[extropy-chat] Being an unabashed sceptic (was Suda et al papers (was etc))

[Brett Paatsch]

I've forked the thread again because someone may be interested in talking
about the Suda papers. 

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:41:25PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> > Merkle is not a cryobiologist. He's a cryptographer turned computational
> > nanotechnologist, postulating total reversibility in absence of facts which
> > speak otherwise. It is very difficult to get him to listen, because (for
> > whatever reason) he assumes the burden of proof is on your side, not his. 

Then his political acumen is low. He has two choices, work within the
democratic system, such as it is, and change it lawfully by persuasion or
invest the time and effort away from his other activities to try and overthrow
it illegally and by force.

I think that he will find, that the United States is a fairly formidable construction
of political checks and balances even to its own citizens as it has evolved in
large part to balance the tensions between their conflicting political interests,
even when those interests are relatively enlightened.  

But this has nothing to do with the Suda papers if people want to discuss 
this essential existential political choice I hope they will do it in another
appropriately labelled thread. 

[Eugene again]
> I've seen enough to maintain that there's enough in there to undertake 
> vigorous research. Don't claim the area isn't worth studying, the potential
> damage is very high.

I didn't claim it wasn't worth studying.  If I did claim it, I would not accept 
that my opinion falsely or incorrectly based would or should count for much.

> I.e., if cryonics is viable, any personal responsibility in delaying large-scale
> deployment makes you the greatest genocide perpetrator in entire history,
> by a very far margin.
> 
> Ditto any gerontology/longevity research, of course.

I'm a little at a loss to see how I could become the greatest genocide
perpetrator in history by a very far margin simply for failing to agree with a
proposition.  I thought as a scientist you'd like scepticism and questioning. 

Exactly how many ways has your scientific training allowed you to
enumerated for me to becoming the greatest genocide perpetrator in
history? 

How would I rate next to abortionists for instance or book burners? Would 
Joe Stalin be envious, or Pol Pot? 

Should I hold back all criticisms of molecular manufacturing as well just in
case its needed to make cryonics work? 

On the other hand if cryonics cannot work, no way, no how, regardless of
what I say or don't say, think or don't think, then would you prefer that the
illusion that it could continue to be propagated and that people not spend
their time and effort exploring alternatives ?

Are some "beliefs" beyond the pail of critical thinking? Which ones? Or
whos? 

Say you were a 'believer' in god and a religious system and your belief
was mistaken would I have a moral responsibility to stay quiet out of 
deference to your feelings, to let you die with your illusions whilst
during your life you continued to vote and act on your mistaken belief 
redirecting resources through the political processes that might otherwise
have improved not just your life but mine and the people I care about? 

I'm more than a tad wary of the precautionary principle you seem to be
espousing. I think I have seen it before. I didn't like it much then either. 


Regards,
Brett Paatsch 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040506/8e2c2c46/attachment.html>