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

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 5:19 PM Brett Paatsch
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> 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.

It depends on whether people who agree with Smalley have the capability
and the will to try to prevent their views from being proved wrong.  In
the long run, they don't.  In the short run, they might drive research
underground or to less friendly societies (Red China, for instance).
They might do this as well by lending credence to anti-technology groups
and policies -- not so much just pulling public funds from these
programs but also passing laws against anyone doing it and also shifting
the culture toward other things.  (Passing laws would be initiating
force.  I don't believe Smalley's called for that -- unless I've misread
him.)

A better solution would be, again, to decouple public funding and
scientific research to prevent politics from having a say in science as
well as corrupting it.  However, even in a free market, chances are, one
will have to convince others to fund research.  It's just that one
wouldn't have only one source of such funding.  (In fact, in any
society, unless you're in control, you'll have to convince others.)

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/