On May 15th we had a 2 hour online discussion in the framework of this cyberconference. Here you can read the chat-protocol:

 

17:56 Marc Tyrrell Join to chat:
17:58 jhughes Join to chat:
18:01 Steve Fuller Join to chat:
18:01 Johannes Blaas Join to chat:
18:03 J. M. R. Macaraig Join to chat:
18:08 Marc Tyrrell:Afternoon! (here at least)
18:08 MIKES Join to chat:
18:10 Steve Fuller:Does anyone  want to start the ball rolling? The idea here is to discuss issues associated with the converging technologies agenda. We just finished a workshop in Vienna and it's clear people are coming to this from many different directions, some quite sceptical about whether there is anything really worth worrying about. One thing I wonder is whether the issues raised by the cyberconference are worth raising now -- or is it a little premature?  Sometimes it's hard to separate the reality from the spin in this issue. What do you think?
18:10 J. M. R. Macaraig Left from chat:
18:13 Marc Tyrrell:Hi Steve.  It may be worth raising some of them, but it might be better to look at those that are a touch more immediate - more reality and less spin as it were.
18:13 Ertug Join to chat:
18:13 Steve Fuller:Which ones do you have in mind, Marc?
18:14 J. M. R. Macaraig Join to chat:
18:14 Marc Tyrrell:Sorry, Steve.  I'm having some browser problems right now.  Maybe some one else has a suggestons?
18:14 Elena Simakova Join to chat:
18:16 Steve Fuller:
Well, let's try this. When you think about some discovery or innovation that might be a product of 'converging technologies', what comes to mind?
18:17 Marc Tyrrell:The first one that comes to my mind is the Blackberry.
18:18 Ertug Left from chat:
18:18 Elena Simakova:
Hello. My example is RFID (radio frequency identification).
18:20 Elena Simakova:The RFID chips are described as having roots in nanotechnologies.
18:20 Marc Tyrrell:Let me toss out another one: YouTube.  I think it is oe of the most interesting ones I have seen in its effects on both popular culure and onorganizatons.  BTW, the US military just blocked YouTube from all their servers, even though the Coalition has a YouTube channel.
18:21 hamlett Join to chat:
18:21 J. M. R. Macaraig Left from chat:
18:22 Marc Tyrrell:I have been fascinated for quite a while now at how organizations attempt to maintain their cultures despite the changing tecnological environments.  YouTube isone example, Blackberries another, and RFID chip utilization is a third (nice one Elena)
18:22 J. M. R. Macaraig Join to chat:
18:24 hamlett Left from chat:
18:25 J. M. R. Macaraig:(Sorry) just testing this out... my INTRAWEB just died.. test test test
18:25 Marc Tyrrell:It's working 
18:26 J. M. R. Macaraig:yay thanks..
18:26 PeterE Join to chat:
18:26 Steve Fuller:
You raise an interesting point, Marc. In the original US National Science Foundation document from 2002, the pitch for converging technologies research was focussed on the need to maintain national security, levels of personal well-being, and an able-bodied workforce through uncertain political and economic times. This theme is also present in other national documents drawing attention to converging technologies. Do you think this is something best dealt with at a national level -- or should there some international level action, or should it be left to businesses, individuals, etc.?
18:28 Steve Fuller:By the way, for those of you jumping on board, this discussion is really meant to be a collectively produced, so if you wish to raise some other issues -- please go ahead!
18:28 Marc Tyrrell:Hi Steve.  A very good question.  Ultimately, I think hat it will come down to the individual level, regardless of any natonal or international bodies.  I just saw a post from a serviceman over in Iraq saying "So, what? I'll just mail a CD home and get a friend to post it.
18:29 PeterE Left from chat:
18:30 J. M. R. Macaraig Left from chat:
18:30 Marc Tyrrell:As another comment on that issue, I would also have to say that there are a fair number of "non-state actors" involved in this as well.  Mos of the military discussions seem to focus on Al Qaida, but almost any organized group of people can prety much circumvent national and international regulations.
18:33 J. M. R. Macaraig Join to chat:
18:33 J. M. R. Macaraig:(Firstly..thanks Steve for setting all this stuff and making your self available)… …When I think about Converging Technologies, the first thing that comes to mind is the search for profit by surplus capital… I also think about the eroding of the traditional role of the university by corporations… Moreover, I also see a re-aligning of the relationship between universities and the private sector.
18:35 Marc Tyrrell:I can certainly see that hapening here (Canada).
18:35 Steve Fuller:
Some of the discussion surrounding converging technologies -- anticipating that terrorists are here to stay -- would actually merge medicine and national security. For example, you might be able to introduce some nanomedicine to insulate your blood from contamination in case of biological or chemical warfare. Is this the sort of thing that should be developed commercially and left to people purchase at market rates, and perhaps incorporated into insurance policies? This would be an example of devolving national security concerns very much to individuals. Or is that too weird to contemplate?
18:36 Marc Tyrrell:Actually, Steve, it's already happening with the Anthrax virus vaccine.
18:37 dianawilso Join to chat:
18:38 Marc Tyrrell:Converging military and medical technologies is also an onging debate, especially since so much of the current "hot" conflicts are counter-insurgency based.  Will this turn into national policies?  Maybe, I suspect that something like that would happen in Canada, as lng as it was fairly readily available.
18:38 Steve Fuller:Well, Marc, do you think something should be done about this tendency to merge medical and national security concerns now, or just let it run as it is for the time being?
18:38 Marc Tyrrell:Sorry - I have a sticky keyboard
18:39 dianawilso Left from chat:
18:39 Marc Tyrrell:Personally, I think that it should be done, at least planning, right now.  Then again, I am living in a fairly small, high technology country.
18:40 Marc Tyrrell:What about other countries?
18:40 Bogi Takacs Join to chat:
18:41 fred Join to chat:
18:41 Steve Fuller:
We seem to have at least 4 or 5 countries represented here.... What do the rest of you think about the merging of medical and national security issues resulting from converging technologies?
18:46 Steve Fuller:
In the UK the main discussion point on this particular form of convergence has probably related to the increased surveillance capacity of organizations -- perhaps the state, but also insurance companies, pharmaceutical  companies, etc. -- to implement these measures. The information gathered would not only be more intensive, but it would also likely be shared by many different organizations. Of course, this stuff is already happening at an ordinary level simply through online credit card purchases. But one could easily see people giving up quite intimate information about themselves in exchange for the promise of a more comprehensive sense of security.
18:47 Bogi Takacs Left from chat:
18:47 Bogi Takacs Join to chat:
18:47 Marc Tyrrell:Steve, do you think that the general public is willing to do that?
18:48 Elena Simakova:
Electronic passports containing RFID chips (so called ePassports) is such example - privacy is largely at stake in the implementation debates.
18:48 Bogi Takacs:Sorry for the random reconnects, I'm trying to convince my browser that it really needs to run this applet properly...
18:48 Steve Fuller:
No problem, Bogi, you're not the only one!
18:49 Marc Tyrrell:Elena, what sort of information is carried on those ePassports?
18:50 Elena Simakova:The government says it's "basic" information similar to the paper passport, without a photo.
18:52 Marc Tyrrell:And we all know how trustworthy governments are  .  Do you suspect that they will increase the amount of information on them or, possibly, link them through to databases with security information?
18:53 Elena Simakova:I don't know at the moment. The concern is often about a non-authorised reading of such information by others holding a reader device.
18:54 J. M. R. Macaraig:Steve…In Canada a recent news story reporting the (incorrect) presumption by US security individuals that one of Canada’s special commemorative quarter was thought to contain some sort of top secret nanotechnology. A somewhat troubling, and surprising allegation especially coming from the US..
Such security concerns by the US indicates how serious and mainstream the idea that security and nanotechnology issues have become strategically aligned.
Story can be found here…
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05/07/tech-poppy-quarter.html
18:54 Steve Fuller:
To answer Marc, this increased level of surveillance will be covered up with good public relations. After all, none of this nano-biotechnology stuff can work unless people are willing to give up enough information to enable such precise interventions to occur with any degree of success. However, the PR stress is placed on the precision of the intervention (and its success, of course)  rather that precision of prior information about the subjects that is needed. I think the big problem will be for people to retain the rights to information about themselves for their own purposes!  For example, you may be denied treatment or an insurance policy for reasons that can't be divulged for national security reasons.
18:55 Liana Giorgi Join to chat:
18:55 Marc Tyrrell:That's true!  Most Canadians snickered over the poppy issue.
18:56 Marc Tyrrell:Steve, that's a good point, and we have run into it here.  There is also a major prolem with incorrect information being included in these databases.
18:57 Bogi Takacs:What I find interesting is that NBIC discussion is often just NB, or as Steve just put it, "nano-biotechnology stuff"... I also got that impression on the workshop.
Where is I and C? (I admit I'm kind of biased toward I and C, I'm a psycholinguistics grad...)
18:58 J. M. R. Macaraig:Marc…I use the word ‘troubling’ as scholars of both American and Canadian studies readily point to the historically friendly relations that these two countries have had. I guess all bets are off when issues pertaining to national security are on the table…
18:59 Liana Giorgi:Informatics is more diffused than it seems.
18:59 Marc Tyrrell:They are - especially in light of the relationship between Pres. Bush and ex-PM Martin (they hated each others guts!)
18:59 Bogi Takacs:(I suppose that was kind of out of line here, but I suspect I have a huge lag on my end here, at least 2 minutes judging from the applet's time display... you're probably already talking about something else!)
19:00 Bogi Takacs:Liana: but it's also much more pervasive than the rest, at least in our current daily lives!
19:01 Steve Fuller:Well, Bogi, certainly the I and probably the C (i.e. information technology and cognitive science) is popping up now in this discussion. Much of the original NSF document was preoccupied with the smooth flow of information across disciplines and organizations. I imagine in the back of the mind of the NSF guys was some informatic breakthrough comparable to the itnroduction of the internet by physicists coordinating defence research during the Cold War. That might deal with the degradation of information across sectors.
19:01 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, there is a lot of tension right now betwen Canada and the US in the general "security" area over us not going into Iraq.  That was exacerbated in 2004 (I think it was) when some USAF reservists bombed and killed some of our troops in Afghanistan.
19:01 Bogi Takacs:Yes, I suppose nanotechnology gets to be at front because it has a larger scare factor (fear of the unknown) than informatics and cogsci do...
19:02 Bogi Takacs:If it comes to informatics and security, I think Windows Vista is probably the scariest thing to behold BTW. Hold on I have an amazing quote somewhere...
19:02 Marc Tyrrell:On the I & C issues, I certainly see them in the more general discussions, but I would say tha Bogi s correct - nanotech is a "Frankenstein" technology.
19:03 Bogi Takacs:"In fact, Microsoft is imposing a higher standard of security for premium content than what's been required in the past for any known secure computing initiative proposed for protecting data classified at TOP SECRET or TS/SCI levels (the closest that anything came to what's required in Vista was the LOCK kernel with SIDEARM and BED coprocessors (PDF link), which didn't go as far as the Vista requirements and after 17 years of development effort was a commercial failure to boot). Just to make this point clear, the level of security that Vista is trying to achieve to protect video and audio is more extreme than anything the US government has ever considered necessary for protecting its most sensitive classified data."
19:03 Bogi Takacs:premium content: basically copyrighted stuff
19:04 Bogi Takacs:it's from http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
19:04 Liana Giorgi:
How useful is it if we oscillate between the 'horror' and 'absolute benign' scenarios when discussing or, indeed deliberating, these issues?
19:05 Bogi Takacs:I don't think nanotech is necessarily horrifying, it's more like US media putting it so. In fact in Hungarian newspapers and popular-science magazines I see mostly enthusiasm.
19:05 Marc Tyrrell:Liana, I don't know.  I know that I lok at them as examples of folklore - specifically to track how cultural images of technologies and ideas come to be part of that culture.
19:06 Jochen Glaser Join to chat:
19:06 Marc Tyrrell:Hi Bogi, personally, it doesn't bother me either, but I know a fair number of people in te field.  I think that it is, however, an easy target for "spinning", as is biotech.
19:07 fred Left from chat:
19:07 fred Join to chat:
19:07 Steve Fuller:One thing that is a bit scary about nanotechnology is how benign it can be made appear once people are told that there's something in it for them. The customised nature of the interventions nanotechnology makes possible makes it ripe to be remade as a consumerist paradise.
19:08 fred Left from chat:
19:08 J. M. R. Macaraig:Marc.. you are correct...I also live in the Dominion of Ontario, and I have an eerie feeling that the NBIC discourse will inevitable make its way with full steam into issues pertaining to national security. i.e., all this talk about passports, smart drivers licenses etc. in North America seems to always be rolled up into a discussion of making crossing the border as efficiently as possible…
19:08 guest Join to chat:
19:08 Marc Tyrrell:Very true, Steve.  Right now, at least in marketing circles, customization is king.
19:09 Bogi Takacs:I still wonder why we see these huge regional differences. I also got the impression from Simone's presentation that in Italy the general approach of the media was much like in Hungary, and rather different from the US.
19:10 Liana Giorgi:
I share all of your concerns, I think it is rather scary too. I am posing this question from the perspective of public consultation. I fear that if we just move between these two scenarios it won't be possible to identify ways forward in this context.
19:10 J. M. R. Macaraig:Steve…I also agree, especially when that paradise involves the ‘more efficient’ checking through of goods at the Can/US border.
19:10 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, Oh, yes!  Also, the smart pass for buying at WalMart.  I have seen a bit of the atempts to use cogsci models to build analytic programs based on sales data - I'm waiting for those to be integrated more heavily into the security debate.
19:11 J. M. R. Macaraig:So for this reason of course, business will be in favour of such technology.
19:11 Bogi Takacs:About these digital IDs - Hungary phased in digital student IDs in higher education approx. five years ago... it's important to know that in Hungary if you're a student, you use your student ID for practically everything, from transportation to what have you. However, I personally have never had mine used with a card reader, people visually inspect it and that's all. So I'd say it's not really a NBIC issue but one of whether you have an ID card to begin with (in some places of the world even the thought of it is anathema, I suppose).
19:12 Marc Tyrrell:Yup - and let's not forget that more efficient monitoring technologies also mean the basis of worker control as well.  I think that Disney is probably one of the best examples of this.
19:12 Steve Fuller:
Liana, I actually had in mind focus groups done in the UK, which found that people may start off with a 'grey goo' conception of nano, but that wears off very quickly once they're told of some of the currently available benefits and prospective ones in the future. I conclude that people's fears are really quite shallow -- i.e. based on superficial information that could be easily reversed with the right presentation.
19:13 Marc Tyrrell:Steve, a very good point, but a lot of it rests on the legitimacy of who is doing he explanation.
19:13 Liana Giorgi:
Steve, but what type of experts were called in to talk to these citizens? Did those with concerns also get the chance to voice their opinion, or was it just lay citizens facing experts in favour of CT?
19:13 Jochen Glaser:Steve, did the people in these focus groups recieve information about dangers at the same level of detail, sincerety etc?
19:14 Liana Giorgi:
Often these focus groups are themselves just PR and not real deliberation in the democratic sense.
19:15 Jochen Glaser:That's what I had in mind, Liana. Any dangers are much more difficult to talk about anyway.
19:16 Marc Tyrrell:Liana, I suspect that a lot of that stems from the fact that focus groups have no power.  Their value, as a research tool, is also highly variable and eally dependant on the moderators and discussion guide.
19:16 Steve Fuller:
It was pretty informal, a Demos thing, not a proper consensus conference. Very New Labour. So various sides were presented. But I think the problem here is that fears of things yet to materialise are not quite as persuasive as on-the-ground success stories of working technologies. I think you'd need a major public nano-disaster -- or perhaps a really powerful Hollywood blockbuster to counteract the public drift towards general acceptance of nano.
19:17 Bogi Takacs:Isn't it the point of focus groups to get information from your prospective consumers about the way they see your product (so that you could iron out the wrinkles in your PR) and not necessarily to convince them about the Next Best Thing? ...I guess those presenters who were of the opinion that NBIC advocates tended to slip into social engineering were somewhat right.
19:17 Bogi Takacs:"So various sides were presented." - OK I see now.
19:17 Liana Giorgi:Psychology also plays a role. People would rather suppress negative information. Not only because they are scared; but because hearing about dangers would imply that one needs to do something about it. And who wants to become active?
19:18 Marc Tyrrell:Bogi, yes, that does tend to be how some are run - especially those aimed at ad evaluation.
19:18 Jochen Glaser:SAo let's hope for an early major nano desaster.
19:18 albanite Join to chat:
19:19 Steve Fuller:
I'm betting on the Hollywood blockbuster coming first...and probably to a cineplex near you.
19:19 Marc Tyrrell:Steve, yes, you're right.  Even then, it wouldn't have to be a real disaster - it could be made to look like a nano disaster
19:19 Marc Tyrrell:I agree Hollywood!
19:20 Bogi Takacs:well, it was more of a rhetorical question than anything! I personally would prefer trying to learn from our prospective 'customers' than trying to engineer their reactions, at least not in an intro phase.
19:20 Bogi Takacs:I would love to see more and more quantitative data on people's attitudes toward NBIC.
19:20 Jochen Glaser:Unfortunately, the current US vice president won't mak a movie on dangers of nanotech :(
19:21 Marc Tyrrell:Jochen, and I suspect he won't make a documentary on safe hunting practices either 
19:21 Steve Fuller:
Maybe Michael Moore can be interested...
19:21 J. M. R. Macaraig:Steve.. Hollywood has been there and done that...
19:21 J. M. R. Macaraig: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/
19:22 Marc Tyrrell:Also http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
19:23 Liana Giorgi:
You see, and it still does not work ...
19:24 knowbot Join to chat:
19:25 Marc Tyrrell:Let me go back to Liana's comment on "democratic" for a minute - how many people will actually take the time to track down the information they need to make an informed decision?  My guess isthat it will be very few, with the vast majoriy relying on "experts".  How then could we say that any decision made on these issues was "democratic"?
19:26 Bogi Takacs:That's true for all issues in society, I'd say...
19:26 Steve Fuller:Luckily or not, it's not clear who the experts are in matters relating to converging technologies -- lots of different expertise simply run up against each other. 
19:26 Liana Giorgi:
That is indeed the problem of modern democracies. We over-rely on experts and this is undermining our democratic systems. But this is only because the representation system is so weak. What do political parties do nowadays?
19:27 Jochen Glaser:If I may add to Marc's question: Is the hunt for the most effective manipulation of 'the public' the best approach to judging emerging technologies? 
19:28 J. M. R. Macaraig:Switching gears a bit… I think the X-factor in all of this NBIC stuff is the role of the university. Will it be complicit/implicit in adopting and promoting such technologies? Apparently in some countries it already has (i.e., student cards)… but as the beginning statement of this forum states… the research agenda of the various educational institutions will be key… and again, I think there has to be something hashed out with regards to the partnerships between business and the university. (which by the way is a seemingly continuous discussion)…
19:28 Liana Giorgi:And only think that this is all going on in our so-called celebrated 'knowledge society'. You would expect citizens to be more knowledgeable ... but they (we) are not. Rather less reflective ...
19:28 guest Left from chat:
19:29 Steve Fuller:I really don't think the issue is manipulation here. It's a subtler matter: If you talk about something long enough, even in focus groups and even if a sociologist and not a PR guy is running it, you effectively normalize the thing you're talking about. In that respect, all of us are helping along the converging technologies agenda by getting others to take it seriously.
19:29 Marc Tyrrell:Jochen, personally I would have to say "no - education is", but I am not too sanguine about that happening.  Liana, from what I can see happening in the US right now, I would have to say that political parties exist for their own survival and nothing else.
19:30 albanite:the role, positioning, mandate etc of sci advisers to governments becomes more important here
19:30 Jochen Glaser:
JMR, I don't think universities have so much choice. They are far less powerful than we think. Any government initiating a major funding program will make scientists at universities promise anything.
19:30 Marc Tyrrell:Hi Steve, I've done both pure research and market research based focus groups (I'm an Anthropologist) and I really have to agree with you - the normalization effect is somewhat scary
19:31 Jochen Glaser:Steve, if I only could believe this is the case! As a sociologist, I had to learn to look for actors and their interests. Unfortunately, there are some around ...
19:32 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, I have to agree with Jochen on this one, at least for younger, non-tenured academics (i.e. academic serf labour).
19:33 Jochen Glaser:Marc is of course right about the political parties.
19:34 J. M. R. Macaraig:Jochen… I agree… especially when the university goes out of its way looking for private partnerships…
19:34 albanite:normalisation can go in different directions though...
19:35 Liana Giorgi:
Albanite, can you elaborate?
19:35 Jochen Glaser:Steve has a very interesting point, though. I have never thought about this normalising business before. Thanks.
19:36 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, my main problem with the way these university-business alliances are working out, at least here in Ontario, isn't about their existence so much as it is about the practices assumed by university administrations.  Most businesses I know, and I've done a fair amount of work with high tech businesses, can't believe how outmoded the universities bussiness models are.
19:36 albanite:governments however constituted can define paarameters though social negotation - there is influence
19:36 Steve Fuller:Jochen, if you're referring to my comments about no experts in CT, well, even looking at the field of play,  it's not obvious that anyone carries unquestioned authority. Lots of people make claims to that effect and they may win some local battles, but CT strkes me very much like environmental politics, 'expert' exists purely at the level of agents' self-description.  That's not sufficient to undermine democracy.
19:37 J. M. R. Macaraig:Marc.. are you referring to how universities are run in general?
19:37 daffodil Join to chat:
19:38 J. M. R. Macaraig:Steve... I agree in that democracy is not undermined in that such experts are taking part of a 'democratic' process.
19:38 Marc Tyrrell:Both to that and, also, to the fac that a numer of universities take outrageous amounts of overhead - 40% off the top in my case, which is why I won't run any contracts through them.
19:39 albanite:Steve yes but the expert/politics boundary is continually recreated and needs to be challenged in eg regualtory policymaking
19:40 Liana Giorgi:
Yet many of the self-thought experts have a lot of power within policy-making.
19:40 albanite:indeed!
19:41 Marc Tyrrell:I suspect that that is inherentwithin a bureaucratic system - the "Iron Cage"phenomenon
19:41 albanite:..probably more than eg self-appointed ethicists?
19:41 Marc Tyrrell:Arghh! Don't get me started on them!
19:43 albanite:they are in the system
19:43 J. M. R. Macaraig:Marc.. I understand..The blurring of the relationship b/w universities and business .. Things like the MaRS thing come to mind… http://www.marsdd.com/
19:43 Liana Giorgi:Marc, that is a good point. Administrators working within science bureaucracy for instance and setting out nano and other RTD programmes are often scientists who are however far removed from research itself having not been engaged for so long; or they are the more mediocre scientists which is why they become bureaucrats to then produce mediocre or megalomanic S&T policy
19:44 Steve Fuller:Someone earlier was mentioning about the need for quantitative data about attitudes towards nanotech. The big US initiative studying the social dimensions of nanotech has a branch devoted to this (based in Wisconsin). Here is the general website: http://cns.asu.edu/network/
19:45 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, that's a good example.  I could also add in university mandated use of (outdated) technologies where the use is downloade to instructors, and the fact that very few universities actally conduct any meaningful market research.
19:47 Marc Tyrrell:I think that a lot of this does go back to JMR comment about the role of the universities.  In these types of social debates, it would be "nice" to have institutions that are "neutral".  However,....
19:47 J. M. R. Macaraig:Marc.. that is a good point regarding market research done by universities... most take form in some hopeless alumni survey...
19:47 Steve Fuller:Hey, just let you know. We've got only 15 more minutes in chat mode.
19:47 Elena Simakova:Marc, what is meaningful market research? Is it meaningfulness not a post-hoc arbiter of success?
19:47 Bogi Takacs:That was me, but I was thinking of not just nanotech, but the whole NBIC spectrum. (I also said people were prone to identifying the two, which I don't like.) Still, it's good to know that someone's assessing at least one branch.
19:48 Jochen Glaser:OK, I have to leave nayway. Thanks and bye.
19:49 Jochen Glaser Left from chat:
19:50 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, I know .  Elena, I would say that "meaningful" needs to be characterized in two dimensions.  The first would be what are the acual skills and abilities that are achieved by a particular program that are guarenteed once the student has completed that rogram.  In other words, what is the "meaning" of their degree?  The second is to relate those skills and abilities to how they can be used in the non-university world either for personal or professional use.
19:50 albanite:any comments on 'regulation always lags behind innovation' ?? market research is done more or less formally by regulatory bodies/govts
19:50 Marc Tyrrell:By Jochen!
19:51 Steve Fuller:Well, albanite, the US nanotech in society folks are pushing the concept of 'anticipatory governance', so perhaps regulation might precede innovation.
19:51 Marc Tyrrell:True, albanite, but I've often found that they cast their questions inoften meaningless ways compared with curent realities.
19:51 albanite:yes!
19:52 J. M. R. Macaraig:Since we are nearing the end… when I think of converging technologies (as prompted by Steve at the beginning)… the first thing that comes to mind is that it is exactly the ‘outlet’ that surplus capital is looking for… a sort of intellectual/capitalist frontier that has yet to be negotiated and/or defined.
19:53 Marc Tyrrell:Or, maybe, is in progress?
19:54 sf Join to chat:
19:54 jhughes Left from chat:
19:56 Marc Tyrrell:JMR, I would certainly agree that it is a "frontier", but I do see it as more than merely an outlet for surplus capital.  Then again, I am something of a romantic 
19:56 Bogi Takacs:Well if we look at science as a way of describing reality, then all research will eventually converge (unless we kill ourselves off first!) as we have one reality that needs describing. (The same with technology as a way of manipulating reality.) I hope I didn't sound too kitschy 
19:56 Steve Fuller:Well, JMR, the frontier for surplus capital in converging technologies is the human body itself, what some transhumanists call (euphemistically) 'morphological freedom'. Seen in the round, NBIC can be seen as trying to push stuff currently outside the body (and often between people in social relations) inside the body, typically changing its form in subtle and not so subtle ways. 'Skin, the final frontier...'
19:56 Marc Tyrrell:LOLOL
19:57 J. M. R. Macaraig:As we all know … life at the frontier can be an uneasy one.. and I particularly think that this frontier is one that will affect not just the life of the first pioneers, but rather the life of everyone quite significantly. Especially when the NBIC discourse is rolled up in a economic framwork…i.e., border security, passports etc…
19:57 J. M. R. Macaraig:Steve.. LOL.. yes you are right... skin...
19:57 Bogi Takacs:it *is* kind of Freudian...
19:57 Marc Tyrrell:Or, to paraphrase Microsoft, "Who do you want to be today?"
19:58 gast Join to chat:
19:58 J. M. R. Macaraig:Marc.. I guess the answer would be some sort of cyborg
19:58 Marc Tyrrell:My old friend Charlie Laughlin usd to argue along those lines but, yes, I agree.
20:00 daffodil:how would you even begin to think of cyborg in this age?
20:00 J. M. R. Macaraig:Steve.. nicely put ...I guess this frontier is within each and everyone of us.. so that makes it more important why 'we' should get this one right...
20:00 Marc Tyrrell:As a note on convregence, and its limits, let me say how much I have enoyed this conversation.  I do, however, think that it would have been better with beer  .
20:00 J. M. R. Macaraig:or at least put more effort into getting the right answer as democratically as possible.
20:00 albanite:
thanks folks
20:00 Steve Fuller:
Let me thank you all for participating in the cyberchat -- the first of its kind, i think, on this topic. We'll keep you posted on our future developments but we need to sign off here. There's a lot of food for thought here -- of the non-nano-bio-modified variety. So long.
20:01 Liana Giorgi:Ciao.
20:01 Bogi Takacs:yup, thanks...
20:01 J. M. R. Macaraig:lates...
20:01 Marc Tyrrell:TTFN
20:01 Elena Simakova:
bye
20:01 daffodil:bye all sorry to come in late
20:01 Bogi Takacs:bye everyone!
20:02 albanite Left from chat:
20:02 Liana Giorgi Left from chat:
20:02 daffodil Left from chat:
20:03 Elena Simakova Left from chat: