Greener on the Other Side: Science Fiction and the Problem of Green Nanotechnology

Abstract

Green nanotechnology promises high-tech solutions to global ecological challenges. Focused on environmental risks and economic growth in the here and now, the promotional discourse of green nanotechnology firmly rejects science fiction. However, the extent to which green nanotechnology forecloses science fiction actually impedes its own green aspirations. Drawing on the novels of Kim Stanley Robinson—particularly the Mars trilogy and the Science in the Capital trilogy—this essay proposes that the successful confluence of environmental politics with molecular science (green nanopolitics) depends on practicing science fiction in the real world, cultivating a green futurity already in the present.

Intermatrix Synthesis as a rapid, inexpensive and reproducible methodology for the in situ functionalization of nanostructured surfaces with quantum dots

“…The possibility of release of nanomaterials into the environment [16][17][18][19][20] results in the serious concerns about safety issues dealing with: 1) their higher toxicity in A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t comparison with their bulk counterparts; 2) the absence of the legislation normative for permitted levels of various NMs in water and air; and 3) the absence of the adequate analytical techniques for detection of NMs in the environment [21,22].…”

Forms of Duration: Preparedness, the Mars Trilogy, and the Management of Climate Change

“…For Markley, the Mars trilogy "blurs distinctions between fictional and scientific simulations of terraforming" (362). See Milburn (2012) for more on science fiction novels as simulations of alternative worlds. 11 The novels of the Mars trilogy are Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars.…”

Advertising Nanotechnology

“…With some recent exceptions (Black 2014; Frankel and De Pace 2012; special issue of Nanoethics 2011; Hvidtfelt Nielsen 2008), the status of nano images is rarely acknowledged explicitly; doing so would bring their epistemological status into doubt. 3 No research has been undertaken to elucidate the visual and aural economy of nanotechnology at perhaps the most important site of meaning-making—advertising (with one exception: Milburn 2012). Despite this, it is beyond dispute that in late capitalism, image is the preeminent source of value—be it brand images, corporate images, images of nation, of identity, and of aesthetic labor (Schroeder 2002; Arvidsson 2006).…”

“…There is a tendency for nanoscience writers introducing the concept of nanotechnology to posit a frame of harmonious coexistence with nature (for critiques of these, see Brown 2007; Milburn 2012; Milburn 2002; Bensaude-Vincent and Newman 2007). For example, in a standard textbook, Poole and Owens (2003, 1) remark on the idea that nanotechnology is “not new … in fact such structures have existed on Earth as long as life itself,” and proceed to show this in the case of the abalone mollusk.…”

“…Further, we are encouraged by Poole and Owens not just to see the existence of nanostructures in nature, but also to see nature as constructed nanotechnologically, using “fabricating structures” and “glue.” Nanotechnology is natural, while nature itself is revealed to be a semi-artificial construct. This fluidity is mobilized in advertising: Milburn (2012), for example, explores how three automobile brands effectively call on nanotechnology to incrementally “green” their product portfolios, evading the more problematic question of how automobiles contribute to environmental degradation in the first instance. Similarly, in our sample, we see nanotechnology clearly enframed by nature tropes, aligning it to a communion with nature (Figure 10 and Figure 11).…”