Red, Green & Blue: Environmental Risks and the Knowledge-Wisdom Gap
Molecular gears: Image courtesy of NASAThe more I read, the more I come to the conclusion that one of the big problems threatening the environment — and ourselves — today is one created by the gap between our knowledge and our wisdom. Our access to information and our technological advances continue to accelerate at mind-numbing speed, and our ability to use that knowledge wisely and responsibly can't keep pace.
It was hard for the average European to grasp the philosophical and religious implications of Copernicus' assertion that the Earth circled the sun and not the other way around. Today, we're confronted with a marketplace of ideas and products we often don't even realize are the products of cutting-edge technology: genetically modified crops, lab-synthesized fabrics, nanoparticle-containing cosmetics and more. And I think there's a real danger in not understanding fully what we're buying and using.
Take nanomaterials, for instance. Made with tiny particles approaching the size of molecules and atoms, nanomaterials exhibit unusual properties not typical of "ordinary" materials made from the same stuff. Nanoparticles of gold flow like a liquid. Nanoparticles of copper are transparent. Nanotechnology promises huge benefits in medicine, engineering and other areas, but it's also been widely adopted for more frivolous things: hair gels, sunscreen and cosmetics, for example. In fact, you can find more than 450 commercial products today made with nanomaterials … which is probably more than the number of consumers you can find who know that.
Here's the problem: we're eating stuff and putting stuff on our skin and out in the environment, and yet we don't really know what effects these actions have. Nanoscale titanium dioxide in sunscreen, for example, has been shown to have the potential to damage DNA. Even the scientists who specialize in nanotechnology are concerned about the rapid adoption of such products in the marketplace (see "EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century"). Is this responsible? How do we manage technological advances wisely without slowing progress that could benefit many? I don't know the answer, but I'll be interested in discussing potential solutions.
Tags: environment, information overload, knowledge, nanotechnology, Red, Green and Blue, technology, wisdom
June 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Good Morning Shirley!
It’s interesting to me that you tend to want to take the more cautious approach when it comes to technology… I’m supposed to be the conservative here!
I’m bullish on nano-technology though. I’ve said for a while that we’ll inovate our way out of just about anything that gets in our path and I am still a big suporter of cellulosic ethanol and the like. But the more I read about nano-capacitors it looks like they may be the ultimate solution to our urban transportation delima.
Having capacitors with the same energy density of batteries offers a real solution, too, for the plug-in-electric recharge cycle because it would be possible to charge the capacitors in a matter of a few minutes rather than hours. The major stumbling block on Plug-in-Electrics is that you can’t whip into your local Shell station and fill ‘er up when you are running low on electrons. With nano-capacitors this will become a possibility and our spur-of-the-moment society can just keep-on keeping-on without the need for an oil based liquid fuel.
Embrace technology Shirley… it’s the environmentalist’s best friend!
June 20th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Good morning, Jimmy!
I'm always amused when I encounter a conservative who's surprised at my supposedly "conservative" views on certain things (runaway technology, for example, or setting strict rules for young children). I look at my take on such issues, though, more as one of pragmatism and healthy skepticism. In the case of fast-advancing technology, I'm especially cautious, because we're dealing with things so radically different from anything previously found in nature.
Crafting a wheel out of a hunk of wood, for example, might involve the destruction of a single tree but it didn't inherently change the deck of cards nature dealt us. With things like nanotechnology, on the other hand, there's much we don't know. (Although I do agree with you, Jimmy, that there's great promise there as well; I've always been a huge fan of Richard Feynmann — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman — who is essentially credited with developing the concept of nanotechnology to begin with.)
If it turns out, for instance, that nanoparticles provide that super-clean and efficient energy source we've been seeking, but end up messing with the soil's natural nitrogen cycles and killing off agriculture as we know it, we're stuck with non-polluting cars but no food. Hardly the tradeoff we were looking for.
I'm equally cautious in the case of something like geoengineering. Yes, on paper, seeding the oceans with iron might help sequester carbon dioxide on the ocean floor, but so far, experiments show it's much effort for little payoff, with a steep price paid by sealife.
My question is this, Jimmy, should we have any sort of mechanism for using new technologies wisely and making sure the positives outweigh the negatives? I know you're no fan of government intervention, and given the slowness with which government acts, I'm not sure that would be the way to go anyway. On the other hand, letting the marketplace "sort it out" doesn't seem like the best idea, either. If that nanoparticle face cream feels super-smooth and lasts super-long, plenty of people will buy it … but if users start developing leathery, cancerous skin 10 years from now, is that responsible?
June 20th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I guess it’ll either be the government or the lawyers who end up the arbiters over the new technologies… I’m personally no fan of either group.
For example you mentioned seeding the ocean with iron to help mitigate CO2. I suspect liability will keep this from happening on a large scale because other more localized weather patterns will be blamed on any man-made change to the environment and there’ll be a long line of lawyers willing to sue for damages.
We saw some of this when they were testing the seeding of hurricanes. If a jury could be convinced that a hurricane was redirected then there could be considerable damages awarded.
With our current level of technology we could detonate less than a billion dollars worth of dust mortars in the lower stratosphere and bring on the next ice age if we chose but we’ll never do that regardless of warming because of the imminent liability of doing so. One problem now though is that the rhetoric on global warming is so exaggerated it’s coming to the point where other countries want to blame us for various acts of God. Since the tort system operates on emotion as much as logic I suspect the trial lawyers are just drooling at the opportunity to take that on.
Regardless, however, I wouldn’t let the rantings of esoteric specialists in any field cause you to lose any sleep. Like everyone else when these people dedicate their lives to various causes they tend to see the ominous unintended consequences of their pet field of study with exaggerated importance.
It’s like I’ve said before… we’ve got a lot of real problems to worry about. When our country has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners in its for-profit ‘justice’ system and groups like the ACLU only want to worry about the 10 Commandments and a bunch of whacko terrorists down at Gitmo then our world has already been turned upside down.
Technology, I think, will shake out for the best. It should be one of the least of our worries.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Much of the problem is the “silver bullet mentality,” and that exists on both sides of the fence. Both scientists and technologists, who see their nano-developments as the global solution for whatever particular problem they were looking to address, and consumers, who want fast, easy, cheap answers and who will embrace the promise of any solution.
The same criticisms could be leveled at all manner of developments. Nanotechnology isn’t any different.
Yes, we need to be attentive to possible drawbacks and unintended consequences, but the current system isn’t built to work that way and the market doesn’t reward that approach.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Philip, not to be too Adam Smithian; but I would argue that the market economy has led us through an ever improving quality of life and environment. His Invisible Hand has guided us quite well, I would say, and there’s really no reason to think we will not continue to persevere and triumph over our current and future challenges.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Well put, Philip! The “silver bullet” mentality, as you call it, can lead down some slippery slopes. Every development has consequences and some, whether for better or worse, are always unforeseen.
My point is that technology and knowledge are now advancing so rapidly that the “silver bullets” are flying so thick and fast we can barely keep track of them all, much less monitor them for safety and sustainability.
Actually, Jimmy, I give more weight rather than less to “the rantings of esoteric specialists.” What you call seeing “the ominous unintended consequences of their pet field of study with exaggerated importance” I call informed caution. I don’t profess to understand nearly as much about, say, nanotechnology as someone who spends his/her career studying the subject. So if that specialist sees cause for concern, I’m listening.
Do we have other problems to worry about? Of course. But that doesn’t mean they don’t all merit consideration. When you find yourself facing a swarm of angry bees, you never know which ones are going to sting you.
And, by the way, I’ll ask the ACLU to stop worrying about the 10 Commandments when religious extremists stop suing school districts and textbook publishers to force the teaching of a conveniently manufactured “science” like “intelligent design.”
June 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Intelligent Design is just back-lash from banning mention of Christianity or the bible in schools (even as a work of literature) regardless of how important they are to understanding the development of our society, country and culture - ahhhh, but I digress
The problem with your method of vetting information intake Shirley is that when someone devotes their live to a specialty he/she will give all aspects of it an exaggerated importance. Now are they sometimes right? Well, yeah, a stopped clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes… and when they are right the ‘I TOLD YOU SO!’ chorus rings loud and long. More often than not though the fears are exaggerated.
The problem policy makers have is that EVERYONE is shouting about their own pet peeve and since we are a society of scarce resources then the best we can do is the best we can do.
I think being informed is easier now… and I think that when there is a real cause for concern it tends to perk its way to the top… so I’d say we’ve got a pretty good system.
The thing you’ve got to watch out for is this mass hysteria. It’s like when the Dubai Ports deal came around. People heard the United ARAB Emirates wanted to buy some U.S. port operations (from another foreign country and ally in the war on terror, btw) and everyone lost their freakin’ minds. They ended up shutting down the whole deal in what was, at best, a deal killed by an ignorant racial stereotype. It’s the same thing with the immigration issue. I learned long ago that the best way to control a process is to make it easier to do right than it is to do wrong. The immigration proposal faces this reality and will allow us to document millions of people living in this country who are just looking for a better life for themselves and their families. When it’s in place, border security will easily be able to enforce the border because they will be able to focus on a much smaller minority of people who are trying to subvert a more reasonable system. It’s just common sense but everyone has lost their minds about it; shouting ‘NO AMNESTY!’ and everything else they can think of to torpedo the bill.
Anyway, you’ve got to be careful about the doomsayers. History proves society to be highly resilient against their fears and worrying is largely for naught.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hey, we agree on three things! : )
While I think the controversy over "intelligent design" goes beyond the ability to discuss the Bible as history and literature in schools, I agree there is a place for such discussions. Everything from Shakespeare to the Simpsons makes more sense if you understand Biblical tales and history.
And, yes, the Dubai Ports fracas was ridiculous, as is the current hysteria over immigration. So, hooray, common ground!
Still, let me add these few thoughts on the potential risks of something like nanomaterials. (Again, yes, even the riskiest of nanomaterials is, at the moment, far less likely to do us harm than, say, extreme summer heat waves or even, for Pete's sake, sports creams (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/09/musclecream.death.ap/index.html).)
These are from the International Center for Technology Assessment (see http://icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=21):
"2006 study shows low concentrations of manufactured nanoparticles of titanium dioxide can produce harmful free radicals in brain cells and the potential for brain cell damage.
"2005 study concludes engineered nanoparticles of aluminum oxide bioaccumulate and stunt the growth of roots in at least five species of plants: corn, cucumber, cabbage, carrot and soybeans."
(Note: Heaven forbid we mess with corn, just as ethanol's getting hot!)
"2004 study shows fullerenes or buckyballs– a type of manufactured nanoparticle used in some cosmetics — cause rapid brain damage in fish and are toxic to small crustaceans.
"2004 study discovers that cadmium selenide nanoparticles (quantum dots) can break down in the human body potentially causing cadmium poisoning
"2003 study finds the effects of nanotubes on the lungs of rats produced more toxic response than quartz dust.
"1997 study finds that engineered nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide used in nano-sunscreens can induce free radicals in skin cells and cause DNA damage."
Reasons to panic? No, probably not. But reasons to view emerging technologies with a skeptical eye? Definitely.