Nano Tech: Midterm Blog Post One

For my midterm assignment I plan to look at some of the innovations in the field of nanotechnology. I feel that genetic engineering and nanotechnology represents the future of the human race. As we evolve, grow, and expand, we face certain problems. These include disease, a lack of resources, and the desire to improve our general quality of living. I believe that these problems can be solved by developments in nano tech and genetic engineering. By reviewing some articles in favor of nano tech and some arguing against it I will show how this field is the future of our evolution. I also hope that anyone who has interest in the subject or disagrees will post in response to my midterm project.

The first subject that I want to address is food. We are dependent on food that requires a large amount of land to be cultivated. It is apparent that Earth's population is always on the rise. In order to meet our demand for food and avoid starvation, we will either have to create more areas for agriculture or we will have to engineer better food. As land mass on Earth is finite and deforestation is already a problem, I think that the obvious choice is to create better food.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/02/24/top-10-uses-of-nanotechnology-in-food/

The link above lists some of the ways that nano tech can improve our food. These improvements include more potent vitamins, longer lasting food, and less risk of bacteria like E. coli. There is also a way to block certain censors in our taste buds so that food can produce the tastes we enjoy. I know that this sounds like it could be dangerous, but it is based on a plant that does this naturally. A plant that has a very low sugar content can be altered to release a chemical that blocks the bitter sensors in your tongue, so that it will taste sweet.

http://nano.foe.org.au/node/198

Above is an article that claims that nano tech in our food supply is a threat to our health. The argument this writer supplies is that the science is new, unregulated and that packages do not warn customers of the use of nano tech. These are reasonable arguments, but I would have to argue that any new science posses a threat to someones health. The answer to this is to perfect the science, not to ban it. Furthermore, if people are experimenting with nano tech on food and not going through the FDA then they should be corrected, but I have found that this is not usually the case. Finally this writer argues that organic foods are a viable alternative to foods altered by science. I disagree, many people can not afford these foods. Also many people live in areas where organic foods are not readily available. Even if we were to expand organic farming, it is unlikely that the farm land could support our global population (and if it could, for how long?). We would eventually find ourselves in a situation where altered food became necessary and then the technology would be rushed, which would be more dangerous.

This is my first installment in my nano tech research. I will post more this week.
-Patrick Mcsweeney