US says no to nanotechnology

jverne

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
0
In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.
Click to expand...

The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Click to expand...

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."
Click to expand...

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
Click to expand...

http://www.physorg.com/news122309388.html

i'll restrain myself of any comments
 
What does nanotechnology have to do with religion?
 
Acepilotf14 said:
What does nanotechnology have to do with religion?
Click to expand...

The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
Click to expand...

5char
 
then everything made by man is sin cuz it wasnt naturally created by nature

yeah even those cross and bibles! curse human to be playing good by creating these white flat stuffs whit letters! curse human for creating alphabet and letters!
 
Amerika are dumbs


****ing idiots. But then, since when was a 1 thousand person sample enough to judge 300 million people?
 
times like this make me want to move to italy.
 
"The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
Click to expand...
What? the majority of people Ive met still think the word theory in science just means an idea, most of them probably have a completely wrong idea about nanotechnology..which isn't about playing God at all.
 
Nanites would drive the holy spirit of Christ from your being, making you a soulless, atheist automaton.

This is perfectly understandable.
 
Absinthe said:
Nanites would drive the holy spirit of Christ from your being, making you a soulless, atheist automaton.

This is perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

yes, i'm an atheist, robot serial killer
 
Krynn72 said:
Amerika are dumbs


****ing idiots. But then, since when was a 1 thousand person sample enough to judge 300 million people?
Click to expand...

1000 is more than enough. The only thing I want to know is their collection method and what sort of questions they might have asked. It could have been biased. But if it was random, and the question was unbiased, there is no reason to doubt their statistics.
 
"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

:|:|:|

Dark Ages part II coming soon :dozey:

Nanotech IS THE FUTURE, deal with it.
 
Oh, so that's why Deus Ex 3 seemed so unreasonable.

AUGMENTATIONS BITCH! EAT FLASHLIGHT!
 
Krynn72 said:
But then, since when was a 1 thousand person sample enough to judge 300 million people?
Click to expand...
This. :p

The survey of 1000 people is not sufficient to call everyone in America technophobic religious zealots. End of story. Also FYI, I'm Christian and I don't oppose nanotechnology or stem cell research. :p
 
Idiots. Nanotech shouldn't be protested under stupid reasons like "religion" and "morality."

Nanotech should be protested because of the horrible, horrible gray death that will inevitably result. You can't stop it! There's no failswitch in the world that will stop the nanites! We're all f*cking boned in 72 hours!
 
Darkside55 said:
Idiots. Nanotech shouldn't be protested under stupid reasons like "religion" and "morality."

Nanotech should be protested because of the horrible, horrible gray death that will inevitably result. You can't stop it! There's no failswitch in the world that will stop the nanites! We're all f*cking boned in 72 hours!
Click to expand...

I think the "gray goo" hypothesis is a bit far fetched.

First of all, growth of such nanites would be logarithmic, not exponential. Also, the sheer weight of these nanites would cause them to crush each other. The amount of heat they expelled would be enough to destroy their vulnerable parts.

I think the best we'll ever get are artificial pathogens, much like bacteria or slime molds. Keep in mind that nanite's organic counterparts face many of the same challenges and would have potentially the same faculties. Could we engineer a nanite to be much more effective than a bacterium at eating and converting materials into ever more nanites? Possibly. But if we have that kind of technology, we would surely be able to make an anti-nanite that was at least as efficient.
 
Darkside55 said:
Nanotech should be protested because of the horrible, horrible gray death that will inevitably result. You can't stop it! There's no failswitch in the world that will stop the nanites! We're all f*cking boned in 72 hours!
Click to expand...
This however, would a reasonable protest. Then again, the developement of nuclear fission <(or is it fusion?) power also gave birth to the A-bomb.
 
sea said:
Can we nuke it? Please? Maybe just blow it up a little bit at a time.
Click to expand...
???

sea said:
Evidently you've never taken a statistics class before. You probably shouldn't, because it's boring as hell, but... yeah. It will stop you from saying stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Boring? Yes. Necessary? Yes. Are you saying they refused to conduct a more thorough survey because they really couldn't be arsed with the monotony and boredom? :LOL:
 
sea said:
Can we nuke it? Please? Maybe just blow it up a little bit at a time.

Evidently you've never taken a statistics class before. You probably shouldn't, because it's boring as hell, but... yeah. It will stop you from saying stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Exactley. As much as I hate statistics class, it has given me a much better understanding of random sampling and statistics in the media.
 
You'll never persuade me with your fancy science-talk, otherguy. The threat of gray goo is real! We're all going to be consumed under a blanket of endlessly self-replicating matter! Nothing will stop their insatiable appetite! SEVENTY-TWO HOURS!

This is assuming, of course, that the gray goo scenario occurs before the large hadron collider creates a black hole it cannot contain that begins to grow exponentially and devours the planet. In that event, the nanites won't even matter.
 
Saturos said:
Boring? Yes. Necessary? Yes. Are you saying they refused to conduct a more thorough survey because they really couldn't be arsed with the monotony and boredom? :LOL:
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that 1000 people is more than enough to make claims about a population of 300 million.

The margin of error function, (Confidence interval)(sqrt((percent)(1-percent)/(sample size)))

becomes very very small, very very fast. You actually only need a random sample where the number times the percentage and the number times (1- percentage) is greater than 10 to have a useful sample size. For this, which was about 30 percent, you'd only need to have a sample size of about 33 to have a useful statistic. Granted, the margin of error would be really very large, but as you increase the sample size, this drops of very very quickly.
 
Nanotechnology ain't evil, but it can be abused...

EDIT: Nevermind, but I'll leave the first sentence because Sulkdodds enjoys attacking.
 
Isn't it weird that the place (Europe more or less) where God/Jesus religion was born is starting to give it up, and the richest country on earth are actually starting to fall behind in technology because of this religion, yet the birthplace of this religion is starting to give it up, and advancing even more?

Give or take 100 years, I bet America won't even be the richest anymore..
 
lame-o said:
Nanotechnology ain't evil, but it can be abused... A ton of people will want to change the hair color of their unborn children, or make them look nicer, or make them smarter. Which isn't something I'd want to happen to me. But hey, you're all new age right? Who gives a shit. You're so smart you understand it so well you couldn't possibly be wrong, and I'm sure I'll get my ass handed to me.
Click to expand...

That isn't nanotechnology, that's genetic engineering.

Nanotechnology is just making very very small things. Yes it can be abused, but so can any technology.
 
lame-o said:
Guns ain't evil, but they can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
Cars ain't evil, but they can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
Electricity ain't evil, but it can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
Capitalism ain't evil, but it can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
The internet ain't evil, but it can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
Splitting the atom ain't evil, but it can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
Industrialisation ain't evil, but it can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fixed.
lame-o said:
Quotes ain't evil, but they can be abused...
Click to expand...
Fi - oh, never mind.
 
Sulkdodds said:
The internet ain't evil
Click to expand...
I've come to expect you not to be wrong. It disappoints me when you are. Do not let me down like this again, Sulk.
 
theotherguy said:
No, he's saying that 1000 people is more than enough to make claims about a population of 300 million.

The margin of error function, (Confidence interval)(sqrt((percent)(1-percent)/(sample size)))

becomes very very small, very very fast. You actually only need a random sample where the number times the percentage and the number times (1- percentage) is greater than 10 to have a useful sample size. For this, which was about 30 percent, you'd only need to have a sample size of about 33 to have a useful statistic. Granted, the margin of error would be really very large, but as you increase the sample size, this drops of very very quickly.
Click to expand...
There are still many, many other variables involved for these surveys. At least I think so. What about the possibility that some states are more religious than others? The economy, population, etc. of each state? Believe it or not, culture and economy varies quite dramatically from state to state in some cases. How was this survey conducted? Was the 1000 people gathered all in one state? What about race? The White, black, Asian ratio etc? What are the career opportunities like for each state? The list of variables goes on and on. It sounds like it was a poorly conducted survey to me tbh. :p
 
Saturos said:
There are still many, many other variables involved for these surveys. At least I think so. What about the possibility that some states are more religious than others? The economy, population, etc. of each state? Believe it or not, culture and economy varies quite dramatically from state to state in some cases. How was this survey conducted? Was the 1000 people gathered all in one state? What about race? The White, black, Asian ratio etc? What are the career opportunities like for each state? The list of variables goes on and on. It sounds like it was a poorly conducted survey to me tbh. :p
Click to expand...

Exactly. We have to ask questions like that about their sampling methods to make sure they were conducted properly. What I am saying is that the number is not the issue, its how they collect the sample. If the sample was collected totally at random from the entire US population, then it may very well be accurate. But if it was collected out of convenience from a specific area, it can only be used to describe feelings in that area.
 
Cpt Tenacious said:
Arrogance + Ignorance
But i'm sure you knew this. :cheese:
Click to expand...

Arignorance?


I wish I did take a stats class. I heard it was an easy class.

The margin of error function, (Confidence interval)(sqrt((percent)(1-percent)/(sample size)))

becomes very very small, very very fast. You actually only need a random sample where the number times the percentage and the number times (1- percentage) is greater than 10 to have a useful sample size. For this, which was about 30 percent, you'd only need to have a sample size of about 33 to have a useful statistic. Granted, the margin of error would be really very large, but as you increase the sample size, this drops of very very quickly.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but I totally couldnt follow that. What/How do you get a confidence interval? What is the percentage number representing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DreamThrall
After Bush: How to Restore America's Place in the World
Replies
1
Views
741
co05
co05
G
The top five myths about the United States
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
5K
K e r b e r o s
K e r b e r o s
N
US policy is State Terrorism
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Mechagodzilla
Mechagodzilla
Back
Top