We equate size with power—bigger is better, might is right, loud is better than quiet, large is preferable to small. We spend our lives in the realm of big, bigger and biggest. Think about this paradox though—just as we place greater emphasis on size so nanotechnology (nano=very small) has resulted in the miniaturization of our world. Everything from microchips, to receivers and transformers. Cell phones and computers are the smallest they have ever been and the miniaturization of surgical equipment means lives can now be saved when before they couldn’t. The better a hi-fi the smaller it is and forget those dials—now you have a remote control that does it all and you can crank the sound up to 11 if you like (check out my post on March 2, 2009). Is it possible that ‘small’ is the new ‘big’ and that the future belongs to small smaller and smallest? When you are on the right side of right size doesn’t count. The majority doesn’t matter. I suppose that the moral geniuses of our time know that …. maybe it’s time for the rest of us to catch up?
Big bigger biggest
May 20, 2009 · 3 Comments
Categories: Leadership · Uncategorized
Tagged: Leadership in tough times, Moral genius
3 responses so far ↓
John McLaren // May 28, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
I’m sure this was not meant as a debate on nanotechnology. Nevertheless. Nonotechnology is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale and has wider implications than just size. Nanotechnology has little to do with miniaturization but there are areas of overlap. Nano=1 billionth. Common uses for nanotechnology have been around for a while. UV-block sunscreen is an example. The material on your non-stick frying pan is another. Waterproof materials use nanotechnology. In medicine the advances have been in areas such as anti-bacterial surfaces (SilvaGard was one of the earliest nanotech applications in medicine), more efficient drug administration, materials for vascular surgery (TiMesh) and burn treatments such as ActiCoat. Use of magnetic nanoparticles is being used for more efficient kidney dialysis (but the machines are not geting smaller). The miniaturization of consumer devices has little to do with nanotechnology. Computers and cellphones have relied on advanced in TFT screen technology and solid-state memory and drives to decrease size at the same time as more efficient heatsink cooling which allowed them to do away with bulky fans. The resultant heat decrease meant less wattage consumed and so power supplies became smaller. Only the Core 2 processors can be termed nanotech but it has more to do with power than size as the actual socket is far bigger. Nanotechnology influenced the material used for notebooks (volume to size ratio is what makes nanotech what it is) resulting in lighter and stronger material (but not necessarily smaller). Most of the latest research is centered around cosmetics eg. enabling anti-acne materials in make-up, and deep nano-moisturisers (the smaller the particles the deeper they penetrate). Kids products are another huge area where nanotechnology has little to do with size. Supplio crayons have a nano-coating allowing them to stay germ-free. SPF50 sunblock for kids relies on nanotechnology. Fabric softeners use nanotechnology. Silver nano baby bottles use nanotechnology to stay germ-free.
Cellphones and radios, interestingly, do not rely on nanotechnology for miniaturization.
Graham Willcock // May 29, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
Thanks John – always good to get a different perspective. I wonder to what extent the word nanotechnology has been adopted to mean something else to its original or ‘correct’ meaning though? I’m thinking of words like ’strategy’ – adopted by business from the military, or ‘turnkey’ from the IT industry. Nano is creeping into all sorts of conversations including the examples you list. My point as you correctly identify was using the word in a descriptive rather than a normative sense.
Thinking about some of your examples I suppose in theory, a house could be built at some point in the future from the foundations up using worker bacteria designed by nanotechnology. Imagine a cell phone that was a device inserted into a human body, or a radio transmitter that was placed permanently into the cranium? I think nanotechnology will change the world in which we live as it did with the first non stick frying pan.
John McLaren // May 29, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
I’m glad that non-stick frying pans changed your life !
Here’s a nice example of miniaturization that I have in mind for a certain birthday coming up !