"The science of alchemy I like
very well, and indeed, 'tis the philosophy of the ancients. I like
it not only for the profits it brings in melting metals, in
decocting, preparing, extracting and distilling herbs, roots; I
like it also for the sake of the allegory and secret signification,
which is exceedingly fine, touching the resurrection of the dead at
the last day."
- Martin Luther, Table
Talk
[1] Throughout the middle ages, scientists and philosophers
sought a method or substance that would transmute base metals into
gold. The means of this transformation was called the
"philosopher's stone" and variously described as a solid material,
a process, or an elixir that could not only produce gold but also
perfect any substance, cure disease, and restore lost youth.
Alchemists, through their experiments, did come up with useful
chemical and pharmacological substances, as noted by Luther in the
quotation above. But they never did obtain unlimited gold.
[2] The claims for nanotechnology are strikingly similar to
those of alchemy. Nanotechnology shows two faces in today's
world. The first face matches the real results of medieval
alchemy in that nanotechnology, as a method of materials science,
has already produced a variety of new and improved products.
The second face matches the aspirations of alchemy; boosters of
nanotechnology claim that it will ultimately give us a method
through which one form of matter can be changed into any other, and
will lead to unprecedented wealth, restoration of the body, and
even life everlasting.
[3] Let's explore the religious implications of each of these
faces.
Hi-Tech Pants and Sunscreens
[4] There are already more than 600 new products on the market
that involve nanomaterials or manufacturing processes, ranging from
sunscreens to cosmetics, stain-resistant pants to improved tennis
balls. Researchers expect nanotechnology to provide
improvements in computer technology, energy technology, medical
diagnosis, and pollution cleanup within the next few years.
As a branch of materials science, nanotechnology provides us with
improved products and tools that, while not life-changing, might
certainly be life-enhancing. Consider, for example, the new
tennis balls. They have an internal coating that keeps them
from losing air. The same technology might soon be applied to
car tires, resulting in an improvement in tire inflation that could
lead to a significant savings in fossil fuels and reduced
pollution.
[5] Are there religious implications in this technology?
The development of such products falls well within an ethic of
benevolence that calls on us to reduce human suffering, enhance
human creativity, and engage in responsible stewardship of the
earth's resources. Theologian Ted Peters, in his book
Playing God, notes that, "the task before us is to be good
stewards of the advance of . . . science and technology so that it
contributes to human welfare without creating new
injustices."1
[6] There is still much to do, before we will be good stewards
of nanomaterials. According to David Rejeski, director of the
Project on Emerging Nanotechnology at the Woodrow Wilson Center,
while over $1 billion was allocated to nanotechnology research in
2005 in the US alone, only $38 million of that has been spent on
studies assessing the environmental or human risks of
nanotechnology. There are no governmental regulations on
nanomaterials, and producing such regulations will be difficult,
due to the very nature of the field. Their extremely small
size makes it hard to monitor nanoparticles outside of the
laboratory, and the fact that nanomaterials can take on so many
different structures means that the results of a study on one
product are unlikely to apply to a different nanotechnological
material. Rejeski notes that these qualities of
nanotechnology make for a "high potential for being
surprised."2
[7] Still, we have worked out ways to regulate a variety of
technologies in the past. Mainstream nanotechnology is not
qualitatively different from conventional chemical
engineering. Some of its products will greatly enhance our
lives; others will present some environmental or medical
challenges. None will change the very nature of our
lives.
The Philosopher's Stone
[8] But nanotechnology has, in theory, the potential to change the
very nature of our lives. Why stop at new and improved tennis
balls? Eric Drexler, one of the earliest visionaries of
nanotechnology, explored the notion of molecular manufacturing as
early as 1986, in his book Engines of Creation.
Drexler posits the development of molecule-sized machines that
could construct products one atom at a time, thus manufacturing
"anything that the laws of nature allow to exist." We could
finally turn base metals into gold. Or into fresh food, fresh
air, even items that have no static nature, such as "clothing that
becomes your bath water and then your bed." Nanosized robots
could swarm through the bloodstream, repairing damaged cells,
adjusting hair or skin color, and restoring lost
youth.3
[9] Could the dreams of the old alchemists finally become
reality? Adam Keiper, in The New Atlantis, notes
that so far no solid argument has been advanced that proves these
things could not be done, though a number of scientists, including
Nobel Prize winner Richard Smalley of Rice University, dismiss
Drexler's vision as "just a dream," one that will "always remain a
fantasy."4 While no
one yet knows how to make the molecular machines that could make
these dreams a reality, neither has anyone found a fatal flaw in
Drexler's theory.
[10] Inventor Ray Kurzweil espouses Drexler's dream. He
expects that nanotechnology will be one among many technologies
(such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and genetic
engineering) that will lead to an irreversible change in human life
as we know it. Kurzweil asks what will remain unequivocally
human in a world in which physical reality is as mutable as virtual
reality. His answer: "Ours is the species that inherently
seeks to extend its physical and mental reach beyond current
limitations."5
[11] Kurzweil's words echo those of Reinhold Niebuhr. In
The Nature and Destiny of Man Niebuhr notes that the
essential nature of humanity contains a dilemma. We are
finite beings who envision, and thus, continually strive for the
infinite. Created in the image of God, "man can find his true
norm only in the character of God but is nevertheless a creature
who cannot and must not aspire to be God."6 The strength of
this image within us is that we continually search for a
transcendent God. The downside is "man's willful refusal to
acknowledge the finite and determinate character of his
existence."7 It is in this
refusal that Niebuhr locates the root of sin.
[12] The ultimate dreams of molecular manufacturing are the same
as those of alchemy-total control over nature in the ability to
transmute any substance into any other. Niebuhr warns against
such dreams, noting that modern culture fails to appreciate the
human capacity for misusing any power:
[Our] ability to stand outside and beyond the
world tempts man to megalomania and persuades him to regard himself
as the god around and about whom the universe centers. Yet he
is too obviously involved in the flux and finiteness of nature to
make such pretensions plausibly.8
[13] We think of ourselves as standing outside of nature, and
therefore able to control it, yet we are a part of the natural
world, and our control is always illusory. Drexler himself
notes the potential for error in molecular manufacturing and warns
of a "gray goo problem" in which the molecular reassembling of raw
materials could get out of hand and obliterate life on earth.
"Gray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human
adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that
could stem from a simple laboratory accident."9 Drexler
co-founded the Foresight Institute, in part, in order to push for
guidelines that would make such an accident unlikely. This
does not, however, obviate the possibility of nanotechnology being
deliberately misused as a weapon of mass destruction.
[14] Do we want to live in a world of our own design? Even
in the best of scenarios, where laboratory mistakes are guarded
against, and where nanotechnology is only used by the most
responsible, one must ask this question. Adam Keiper
asks a similar question: "Is there room for wonder in a
future where atoms march at our command?"10 Niebuhr
provides an answer: "Both the meaning [of life] and its
fulfillment are ascribed to a centre and source beyond
ourselves. We can participate in the fulfillment of the
meaning only if we do not seek too proudly to appropriate the
meaning as our secure possession or to effect the fulfillment by
our own power."11
A Symbol of the Resurrection
[15] The greatest dreams for nanotechnology are dreams of
immortality. Robert Freitas, one of the leading writers on
nanomedicine, predicts that nanosized robots equipped to repair
cells and deliver medications will give us the ability to halt
aging and even reverse it:
Once nanomachines are available, the ultimate dream of every
healer, medicine man, and physician throughout recorded history
will, at last, become a reality. Programmable and controllable
microscale robots comprised of nanoscale parts fabricated to
nanometer precision will allow medical doctors to execute curative
and reconstructive procedures in the human body at the cellular and
molecular levels. . . [T]he ability to direct events in a
controlled fashion at the cellular level is the key that will
unlock the indefinite extension of human health and the expansion
of human abilities.12
[16] Several hundreds of people in the extropian movement have
paid to have their bodies frozen in hopes of a nanotechnological
resurrection at some future date. But we must note that this is far
from the resurrection promised in the Gospel, which is not about
more time in our current finite bodies, but the promise that we
will ultimately transcend time and in this transcendence, as Paul
notes, "we will all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51).
[17] Yet nanotechnology is about nothing if it is not about change
and the ability to change. Luther ends his comment on
alchemy, with which I began this essay, by noting that one of
alchemy's virtues is its ability to symbolize the transformation of
the human being that will occur in our resurrection. Alchemy
was never only a physical science; the principles of alchemy were
as much, or more, about the ability to change the human heart from
something base into something golden. Nanotechnology could
act for us as a similar metaphor. For at its root it points
out that everything around us is not static and immutable, but is
formed of atoms that are in continual motion, and that, while they
form one thing now, could easily become something else. So,
we note that we may be one thing now, but, by the grace of God, we
too are in a process of change, growing in His image and likeness
and will ultimately be something else. The world that seems
so solid and real may ultimately be quite malleable. In this
we can find a new source of wonder and a new appreciation for the
dynamic natures of both the universe and of our own souls.
1 Ted Peters. Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human
Freedom (New York: Routledge, 2003), 2.
2 http://www.eande.tv/transcripts/?date=120505#transcript
3 Eric Drexler. Engines of Creation: The coming Era of
Nanotechnology (New York: Anchor, 1986), reprinted on the web at http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Cover.html
4 Adam Keiper, "The Nanotechnology Revolution," in The New
Atlantis, Summer 2003. Online at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/2/keiperprint.htm,
5.
5 Ray Kurzweil, "The Next Frontier," in Science and
Spirit, November/December 2005, 69.
6 Reinhold Niebuhr. The Nature and Destiny of Man, vol. 1
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 163.
7 Ibid., 177.
8 Ibid., 124-25
9 Drexler, chapter 11.
10 Keiper, 13.
11 Niebuhr, 298.
12 http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/