During this edition, Christopher Macklin joins me again to discuss aliens, nanotechnology, and mind control. Visit his website at www.christophermacklinministries.com     Ethics of nanotechnology is the study of the ethical issues emerging from advances in nanotechnology and its impacts. According to Andrew Chen, ethical concerns about nanotechnologies should include the possibility of their military applications, the dangers posed by self-replicant nanomachines, and their surveillance monitoring and tracking use.[1] Environmental and public health risks are treated in a report from the Dutch  National Institute for Public Health and the Environment[2] and a report from the European Environment Agency.[3] Academic works on the ethics of nanotechnology can be found in the journal Nanoethics. Guidelines[edit] According to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics[1], possible guidelines for the Ethics of nanotechnology could include:  Nanomachines should only be specialized, not for general purposes. Nanomachines should not be self-replicating. Nanomachines should not be made to use an abundant natural compound as fuel. Nanomachines should be tagged so that they can be tracked. Concerns[edit] Ethical concerns about nanotechnology include opposition to their use to fabricate Lethal autonomous weapons and the fear that they may self-replicate ad infinitum in a gray goo scenario, first imagined by K. Eric Drexler.[4] For the EEA  [3], the challenge posed by nano-materials is due to their properties of being novel, persistent, readily dispersed, and bioaccumulative; by analogy, thousands of cases of mesothelioma were caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust. See nanotoxicology. Nanotechnology belongs to the class of emerging technology known as GRIN: geno-, robo-, info- nano-technologies. Another common acronym is NBIC (Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, and Cognitive Science). These technologies are hoped[5] - or feared,[6] depending on the viewpoint- to improve human bodies and functionalities, see transhumanism. Loss of human identity[edit]In the U.S., the Amish are a religious group most known for avoiding certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that there will probably be "humanists" shortly, people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies. They believe their choice must be respected and protected.[134] In his 2003 book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including germinal choice technology, nanomedicine, and life extension strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span, and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem significant in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that societies can benefit from renouncing particular technologies, such as Ming China, Tokugawa Japan, and the contemporary Amish.[135]Follow us on InstagramFollow us on Face