[extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell research]

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> So maybe I'm wrong about no one wanting to research
> molecular 
> manufacturing.  Maybe we have a better base than I
> thought, and it's 
> just more covert than I'd like to see.

There are those who want to discuss the technology
(but don't necessarily have a clue about its
realities), and then there are those who want to
practice and develop the technology (but suck at
beating their own drum).  There's a lot going on that
you don't see if you don't look for it.

> The problem
> with being covert is 
> that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of
> the technology.

Some people don't see this as a problem.  See what
happened to, e.g., genetically modified foods when
people discussed the implications before the
technology was well understood - and the aftereffects
even now that the technology is somewhat more
advanced.  (And specifically, the main thing keeping
it from advancing further much faster than it is.)

Just doing Devil's Advocate here.  I don't necessarily
endorse the above opinions, but I readily see where
they come from and why they persist.  The existence of
many neo-Luddites (who get scared enough by technology
they do not understand to call for legislative bans,
along with lesser measures) is, itself, a problem if
one would like to have a public discussion about new
technologies (which alerts the public, including the
n-Ls, to this new technology) before it is widely
understood (i.e., already developed, like how the
Internet and the Web were already developed before
most people became aware of them).

Then again, I do wonder what specific benefits are
sought from a public discussion of the massively
unknown.  (Beyond just alerting people that technology
X exists: in truth, while it's not yet developed, it
can be argued not to truly exist yet.)  Note that by
"public" here I mean beyond just select circles like
this list.