For example, if one were to engineer a device that can move about, affect things, let alone replicate at the nanoscale, one would also have to learn how to track and monitor, to perceive and control it. For technology naturalized we will need to discover technologies of containment that tie it back in with the scale of human action. Such technologies of containment encompass the design of interfaces, the political determination of design specifications, even conceptual or literary techniques of coming to terms and socializing naturalized technology.90
So far, nanotechnology as noumenal or naturalized technology has only been discussed in terms of the incredible tininess of nano, in terms of its absolute smallness just as soon as we try to imagine its size. There is quite another way, however, to critique nanotechnology in its aspect of naturalness. “Bottom up” nanotechnology is said to harness the powers of self-organization. Self organization, of course, is that natural process by which systems spontaneously achieve higher states of order, for example, when polluted ecosystems finally reach their tipping points and suddenly go dead. Jean-Pierre Dupuy puts the point as follows:
We know today that what makes a complex system, (e.g. a network of molecules connected by chemical reactions or a trophic system) robust is exactly what makes it exceedingly vulnerable if and when certain circumstances are met. [...] Beyond certain tipping points, they veer over abruptly into something different, in the fashion of phase changes of matter, collapsing completely or else forming other types of systems that can have properties highly undesirable for people. In mathematics, such discontinuities are called catastrophes. This sudden loss of resilience gives complex systems a particularity which no engineer could transpose into an artificial system without being immediately fired from his job: the alarm signals go off only when it is too late. (Dupuy, 2004)
Dupuy’s point was echoed by the Swiss Reinsurance Company when it remarked about nanotechnology that you cannot very well build on surprising new properties if you want a technology that can be counted on and that therefore offers no surprises (Hett, 2004, 40-44).
One can object against Dupuy, of course, that any successful technical system will have to withstand tests of robustness and resilience, that Dupuy is only pointing out the ultimate untenability of technology naturalized. Yes, he is and so am I, remarking with a bit of incredulity that the most advanced technical visions in computing, genetics, and nanotechnology go to a limit where technology becomes magic and returns us to our place of departure, namely to an enchanted, uncanny state of nature that we already found untenable when we first thought of controlling, calculating, even mastering it. All the more reason, therefore to carefully contain - technically and philosophically - the implementation of these technical visions.
Amato, I., 1999, Nanotechnology - Shaping the World Atom by Atom, National Science and Technology Council, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, Washington.
Anders, G., 1972, Endzeit und Zeitende: Gedanken uber die atomare Situation, Munchen: Beck.
Bensaude-Vincent, B., and Guchet, X., 2005, What is in a word? Nanomachines and their philosophical implications, Centre d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences, Universite Paris (unpublished manuscript).
Clement, A., 1978, If “small is beautiful,” is micro marvellous? A look at micro-computing as if people mattered, ACM SIGPC Notes 1(3):14-22.
Dupuy, J.-P., 2004, Complexity and uncertainty, in: Foresighting the New Technology Expert Group: State of the Art Reviews and Related Papers, Brussels, pp. 153-167, http://europa. eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/soa_en.pdf (January 25, 2006).
Hett, A., 2004, Nanotechnology - Small Matter, Many Unknowns, Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich.
Hooke, R., 1665, Micrographia, or, Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses: With Observations and Inquiries Thereupon, Martyn and Allestry, London.
Jones, R., 2004, Soft Machines, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Joy, B., 2000, Why the future doesn’t need us, Wired (April 2000).
Nordmann, A., 2004, Nanotechnology’s worldview: new space for old cosmologies, IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 23(4):48-54.
Nordmann, A., 2005a, Noumenal technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of nano, Techne 8(3):3-23.
Nordmann, A., 2005b, Nanotechnology: convergence and integration - containing nanotechnology, in: 9th Japanese-German Symposium: Frontiers of Nanoscience, Deutsche Gesellschaft der JSPS-Stipendiaten, Bonn, pp. 105-119.
Nordmann, A., 2005c, Wohin die Reise geht: Zeit und Raum der Nanotechnologie, in: Unbestim mtheitssignaturen der Technik, Gerhard Gamm and Andreas Hetzel, eds., transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 103-123.
Rossmann, T., and Tropea, C., eds., 2004, Bionik: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse in Natur-, Ingenieur- und Geisteswissenschaften, Springer, Berlin.
von Gleich, A., 2006, Potenziale und Anwendungsperspektiven der Bionik: Die Nahe zur Natur als Chance und als Risiko, draft study.
Weber, M., 1988, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre, J.C.B. Mohr, Tubingen.
Re-Designing Humankind
The Rise of Cyborgs, a Desirable Goal?
Daniela Cerqui and Kevin Warwick
Abstract The idea that human beings are imperfect is very old. But now, for the first time in history, some people, mainly scientists, have the previously unimaginable power to modify human beings. Redesigning humankind is, generally speaking, the result of a techno-scientific complex called “converging technologies”, and made up of biotechnologies, information technologies, nanotechnologies and cognitive sciences. However, we are more concerned here with electronic devices directly implanted into the human body. After an overview of what might happen to humankind, we also briefly discuss as a conclusion how bright such a future might be, considering that we have two different standpoints.
In western societies - as indeed in other societies where the definition may be different from ours - there is an inherent definition of humankind which is taken for granted and which forms our common background. As it is deeply rooted in our culture, it does not need to be formulated to be an efficient guideline. In other words, designers always have - as in fact have all of us - made assumptions on what human beings are (the descriptive aspect) and what they are supposed to be (the normative aspect). These shared values are embedded in all the objects they create, even if they are not necessarily aware of it. Until a few years ago, this normative definition was a dream without any empirical results on human beings themselves, and the process of design was limited to our environment. Now, for the first time in history, some people, mainly scientists, have the previously unimaginable power to make their normative definition of humankind a reality by modifying human beings. Contrary to common ideas, biotechnologies are not the only way in which this can be achieved. In reality, the future of humankind is not only linked to biotechnologies, but to a whole raft of techno-scientific developments. Biotechnologies are just the visible part of the iceberg, one single piece in the puzzle of
90
For a somewhat more detailed account of this notion of “containment” (as in giving shape, purpose, direction, technical as well as societal context) see Nordmann (2005b).