Print
Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology
by PHYSORG
Thanks to Mark Dowe for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news122309388.html
Is nanotechnology morally acceptable? For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.
Addressing scientists here today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.
"Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology.
Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.
In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.
"There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology," says Scheufele.
Why the big difference?
The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.
The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.
"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.
The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison
Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news122309388.html
Is nanotechnology morally acceptable? For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.
Addressing scientists here today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.
"Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology.
Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.
In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.
"There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology," says Scheufele.
Why the big difference?
The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.
The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.
"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.
The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 151 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #128305 by dave2 on February 16, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I give up, what's a spotted dick? Can it be nanoengineered?Other Comments by dave2
3. Comment #128306 by robotaholic on February 16, 2008 at 6:03 pm
it's british food Other Comments by robotaholic
4. Comment #128307 by Bobington on February 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Under what possible interpretation of reality could nanotechnology be said to be immoral or evil?Clearly nanotechnology is evil because it implies that everything is made of atoms?!
Other Comments by Bobington
5. Comment #128308 by LorienRyan on February 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm
The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Based on what?
Other Comments by LorienRyan
6. Comment #128310 by LorienRyan on February 16, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I'm sure Nigeria is more religious than America
America is a more crucial market for nanotech.
It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
7. Comment #128311 by tacitus on February 16, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Of course, it doesn't really matter if religious people object to nanotechnology, they sure aren't going to say no to it if it's going to save their lives or make their lives better in some other way.They got all queasy over IVF when it first made an appearance and even though there are still some who oppose it, it is now deemed political suicide to come out against it. The same will happen with treatments derived from embryonic stem cells so I see no reason why nanotech will have any problems in the long run.
BTW: Some of the current religious objections to nanotechnology in the US is probably because people correlate nanodevices with the "End Times" and "The Mark of the Beast" and other such nonsense.
Other Comments by tacitus
8. Comment #128312 by Grantaire of JC on February 16, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Most Americans do not know about nanotechnology and most of those who have heard of the word associate it Sci-fi lit. such as Michael Crichton's Prey or worse television. The immorality lies in the foolish belief that, once again, mankind is trying to upscale god.Other Comments by Grantaire of JC
9. Comment #128313 by kintaro_crab on February 16, 2008 at 6:24 pm
hmmmm since were on the question lets ask these three also "Is the nuclear reaction that occurs at the center of a nuclear warhead morally acceptable?"
how about
"Is the Carbon-Carbon Sp^2 hybridized orbitals in a carbon nanotube morally acceptable?"
and lastly
"Are chemical reactions morally acceptable?"
sorry for being cynical I just couldn't resist, perhaps someone could explain to me what the meaning of morally acceptable is, because i don't understand what it is supposed to mean?
Other Comments by kintaro_crab
10. Comment #128315 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Grantaire of JC:Most Americans do not know about nanotechnologyAccording to the article, the discrepancy is not due to Americans not knowing about nanotechnology. That would have been my explanation, as I would never have imagined that anyone could have found something morally objectionable in the science once they understood it, but apparently the data collectors accounted for that somehow.
This country just needs to sink below the waves.
Other Comments by quill
11. Comment #128316 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Hmm, maybe most people's ideas of nanotechnology comes from the Borg in Star Trek. Other Comments by Diacanu
12. Comment #128317 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 6:31 pm
In response to robotaholic et al...
Worst case scenario:
Since concerning high-cost, high-tech products the US market practically determines what gets produced and marketed and what doesn't, it might be that because of the huge religious opposition, the technology will not get further researched and then produced. If two thirds of the potential consumers in the US see it as morally problematic or even 'evil', this will be an incitive to stop researching practical applications. And this might lead to the development of potential treatments of serious illnesses and other things being hindered or even stopped.
Of all 'first-wold' countries, the US have by far the largest percentage of people opposing science (evolution most prominently), supporting creationism, opposing same-sex marriage and environmentally friendly policies (mandatory filters for industrial plants, ecologically friendly cars, renewable energy-sources etc... after all, according to the Bible, the world is ours to exploit) and supporting the idea that religion has to play a major role in political and educational decisions and practices. Since the US is furthermore still dominating the world economy and is the most active global player when it comes to international conflicts... that's why the US need to be adressed first and foremost when it comes to the negatice consequences of the religious delusion (alongside the Vatican and its internationally effective policy concerning contraception).
Other Comments by MPhil
13. Comment #128318 by Grantaire of JC on February 16, 2008 at 6:33 pm
The nuclear reaction is not immoral in itself, but the application as a weapon can be considered immoral. But then we'd probably justify as it saving lives in the long run like we did in WW2. The nanotechnology offers the same concern. But then again we thought the same foolish thing about microwaves and almost every American household has one. Show us a truly positive reason to have it and we will change our minds.Other Comments by Grantaire of JC
14. Comment #128320 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm
To be fair, I still think American governmental policies regarding religion are actually progressive by European standards. What we in America would consider theocratic--a government-sponsored church, prayer in schools, laws against blasphemy, etc.--are actually the current state of affairs in Britain.
That said, I am beginning to believe that the world would be a lot better off if the United States were not in it.
Other Comments by quill
15. Comment #128321 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:35 pm
...or, it could be that most dummies flat out don't know what nanotechnology is, are ashamed to admit it, but when you present it in a "is it morally acceptable?", framework, they assume there must be a controversy, and jump right to the "no", answer to hedge their bets. Other Comments by Diacanu
16. Comment #128322 by LorienRyan on February 16, 2008 at 6:36 pm
MPhil,
Yes, I think the article is really asking how can nanotech be successfully marketed to America in particular. Maybe they could make nanotech crosses?
Other Comments by LorienRyan
17. Comment #128323 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Quill-...um, screw you.
Other Comments by Diacanu
18. Comment #128325 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Great, which side of the Atlantic did I offend? Other Comments by quill
19. Comment #128326 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Diacanu,
strange... I'm a huge Star Trek fan... I think the Borg were an excellent part of sci-fi television... the technology, the criticism of collective, uncritical thinking with the total negation of the needs and rights of the individual - the value of individuality etc...
Never crossed my mind to think that nanotechnology is something bad because a villain in a TV-show uses it prominently.
And, after all - just think how often Seven's nanobots saved someone elses life...
;)
Other Comments by MPhil
20. Comment #128327 by LorienRyan on February 16, 2008 at 6:38 pm
...but when you present it in a "is it morally acceptable?", framework, they assume there must be a controversy, and jump right to the "no", answer to hedge their bets.
Yes, but it effectively gauges the attitude of the market upon which an appropriate strategy can be formulated.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
21. Comment #128328 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:39 pm
quill-I'm in the country you want to sink into the ocean.
No thanks.
We have way more than our fair share of mouth breathing yahoos, but you wouldn't have an internet to bitch on without us.
Other Comments by Diacanu
22. Comment #128329 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:40 pm
MPhil-Good point about Seven.
Course, I think the mainstream largely bailed out after TNG ended.
Other Comments by Diacanu
23. Comment #128330 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Diacanu, I said "we in America", not "you in America". I was born here. I have a right to say it should sink into the ocean. ;P Other Comments by quill
24. Comment #128331 by Grantaire of JC on February 16, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Quill,The American belief in profits will deem it acceptable.
Other Comments by Grantaire of JC
25. Comment #128332 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:42 pm
quill-Ah, a self loathing yank.
Don't air that laundry in front of the Brits.
Blood on the water y'know.
Other Comments by Diacanu
26. Comment #128333 by Grantaire of JC on February 16, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Tis okay. A little reality is a good thing.Other Comments by Grantaire of JC
27. Comment #128335 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Sometimes I think the situation here is getting better, but then another report like this comes out and it seems that a quick annihilation of our part of the planet would be to the benefit of the species as a whole. We do contribute 25% of the world's greenhouse gases, after all. Other Comments by quill
28. Comment #128337 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm
quill-Nah, I never despair for the US.
We may churn out more crap percentage wise, but our good stuff makes up for in quality what it doesn't in quantity.
Discoveries, inventions, culture*, we're still kicking ass in the ways that matter.
*By culture, I mean decent films and literature, not the mindless ad slogans, and superstitions that pass for the mainstream culture.
Other Comments by Diacanu
29. Comment #128338 by tacitus on February 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm
To be fair, I still think American governmental policies regarding religion are actually progressive by European standards. What we in America would consider unthinkably theocratic--a government-sponsored church, prayer in schools, laws against blasphemy, etc.--are actually the current state of affairs in Britain.
In theory, you are correct, but in practice religion plays a much greater role in politics and government in the US than in Europe. Institutionalized religion, as in the UK, has proved much less resilient to secular forces than the more independent religions of the USA. Ironically many American right-wingers yearn to be more like the British model, not realizing that it would mean the beginning of the end of the religious right as a political force.
Other Comments by tacitus
30. Comment #128339 by Grantaire of JC on February 16, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Quill,We are slow to learn. We have failed miserably in going to the metric system, we have constant fights among ourselves over which is more important big business that drives the economy or the environment which is our global future. But we can learn and have the potential to lead the world in this cause if we successfully get the masses involved.
Other Comments by Grantaire of JC
31. Comment #128340 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Quill,... you've got a point there.
I live in Germany, and while there is no state-religion, and the constitution nominally grants both positive and negative religious freedom as well as freedom of expression (which, just like every other political liberty has to have its boundaries... think of screaming political propaganda through a megaphone right across the balcony into your neighbour's flat for 4 hours a day and things like that) this is undermined by several other laws.
Tax-money pays for theology-courses of studies at public universities and religious educations (confessionally divided) at public schools from first grade until you finish - that is except you specifically opt out and take 'Ethics' or 'Philosophy' instead, there's a law against "slandering religious convictions where it could disturb the peace", no loud music may be played on high christian holidays, and the state collects the tithe for the churches from any tax-payer who is a registered member of either the roman catholic or lutherean protestant church.
Strangely, most people (including the religious) would be offended by a political candidate invoking God or the Bible (or any other deity or 'holy' book) for political decisions.
On the other hand, I live in Bavaria... and things are a little different in this catholic stronghold, where the Bavarian Constitution says that the highest goal of education is "reverence for God"
Only about 10 years ago the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the Bavarian practice of having a cross in every classroom and mandatory prayer was unconstitutional... now the crosses have to be taken down if a parent doesn't want it there (of course its a long and tedious process... not worth the time and trouble for most people - and in a few small towns you would immediately be a social outcast) and the prayer is optional.
So, the situation is very strange indeed. The laws are much more religion-friendly here in Europe, while the people are much more open-minded and enlightened in general(think public acceptance of evolution vs YEC and ID) and would be offended by the mixing of politics and religion that is commonplace in the US.
Some people think (and I tend to agree) that this is because religion is not 'free enterprise' in Europe, and thus isn't hyped, sold and advertised to fervently.
Other Comments by MPhil
32. Comment #128341 by annabanana on February 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Quill,China's emissions are spiraling ridiculously out of control and their environmental laws are far behind ours. We are by no means the "worst" environmentally and more and more people are starting to take more actions here to solve the problems. Even Canada's environmental laws aren't as strict as the U.S. (well, as far as Air Quality is concerned, anyway).
Other Comments by annabanana
33. Comment #128345 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I still think annihilation is the way to go. But then, how could that be achieved without releasing even more greenhouse gases?
It's a no-win situation.
Other Comments by quill
34. Comment #128346 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Diacanu,
Of course, TNG was the best by far... with Picard as the metaphorical 'philosopher king', but I didn't bail out because there were still some good ideas, stories and characters afterwards. :)
On the matter of the US 'making up for in quality what it doesn't in quantity'... err, I don't want to start a debate here, and don't get me wrong... there are a lot of good things about the US... great poets, novellists, inventors, scientists, political figures. But concerning the cultural aspect... the greatest composers by and large hailed from central and western Europe, the greatest novellists and philosophers as well (including the UK)...
There are of course very notable and incredibly great figures in these areas from the US (in some areas more than in others)... but by and large... I don't think you're correct.
As I said, don't get me wrong... I am an 'americophile' as well as 'anglophile'. I love Kubrick, Jarmush, Zappa, Poe, Auster, Rawls, Churchland, Dennett and many many others. I have nothing but immense respect for them. But to compare those to Lang, Bach, Goethe, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and others... well... that's a different matter.
Other Comments by MPhil
35. Comment #128347 by LorienRyan on February 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
But then, how could that be achieved without releasing even more greenhouse gases?
Use pump spray instead of aerosol.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
36. Comment #128349 by sarah95 on February 16, 2008 at 7:18 pm
"The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits."
I disagree. On the whole, my fellow Americans do NOT know how their everyday technology works, and they really aren't interested. I would guess that the main reason people answered against nanotech would be because of the reason Diacanu pointed out:
but when you present it in a "is it morally acceptable?", framework, they assume there must be a controversy, and jump right to the "no", answer to hedge their bets.
Furthermore, the "parallel data sets" aren't nearly as substantial as Ms. Scheufele would have us believe. While religion is a huge source luddite-thinking, it's not the only one. There are plenty of organic-only post-modernist greenies who would sooner roll around in pig shit than ADMIT that they own an ipod nano.
Of course, they DO own them, just as evangelical whackos will cry "you're playing god!" up until the moment someone needs artificial life-support, and then a natural death becomes a "sin"...
Hypocrisy all around.
Other Comments by sarah95
37. Comment #128352 by Sittingduck on February 16, 2008 at 7:49 pm
still think annihilation is the way to go. But then, how could that be achieved without releasing even more greenhouse gases?
Birdflu gonna fix everthing...
Other Comments by Sittingduck
38. Comment #128353 by robotaholic on February 16, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I think I read the article and understood what it was saying. I happen to live in America and am tired of the negativity toward my country on this website particularly. Let's start posting how religious other countries are. Ohh look how religious Britain is:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
72 percent of the British claim to be christian (and I can just hear the excuses already - well they don't practice, well they aren't as adamant or evangelical)- will someone please respond to this - Look at your own country and how religious it is and how it's being invaded by muslims -There are many places in USA that aren't religious at all- many of them are larger than your country- At least there isn't a "Church of The United States"
Other Comments by robotaholic
39. Comment #128356 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 8:16 pm
A case of hurt feelings because of irrational identification with an area of land with a name and unjustifiably taking pride in things one had nothing to do with? Ie patriotism?
I agree that the jokes about 'lets annihilate the US' are bad taste and uncalled for. But I doubt there are more than a handful of people here that would say that there's nothing good about the US... actually, I doubt anyone would say that.
Don't play the hurt feelings and 'you're no better either' card when the internationally most influential country is the center of attention.
I really think the point of this article was the economical one I was paraphrasing in my first comment. As for the statistics... they're clear. Why moan about criticism where it is due?
...just to reiterate: this is coming from someone who greatly values the positive cultural, technological and scientific contributions that came and still are coming from the US.
Other Comments by MPhil
40. Comment #128363 by Diacanu on February 16, 2008 at 8:47 pm
crazy old man-Depends what the nanotech is being used for.
Building materials, drugs, surgery, no problem.
Morphing humans into some other lifeform, well, then it gets a bit grey.
Other Comments by Diacanu
41. Comment #128364 by quill on February 16, 2008 at 8:47 pm
You know, MPhil, it doesn't mean much for you to say "This is coming from someone who greatly values the positive cultural, technological and scientific contributions that came and still are coming from the US," as long as you tend to follow it up with "There's no comparison with Central Europe, though."
Nothing personal, just an observation . . .
Other Comments by quill
42. Comment #128365 by SomeDanGuy on February 16, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Am I the only one confused about the discrepancy between the article title and what the study actually showed? Granted, I only read the article posted here and not the actual paper, but it seems that the only thing actually surveyed was whether people find nanotech morally acceptable. The idea that religious views are responsible seems to be just a guess by the study's author and not actually shown in the data.Other Comments by SomeDanGuy
43. Comment #128367 by MaxD on February 16, 2008 at 9:04 pm
uh Robotaholic I notice you are getting a bit upset by stories about our fair country. I think you might do an analysis on the number of stories, and the countries highlighted and see if there is a statistical difference in the coverage.
I've not noticed this yank bias. But there is a lot of sillyness here. Look the crop of republican candidates we just had.
Other Comments by MaxD
44. Comment #128368 by SharonMcT on February 16, 2008 at 9:07 pm
America is relevant. Don't take it as anything more or less than that. What happens in the US matters. It matters to Americans, but also to the rest of the world. The problems in the most powerful country in the free world will tend to be scrutinized more than any other.
Don't be defensive because we care about what happens to all of us. It's not you against us. It's ALL of us, in this world, together as humans, trying to make it better for everyone.
Other Comments by SharonMcT
45. Comment #128371 by Teratornis on February 16, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Let's wait for grey goo, and then try the survey again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
Other Comments by Teratornis
46. Comment #128372 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 9:15 pm
quill,
that's not what I said at all - or at least not what I meant to say. Of course there's a semantic difficulty with 'importance'.
Definitely the artistic, technological and scientific advances from the US are of tremendous importance in our lives. But then US culture is based upon European culture (in virtue of most of the people that contributed substantially to the creation of cultural artifacts in America having either come from Europe directly or being the descendantsof people who came from there... in both cases thus coming from within a framework of European culture, either because they have been brought up within in or because their ancestors having been shaped by European culture and having brought with them its artifacts).
I don't really care about national boundaries or countries of origin. I think there is very sophisticated culture nowadays in the US and in Europe (and almost everywhere else). But for various reasons, I happen to think that eg the music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn and others is unparalleled when it comes to being 'high-brow' culture. That's more a matter of epoches and cultural heritage to build on than of country of origin. When these people were composing their works - the US was still very very young, with almost no infrastructure and own cultural artifacts.
As I said, I wasn't really talking about importance... I don't know to call it without inviting misreadings... more about 'sophistication', 'high-brow-ness', 'depth' or something along those lines. And I specifically stated that I do think that art with such qualities has been and is still produced in many countries. It's that, for historical reasons, the cultural heritage comes largely from central Europe. And for the same simple reason of having had more time, thus more background - and a further developed 'own' cultural, economic, social, political and physical (roads, population-density etc) infrastructure since the end of the middle-ages until the late 19th century - there are quantitatively more such cultural artifacts in European history than in American history.
...hope that clarifies my view.
Other Comments by MPhil
47. Comment #128373 by MaxD on February 16, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Did anyone read Michael Crichton's book Prey? It relates to this very subject. It was that book that made me realize he was something of a Luddite and that trend runs in American thought more than I would like. Certainly the sentiment is a constant in Crichton's work (sometimes done well, sometimes done poorly). It is the NIMBY mindset writ small. I mean to say that my countrymen tend to not think rationally about technology. Much of our science fiction literature is some form of this worry. I'm not sure it is peculiar to the US but it is a sentiment we harbor in great quantities. Other Comments by MaxD
48. Comment #128378 by Epinephrine on February 16, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Idiocy. There are over 500 nanotech products already in use in Canada, and probably more in the US.
Those stain-proof pants? Nanotech. The special paint on high end cars? Nanotech. Bandages with silver for antibacterial properties? Nanotech. High spf sunscreens with zinc that go on clear? Nanotech.
Nanotech simply means technology at very small scales; a precise definition hasn't been agreed on worldwide. The nanoscale particles of zinc in the sunscreen, of silver in the bandage, the carbon nanotubes on the pants, and the special coating on the paint are all nanotechnologies. So is the ferrofluid used in a computer hard drive, exploiting the properties of very small magnetic particles in a carrier, to form a seal around the drive shaft.
People are scared, because they don't know that these things are already in use, and they interact with them daily.
That's not to say that they shouldn't be a little apprehensive. Very little toxicological work has been done on nanotech, and most is on carbon fiber (or other nanoscale particle) inhalation (and even that work is tricky, due to the number of ways of creating carbon nanotubes, their varying lengths and so on). Small paricles of silver can be absorbed by bacteria, killing them, but what happens when they are absorbed by us? Where are they transported? Same holds for the zinc particles in the sunscreen.
Other Comments by Epinephrine
49. Comment #128380 by JD Cherry on February 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Asking if nanotech is morally wrong seems to me an absurd question. Really though, I don't think that the respondents were concerned about the applications for paints and detergents etc.In the longer term I'd be concerned with the threats to privacy. Snooping governments, both foreign and domestic, would be one thing, but the applications for targeted advertising would be huge.
Spyware and keystroke logging already pose some concerns. How can I ever be alone if the dust might be watching?
Other Comments by JD Cherry
50. Comment #128382 by robotaholic on February 16, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I wouldn't consider myself patriotic, more like snubbed. Other Comments by robotaholic
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"It is the inevitable effect of religion on public policy that makes it a matter of public concern. Advocates of religiosity extol the virtues or moral habits that religion is supposed to instill in us. But we should be equally concerned with the intellectual habits it discourages.
"
Wendy Kaminer
"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
Mark Twain
"Group selection of any kind is not Darwinism as Darwin understood it nor as I understand it."
Richard Dawkins
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte
"It's been suggested that if the supernaturalists really had the powers they claim, they'd win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #128300 by robotaholic on February 16, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I'm sure Nigeria is more religious than America
Other Comments by robotaholic