Hara Ra writes:
>>The latest Cryonics mag has a provocative article by Saul Kent arguing
>>that the main reason for low interest in cryonics is almost universal
>>disbelief that it will work.
>
>For more info you should look at Cryonet's archives about 6-8 weeks
>ago. IMHO, Saul & company (Mike Darwin, et al) have been emotionally
>committed to the biological approach and don't really understand the
>implications of Nanotechnology and what 150 years of technical development
>really means.
Your claim and Saul's are compatible. Together they imply almost universal disbelief that nanotech will do what its proponents claim. I am fascinated this sort of disagreement phenomena. Why are proponents so confident in the face of strong skepticism, and why are skeptics so confident in the face of strong minority disagreement? How does each side explain the other side's behavior, and how does each side think the other side explains it?
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-2627