To be, or not to be? That is no longer the question...

The question is: how long do you want to be? Nanotech can apparently make us live forever, but 60 Minutes would have left some things out.

Shakespeare can be used for any number of things and this nano-technology thing is no different. Since I've done some reading on this in the past, I'd like to shed some light on the subject and thus confuse you further. This isn't going to be in-depth because I'm doing English and FTVMS for a reason, not Physics or Engineering.

I will not discuss quantum computers because that is another subject and it would take up the entire post. But look it up, its very exciting stuff.

Nanotechnology is the art of controlling matter on a molecular or atomic scale. Quantum computers do come in here. By manipulating matter on such a scale, we can build materials and thus machines that are smaller, more efficient, stronger and generally awesome. By producing, say, solar panels that are mere millimetres across, you could potentially spray them on buildings, thus creating a cheap and efficient source of energy. This is already in development and is found to be MUCH cheaper than silicon cells.

Now, I didn't see the 60 Minutes thing but from the sounds of it, it wasn't completely uplifting. Let's put it this way. In the 1950's, people firmly believed that we would have colonised the Moon and generally be living in a technological utopia by the year 1994, ruled by our lord and master, Steve Jobs. So, in 2010, there is bugger all on the Moon and our cars don't fly. Just as well. Yes, nanotechnology has a myriad of uses and yes the benefits do in most cases outweigh the drawbacks. But it is still in its infancy as a science.

Controlling things on that scale isn't easy. Socks that contain silver atoms to control foot odour are released in the wash and may potentially kill off beneficial bacteria. My pool at home has the same thing but it definitely isn't nano-scaled. Recycling nanotech stuff would be a nightmare. You drop some of it and it'll be harder to find than a contact lens in... well anywhere. No technology is perfect.

So they say they can make us live forever with this stuff. Yay! Personally I'm all for extending human life and making aging less... wrinkly but living forever? I think not. We are supposed to die. And quite frankly, I don't really mind. Though it would be very useful technology for space exploration, when it takes decades to get anywhere even if you travel at 99% the speed of light. If I could live to 200, in the state of health comparable to that of a man a fraction of my age, I would. Significant plastic surgery might be involved but I'm sure I'd be able to pay for it. 180 years on Kiwi Saver? Hell yes.

Eliminating disease would be a politically contenscious issue on an unimaginable scale. The planet is pressed as it is! If we can't sort out the world as it is now, then living "forever" would hardly help things. Besides, people wear out. They see the world, raise their families and if they're lucky, they live a full life and feel satisfied. But what about those who have things they never did? Things they regret not doing?

Tough, say I. If you did absolutely everything you ever wanted to do, and then you were offered the opportunity to just switch off, would you? Would it be suicide, euthenasia or a natural death?
The implications of nanotechnology could be beyond imagining. Culturally, socially, medically, environmentally, politically.

Give me a nice round century and then I'll call it quits. Offer me another one and I'll think about it. But if the saying "history always repeats itself" is true, then I think I'd rather switch off.

Personally, I'm sick of re-runs.

Better, Stronger, Faster: so long as I look like Steve Austin, not Stelarc

This Wednesday, 60 Minutes ran a story featuring a segment on nanotechnology, specifically its application in medicine. While Mike McRoberts examined how such technology could potentially "cure cancer within twenty years" (amongst promising anti-ageing and longer life), I started to wonder how this form of transhumanism would be socially received. Interestingly, the 60 Minutes piece touched on the ethical problems of 'have and have-not' - the divide created by those who could afford technology and those who couldn't, but pretty much just assumed that society in general would accept this advance in technology.

But why is this? Why is it that nanotechnology is seen as a medical breakthrough, yet other forms of posthumanism are more disturbing (thank you Stelarc) to us? Is this purely aesthetics - that nanotechnology is unseen, as opposed to the visible transgressions and extensions of the human body by Stelarc, or is it something more? Both forms of technology work within the human body, 'under the skin' as a part of the organism, yet nanotech is acceptable, and third ears are not. Am I alone in making this distinction?

Perhaps it comes down to what we perceive the technology to accomplish. In the case of the 60 Minutes nanotech reporting, the focus was on technology removing human 'problems' of ageing, illness and eventually death. Stelarc, on the other (perhaps third) hand, seems to be more interested in extending human capabilities, questioning why humans should be limited in ability when technology can make us better, stronger, faster.

But isn't this is fundamentally a false distinction? Illness and ageing are as much a part of being human, as having only two ears is. Isn't using nanotech to increase health just the same as using technology to increase number of ears? How does society decide what technology helps us be functioning humans, and what technology allows us to function beyond human limits?

(Stelarc's optional Third Arm also allows him to scratch all his ears at once)