X-Message-Number: 28061
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:41:10 +0200
From: Eugen Leitl <>
Subject: focus is essential
References: <>

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0400,  wrote:

> I only discussed the Singularity threat, since Rudi Hoffman (whom we have 

Well, there's wta-talk, extropy-chat, existential-threats, sl4, kurzweilai 
and other places which have been discussing these things for years, and
with some more depth than here. 

> not heard from on it since) brought it up.  Others think these other issues 
> are important.  I tend to agree most are; however, I disagree with those 
> who think they are a greater threat to the future of humanity than a 
> Singularity AI, and that we should pay attention to them and be in 
> psychological denial of that greater threat.

What's the point discussing an existential threat of unknown probability
which you can't influence?
 
>  >Cryonics has always been a gamble. No one can plausibly claim to
> know the future.
> 
> Either you think that cryonics is not important enough to try to prevent 
> external influences from defeating it, or "the future" is somehow governed 

Let's say a 500 km impactor hits tomorrow. How do you propose to prevent it?
Changing the future trajectory of an entire civilisation is about as hard.

> by some mystic fate that cannot be defeated, or um, rather than me going on 
> and on as I easily could in speculation about your personal view, how about 
> telling us exactly why you think we should not try to make a future more 
> conducive to the survival of cryopreserved individuals?

If you're really interested in that, there are many things with a far
greater ROI. Such as: validate cryonics, introduce quality control,
organize politically, build a global provider network.
 
>  >How about discussing bootstrapping a transport technician team in Germany.
> Or would that be off-topic for CryoNet?
> 
> If that subject is of substantial concern to you, then please do discuss 
> it.  Don't expect me to bring it up, as most things in Germany are of 
> little concern to me.  If you do bring it up, however, I will not tell you 

It is interesting that you think an undeflectable black swan is worth
more bandwidth than discussing a provider elsewhere. I do sense some
cognitive dissonance here.

> that you should not do so.  I might even make some reply-type post saying 
> something useful and positive about it, if any such thing occurs to 
> me.  Now would you kindly stop telling the rest of us what *we* cannot 
> discuss here?

Is this a majority view here? Do you all think that discussing everything
and the kitchensink is a good idea in a once-focused, channel which used
to be dedicated to cryonics?

Please speak up, preferrably offlist (to me personally, I'll make a tally).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28061