A. Nanotechnology fails for three reasons, lack of transparency, replacing raw materials, and causes brain drain. It hurts developing countries more then it helps James Nickerson Special Reports Intern for finical times Marketing at C-SPAN, Graduate of University of Bristol October 7, 2013 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b78b9aa-2d0f-11e3-8281-00144feab7de.html#axzz2udUoTRMAGuillermo Foladori, professor of development studies at theUniversity of Zacatecasin Mexico and co-ordinator of the Latin American Nanotechnology and Society Network, says: The complete lack of transparency in the development of nanotechnology means it is hard to say what is being produced and whether it will solve problems for the majority of people, both between nations and within nations. But it is the profit motive of a global industry whose sales are expected to reach $48.9bn in 2017, according toBCC Research, a market research company, that explains why most of the products derived from nanotechnology so far have not benefited the world at large. Nanotechnology research into diseases such as cancer might have helped perpetuate the underfunding of research into other diseases, but the irony is that the latter avenues have not been blocked by restrictive patenting. Prof Cortie acknowledges that within the OECD there is the issue that some areas are heavily patented. Prof Foladori recognises that nanotechnology research has not spread to all parts of the world and may displace workers, mostly in developing nations. There is the prospect that as new nano materials are developed, they will replace raw materials on which many developing nations depend for export revenue. Worker displacement brought on by commodity obsolescence will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable, particularly those workers in the developing world who do not have the economic flexibility to respond to sudden [increases in demand] for new skills or different raw materials, says a report by the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. Employers in developing countries often do not inform workers when nano materials are used in production processes, creating a health risk to those employees through, for example, the inhalation of nanoparticles. Meanwhile, the brain drain of talent from developing countries to richer nations, combined with the lack of transparency in production processes, poses many serious questions about how equitable the development of nanotechnology has been and what can be done to redress the balance. As with any innovation, nanotechnology may bring benefits but also creates challenges for workers and the economies of developing nations. With their superior infrastructure, developed countries may be better placed to take advantage of nanotechnology, but for developing nations the risks may outweigh any benefits.

B. Nanotech is extremely dangerous arms race, hackers, surveillance, irreversible pollution Vandermolen 2006 Intelligence Officer with US Special Operations Command Thomas, graduate from Naval War College, Molecular Nanotechnology andNational Security, Air and Space Power Journal, September 1, 2006,http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/fal06/vandermolen.html#vandermolen Direct Threats: The most obvious threats posed by MNT are those based directly on the application of the technology itself, as a source for both better weaponry as well as faster and more widespread arms production. State-Based Arms Races. Intentional misuse of MNT will probably pose the greatest direct threat to national security. MM will allow anyone with access to the technology to quickly and economically create weapons of virtually any description. The aspiring arms producer would have to provide only designs, power, and basic materials. If the arms producer is a state, then the resulting flood of extremely high-quality military equipment will enable that state to promptly and easily overwhelm any non-MNT-equipped enemy. With the rapid prototyping capability provided by MM, the time period for such a buildup could be on the order of weeks or months; multiple, rapid arms races could surface with regularity around the world. Such races would likely not be limited to conventional weapons as we know them today. An arms race based on smart weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be possible, such as a smallpox virus engineered to kill only people with a certain genetic trait. Individual-Based Arms Races. States may not be alone in weapons-production activities. MNT-enabled personal manufacturing could allow WMD production to shift from governments to small groups or even to individuals; this democratization of arms production is the darker side of PF. Bill Joy, cofounder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, has dubbed this capabilityknowledge-enabled mass destruction, calling it a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.22Given the predilection of some hackers to create harmful computer viruses just for the thrill of it, it is not a great conceptual leap to imagine that nanohackers might decide to do the same with actual viruses. Perhaps the most frightening weapon of alland thus no doubt a natural aspiration for potential nanohackersis the infamous self-replicating gray-goo assemblers. Designing a gray-goo replicator would be an extra-ordinarily complex undertaking, however, and would require solving a multitude of extremely difficult engineering challenges; accordingly, some have argued that such an effort would be either impossible or highly unlikely.23However, a dedicated and concerted attempt could conceivably fall short of the goal but still come up with something extremely dangerous and uncontrollable. To help ensure that the accidental creation of a gray-goo nanomachine remains a practical impossibility, Drexlers Foresight Institute, a nonprofit organization he founded to help prepare society for anticipated advanced technologies, has prescribed guidelines for the safe development of NT. The institute recommends avoiding the use of replicators (i.e., assemblers) entirely, or at a minimum, designing them so that they cannot operate in a natural environment. Surveillance. An early application of MNT and NT will likely be inexpensive yet advanced microsurveillance platforms and tools. Mass produced, these disposable sensors could be used to blanket large areas, providing ubiquitous surveillance of the people within. Although obviously a battlefield concern, such surveillance could also be employed against any group or population, raising privacy and legality issues. Environmental Damage. MNT was originally perceived as a potential cure-all for a variety of environmental problems: nanobots in the atmosphere, for example, could physically repair the ozone layer or remove greenhouse gases. Recently, however, NT is increasingly seen as a potential environmental problem in its own right. Both NT and MNT are expected to produce large quantities of nanoparticles and other disposable nanoproducts, the environmental effects of which are currently unknown. This nanolitter, small enough to penetrate living cells, raises the possibility of toxic poisoning of organs, either from the nanolitter itself or from toxic elements attached to those nanoparticles.

C. Nanotechnology destroys a key nitrogen cycle in plants which leads to extinction Cameron Scott a journalist for sfgate April 14, 2011 Study: Nanotech destroys soil http://blog.sfgate.com/green/2011/04/14/study-nanotech-destroys-soil/Concerns about nanotechnologys impact on the environment specifically water and soil have begun to percolate, however. So when researchers at Canadas Queens University obtained a chunk of Arctic soil to study as part of the International Polar Year, they decided to experiment on the pristine soil sample it offered. They identified in the sample a common beneficial microbe that helps plants fix nitrogen. Plants cant do so on their own, but the nitrogen cycle nearly as important as the carbon cycle for maintaining life on Earth. But when silver nanoparticles were added to the soil and allowed to sit for six months, the microbe that helps fix nitrogen to plants had been virtually eradicated. Tests showed that the nanoparticles were to blame. Thats bad, because we have no way to prevent nanoparticles from reaching the soil and the water table.D. Nanotechnology causes arms races and extinction Nick Bostrom Professor, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University [Published in theJournal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1 2002 http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.htmlIn a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale self-replicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter[22-25]. Such replicators could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment. The technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune system, an active shield [23]). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesnt require rare radioactive isotopes or large, easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons Even if effective defenses against a limited nanotech attack are developed before dangerous replicators are designed and acquired by suicidal regimes or terrorists, there will still be the danger of an arms race between states possessing nanotechnology. It has been argued that molecular manufacturing would lead to both arms race instability and crisis instability, to a higher degree than was the case with nuclear weapons. Arms race instability means that there would be dominant incentives for each competitor to escalate its armaments, leading to a runaway arms race. Crisis instability means that there would be dominant incentives for striking first. Two roughly balanced rivals acquiring nanotechnology would, on this view, begin a massive buildup of armaments and weapons development programs that would continue until a crisis occurs and war breaks out, potentially causing global terminal destruction. That the arms race could have been predicted is no guarantee that an international security system will be created ahead of time to prevent this disaster from happening. The nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR was predicted but occurred nevertheless.E. Accidental or malicious use of nanotechnology leads to extinction Nick Bostrom Professor, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University [Published in theJournal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1 2002 http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.htmlThe possibility of accidents can never be completely ruled out. However, there are many ways of making sure, through responsible engineering practices, that species-destroying accidents do not occur. One could avoid using self-replication; one could make nanobots dependent on some rare feedstock chemical that doesnt exist in the wild; one could confine them to sealed environments; one could design them in such a way that any mutation was overwhelmingly likely to cause a nanobot to completely cease to function[40]. Accidental misuse is therefore a smaller concern than malicious misuse. However, the distinction between the accidental and the deliberate can become blurred. While in principle it seems possible to make terminal nanotechnological accidents extremely improbable, the actual circumstances may not permit this ideal level of security to be realized. Compare nanotechnology with nuclear technology. From an engineering perspective, it is of course perfectly possible to use nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes such as nuclear reactors, which have a zero chance of destroying the whole planet. Yet in practice it may be very hard to avoid nuclear technology also being used to build nuclear weapons, leading to an arms race. With large nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert, there is inevitably a significant risk of accidental war. The same can happen with nanotechnology: it may be pressed into serving military objectives in a way that carries unavoidable risks of serious accidents. In some situations it can even be strategically advantageous to deliberately make ones technology or control systems risky, for example in order to make a threat that leaves something to chance.