Monday, January 03, 2005
Iran hard-liner: Nano a key to regional power
Prominent hardliner, reformist run for president (IranMania)
Top
Iranian hardliner Ali Larijani announced Monday that he was joining the
presidential race to become Iran's next president, while a report said
top pro-reform cleric Mehdi Karoubi would also be standing.
... Larijani told reporters he believed Iran "has the potential to be the region's superior power", and he pledged that even if conservatives won the presidential elections -- scheduled for June 17 -- the new government would display a "synthesis" of ideas including those pushed by the incumbent reformists, ISNA added.
He said a priority in the economy was investment in four fields: nanotechnology, biotechnology, nuclear technology for non-military purposes and information and communications technologies. More here
Drawing a nano-sized line in the sand
Israel and Iran going nano
Sorry, I'm on baby duty as I work this morning. Not sure what kind of
"view" anybody can have on this. Iran will develop nanotechnology, just
as all other nations great and small will do it and, as I've written before, will tailor it to suit their own local needs.
This does point again to how wrong the anti-nanotech camp is -- you know, those who see nano as simply another arm of globalism or U.S. corporate colonialism. You don't need to be a corporate giant to develop nanotech. You don't even need to have an existing "old technology" infrastructure. You can even argue that it's best if you didn't, because then it becomes easier to build from the ground up. Nations like Iran, Iraq and those in the former Soviet Union have a great many scientists with no infrastructure in which to build their talents and contribute to their countries' future. Silicon Valley is no longer the Land of Milk and Honey.
Speaking of which, time to feed the baby.
Howard
This does point again to how wrong the anti-nanotech camp is -- you know, those who see nano as simply another arm of globalism or U.S. corporate colonialism. You don't need to be a corporate giant to develop nanotech. You don't even need to have an existing "old technology" infrastructure. You can even argue that it's best if you didn't, because then it becomes easier to build from the ground up. Nations like Iran, Iraq and those in the former Soviet Union have a great many scientists with no infrastructure in which to build their talents and contribute to their countries' future. Silicon Valley is no longer the Land of Milk and Honey.
Speaking of which, time to feed the baby.
Howard
Strange. I'm the only "blog administrator," I thought. Anyway, I was
responding to an anonymous reader who wrote "Nice picture but so what?
Do you have a view on this?"
Howard
Howard
All the more reason for the implementation of a global approach to
nanotechnology regulation. We waited too long for that with nuclear
technology, and where has it left us? Now is the best time to build a
global consensus on nanotechnology regulation. If we wait much longer,
the nano cat may already be out of the bag.
A humble correction: it should be letting the nanocat out of the
nanobag. We all know that a nanocat is so small it would slip through
the fabric of a regular bag. /AG
If there really is no room at the bottom, why do people harassing this weblog get so emotionally charged over the subject?
It really saddens me to see politics and dogmatic scientism invading science from the bottom up. Is funding really more important than honesty?
I'm sorry, Mr. Lovy. I haven't been here in months and it's disheartening to come back only to see the impolite and vindictive visitor comments accompanying your posts along with the many (likely necessary) deletions (and apparently faux deletions by said visitors for effect).
It really saddens me to see politics and dogmatic scientism invading science from the bottom up. Is funding really more important than honesty?
I'm sorry, Mr. Lovy. I haven't been here in months and it's disheartening to come back only to see the impolite and vindictive visitor comments accompanying your posts along with the many (likely necessary) deletions (and apparently faux deletions by said visitors for effect).
I frequently see MNT and nanobot proponents claiming that if they only
had more money than they would prove everyone right. So here's my
question:
If you have infinite resources, what are the top 5 experiments you would conduct to prove the feasibility of creating MNT or nanobots? It hasn't been proven yet. And remember: Include specifics. Details. Enough details to actually carry out the plan should I decide to give you $300 million dollars to use.
(I'm not addressing this comment to you, Mr. Lovy. It's for your audience.)
Post a Comment
If you have infinite resources, what are the top 5 experiments you would conduct to prove the feasibility of creating MNT or nanobots? It hasn't been proven yet. And remember: Include specifics. Details. Enough details to actually carry out the plan should I decide to give you $300 million dollars to use.
(I'm not addressing this comment to you, Mr. Lovy. It's for your audience.)
