READING	NAME	AGENDA
Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need US.” Wired Issue 8.04, Apr 2000. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html	Jonathan Amazon	I'm interested in seeing just how close we are to creating intelligent machines. I've thought a lot about how one might create artificial intelligence or even artificial sentience. So for someone to say were this close peaks my interest. Is it a first order logic system like most computer algorithms or is it more fluid and based off the emergent phenomenon of a complex random system?
	Galen Frechette	"the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions"... "People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide." What is it about humans (a being capable of sustaining them selves with extremely minimal technologies) that drives us into situations which strip us of our ability to autonomously survive?
	Christine O'Rourke	"The Age of Spiritual Machines, which outlined a utopia he foresaw - one in which humans gained near immortality by becoming one with robotic technology." Just because we might be able to achieve near immortality does that mean that we would want to?
	Joyce Chow	The author says that "machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones." Could this include care giving for a child? What would it be like if our kids grew up in a world where they were introduced to robots before their parents?
	Charlie Senness	I feel like when the author calls for regulation and foresight on GNR technologies (similar to those on nuclear technologies) in an attempt to save ourselves in the future, he is really asking for something more pertinent. With the ever increasing directions technology is giving us (as a species) into the future, it is time to ask ourselves which of these directions we want. The author also talks about humans, though technology and knowledge of the natural world, as being in control or our own evolution. If this is true, should we not divert our discussion from whether or not we should pursue such GNR technologies based on their possible negative outcomes, but ask the bigger question, which of the many possible positive outcomes do we want in the future?
	Rachel Ferebee	"Technologies such as human cloning have in particular raised our awareness of the profound ethical and moral issues we face. If, for example, we were to re-engineer ourselves into several separate and unequal species using the power of genetic engineering, then we would threaten the notion of equality that is the very cornerstone of our democracy." I am not sure how to gauge the strength of this argument, since we have a long history of inequality (imperialism, slavery, etc.). And even today there are huge gaps between the well-off and the poverty-stricken in our own country, not to mention the global disparities that exist.
	James Johnston	Between pages 8 and 9 Joy talks about how the ideal of unlimited advances of knowledge and may lead us to extinction and that the re-evaluation of these ideals are needed. That if we had collected knowledge and experiences of morals and ethics had developed significantly over the last thousand years we would not have to worry unleashing such technologies. Yet, a change in the way we develop can also accomplish the same end. Instead of pushing with capitalistic tendencies and allowing slower advances (a cultural shift) with more regulation and insight we could tackle these up coming technologies. How would one go about changing culture to such a degree though?
Eglash, Ron. “Risk and Recursion” http://www.ccd.rpi.edu/Eglash/temp/risk%20and%20recursion3.doc	Andrew Nelson	I think the whole idea of Lamarckian evolution is very interesting. I had never fully understood it until I looked up information because it is used as an example in the graphic on page 4. I feel like if we can incorporate that into more aspects of every day life it will not only make our lives easier but will also help us make new technological advances. If a computer could have this capability and "learn" it would allow it to do greater calculations which could lead to remarkable progress.
	Mike Pennisi	In reading this article, I was reminded of botnets. While the article discusses trojan horse malware in terms of risk and recursion, botnets are an interesting extension with implications to self-organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnets
	Andrew Starr-absent	Is it possible to create nanotechnology without the risk of recursion occurring. Much like a virus often self replicates via non intrusive applications(email lists from your address book for example) could "safe" nanotechnology be used as a platform to create other nanotechnology that is recurring
	Grant Kovach-absent
	Jason Bernardo	The article mentions the low recursive ability of viruses due to their reliance on a host for reproduction. Could we see nanobots or nanoparticles that do the same thing? Could this be used as a form of biological warfare? Could there be any beneficial application? What dangers does this idea present?
	Adam Neisius	An interesting idea mentioned in this article was self-organization and self-replication of social groups and structures. With the internet it is now much easier for isolated individuals to interact and create and expand social groups without a central organizing or even recruiting body. The internet has also allowed various ideas and bits of media (i.e. what most people call memes) to be spread far and wide leading to a new common social context for people to interact. These are interesting new factors in society and human organization.
	Molly Danskin	There are also some biological parasites which feed off other parasites (ex Indian Pipe plant). Where would these organisms fit in the chart? I thought first along with the computer virus, but then since there are two levels of parasitism, would the level of dependency\requirements for replication fit better in lower blue half of the recursive chart with the Trojan horse and parasitic birds?

David M. Berube “Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, January 2008. http://www.springerlink.com/content/42221522n8546755/fulltext.pdf	Sarah Petzold	It is amazing how wording is a very important facet in the world. This article demonstrated how the meaning of a word can change or mean a variety of things creating problems. Picking apart those 15 claims was an interesting read about how words can change meanings, results and facts. This article made me ponder how many other 'facts' were written from incorrect meaning deduction.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/42221522n8546755/fulltext.pdf	Tracy Breslin	"Talking about nanotechnology is challenging enough. Not only is the subject highly technical for public audiences, but also nanotechnology is incredibly heterogeneous as a subject field. (pg 25)" We've complete half of this course. Through all of our discussions, what do people still find troubling when considering the main issues? How do we define the main issues?
	Andrew Krushelnyski	I felt as though the article was written in an extremely scientific, complex form. The underlying idea was to inform us about the harmful effects of some nanotechnologies. I actually felt as though the bullets on page 25 were an excellent description of what nanotechnology is and where its headed. Moving along those lines, we discuss the idea that nano needs to be spread to the public yet here is a prime example of nanotechnology being almost too advanced or complicated.
	Jim McKenna	The author concludes that we cannot trust companies or the media when claims regarding nanotechnology are made, and if scientists' research debunking these claims don't reach the general public, who then should take responsibility to make sure harmful products do not reach the market? Who should be our "truth in advocacy" team?
	Heather Lautman	"Too many companies are over claiming the effectiveness of their sunscreens and cosmetics. In order to differentiate a new nanoproduct from another nono-nanoproduct, advertisers and marketers are stretching the truth and stoking the concern that motivates some people to write reports like the one criticized above" (11) What causes/motivates companies to do these things? The pressure put on the companies coming from the public eye? and what could we do as a society to change this?
	Dan Schaffer	This was such a difficult read. I feel like I should have known all the information in this article already, and that really says something to me about scientific writings. I feel that the community needs more, or better interpreters. If this knowledge is buried in documents of this technical depth and scope, the average public will have a very different time learning about some of the important information within.
	Alex Lamparski	Everyone has their specialties, whether it be European art from the post modern era, coral reefs or building bridges. Within the 'mother' topic communication between the children topics is easy as mechanical engineers are able to talk in the similar language as industrial engineers. However, as you cross into other families the languages become harder to understand. There are people that can translate between the different families, however every word does not always have an exact equivalent across the boarder. Sometimes the translators can get blamed when the information is misunderstood. I can't seem to word this correctly. But it just makes me wonder how different the world would be if there were no boarders and every family didn't have to try and dumb things down for the benefit of others.
	Andrew Cunningham	The only way of separating the "bad" nanotechnology from the "good" is to have categories. As long as the boundaries are editable, categories could serve as a good basis for public awareness. As long as an independent group of adjudicators told where each piece of nanotechnology fit, there would be no consumer confusion and will reduce the fear they have.
	Ishan Gaur	"Are nanoparticles safe? Nothing is safe, but they may be safer than chemicals we are currently using for both the people producing them and those using them. Without a doubt, more research is required to identify the conditions under which some specific types of nanoparticle may be hazardous". Here the author tries to reemphasize the importance of "classification of nanoparticles". Public opinion is almost entirely based on what it is told, not what is true.
	Matt Naples	Trust in companies' ads is not really a goal because, when companies start talking about all the things they are doing for safety, they become a "selling point" rather then a good company motive.