tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post111859836291072783..comments2023-10-18T03:56:28.984-04:00Comments on Howard Lovy's NanoBot: Naked aggressionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1118929452201561212005-06-16T09:44:00.000-04:002005-06-16T09:44:00.000-04:00Just two quick notes of clarification: (1) I'm not...Just two quick notes of clarification: <BR/><BR/>(1) I'm not a member of the "scientific community" these days, in any meaningful sense. I'm an engineer, and a consultant. I suspect that (for what it's worth) most actual members of the scientific community proper are paying no attention whatsoever, either to Eddie Bauer <I>or</I> THONG.<BR/><BR/>(2) When I refer to the protesters as "morons" I am in no way being discriminatory against them or their cause, but rather making a comment that would apply equally to Eddie Bauer's marketing idiots, or more generally to anybody who thinks sticking the prefix "nano-" onto your pants is smart or right, or anybody who thinks that anything human beings create or do is intrinsically "more dangerous" than what nature itself does all the time.<BR/><BR/>There's an important sentence in the piece Howard quoted that got clipped off: <I>Nature, it turns out, is about everything trying to simultaneously transform everything else into more stuff it can use.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd love to hear substantive and convincing argument otherwise, that leads me to believe that <I>changing the composition of a fabric used in clothing</I> poses any sort of larger threat to human well-being than, say, the millions of years that actual, "natural" plants have been cunningly creating carcinogens and toxins in their directed, serious attempt to emasculate, delude or kill herbivores.<BR/><BR/>The reason herbs smell funny is because they're full of insecticides, after all. Insecticides that <I>work</I>, by the way....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1118684565003218452005-06-13T13:42:00.000-04:002005-06-13T13:42:00.000-04:00Richard, we may disagree on some issues, but in my...Richard, we may disagree on some issues, but in my book you're also a mensch.Howard Lovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04901713018468508005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1118681648103341172005-06-13T12:54:00.000-04:002005-06-13T12:54:00.000-04:00I'm grateful to THONG for acquitting me on the hyp...I'm grateful to THONG for acquitting me on the hypocrisy charge, but another serious point remains. It may be understandable that exaggeration on one side is met by exaggeration on the other, but it doesn't make it right, and more importantly I don't think this situation is in your best interests. If opponents of nanotechnology are completely indiscriminate about the reasons for opposing the technology, and (as I believe is happening now) quite legitimate causes for concern are mixed up with concerns that are completely groundless, then it's easy for pro-business voices to use the fact that some concerns are easily refuted to discredit opposition on any grounds. You may, of course, not think it is important to make sure that the reasons you oppose nanotechnology are scientifically credible; to some extent this depends whether you are interested in having any kind of real input to policy makers, or whether you are simply interested in gesture politics.<BR/><BR/>Howard, I'll be a Menshevik to the last (and, yes, I know what happened to them).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1118678625877434902005-06-13T12:03:00.000-04:002005-06-13T12:03:00.000-04:00"Exaggerated claims of novelty are naturally count..."Exaggerated claims of novelty are naturally countered by exaggerated claims of danger."<BR/><BR/>Our point exactly,Mr. Jones. We are called "morons" by the scientific community for putting out negative nanohype. <BR/><BR/>But the scientific community is notably silent when the salesmen put our positive nanohype. <BR/><BR/>Can you say "hypocritical"? And, no, we don't men you, Mr. Jones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1118623360088480152005-06-12T20:42:00.000-04:002005-06-12T20:42:00.000-04:00Absolutely, Richard. And you might want to look at...Absolutely, Richard. And you might want to look at this <A HREF="http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2004/09/3ms-tale-of-nanotape.html" REL="nofollow">old post</A> that links to a Forbes/Wolfe feature I wrote on 3M. They've been doing "nano" for about a half-century now. I link to the Nano-Tex patents from <A HREF="http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-wrinkle-for-eddie-bauer.html#111572128074842308" REL="nofollow">this post.</A><BR/><BR/>What's important here, though, is -- like you said -- if they're going to rename chemistry "nanotechnology" (as even 3M is beginning to do now) then they've got to accept the downside, as well -- no matter whether that downside is perceived or real.Howard Lovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04901713018468508005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1118610466055570682005-06-12T17:07:00.000-04:002005-06-12T17:07:00.000-04:00Howard, of course I agree entirely with your comme...Howard, of course I agree entirely with your comment about the need for scientists to pay attention to this and engage with the public, which is why I've been spending a great deal of time recently doing just this. Although the degree to which environmental activists are cavalier with the facts exasperates me, to some extent one can't help feeling that the nanobusiness lobby is reaping what it's sown. Exaggerated claims of novelty are naturally countered by exaggerated claims of danger. What your otherwise excellent piece didn't do was subject the Nanotex claims to a great deal of critical scrutiny. You might want to look again at this <A HREF="http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/index.php?p=3" REL="nofollow">old post</A> in which I looked at the Nanotex patents and asked how much they fundamentally differ from old technologies like 3M's Scotchgardâ„¢.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com