnut.[1]

V USA existuje dleit s organizac propagujcch libertarinskou politiku a ideje s n spojen. Z mezinrodnho hlediska se tito lid prosadili i na akademick pd a tak v mezinrodn sti veejnch politickch instituc, je se zamuj na trh. Nzory tchto politickch instituc pedevm v otzkch privatizace byly v rznch podobch pijaty i na vldn rovni.[1]

Kandidt Libertarinsk strany Ron Paul se v prezidentskch volbch v roce v USA 1988 umstil za republikny a demokraty jako tet. (b) Ron Paul pot kandidoval jet v roce 2008 a 2012 v rmci Republiknsk strany, obdobn jako jeho syn Rand Paul v roce 2016.[4]

Libertarinsk teorie vystupuje proti Rawlsov egalitarismu. Ta znamenala pro libertarianismus prlom do akademickho prosted, kde do t doby nebyl brn zcela vn. Tuto teorii formuloval Rawlsv kolega z Harvardovy univerzity filosof Robert Nozick v knize Anarchie, stt a utopie (1974).

Nozick zdrazuje lidskou svobodu a vychz z pesvden, e zkladnm faktem, kter se mus brt v potaz pi vahch o spravedlnosti ve spolenosti, je ten, e kad lovk je vlastnkem sebe sama. To znamen, e kad me nakldat se svm tlem, schopnostmi a dalm vlastnictvm, jak uzn za vhodn. Jeho svoboda nem bt nijak omezovna, a to v prvn ad jist ne svvoln, patnou vldou nebo morln zkaenmi jednotlivci, ale tak ne dobe mnnmi sttnmi pkazy a zkazy. Stt m podle Nozicka existovat pouze v podob "nonho hldae", tj. jako instituce, kter pln minimln nezbytn koly dohledu nad dodrovnm zkon a zajiovn bezpe oban. Ve ostatn m bt penechno autonomnm jednotlivcm, kte jako vlastnci sebe samch a nositel vlastnickch prv mohou voln realizovat akty smny a tm neustle mnit rozloen statk ve spolenosti. Ostr Nozickovy kritiky m na perozdlovn zenmu sttem, neboli proti zdann, kter povauje za velmi hlubok poruen osobn svobody jednotlivce.[2]

Libertarianismus je svmi kritiky mnohdy pedstavovn jako mylen do znan mry asociln a spoleensky nezodpovdn, ppadn jako ideologie zcela utopistick, oteven obhajujc sobectv a dal negativn lidsk sklony na zklad absolutnho drazu na svobodu. Libertarini toto upednostovn vlastnch sobeckch zjm vid jako zklad pro pospolitost spolenosti, za co jsou hojn kritizovni z rznch stran. Opomjej tak pi tom pr dleit pedpoklady fungujc spolenosti vzjemnou dvru mezi lidmi a pocit sounleitosti do jednoho spoleenstv definovanho socilnmi vazbami a loajalitou. Stt pi tom vid pouze negativn, jako instituci utlaujc svobodn jedince a nikoliv jako pirozenou soust lidskho spoleenstv. V tomto ohledu je jim asto vytno zamovn sttu v irm slova smyslu a vldy.

Samotn prioritizovn svobody za vech okolnost je dle oponent chybn, a u kvli nemonosti dodrovn prv spojench se svobodou ped nastolenm spoleenskho du i kvli svm spoleenskm implikacm. Opomjej pi tom vznam pirozench povinnost lovka vi ostatnm, jako i disciplnu a obtovn se jako dleit hodnoty fungujc spolenosti. Z tchto zkladnch protiargument pot nsleduje kritika vcnj, pedevm libertarinskho pstupu k danm.

Snahy o maximalizaci svobody se asto vykldaj jako obhajoba zmonch socilnch vrstev proti mn zmonm, protoe se zd zejm, e bohat mohou vybrat z podstatn ir nabdky monost jednn ne chud.

Tato kritika je v jednom smru nepesvdiv, protoe se zd, e svobodu redukuje na ekonomicky podmnn monosti vbru, ale dobe se na n ukazuje, jak vznamn je pro politickou filosofii problm spravedlnosti, kter systematicky zpracoval John Rawls. Z ad nboensky zaloench kritik se objevuje protiargument vi samotnmu postultu libertarinskho mylen, tedy vlastnn sebe sama. Libertarini tak dle tto kritiky opomjej vliv Boha jako stvoitele a konenho vlastnka vech lid.[2][5]

Originally posted here:

Libertarianismus Wikipedie

Libertarianizmus – Wikipdia

Posted on May 5, 2016 by Danzig

Libertarianizmus (angl. libertarianism, odvoden od lat. liber slobodn) je oznaenie skupiny politickch ideolgi, ktor nadvzujc na klasick liberalizmus zdrazuj individualizmus odrajci sa v osobnej i ekonomickej slobode. Prvrenec libertarianizmu sa oznauje ako libertarin.

Pre odlin politicko-filozofick vvoj v Spojench ttoch a Eurpe je defincia libertarianizmu pomerne irok. Zatia o v USA sa v sasnosti oznaenie liberl uplatuje vlune vo vzname egalitrneho liberalizmu, predovetkm v strednej a vchodnej Eurpe, Juhoafrickej republike, ne sa pouva takmer v pvodnom vzname klasickho liberalizmu.[1] Mylienkov zklada libertarianizmu tak zaha predstaviteov a pokraovateov klasickho liberalizmu, ako aj radiklne liberlne terie minarchizmu, objektivizmu a anarchokapitalizmu.[2][3] Predovetkm v americkom prostred sa kvli mylienkovej blzkosti a sptmu vvoju s Republiknskou stranou k libertarinom asto zahaj aj predstavitelia paleokonzervativizmu (napr. Ron Paul).

V 30. rokoch 20. storoia mnoho stpencov Rooseveltovej politiky Novho delu z radov americkch intelektulov sami seba pokladali za liberlov, avak nimi presadzovan budovanie ttu blahobytu a zvyovanie ttnych vdavkov na podporu opatren namierench proti dsledkom vekej hospodrskej krzy bolo v protiklade s pvodnm liberalizmom. Termn liberl sa v priebehu 30. a 40. rokov zauval na pomenovanie stpenca politiky Demokratickej strany, ktorho najblim ekvivalentom v eurpskom kontexte je oznaenie socilny demokrat.[4][pozn 1]

Akademick oznaenie klasick liberalizmus mnoho pvodnch liberlov odmietalo pouva, pretoe sa domnievali, e to nie je vhodn pojem pre ich de facto modern a pokrokov politiku. V 50. rokoch americk ekonm a publicista Leonard Read zaal pouva pvodne filozofick pojem libertarianizmus,[5] ktor sa v priebehu nasledujcich dvoch desaro uplatnil v praxi a v roku 1972 vznikla Libertarinska strana. Niektor zstancovia klasickho liberalizmu sa ale s tmto pomenovanm nestotonili, napr. Friedrich August von Hayek sa naalej oznaoval za liberla alebo Ayn Randov, ktor sa pokladala za radiklnu prokapitalistku.[1] Termn libertarianizmus bol prvkrt preukzatene pouit anglickm historikom a politickm komenttorom Williamom Belshamom v roku 1789 v eseji O slobode a nevyhnutnosti, ako antonymum k determinizmu.[6]

V akademickom prostred libertarianizmus filozoficky etabloval Robert Nozick svojim dielom Anarchia, tt a utpia (1974), v ktorom rozvil lockovsk teriu ttu, spravodlivosti a skromnho vlastnctva. Na poli ekonmie rozvjala svoju innos Montpelerinsk spolonos zaloen roku 1947 Hayekom. V roku 1946 Leonard Read zaloil Nadciu pre ekonomick vzdelvanie (angl. Foundation for Economic Education), ktor sa stala prvm libertarinskym think tankom v USA. Skupina rakskych ekonmov zaloila roku 1982 Intitt Ludwiga von Misesa (angl. Ludwig von Mises Institute). K vznamnm libertarinskym think tankom patr aj Cato Institute zaloen v roku 1974.

Medzi dleitch, ale ideovo nejednotnch, predstaviteov libertarianizmu patria ekonmovia chicagskej (Milton Friedman) a rakskej koly (Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read, Friedrich August von Hayek), americk politik Ron Paul (s republiknskou platformou Tea Party), filozof Robert Nozick, spisovateka a filozofka Ayn Randov. Za tzv. avicovho libertarina sm seba povauje anarchosyndikalista Noam Chomsky.

See original here:

Libertarianizmus - Wikipdia

Golden Isles GA – St. Simons, Little St. Simons, Jekyll …

Posted on May 5, 2016 by Danzig

Use the following navigation to visit the main site sections

The Golden Isles consist of many unique locations each offering a unique experience. Discover them at your leisure. Come Stay!

Nestled on the Georgia coast, midway between Savannah, GA, and Jacksonville, FL, lies the mainland city of Brunswick and its four beautiful barrier islands: St. Simons Island, Sea Island, Little St. Simons Island and Jekyll Island. Pristine stretches of marshland, punctuated by small islands known as hammocks, define the breathtaking landscape and create the appearance of a continuous stretch of land reaching out to the barrier islands.

The largest of The Golden Isles, St. Simons Island continues to reveal the remarkable beauty and fascinating history of what 16th-century Spanish explorers called San Simeon. Visitors come year round to swim, stroll and sail along its miles of lovely beaches, to challenge its 99 holes of superb golf and numerous tennis courts, and to explore its countless shops and restaurants.

Reached by causeway from St. Simons Island, Sea Island is an internationally acclaimed resort. Though much of Sea Island is residential, Island life centers around The Cloister, perennially honored as one of the worlds great hotels. Golf club, beach club, gun club, horseback riding, fine dining and numerous other activities are among the amenities enjoyed by its guests.

Jekyll Island offers an abundance of recreational activities that are sure to please visitors of all ages. Miles of white sand beaches, 63 holes of golf, an outdoor tennis complex, water fun park, fishing pier, nature centers, bike trails and more. Accommodations are invitingly varied and include a grand historic hotel, oceanfront properties, even camping. Jekyll Island, once a haven for Americas elite, now beckons to all.

Accessible only by boat, Little St. Simons Island is the northernmost of The Golden Isles and certainly the most secluded. For many years a privately owned retreat, the Island now offers a limited number of guests the rare opportunity to experience the enchantment and solitude of the isolated beaches and marshlands that bound its10,000 acres of pristine woodlands.

Mainland Brunswick is named for Braunschweig, Germany, the ancestral home of King George II, grantor of Georgias original land charter. The streets and squares of this quiet port city were laid out before the American Revolution and their names, like Newcastle, Norwich, Prince and Gloucester, give Brunswick a decidedly English flavor. The unmistakable flavor of the south, too, can be sampled here, home of the original Brunswick Stew.

Interstate 95, the main Interstate Highway on the east coast of the United States, also serves the coast of Georgia. Within Georgia, it begins from the south at the St. Marys River and the Florida state line and continues north past the border of South Carolina at the Savannah River. Exits 29, 36, 38 and 42 serve the Golden Isles of Georgia.

If you would like to receive our regular newsletter containing up-to-date news, information and special offers, subscribe below.

Become a part of the Golden Isles community by following us online:

Golden Isles CVB | Please contact us: 1-800-933-2627 (local: 912-265-0620)

Golden Isles GA - St. Simons, Little St. Simons, Jekyll ...

Select Page ::