I chose this article because it offers a well grounded summary of the fundamental issues facing nanotechnology. As the article states, the requirement for social acceptance of each new technology isn't that the technology works, it's that the society believes
Do people believe in nanotechnology? Primarily, yes. It's very scientific sounding. Very precise. It requires all sorts of complex engineering and lots of capital investment. But if this is so, why don't people believe in the nanotechnology that already exists?
Huh? What do I mean? I'm talking about the microscopic devices already present in the bodies of every human being. We have devices that repair tissue, that diagnose and treat disease, that kill invaders and that even "learn" what those invaders look like so they can capture them more easily next time.
Every human being alive already has this nanotechnology: it's called the immune system. And yet few people actually "believe" in this form of nanotechnology. The immune system is the great unsung hero of human health.
Through nanotechnology, doctors and scientists are essentially trying to create a secondary immune system that can be injected into patients' blood and go to work. But why not just support the immune system that's already there?
Too often, modern medicine works to destroy
the existing immune system rather than support it. Chemotherapy, for example, consists of injecting a non-lethal dose of deadly poisons into a human being. Those poisons obliterate the patient's immune system
. This is especially bewildering, since a stronger immune system has the ability to tackle cancer and keep tumors in check.
But getting back to the point here, why don't scientists and researchers work with the existing
nanotechology that's already present in every human being? I'll tell you why: because nobody gets a big career boost boost from it. You don't get a billion dollars in funding by talking about the immune system. You get it by painting a science fantasy picture that includes really smart scientists building microscopic machines that challenge nature, not that complement it.
Small devices power big egos, it turns out. At least in the politics of nanotechnology
. But I offer that nature has far better nanotechnology than mankind could ever produce, and if we would spend more time finding ways to support nature rather than trying to control it, we'd all be healthier and far more "advanced."
Analysis: Nanotechnology is currently being hyped up by researchers seeking big grants. But in the medical field, the promise of nanotech
overlooks the existing biological, nature-powered nanotechnology already present in every human being alive.
About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher, author and award-winning journalist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, and he has authored and published several downloadable personal preparedness courses including a downloadable course focused on safety and self defense. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2010, Adams created TV.NaturalNews.com, a natural living video sharing site featuring thousands of user videos on foods, fitness, green living and more. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, martial arts and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org
Have comments on this article? Post them here:
people have commented on this article.