My cat had a cataract but we didn't get it operated on because she'd probably have died and it probably wouldn't have worked anyway. I'd have cut out a hippy's eye to fix hers.
NI super-science
wait, so, what, they argue against nanotech because... they treat it like the government putting a chip into you or something? 
i learned about nanotech back in high school, back before it was cool 
wrote an (undoubtedly crappy) essay for science class about it and the wonderful things it's supposed to do within a few decades of then. and it's coming along and all, but it's not doing any of the big dramatic things i was hoping for - curing blindless (even partly) would be a nice little tip of the hat to my teenaged self, though!
The problems that people have from nano-technology are partly based on scaremongering and partly on sensible concerns over who controls it and what it is applied for - pretty much like GM. Simply put, it promises to deliver unprecedented capabilities to engineer stuff that happens at microscopic levels. Because it's extremely capital intensive and complicated, in our current economic system it will be controlled by large corporations in partnership with states. While they will sell it to the public with promises of cures for disabilities, they are as likely to use it for stuff like killing people and preventing criminals from behaving in certain ways.
All nanotech is is the exploitation of modern molecular engineering techniques to engineer extremely small machinery (they can, for example, build spinning wheels that are a half-dozen atoms or so wide). What use this is put to depends upon the requirements of the ruling class. Most applications will initially anyway, be military. Thankfully, however, research remains at a very basic level, dealing with stuff like the problems of extreme viscosity and turbulence at such small scales and the big show-stopper, how do you get these little guys to do useful things? There has been some extremely basic developments in these fields, but they are still just scratching the surface.
Nanotech, like quantum computing, and like the philosopher's stone, is just a buzzword to lull grant-givers into providing scientists with money for their actual research, which like gurrier said, is a lot more likely to eventually result in simple materials engineering improvements (which is what most of those cool carbon nanotubes are used for) than any of the artificial cells or nano-scale robots usually associated with the field in the public mind. The real concern I, as a half-scientist that's no kind of anti-tech hippie, would have with nano-materials is the fact that their environmental impact might not be properly tested, especially the very real possibility of them being carcinogenic in the same way as asbestos is. They're being put in everything from paint to machine oil, without them previously being tested for possible health risks. At least, that's as far as I know; maybe regulations have changed since then, but while we at the lab were required to wear face masks and protective eye-wear when handling nanomaterials, no-one is going to be doing that when he's double-coating his (second?) shed with nano-enhanced paint. Then again, the paint thinner and lead content might be a lot more dangerous, so I don't know...
The world's leading cause of blindness could soon be reversed, according to Northern Ireland scientists who have developed a new type of nanotechnology.
BBC
And to think I know a hippy anarchist who argues against nanotech
Actually one of our dogs has a cataract in his right eye - I'd be happy to put him under the knife with this nanotech business and see if it works.