Search This Blog

Sunday, May 3, 2020

The wonders and challenges of the Nanotechnology and the Geoengineering for our planet


We as humans are in a crossroad, where many alternatives or proposals in the scientific and technological world are the unavoidable part of human life. “Technoscience, when well directed, can produce important means of improving the quality of human life, …” and preservation of the environment. However, “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.” The question is “in whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up?” (LS 103). Throughout of this short work, we are going to approach to two, among so many, technoscience achievements: nanotechnology and geoengineering, some of them we are already having in our hands through a variety of technological devices or gadgets. It is important to analyze the pro and counterparts of them, and finally, to reflect on our Christian faith response to.

Nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is an art and science of manipulating material on the manometric size scale. Dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers are known as the nanoscale (nm). It is like domesticating the atoms and molecules according to our needs. The ideas of nanoscience and nanotechnology started with a talk entitled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” by physicist Richard Feynman at an American Physical Society meeting at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) on December 29, 1959. The term was coined in 1974 by Norio Taniguchi of Tokyo Science University to describe semiconductor processes such as thin-film deposition that deal with control on the order of nanometers. His definition still stands as the basic statement today: “Nano-technology mainly consists of the processing of separation, consolidation, and deformation of materials by one atom or one molecule.”

The main benefits, so far, considered from nanotechnology are: it may help to obtain, storing and use of energy more efficiently; improving the electronic and computing system allowing to construct circuits in very accurately on an atomic level; its potential is major in the medical area: Nanobots could be sent into a patient's arteries to clear away blockages; surgeries could become much faster and more accurate; injuries could be repaired cell-by-cell; it can make possible to heal genetic conditions by fixing the damaged genes, etc.

Nonetheless, as any misused technology, nanotechnology might contain a real threat for example for environmental effects in the future as potential new toxins and pollutants, however, L. Boff has a positive approach, who considered that nanotechnology can help us to transform the  very pollutant elements that are damaging our environment and also to produce goods to overcome poverty. The negative effects can be seen also in economic issues where nanotechnology can be placed in the hands of a few specialized companies and producing unemployment. Perhaps the main concern on this technology is about privacy and security like producing microscopic and detectable recording devices that can be injected in the human body and to get computerizing control; weaponizing it like smart bullets, atomic and novel weapons that can fall in the wrong hands, etc.

Geoengineering.
 “Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale in the Earth’s oceans, soil and atmosphere natural systems to counteract the effects of climate change temporarily” (Fred Pierce, 2019). The initiatives in this field came out of American researchers in 1960s suggested floating billions of white objects such as golf balls on the oceans to reflect sunlight. In 1977, Cesare Marchetti of the Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis discussed ways of catching all of Europe’s CO2 emissions and injecting them into sinking Atlantic Ocean currents. In 1982, Soviet scientist Mikhail Budyko proposed filling the stratosphere with sulphate particles to reflect sunlight back into space. The first experiments o test the idea of fertilizing the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of CO2-absorbing algae were carried out by British researchers in 1995. Now, this technique is a strong scientific proposal in the International Climate Change meetings to be accepted by multilateral organisms like UN.

According to the Geoengineering Monitor project of Biofuelwatch and ETC Group, the geoengineering proposals are:

·      
Solar radiation management: SRM techniques attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and include a range of ideas, from orbiting mirrors, tonnes of sulphates sprayed into the stratosphere, and modifying clouds, plants and ice to make them more reflect more sunlight.
·       Carbon dioxide removal: These proposals posit that it’s possible to suck carbon out of the atmosphere on a massive scale, using a combination of biological and mechanical methods, from seeding the ocean with iron pellets to create plankton blooms to creating forests of mechanical “artificial trees”.
·       Earth radiation management: ERM proponents suggest that the negative effects of climate change can be offset by allowing heat to escape into space -for example, by thinning cirrus clouds.

So far, there is strong resistance to the implementation of Geoengineering because is a false and an external solution to the climate crisis that aims to address the symptoms of climate change but ignores and enables the root causes to continue. Here are some of the key reasons to oppose geoengineering:

·       None of the technologies have a track record, all of them come with major risks and unknowns, and in some cases, the effects would be obviously catastrophic.
·       Weaponization: Computer models show that geoengineering interventions can have regional winners and losers; to the extent that geoengineering successfully changes climate patterns in a predictable way, it will inevitably be weaponized.
·       Detracts from real solution: By promising a quick fix, geoengineering threatens to delay the implementation of a transition away from fossil fuels and could redirect funding and investments away from real climate solutions. Some geoengineering proposals require vast amounts of energy, which means less climate-friendly energy for everyone else.
·       Risk for human rights and biodiversity: Many geoengineering proposals require the intensive exploitation of vast amounts of land. Those projects would inevitably displace millions of people and potentially wipe out entire ecosystems.
·       Favoured by the global north, backed by billionaires: Most of the political and financial support for geoengineering comes from a small group of elite engineers, a handful of billionaires like Bill Gates, fusil oil corporations and a growing group of right-wing politicians

So, this global palliative proposal seems to be a “High-risk technofixes are proposed so that some can survive while preserving their privileges, even if it implies a whole series of new environmental and social threats for millions of other people” (John Leo, 2019).
If we review the stand of the church, it has always had some precautious even fearful approach to science and technology, for example, the all anathema sits of Pope Pius IX against science in December 21, 1863. Fortunately, since Second Vatican Council, the church changed its view towards the modern world and its technoscience’s advances. Nowadays, we are called to see everything with the eyes of faith or critical mind and heart so that we may not swallow anything but to have a piece of proper knowledge, analysis and decisions, because “any technical solutions which science claims to offer will be powerless to solve the serious problems of our world if humanity loses its compass if we lose sight of the great motivations which make it possible for us to live in harmony…” (LS 200).

Whatever the technoscience is discovering has already been in the richness and potentiality of nature. The main challenge is how we humans use what we discovered; here, the role of ethical principles has to play much. All signs and new discoveries should guide us to our main goal the joyful life or integral and integrated life with the creational community. The mystic Willigis Jager (2018, 26, 64) keenly points “The future humanity will be mystic, …I believe that the XXI century is a century for metaphysics and its propulsors will not be philosophers and theologian but scientists, because they are who aiming to a reality which may not be demonstrated: God”. The wonders of science and technology should help us sharpen our faith in God.

Bibliographical reference.

Boff, Leonardo & Hathaway, Mark (2014). El tao de la liberacion: una ecologia de la transformacion. Madrid: Editorial Trotta.

Geoengineering Monitor project of Biofuelwatch and ETC Group. http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org

Jager, Willigis (2018). La ola es el mar: espiritualidad mistica, Titivillus, PDF.
Leo, John (2019). Geoengineering ‘false solution to climate crisis’. http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2019/11/geoengineering-false-solution-to-climate-crisis/

Pearce, Fred (2019). Geoengineer the planet? More scientists now say it must be an option. https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengineer-the-planet-more-scientists-now-say-it-must-be-an-option

Pope Pius IX. The Syllabus.

Pope Francis (2015). Laudato Si, Vatican.

Fr. Efrain Vasquez Mamani, cmf.

0 comments:

Post a Comment