[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

[Brett Paatsch]

Technotranscendence wrote:

> On Sunday, December 07, 2003 3:37 AM Brett Paatsch
> bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> > Two questions then, one sort of scientific or
> > at least empirical, the second political.

[snip]

> > 2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor
> > Smalley (and associates) were to *accept* the
> > burden of proof scientifically what happens by
> > default politically?
> 
> I don't understand the use of "politically" in the above question.  Do
> you mean that the science will drive the politics? 

No sorry. I should have been clearer. I meant what do you think is
likely to be the outcome of holding the viewpoint that the burden of
proof is on Smalley if it is adopted by folks such as yourself and John
for 'scientific reasons' (perhaps validly) but it is not adopted by 
Smalley. I guess I was wondering if either you or John or others 
would change your views on where the burden of proof would lie
if you were concerned that nothing or little might happen politically 
if the burden was left with Smalley. For me, not leaving the burden 
with Smalley, who is unlikely to want to accept it, is just plain good 
political sense. To me its obvious that it behoves those who are 
aware that they live in a political system where persuasion matters
for the implementation of policy that those who don't like the current
policy direction either accept the political burden of trying to persuade
or they accept in the alternative the consequences, risks and policy
direction that follows from their not doing so. 

Regards,
Brett