Get more Mail & Guardian
Subscribe or Login

Religious riddle of nanotechnology

What does God think of nanotechnology? The glib answer is that, like the rest of us, He has only just heard of it. If you think it is a silly question anyway, consider that a 2009 study claimed “religiosity is the dominant predictor of moral acceptance of nanotechnology”. Science anthropologist Chris Toumey has recently surveyed this moral landscape.

Nanotechnology is a catch-all term for a host of diverse efforts to manipulate matter on the scale of atoms and cells. There is no single objective.

Some nanotechnologists are exploring new kinds of medicine, others want to make computer circuits or new materials.

Of the rather few explicitly religious commentaries on nanotechnology so far, some have focused on issues that could have been raised by secular voices: safety, commercial control, accountability and responsible application.

Yet much discussion has headed down the blind alley of transhumanism. Nanotech scientists have long sought to rescue their discipline’s public image from vocal but fringe spokespersons such as Eric Drexler and Ray Kurzweil, who have painted a fantastic picture of tiny robots patching up our cells and extending our longevity. Kurzweil has suggested that nanotech will help to guide us to a moment he calls the singularity: a convergence of growing computer power and medical capability that will transform us into disembodied immortals. He has even set up a Singularity University, based on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Research Park in Silicon Valley, to prepare the way.

Needless to say, immortality or its pursuit is not acceptable to most religious observers of any creed, because it entails a hubristic attempt to transcend the divinely decreed limits of the human body and relieves us from saving our souls. But the transhumanism question is not unique to nanotech; it is part of a wider debate about the ethics of human enhancement.

In any case, the theologians can relax.

Transhumanism and Kurzweil’s singularity are just delirious dreams and on no serious scientist’s agenda. One Christian writer admitted to being shocked by what he heard at a transhumanist conference. Quite right, too: these folks, determined to freeze their heads or download their consciousness into computers, are living in an infantile fantasy.

So, are there any ethical issues in nanotech that really do have a religious dimension? Science-fiction writer Charles Stross has imagined the dilemma of Muslims faced with bacon that is chemically identical to the real thing but assembled by nanotechnology rather than pigs.

He was not entirely serious, but some liberal Muslim scholars have debated whether the Qur’an places any constraints on the permitted rearrangements of matter. Jewish scholars have used the legend of the golem to think about the ethics of making life from inanimate matter, partly in reference to nanotech and artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, the pre-eminent expert on the golem legends, Gershom Scholem, was sanguine about the idea, asking only that our digital golems “develop peacefully and don’t destroy the world”.

These academic discussions have so far been rather considered and tolerant. Toumey wonders whether they would impinge on the views of, say, your average Southern Baptist, hinting at what we might suspect anyway: both sensible people and bigots adapt their religion to their temperament and prejudices, rather than vice versa.

A British study made the point that religious groups were better able than secular ones to articulate their ethical concerns because they possessed a vocabulary and conceptual framework for them. The researchers suggested that religious groups might take the lead in communicating public perception. I am not so sure. Articulacy is useful, but it is more important that you first understand the science. And just because you can couch your views eloquently in terms of souls and afterlives does not make them more valid. —

Subscribe for R500/year

Thanks for enjoying the Mail & Guardian, we’re proud of our 36 year history, throughout which we have delivered to readers the most important, unbiased stories in South Africa. Good journalism costs, though, and right from our very first edition we’ve relied on reader subscriptions to protect our independence.

Digital subscribers get access to all of our award-winning journalism, including premium features, as well as exclusive events, newsletters, webinars and the cryptic crossword. Click here to find out how to join them and get a 57% discount in your first year.

Related stories


If you’re reading this, you clearly have great taste

If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to the Mail & Guardian for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a week, and get more great reads.

Already a subscriber? Sign in here


Subscribers only

Zondo may miss chief justice cut

The deputy chief justice is said to top Ramaphosa’s list but his position as head of the state capture commission is seen as too politically fraught

Government fails to act on officials implicated in R3bn SIU...

Half of the 127 managers incriminated in gross procurement corruption have yet to be disciplined

More top stories

‘The Making of Mount Edgecombe’: A view of history from...

Indian indentured labourers’ lives are celebrated in a new book, Sugar Mill Barracks: The Making of Mount Edgecombe

Case of men arrested with 19 rhino horns is postponed

Alleged rhino kingpin and a Mpumalanga businessman appeared in court on charges of the illegal possession and selling of rhino horns

Zuma’s rescission application dismissed with costs

Former president Jacob Zuma fails to meet requirements in his application to set aside his contempt order and prison sentence

Plastic pollution in 2019 cost South Africa staggering R885bn

Yet plans are underway to import more plastic waste into the country and it has not signed global plastics treaty

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…