Re: Atheism as a spandrel? (was Re: Deep River/Deep Sleep etc)

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 06:04:05 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "RE: Atheism as a spandrel? (was Re: Deep River/Deep Sleep etc)"

    Patrick stated:
    <<Pardon me for interjecting,
    The bench scientists are probably lurking, waiting in hope (& desperation) to
    unearth the occasional posts about science & technology amongst all the
    political ranting.
    The ideological stuff is rather off-putting & seems besides the point.
    Patrick>>

    I disagree because I continuously post articles from Science Daily, Nature,
    Space.com, and the Physics Pre-Print Archives; and the like, and get little
    response, except from the few regulars. You would think that some lurking
    scientist would add their two centavos in on purely, technical, basis; since that is
    their bailiwick. My conclusion is the vast majority of these people are not
    drawn to this list for a variety of reasons. Most of which are not germane to
    politics or polemics.

    Most scientists, from what I have gathered, are not impressed by the
    life-extention message, the singularity viewpoint, or the space travel focus. This is
    applicable to other groups, like the old L-5-ers, Life Extentioners, or most
    flavors or Transhumanism. The primary reason may be more prosaic then battles
    about US foreign policy, or gun control, or environmentalism.

    My guess is that, is primarily, these scientists are a hardworking lot, who
    spend a lot of time on what they love about their work, who are frequently (if
    they are academics) forced to publish or perish, have their own personal life
    issues with family, friends, and work.

    What would draw the most attention or interest to our group, our list, our
    ideas; is,
    I believe, money. We are all opportunistic in an economic and anthropological
    way, and scientists are no different. Scientists like goodies, no less then a
    machinist or a gynecologist does. To garner the kind of response from
    scientists that I would enjoy would take a boodle of cash.

    For example, (grinning) remember the Monkees? The Guitarist, Mike Nesmith,
    who later sold the idea of music videos to CBS, which went on to found MTV, is a
    bit of a science buff. Supposedly (recalling from an old Wired Magazine
    article) Nesmith has hired scientists like Nobel Prize winner, Murray Gell-Man, and
    several other lights of science to lecture and inform him of their
    specialties in science. Nesmith's mother was also the inventor of liquid paper :-) and
    so Nesmith funds these scientists for a personal lecture(s). Well, you might
    see my point, even if you disagree with my premise. Extropianism and
    Transhumanism will require major funds to promote itself and attract more than the
    passionate few, such as ourselves.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 06:21:58 MDT