In a laboratory in Bangalore, scientists manipulate molecules to create filters that transform contaminated water into potable water at low cost. Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, investors allocate millions to develop "smart" nanotextiles for luxury consumers. This is the distortion facing the nanotechnology revolution. Currently, we marvel at almost magical promises (microscopic robots navigating arteries or self-repairing materials), but we must question who will really control these molecular tools and who will benefit from them in a deeply unequal world.

Nanotechnology is not science fiction. According to recent studies, there are already more than 1,600 commercial products incorporating nanomaterials, and global investments exceed $20 billion annually. The race to dominate the infinitely small advances rapidly, but who establishes its direction? Fritz Schumacher, father of the concept "small is beautiful," promoted intermediate technologies adapted to local contexts, not high-tech solutions imposed from outside. Ironically, now the "nano" could become the most powerful.

Access to drinking water perfectly illustrates this issue. As numerous studies point out, nanotechnology offers revolutionary solutions for filtering contaminants at the molecular scale. In South Africa, researchers are developing nanosponges capable of absorbing water and trapping impurities simultaneously. In India, scientists like Ashok Raichur work on affordable nanofilters. These advances could help meet the Sustainable Development Goal of ensuring clean water for all, but the gap between the laboratory and the community tap remains immense.

The critical issue is not whether we can develop these technologies (we evidently can) but who will control them and how their benefits will be distributed, as even when some Latin American countries like Brazil and Mexico increase funding for nanotechnology research, others like Bolivia completely lack programs in this area. This asymmetry is not coincidental and reflects historical patterns where emerging technologies, from the green revolution to biotechnology, promised to eradicate global problems but ended up concentrating power and wealth and widening inequalities. In the absence of international labeling regulations and adequate regulatory frameworks, nano technologies could repeat this pattern.

South-South collaboration offers a hopeful counterbalance. The joint program between India, Brazil, and South Africa for nanotechnology development applied to water treatment demonstrates that emerging powers are not resigned to being mere consumers of imported innovations. The same occurs with initiatives like Ti Bus in India or solar pumping systems in Mozambique, which integrate technological solutions with specific social needs, particularly those of women and girls, who traditionally bear the responsibility of obtaining water for their families.

It is important to know whether nanotechnology can escape the dynamics of technological power concentration that characterized previous revolutions. And the answer will depend less on what happens in laboratories and more on the political decisions we make.

The molecular architecture of the future can exacerbate inequalities or democratize solutions. The difference will be in who controls the construction plans and what purposes they serve. If we can learn anything from recent technological history, it is that nanotechnology, by itself, will not solve global inequality. But when put at the service of fundamental human needs, with participatory governance and equitable distribution of benefits, it could make the infinitely small generate extraordinarily large changes.