consolejockey

I just read a wired news article about a group of activists who got naked in the display window of an Eddie Bauer store in Chicago. They had warnings about nanotechnology written on their nude selves. I can’t decide if these people are morons or geniuses.

On the one hand, they were protesting Eddie Bauer because the company sells stain resistant pants. But these are no ordinary pants, they are “enhanced” pants. Say it with me now, “enhanced” pants. The pants are enhanced on the molecular level by a process cooked up by a company called Nano-Tex. Is this stain proofing process nanotechnology, or Nano-Tex’s attempt to capitalize off a buzz word? Nano-Tex says it’s really nanotechnology, so lets just go with them on this one. It turns out the process uses extremely small particles of Teflon, which potentially could be absorbed through the skin, doing some damage… somehow. So the activists legitimately had a point to make, these pants might be bad for you. Better yet, these nano-enhanced-pants are part of a trend to embrace possibly dangerous technologies before adequate testing has been done to show that there are few if any draw backs. Nanotechnology could be a really good thing, if developed and used responsibly, but the naked people are claiming that Eddie Bauer, or really Nano-Tex, hasn’t been very responsible.

Nano-Tex says otherwise. The Wired.com article states that Nano-Tex “asserts that Nano-Tex’s products are independently tested for safety and meet all environmental, health and safety standards mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.” The EPA shut down the Ghost Busters in their darkest hour, can they really be trusted? Also, organizations like those mentioned above can be influenced by corporate interests. I also have to question how knowledgeable such organizations are about technology as new as stuff that falls under the category of nanotechnology. So again, score one for the graffitied nudists.

On the other hand, they got naked in an Eddie Bauer store front window. Is that really the best way to spark intelligent debate? Picture this, you’re at a cocktail party when you over hear some people talking about nanotechnology. “It could revolutionize manufacturing,” you hear one person say.

“The medical applications are mind blowing,” another responds.

“Some naked people at Eddie Bauer said it was bad,” you chime in.

“Holy sh*t, I never thought of it like that,” everyone within earshot exclaims.

You have to give the nudists credit, they did get national press and that could bring much needed attention to their cause. Or it could completely undermine their efforts by showing that their cause is championed by a bunch of exhibitionists with vague phrases written all over their bodies.

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other towards nanotechnology. But there are a few causes I do feel strongly about. If you know me then you already know which ones those are. I like activism, when it’s constructive. The kind of activism practiced by the Eddie Bauer exotic dancers draws more attention to the activists themselves than it does to their cause. I really think that what we need is less activists drawing attention to themselves and more people building a coherent argument as to why we should be weary of things like nanotechnology. The case can be made, and more people will listen if it’s presented in a more conventional manner.

Morons or geniuses? Somewhere in the middle, a little more towards morons in my opinion.