LETTER: Lecture presents nanotechnology as overly simplistic ecological panacea
To the editor:
Having attended Professor Richard Smalley's Scientae lecture, we find ourselves compelled to respond in some public forum.
First, we welcome Smalley's interest in the issues of overpopulation and its environmental consequences, including the build-up of greenhouse gases, ozone depletion and natural resource depletion.
By his own admission, his awareness of these problems is relatively recent, and it is heartening that so eminent a scientist is publicly making such a cogent case for the need to direct our efforts toward resolving these pressing problems.
Many in our society have long turned a blind eye to such problems, and belated recognition of them by the general public is long overdue.
But we must differ with his overly simplistic view that technology, specifically nanotechnology, can offer simple solutions to these complex problems if only we will generously fund the needed research.
In his talk, Smalley focused on meeting projected needs for energy through new and as yet undeveloped technologies.
In ecological terms, he was suggesting that simply finding a clean, plentiful, alternative source of energy (e.g., nano-solar) would raise the carrying capacity of the Earth to double its current population.
While he convinced us that it may be possible to feed the electrical power grid with solar energy via "clean," "green," "dry" nanotech-nology, we predict that the ecological and economic problems which must accompany another doubling in human population will not be so tractable.
To accept his view is to assume that we will be able to drive cars and have computers and air conditioning, but will everyone be able to eat?
How can nanotechnology restore overharvested fish populations or depleted stratospheric ozone?
What of rising sea levels or drastic changes in climate resulting from our prior use of fossil fuels? What will be the consequences of the accelerating loss of biodiversity we are now experiencing?
It is naive to believe that simply inventing new technology will solve our environmental problems.
Ecological research has taught us that even simple ecosystems exhibit chaotic or unpredictable behavior.
While we as a society know much about our environment, we do not yet understand as much as we must to predict the consequences of our actions. Such is evident in our exploitation of oil, nuclear power, DDT and CFCs.
When asked by Professor Stephen Klineberg about the alternative of merely conserving energy by changing human behavior, Smalley pooh-poohed the notion, suggesting that human behavior has not changed and will not change.
Such a view is untenable in light of the massive changes in human behavior that have occurred in this century alone. It seems likely that a mix of technological, ecological and social solutions will be required.
While we applaud him for his public airing of the prospects for human overpopulation, we respectfully suggest that focusing our effort and money exclusively on dry nanotechnolgy will leave us dangerously open to unanticipated problems on social, economic and ecological fronts.
Rosine W. Hall
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Mark R. Fulton
Huxley Fellow
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
This item appeared in the Opinion section of the March 29, 1996 issue.
Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights
Reserved.
This document may be distributed
electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety
and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted
without the express written permission of:
The Rice
Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.
The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@rice.edu