Ethical implications

[Colin Mack]

The thing that perenially concerns me really is human beings' capability versus their wisdom. Humans have these enormous abilities to do things and I kind of view it like a two-year-old child sitting in front of a plug with a screwdriver, in that we can, but should we really?

[Leticia Andress]

The big ramifications are, how long do we want to live? I have an elderly father and I see his quality of life decreasing, and you wonder what good it is to keep people healthier for longer, to live longer; what is the point? We've reached a plateau now, you don't want to live too long, is there any quality of life, and also how do we treat people? It's all very well keeping them alive but old people are not well treated in our society.

[Katherine Sykes]

I'm always incredibly wary of technologies that seem not to in any way enhance the quality of actually people's lives, other than compensating for their inherent misery. It's another thing they can buy as a distraction, taking them away from the fact that they're not really very comfortable.

[Christopher Stotts]

I feel a bit sad about the way the human condition's going in that direction - the dependency on being able to talk and communicate with people all the time, rather than being able to communicate with themselves a bit more.

[Ayanami 42]

The Human condition is sad but not unpredictable, if people at this point are incapable of accepting nano-technology then that is no guarrante that they won'tin twenty years, people were terrified of the Atom bomb (rightly so) but now it's tecvhnology is almost an accepted fact and part of our everyday life. And I expect the same could be said for fire.

[Guest]

people will accept nano technology either knowingly or unknowingly, it is that simple.