1AC Final

8/4/2019 1AC Final

1/14

LOUGHIN NANOTECHNOLOGY AFF

BISHOP LOUGHLIN DEBATE [AC]

1

CONTENTION 1: INHERENCY

A): NANOTECHNOLOGY IS INEVITABLE! IT IS COMING WITH CHANGE MORE

SIGNIFICANT THAN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OR

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION. WE MUST MAKE THE HARD CHOICES ABOUT HOW

TO DEVELOP IT TODAY.

Crichton, Michael, 2002Could Tiny Machines Rule The World? Parade; New York; Nov 24, 2002 http://www.crichton-official.com/

From our earliest days as cave-dwelling apes, human beings have advanced their lives with technology. Beginning with tools made of

stone and bone, we have moved to metals and then to synthetic materials not found in nature. Some of our technologies are

enormoushuge dams, bridges and jet aircraftand some are microscopically small, like the computer chips so important to nearly

every aspect of our lives and the genetically modified bacteria that create new drugs for us.

All together, our history with technology goes back 2 million years or more. We have reluctantly learned that every technology brings

mixed blessings. The jet aircraft draws people closer together; it also erodes national cultures. The automobile offers personal mobility;

it also pollutes and locks us in traffic jams. Yet our fascination with new technologies remains undiminished, and we continue toinnovate at a rapid rate.

Today, in the 21st century, we are plunging forward into a new era of technological power, one that offers enormous promise for the

future and enormous dangers as well.

Imagine a mass of tiny computers, smaller than specks of dust, programmed to travel in a cloud over a country like Iraq and send back

pictures. Unlike robot aircraft, this camera can't be shot down; bullets will pass right through it.

Because such tiny computers will deteriorate in time, imagine that they are made to be self-reproducing, to replenish themselves.

Imagine that the computers begin to evolve, and the aggregate cloud becomes a death-dealing swarm that threatens mankindin

effect, a mechanical plague.

Far-fetched? Not really.

Scientists have worried about a new class of artificial organisms for more than 10 years. As one research paper put it, "These organisms

will...originally be designed by humans. However, they will reproduce and will 'evolve' into something other than their original form;

they will be 'alive' under any reasonable definition of the word ...The pace of evolutionary change will be extremely rapid...The impact

on humanity and the biosphere could be enormouslarger than the Industrial Revolution, nuclear weapons or environmental

pollution. We must take steps now to shape the emergence of artificial organisms."

These organisms will be created by nanotechnology, perhaps the most radical technology in human history: the quest to build man-

made machines of extremely small size, on the order of 100 nanometers, or 100/billionths of a meter. Such machines would be 1000

times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Experts predict that these tiny machines will provide everything from

miniaturized computer components to new medical treatments to new military weapons. In the 21st century, they will change our

world totally.

The potential benefits are spectacular: Tiny robots may crawl through your arteries, cutting away atherosclerotic plaque; powerful

drugs will be delivered to individual cancer cells, leaving other cells undamaged; teeth will be self-repairing. Cosmetically, you will

change your hair color with an injection of nanomachines that circulate through the body, moving melanocytes in hair follicles. Other

nanomachines will lighten or darken skin color at will, removing blemishes, birthmarks and liver spots in the process; still others could

cleanse the mouth and eliminate bad breath. Nonsurgical nanoprocesses could even perform liposuction and body reshaping. They

also will repair knees and spines.

Living spaces will be transformed, with self-cleaning dishes and carpets and permanently clean bathrooms. Windows will lighten or

darken at will; programmable paint will change color. You can walk through the walls of your house, since they are composed of

8/4/2019 1AC Final

2/14



2

particle clouds. Your personal computer and your watch will be painted on your arm. Temperature-sensitive clothing will loosen when

it gets hot, insulate when it gets cold. In this vision of the future, roving nanomachines will convert trash dumps to energy; solar

nanomachines will coat your house, generating electricity; flexible nanomachines will provide earthquake protection. It even may be

possible to move your house on the backs of millions of nanomachines, creeping across the lawn. As a concept, these wonders date

back to a 1959 speech by Caltech physicist Richard Feynman titled "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom." Forty years later,

nanotechnology is still very much in its infancy, despite relentless media hype. Yet practical advances are now being made, and funding

has increased dramatically. Major corporations such as IBM, Fujitsu and Intel are pouring money into research. The U.S. government isspending more than $600 million on nanotechnology a year. Meanwhile, nanotechniques already are being used to make sunscreens,

stain-resistant fabrics and composite materials in cars. Soon they will be used to make computers and storage devices of extremely

small size. Some of the long-anticipated "miracle" products have started to appear as well. One company is now making self-cleaning

window glass; another is making a nanocrystal wound dressing with antibiotic and anti-inflammatory properties. At the moment,

nanotechnology is primarily a materials technology, but its potential goes far beyond that. For decades there has been speculation

about self-reproducing machines. In 1980, a NASA paper discussed several methods by which such machines could be made. Now, at

the start of the 21st century, we are closer still. Most experts predict that self-reproducing machines are only a decade away. These are

the people who say we must prepare now for their arrival. Its worth remembering that we already have some experience with man-

made, self-reproducing entities released in the environment. The first of these, of course, were computer viruses. Our history with

them is instructive. The first viruses were created as a game"core wars," a 1960s battle between mainframe programmers, each

releasing a program into the others' mainframe computer. The game was limited to specialists, but it was not long before hackers

began to experiment as well. The growth of computer networking made rapid worldwide transmission possible, and what was

originally a specialist's interest became an international threat to information and global business. We have lived for some years withthe first of these self-replicating entities, computer viruses. And we have learned, with time, to protect our networks more carefully

and to treat virus-makers with ever-greater harshness. More recently, we are beginning to see some of the problems of self-replicating

biotechnology agents. The recent report that modified maize genes now appear in native maize in Mexicodespite laws against it and

efforts to prevent itis only the start of what we may expect to be a long journey to control this new technology. The end result

cannot be doubted. We have learned to put hackers in jail. Errant biotechnologists will soon join them. And we may hope that by the

time we have the first nanomachines, we will have settled upon international controls to deal with self-reproducing technologies. At

the moment, there are essentially no laws dealing with this subject. The failure to look ahead is worrisome to experts in the field. In the

words of the chief proponent of nanotechnology, K. Eric Drexler of the Foresight Institute:"There are many people, including myself,

who are quite queasy about the consequences of this technology for the future. We are talking about changing so many things that the

risk of society handling it poorly through lack of preparation is very large."We know these machines are coming. We know we will have

to control them when they do. It is not too early to plan how we will treat them, what we will allow in the way of research and what we

will forbid. Historically, human beings have a poor record of addressing the hazards of new technologies as they arrive. We generally

pass laws afterthe accidents occur. But in the case of self-reproducing machines, we simply can't wait.

B): FUNDING IS NOT ENOUGH! THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT STOPS THE EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE

NANOTECHNOLOGICAL ENERGY IN THREE WAYS.

Peterson, Christine L. Summer 2006 Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing downsides from Nanotechnology, Nanotech Foresight Update,

Number 56, Summer Issue, Page 13, http://www.foresight.org/publications/FNupdate56.pdf

The field of nanotech is usually defined so broadly today that it seems to include most expected physical

technologies of serious interest. To make progress in guiding it, it helps to divide the field up into stages. Myfavorite categories for this are: materials, devices, and systems a roughly chronological order. These will overlap

in time, with materials continuing to be important as devices arrive, and both materials and devices playing central

roles in advanced nanosystems. Some of our challenges have already started now, in the early days of

nanomaterials, while others will kick in only later as devices and systems are developed.

Our goal of advancing beneficial nanotechnologies faces at least three hindrances currently: a complex and

confusing patent situation favoring large firms, the so-called Valley of Death, and in the U.S. export

controls. There is serious concern that patents being issued in this area (as well as others) are overly broad and

8/4/2019 1AC Final

3/14



3

even in direct conflict with similar patents. Ask a patent attorney about this problem and youllbe told that it will

all get worked out in court, or more likely buyout-of-court settlement, once there are enough profits to be worth

suing over. This is a fine answer from their viewpoint, but wont do from the perspective of an entrepreneur with

a small legal budget. To see the magnitude of the problem, check out how many carbon nanotube-related patents

have been issued, and then try to figure out whose should in theory hold up, and who has the financial resources

to enforce their legitimate claims. If you cant do it in a reasonable period of time, neither can prospective fundersof small firms. This creates a bias against entrepreneurship, the source of a great deal of technical innovation.

Countries heavily dependent on small-firm innovation, especially the U.S., should take note. Another patent issue

in the U.S. is caused by the Bayh-Dole Act, which assigns patent rights arising from federally-funded research to

the universities at which the work is done. U.S. universities have become so focused on these prospective sources

of income that negotiating licenses is getting very time-consuming two years, in one recent case leading

companies to look outside the U.S. for universities to work with. The second challenge, the Valley of Death, is a

worldwide issue. Once a new technological discovery is made, it needs to somehow make the leap from discovery

to product prototype, plus fundable business plan. This is a huge jump, and finding funds for this highly speculative

work is often very difficult. Angel investors are still

feeling burned from the dot-com bust, and the U.S.s DARPA is refocusing on near-term projects for which there is

perceived to be an immediate defense need. A third issue already impacting nanomaterials work in the U.S. is

export controls. Evidently it is quite hard to know at the time of investment whether a proposed nanomaterial will

be approved for export or not. This makes the size of the market much more uncertain, and this must be having a

chilling effect on investment in U.S. nanoproducts. Investors may feel that it is safer to make their nanotech

investments in a country that is not so restrictive, or at least clearer in its export rules.

C): INCREASED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL

TO KEEP NANOTECH IN CHECK AND PROMOTE THE DISCOVERY OF

BENEFICIAL NANOTECHNOLOGY.

Jacob Heller and Christine Peterson 2008 U.S. Federal Nanotech R&D Funding: A Foresight Nanotech Institute Policy Issues Brief The

Foresight Nanotech Institute < http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html>

Most recently, the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that the funding is

"very well spent", and that "the program is well managed".1However, some fear that the United States is

beginning to lose its lead in nanotechnology research funding, and that the current structure of federal R&D is not

optimally designed to promote the most innovative output. To maintain international leadership in the field of

nanotechnology and promote the discovery ofbeneficial nanotechnology, the National Nanotechnology

Initiative(NNI) will probably require more funding and a reevaluation of its structure. Instead of expanding

government spending on nanotech to meet the challenge, funding increases for the NNI have not even kept pace

with inflation. The proposed budget for FY 2006 was actually lower than FY 2005 funding when adjusted for

inflation;6FY 2007 will likely have a similar decrease in funding. Sustained expansion in federal R&D funding may

be critical to the development of US nanotech-based industries.
http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot1http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot1http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot1http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot6http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot6http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot6http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot6http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html#foot1

8/4/2019 1AC Final

4/14



4

PLAN):

THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL

LOOSEN PATENT RESTRICTIONS, FUND PROTOTYPE

DEVELOPMENT, REDUCE EXPORT CONTROLS, AND

INCREASE REASERCH AND DEVELPMENT FOR SOLAR

NANOTECHNOLOGY.

8/4/2019 1AC Final

5/14



5

CONTENTION 2: HARMS- CONSIDER THE LIVES OF 2 BILLION PEOPLE ON

THE PLANET WHO LIVE WITHOUT ELECTRICITY AND THE MEDICAL CARE, SAFETY,

AND SHELTER IT AFFORDSTHESE HARMS ARE HAPPENING NOWTHOSE

WOMEN, MEN, AND CHILDREN DEMAND OUR ACTION, AND SO DO THE UNTOLD

MASSES THAT WILL DIE WITHOUT RESPONSIBLE GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP.

A): WE ARE IN A RACE TO STOP BRUTAL WATER WARS, POLLUTION,

FURTHER ECONOMIC DISRUPTION, AND RESOURCE DEPLETION.

Pernick, Ron Clean Energy Could Power Nascent Nanotech Industry. Foresight Nanotech Institute. Clean Edge, Inc.

(www.cleanedge.com) Adjunct Faculty, Portland State, market research, publishing, and business development entrepreneur with two

decades of high-tech experience. http://www.foresight.org/challenges/energy001.html accessed November, 2008

It doesnt take a rocket, or nanotech, scientist to understand that the world currently faces a host of seriousenergy challenges. Nearly 2 billion people live without access to electricity. Natural gas and oil prices have more

than doubled over the last year and are unlikely to subside any time soon. And China, with its burgeoning middle

class, is on target to be the largest consumer of energy goods and services the g lobe has ever seen.

If we dont widely embrace more stable clean-energy supplies soon we will continue to see brutal wars fought, air

and water polluted, and economies disrupted for decades to come. If we are not smarter planners and more

conscientious stewards we will likely deplete our remaining natural resources and see increasingly significant

disruptions in global climate in our quest to keep modern industrial society running.

But not all is doom and gloom. There are bright spots.

In boardrooms, in the lab, and in governmental circles -- people and organization are addressing pressing energyand environmental needs by deploying renewable energy sources.

8/4/2019 1AC Final

6/14



6

B): THE NUMBER OF PRODUCTS MADE WITH NANOTECHNOLOGY IS

EXPLODING, WITH A 70 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE PAST EIGHT

MONTHS. WITH THE HAZARDOUS AND GHASTLY POTENTIAL OF

NANOTECHNOLOGY LIKE GREY GOO, KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT,CAUSING EXTINCTION, PENETRATING THE BODY, REVOLUTIONIZING

NUCLEAR WAR, AND ANY OTHER ATROCITIES IMAGINABLE, WE ARE

GIVEN THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PRODUCE A SOUND

POLICY MEANT TO CONTROL AND PREVENT SUCH OCCURRENCES. WITH

NANOTECHNOLOGYS APPLICATION TEETERING BETWEEN POTENTIAL

GOOD AND POTENTIAL EVIL, INACTION IS SIMPLY NOT AN OPTION.

ENS (environment news service) 2006Safety of Nanotechnology Needs More Attention http://www.ens-

newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-28-04.asp

Considering the enormous growth of nanotechnology, an environmental group today warned that the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency is not doing enough to ensure safety. The Natural Resources Defense Council,

NRDC, says not enough is known about potential health and environmental risks associated with nano-products

and their manufacture.

"Nanoparticles behave unpredictably and could harm human beings, wildlife and the environment," warned Dr.

Jennifer Sass, an NRDC staff scientist. "We need to know about the short and long-term risks," she said, "especially

since were already wearing stain-resistant nanoparticle clothing, applying nanoparticle cosmetics and sunscreens,

and swabbing our babies bottoms with nanoparticle baby wipes." Nanotechnology is an area of research that

could add billions of dollars to our economy, but that wont happen if it is shrouded in uncertainty about its

consequences," wrote Boehlert and Gordon. "And our citizens, especially individuals who will be working with

nanotechnology, need to be protected from any potential harm that could come from

materials far smaller than what they have generally been exposed to in the past."

8/4/2019 1AC Final

7/14



7

CONTENTION 3: SOLVENCY

A): U.S. FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY TO NANOTECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH ADVANCES AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS

THAT FOLLOW

John F. Sargent08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division *Nanotechnology and

U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf+

Much of the public dialogue on how the government can advance U.S. strength in nanotechnology has focused on

federal technology funding. Advocates for increased federal support put forth a variety of arguments. Some

believe that the federal government should provide increased funding for downstream research, i.e., applied

research and development closer to commercial products, including production prototypes. 52 Those who

advocate this position generally assert that many promising research breakthroughs and early technology

developments fail to make it to market. This failure, they argue, results from inadequate funding mechanisms to

bring the technology to a state of maturity in which private corporations and other sources of capital are willing to

invest in the technology or in the company that holds the technology to bring it to market. For example, they

assert that investor demand for short-term returns can result in companies being unable to invest in higher-risk,

longer-term technology development projects needed to sustain their viability in the future. Similarly, according to

these advocates, venture capitalists and other investors often have exit strategies and/or seek returns in a

timeframe (generally three to five years) inconsistent with the longer-term development horizons of emerging

and enabling technologies. With federal investments, say supporters, technical risk could be

reduced to a level that enables promising research and early-stage technologies

to overcome the valley of death 53 and reach the marketplace where the

nation would be able to capture their economic and societal benefits.

8/4/2019 1AC Final

8/14



8

1B): NATIONAL INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR NANOTECHNOLOGY WILL

FOSTER MASSIVE INVESTMENTNCMS. Nanotechnology Survey Results For The Use of Nanotechnology Within The 2005 US Manufacturing Industry. 2005

http://www.ncms.org/publications/PDF/05NCMSNanotechnologySurveyAbstract.pdf

Government can lead by defining and funding National priorities, and creating meaningful grand challenge

incentives for early industrial adopters of nanotechnology. This will acceleratethe broad-based translation of nanotechnology advances across multiple industry sectors. Areas where greater

government involvement in nanotechnology can have high National impact while leveraging substantially larger

private investments include: Incentives favouring longer-term investments (e.g. tax-free bonds for financing, tax

credits for capital investments, reduced capital gains tax rates, investment-specific loan guarantees, etc.)

C): THESE INCENTIVES WILL SPARK THE INDUSTRY AND MAKE SOLAR

NANOTECHNOLOGY CHEAP AND AVALIABLE


(www.cleanedge.com) Adjunct Faculty, Portland State http://www.foresight.org/challenges/energy001.html accessed November,

2008

Clean energy is becoming mainstream business.

And quite a few emerging renewable energy developments are coming out of the intersection of energy and nanotech. From solar cell

and fuel cell fabrication to energy management, nanotechnology offers a range of opportunities.

Below are examples of some of the more notable developments:

Many clean-energy technologies have remained out of reach of most consumers for a simple reason: cost. But in the two last three

decades weve seen the price for solar power drop by more than an order of magnitude from $80 per peak watt to around $6.00 per

peak watt. This translates into solar electricity rates of around 30 cents per kilowatt hour. Today, some solar PV systems are being

installed for as low 20 cents per kilowatt hour for retail electricity (produced and delivered to the consumer). Not bad for high-cost

electricity markets like Japan and Southern California and for peak-generation needs (when conventional grid electricity costs the

most).

Industry is within striking distance oftruly low-cost solar power making it competitive for most applications. Nanotechnology-driven

companies such as Konarka, Nanosolar, and Nanosys are all developing new nano-materials that could dramatically reduce costs and

enable solar to be flexible like plastic. A whole new range of powered devices and applications could be born out of these

developments.

1Incentives combined with R&D funding solves

8/4/2019 1AC Final

9/14



9

AND FINALLY D): NANOTECH IS BRINGIN SEXY BACK!!!; ITS

TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND PROMISE MAKE CLEAN

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY MORE APPEALING AND DRIVES DEVELOPMENT.


(www.cleanedge.com) Adjunct Faculty, Portland State http://www.foresight.org/challenges/energy001.html accessed November,

2008

A PR mastermind that I know recently said that: "nanotech makes clean-tech sexy, and clean-tech makes nanotech nice." In many ways

I couldnt agree more. As outlined above, some of the hottest and most exciting developments in the clean-energy space revolve

around breakthroughs in nanotechnology. And clean energy provides a motivational pull for nanotech companies and pioneersthat want to solve some of the most pressing issues of our time.

If a confluence of forces continues to l ine up, and real technologies and business models can be developed, nanotech may just end up

being powered by a new wave of clean-energy development.

Let the clean-energy nanotech race begin!

NOW THAT WE HAVE OBSERVED THE STATE OF THE WORLD WITHOUT

THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES

TO ACTION

8/4/2019 1AC Final

10/14



10

ADVANTAGE 1): NANOTECH MAKES HELLA LEGIT PAPER TOWELS

IT CAN EVEN SOAK UP TONS OF OIL

A): SUPER SOAK NANO-SPONGE!MIT News May 30, 2008

"A mat of nanowires with the touch and feel of paper could be an important new tool in the cleanup of oil and

other organic pollutants, MIT researchers and colleagues report in the May 30 online issue of Nature

Nanotechnology.

"The scientists say they have created a membrane that can absorb up to 20 times its weight in oil, and can be

recycled many times for future use. The oil itself can also be recovered. Some 200,000 tons of oil have already

been spilled at sea since the start of the decade.

B):OIL SPILLS IN OCEANS DEVASTATE MARINE WILDLIFE

Paul Goff, Architect in Manhattan who is concerned about issues of public space and ecology. Car Cultures War on the Environment

Part IV: The loss of farmland, forests, and wildlife, SATYA. September 1995 http://www.satyamag.com/sept95/goff.html

The profligate use of oil, in many ways, may contain the most ecological destructive component of all: the

ubiquitous oil spill ubiquitous in a sense that the Exxon Valdez disaster was not an anomaly; spills of that

magnitude occur quite often and have disastrous implications on the ecology of the worlds oceans. Greenpeace

estimates that one billion gallons of oil are directly spilled into the oceans every year. Valdez was only the 14th

largest spill in history, but, because most others occurred off shore and did not directly reach a populated land

mass, there was a dearth of media coverage. Accidental spills only represent 17% of the total oil which enters the

marine environment. The rest, according to the National Research Council in 1985, enters the oceans via the

routine flushing of carrier tanks, and the daily byproducts of the petroleum industry. Another 50 million gallons of

petroleum seep into the worlds fresh water supply through the daily run -off from roads and do-it-yourself

mechanics. Although the estimation of the total death of sea creatures and birds due to oil spillage is incalculable,

the toll from the Alaska Valdez incident, according to Greenpeace, led to the deaths of 5000 otters, 200 harbor

seals, and perhaps half a million birds.

8/4/2019 1AC Final

11/14



11

C): MARINE BIODIVERSITY CRITICAL TO ALL HUMAN LIFE

Greenpeace Statement, 1996 (STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE OCEAN,

http://archive.greenpeace.org/~comms/98/yoo/docs/statement.html) (PDOCSS1009)

Marine and coastal biodiversity serves as the foundation of the natural ecosystems that produce and maintain

fisheries and other marine life. As addressed elsewhere in this statement, marine biodiversity is increasingly under

threat as a result of human activities causing harmful and sometimes irreversible damage.

ADVANTAGE 2): NANOTECH WILL BECOME THE PANACEA FOR

ILLNESS AND PLANETARY EXTINCTION.

A): NANOTECH SOLVES FOR ILLNESSES

Zey , 1994 (Michael, Ph.D in sociology, executive director of the Expansionary Institute, Seizing the Future, lexis) KMH

Nanotechnology will also play a major role in postoperative healing. Quite simply, repair machines will help the

heart grow fresh muscle by resetting cellular control mechanisms. Stroke victims will be helped to regenerate

fresh brain tissue even where there has been significant damage. The ultimate goal here is not merely to cure

disease, but rather to establish lifetime health, perhaps even immortality. This will transpire when we have

achieved a complete understanding of the molecular structure of healthy tissue. Then we will have the

knowledge to diagram, as if were, the structure of a healthy heart cell or a healthy liver and transfer to tiny

machines the accurate information about that organs molecules, cells, and tissues.

B): EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES THREATEN PLANETARY

EXISTENCE.

The Toronto Sun, October 16, 1994, Pg. M6

Nor did the media go beyond Surat and explain how this largely inconsequential epidemic, a kind of false alarm in a

much larger microbial saga, was another sharp warning of our species' growing vulnerability to infect ious disease.

Imagine, for a moment, if Surat had aroused a different airborne microbe, a so-called "emerging virus," beyond the

waning reach of antibiotics. Suppose that the headliner germ had been a new strain of Ebola that dissolves internal

organs into a bloody tar or the mysterious "X" virus that killed thousands in the Sudan last year. Had such a

8/4/2019 1AC Final

12/14



12

microbe been unleashed, the final death toll might have been millions, and the world might now be mourning a

"new Black Death." The planet, in fact, might be an entirely different and emptier place altogether.

C): CURE TO AIDS AND CANCER LIE NOWHERE OTHER THAN INNANODRUGS

Technologynews "Nanodrugs to cure AIDS and cancer.". 5 Feb. 2002. 10 Dec. 2008 .

A cure for HIV could be in sight within five years thanks to revolutionary disease-fighting nanotechnology.

Professor Donald Tomalia is the world authority on nanotechnology (the manipulation of materials at the

molecular level) and US government adviser on the relatively new science. He is in Australia to help develop the

use of cutting-edge "nanodrugs", called dendrimers, in conjunction with an Australian joint venture Australia

would pioneer the application to humans of the synthetic molecular structures to prevent and cure diseases such

as STDs, malaria and Hepatitis B, Prof Tomalia told reporters in Sydney. Dendrimers would be adapted for a variety

of treatment methods, including inhalation, oral or injected. "They (dendrimers) can also be used to intercede, to

shut down, external pathogens like a virus," said Prof Tomalia. Dendrimers were being touted by the joint-venture

Dendritic Nanotechnologies as having implications for anything from preventing tumour growth to detecting

biological warfare. Dendritic is made up of Melbourne-based pharmaceutical company Starpharma and Brisbane-

based diagnostic firm Panbio. One product already in development is a gel-like substance to be inserted into the

vagina to prevent HIV and herpes infections, said Dr John Raff, CEO of Starpharma. "It's the first product we've got

going through the system to be put inside a human. It blocks the uptake of HIV and stops it from infecting the cells.

It has a lot of potential ... it will be our first product for testing on humans," said Dr Raff. When asked if this could

mean a cure for AIDS within five years, Dr Raff replied, "Absolutely". "It stops the virus multiplying in the body as

well as stopping the virus from getting into the body in the first place. We're looking at having a product on the

market in the next four to five years," said Dr Raff. In terms of cancer, dendrimers could prevent tumour cells

spreading to other parts of the body as well as preventing the growth of existing tumours, he said. "We're now

getting responses to cancer that we've never seen because we can get such high local concentrations (of drugs)

down there without collateral damage to tissue." Dr Raff said the federal government had committed $7.3 millionto the company's research. The Australian army was embracing nanotechnology, following in the footsteps of the

US, which was equipping its army with detection devices against germ warfare, he said.

"The opportunities of broadscale protections against a range of respiratory viruses is enormous," he said.

"The US army has made a very serious commitment to the nano area. The army intends to give every foot soldier

out there devices to detect biological threats. That is now a reality. Australia is just now coming into this very

exciting area," he said.

AND OUR FINAL ADVANTAGE 3): UTOPIA. NANOTECHNOLOGYRETURNS US TO THE GARDEN OF EDEN.

Ed Regis, Science technology author. Nano; the emerging science of nanotechnology: remaking the world- molecule by molecule. 1995

p. 176-178

8/4/2019 1AC Final

13/14



13

Superficially, anyway, the major social boon brought to us by nanotechnology would be freedom from physical labor, this as a result of the

world's work being turned over to the assemblers. No longer would humanity have to toil for its daily bread. No more

getting up in the morning, going in to the office, having to be friendly with people. No more time clocks. Clearly,

the promised land had been sighted, and it lay not all that far ahead. Or at least that was the first-glance view of thesituation. But, of course, there being a cloud for every silver lining, deeper analysis led to some darker suspicions. Supposing for the sake of

argument that assemblers could in fact, with trivial exceptions, do the work of the world, what then was going to be left for people to do? How

would they fill their endless days, especially across thousands of years? When it was nine o'clock on Monday morning and you didn't have to be

at the office, what then did you actually do? And particularly what did you do for money? No more time clocks, after all, also meant no more

paychecks. What would hap-pen, after the revolution, to those great and valued social institutions known as the market system, the gross

national product, the world economy? Indeed, the more you thought about it the more it appeared that nanotechnology was a two-edged

sword not only in terms of its gray-goo physical risks, but also because of the dangers it posed to the social and economic order. Under the

worst-case interpretation, nanotechnology was the ultimate Luddite nightmare: people would be displaced by machines once and for all

machines, further-more, that were much too small to wreck. How could you smash the machines (as the Luddites always wanted to do) when

you couldn't even see the damn things? Such questions turned up, naturally enough, as rather amusing discussion items at more than one

meeting of the MIT Nanotechnology Study Group. Whatever else could be said of the NSG membership, one complaint you couldn't make was

that they ducked the hard issues. Just the reverse: if there was a potential problem with nanotechnology, the NSG wanted to know about it.

They wanted to solve it, if possible, or least get it discussed. That was their oath from the weekend retreat, and it was one that they were duty-

bound to honor. The NSG had started a "Nanotechnology Notebook,"

a collection of articles on various nano topics, and some of the pieces in it

addressed the unemployment issue. Obviously, Drexler's invention was not the first one to threaten mass unemployment: the Luddites

themselves went back to the early 1800s, and in more recent times the prospect of automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence revived theold controversy. But if the papers in the Nanotechnology Notebook were any indication, there was no agreement on the subject even among

the experts. Basically there were two view-points: one was that automation did not mean job loss; the other was that it did. James Albus, a

robotics researcher, took the first view. "There is not a fixed amount of work,"

he said."More work can always be created. Work is easy to

create. There is always more work to be done than people to do it."

Artificial intelligence would itself create jobs. "Building the automatic

factories is a Herculean task that will provide employment to millions of workers for several generations."

And so on. Nils Nilsson, an artificial-

intelligence researcher, took the precise opposite position. "Even if AI does create more work,"

he said, "this work can also be performed by AI

devices without necessarily implying more jobs for humans."

People willin fact become unemployed, Nilsson predicted, but"by unemployed' I

do not mean unoccupied. Nor do I mean to imply that people will regard their unemployment as in any way undesirable. I merely mean that

people's time will not be spent predominantly working for an income."As to how people's time would be spent,Nilsson was not full of ideas, and the few notions he did have ranged from the dreadful ("volunteer or public-service activities") to the

unrealistic ("artistic and creative pursuits") to the monotonous (the rise of "a Polynesian-type'culture"). Was that the final payoff of

nanotechnology mangoes and ennui? To get a better grip on the matter, the NSG invited David Friedman, economist at the University of

Chicago (and the son of Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winner), to give a talk on the subject at the January 1987 nano conference they were

sponsoring. But even Friedman was of two minds on the issue. The lesson from history, he said, was that technology did not mean massive

unemployment. "In this country, for example, since independence, roughly speaking, our population has gone up by almost two orders of mag-

nitude. Throughout that time, aside from a couple of rather un usual years, the number of jobs and the number of workers never differed by

more than ten percent. And I would think that just sort of with no theory at all, it seems very peculiar that you would have two independent

numbers, each of which went up about a hundredfold during a period of two hundred years and that were virtually never more than ten

percent apart."

What technology really did, said Friedman, was to increase productivity and create wealth. It gave

people more free time. "What happens," he said, "is that as technology improves, output per hour goes up.

In a market economy people have the option of taking that improved output per hour in the form of

more income more real income or in the form of more leisure. And of course over the last two hundred

years people have done both on a large scale." Nanotechnology would merely push this to extremes ...

and then some. "No one will bother to charge for food," he said. "Food machines would be provided as a free amenity.

They will be set up on street corners to commemorate dead spouses, just as water fountains are now. Raw materials, except for very

large objects like planets, will cost almost zero." A new car might cost something, but not much. "With Eric's

technology we can make and market a new car for three seventy-five. That's three dollars and seventy-five cents." This was pretty much the

standard view,nanotechnology as the molecular cornucopia, and all was well and good. Still,when it came time to say exactly what would fill a per-son's time in the nano age, when food machines were on street corners, when new cars

went for $3.75, when only the larger planets were even remotely pricey, well, even Dave Friedman was slightly at a loss. What would these

people actually do? "If it's important to human beings to feel that they're doing important, produ tive things, and if it turns out that in the world

of a hundred tears from now the important, productive thing you're doing is giving your wife a back rub, and you're both living off this

phenomenal flow of income from your very small amount of property in a very, very productive world, you may feel useless. "I can offer you no

8/4/2019 1AC Final

14/14



14

guarantees from economic theory against that."

Ed Regis, Science technology author. Nano; the emerging science of nanotechnology: remaking the world- molecule by molecule. 1995 p. 183-

184

Money, too, would no longer be worshiped the way it always had been; it would no longer be a badge

of status.How could it be in an age when, one, everybody had tons of it, and, two, you didn't even need it, or very much of it, to acquirethings? Essentially, the only material entities that would retain value in the nano age were land, which even nanotechnology could make no

more of, and "special items of artistic merit," which was to say, artworks. Since the work of the world would be done by machines by the

assemblers there would be large amounts of unemployment. Nevertheless, there wouldn't be an unemployment "problem."

Al-though you

could certainly work if you wanted to, you wouldn't have to work for a living that was the whole point. Unemployment would simply be a

neutral and natural condition, the normal state of affairs, like the sky's being blue. As for the four-billion-dollar question What would people

be doing when they didn't have to work? MacGillivray

's answer was utterly simple: they'd be off enjoying themselves. "We will have an

entertainment society, not an information society,"

he said. "Self-directed people will pursue knowledge and entertainment for its own sake.

Some will accumulate knowledge for the joy, satisfaction, and challenge of the pursuit. Others will take up artistic activities. Some will preserve

and continue traditional and creative means of construction and production." Art, performance, creation these became the big themes of

the future among the nano clan. Nanotechnology, apparently, was greater nirvana. It meant instant and effortless satisfaction of every material

want or need. It gave you everything, all on a platter. Matter had been overpowered; reality itself took on a new cast: it was controllable,

plastic, malleable. It presented no further hindrance, no resistance to human will. The assemblers would provide.

1AC Final

Documents

Transcript of 1AC Final