[extropy-chat] Doubt and About

[Harvey Newstrom]

Brett Paatsch wrote,
> 
> Harvey Newstrom  wrote:
> 
> > Robin Hanson wrote,
> > > I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if you 
> > > think the situation was ever any different.  It seems to me that 
> > > this is the way it has always been.
> > 
> > I disagree.  Things are different than they used to be.
>
> Maybe you are right Harvey. Maybe you are not. Why don't you
> tackle something with a slightly narrower scope and give more 
> evidence for what your saying?

I wasn't aware that anybody needed evidence of what I was saying.  Robin
seemed to agree with me, but thought this was the way things had always
been.  He certainly didn't dispute my assessment of how things are now.  My
entire diatribe was a long expansion of how I agreed with Hal and that he
was exactly right in his assessments of nanotechnology.  In fact, I believe
his assessment applies to a lot of other areas as well.  So far everybody is
in agreement.

What exact points did you disagree with, and what exact evidence did you
want to see?  Do you doubt that pseudoscience is confusing the public?  Do
you doubt HMOs have taken medical decisions away from doctors?  Do you doubt
that scientific research is now owned more by corporation backers and less
by public universities?  I am not sure exactly what points you think require
further evidence.

Or was it my suggestions you disliked.  Do you disagree that we have more
talk here than action?  Do you disagree that we should go beyond the
fan-club stage and start actually creating the future ourselves?  You asked
me to give more evidence for what I was saying, but I don't know exactly
what you disagreed with.

> If you have some specific things you'd like
> to see done perhaps you could state them?

I would like Extropians to get real technology jobs, practice radical
life-extension techniques, sign up for cryonics, start real think-tanks,
produce real solutions, start real development projects, and write
scientifically rigorous papers to present our ideas.

> I thought the recent discussion about nanotechnology would have been 
> useful to anybody interested and willing to actually listen. I agree 
> with Hal that critics are our friends

I agree with Hal as well.  My entire diatribe was a big expansion on how I
agree with Hal.  As Hal pointed out, the nanotech stuff is not very well
presented or supported.  We need to do a better job in providing evidence
for our ideas.  I am not sure why you are implying that I missed Hal's
excellent points.  I was writing to say that Hal was right on the money and
that his observations apply in other areas as well.

> I can empathise with frustration and perhaps sometimes the
> list functions as a fraternity of the frustrated but there is 
> little point just howling at the moon. 

Sadly, this is the primary cause why people drop out of the list.
Discussions here seem to be incompatible with getting real work done.
Eugen, Eliezer and many others have specifically questioned whether this
list detracts from their serious interests elsewhere.  The list does seem to
have a history of losing people as soon as they really get serious.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>