<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/9/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">The Avantguardian</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>By your own logic then, every transhumanist<br>should be scaring the wits out of their neighbors with<br>the threat of global warming even if they don't<br>actually believe there is a threat. Simply because it<br>will accelerate progress in nanotechnology.
</blockquote><div><br>Hmmm... I would then suggest that we might then need an age and location specific "scaring the wits" strategies. With respect to just about everyone 50-60+ aging and *death* will impact them significantly (and much more negatively) than global warming will in their generally anticipated lifetime. With respect to location, people living in places like Chicago, Montreal, Fairbanks, Moscow, etc. are going "Yea, bring it on" when you mention global warming (esp. this time of year) [you can include me, currently residing in Boston, as being part of this group]. Hell, I've always wanted to go waterskiiing in the summer on Great Slave Lake. The argument tends to fall apart as most people who have some understanding of global warming, nanotechnology, aging, transhumanism, etc. have *very* little contact with those who may be most negatively impacted by it (
e.g. those in Brazil, central Africa, India, S.E. Asia and low lying islands). So it tends to look to me like a lot of scientists "crying wolf" to get support for their favorite research interests.<br><br>The only "significant" negative impacts one can envision out of global warming are shutting down the Gulf Stream (which may require melting the Greenland ice cap -- or *more*) and what is probably worse -- a massive melting of the methane clathrates throughout the world. However neither of those situations is being predicted by currently envisioned global warming.