Nanotalk has provoked expectations just as high as fears: On the one hand NanoTechnoScience is expected to solve problems in almost every area of our daily lives; on the other hand there serious objections are being raised against the promises of a “brave new world”. Nanorhetorics and nanovisions, the fictitious and factitious, the seemingly rational and irrational in this debate coalesce with peculiar sharpness in the “environmental argument”. Here, in turn, the ambiguous concept of sustainability is important. The variety of meanings of this concept, its pluralistic use and at the same time problematic and attractive character is discussed with respect to nanodiscourse. The concept of the ecological footprint will be used to show the inconsistencies in the nanodebate. The discussion ends up noting that the concept of sustainability may at least be conceived to serve as a sort of information campaign or boundary concept that allows the debate of issues like growth and environment in the nanodiscourse. As such it could eventually help to place the whole debate in a more political and less ethical or economical context and to prevent the “nanotechnification” of nature and society.
[1]
N. Myers.
Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability
,
1992
.
[2]
D. Jamieson,et al.
Sustainability and beyond
,
1998
.
[3]
Friedrich Hinterberger,et al.
Material flows vs. 'natural capital': What makes an economy sustainable?
,
1997
.
[4]
Gene Bazan.
Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth
,
1997
.
[5]
M. Wackernagel,et al.
Our ecological footprint
,
1996
.
[6]
V. M. Thomas,et al.
Who's in control?
,
1985,
Geriatric nursing.
[7]
M. Grace.
Who's in control?
,
2004,
British Dental Journal.
[8]
D. Jamieson.
A Companion to Environmental Philosophy
,
2003
.
[9]
武彦 福島.
持続可能性(Sustainability)の要件
,
2006
.
[10]
R. V. Schomberg.
The Objective of Sustainable Development: Are We Coming Closer?
,
2001
.