Comments on: How the Instapundit is Wrong http://charlescouger.com A brief inquiry into the heritage of liberty. Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:09:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Philip http://charlescouger.com/national-politics/how-the-instapundit-is-wrong/#comment-43 Philip Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:46:45 +0000 http://charlescouger.com/?page_id=115#comment-43 :-) Well said, as usual. I appreciate your perspective. :-) Well said, as usual. I appreciate your perspective.

]]> By: Charles Couger http://charlescouger.com/national-politics/how-the-instapundit-is-wrong/#comment-39 Charles Couger Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:17:20 +0000 http://charlescouger.com/?page_id=115#comment-39 A note from the writer: Philip, this is the exact kind of discussion I want to encourage. The last thing I want is for people to believe my opinions are authoritative, as even I certainly do not think so. This blog is as much a tool for my growth as it is for other people. Thank you, and I will certainly look into the benefits of nano-technology. Whereas I am very sure there are benefits related to scienfic progress, I still believe in balancing scientific development with caution. As far as Glenn Reynolds, I think his book did the opposite of his intention: it inspired fear rather than curiousity. Frankly, Philip, you would write a better book. A note from the writer:

Philip, this is the exact kind of discussion I want to encourage. The last thing I want is for people to believe my opinions are authoritative, as even I certainly do not think so.

This blog is as much a tool for my growth as it is for other people.

Thank you, and I will certainly look into the benefits of nano-technology. Whereas I am very sure there are benefits related to scienfic progress, I still believe in balancing scientific development with caution. As far as Glenn Reynolds, I think his book did the opposite of his intention: it inspired fear rather than curiousity. Frankly, Philip, you would write a better book.

]]> By: Philip http://charlescouger.com/national-politics/how-the-instapundit-is-wrong/#comment-38 Philip Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:19:49 +0000 http://charlescouger.com/?page_id=115#comment-38 I think both Mr. Reynolds' and your opinion come from a lack of scientific understanding of the kind of research that is taking place and the range of potential it carries with it, though I see that you're aware of the downsides. Simply put, the idea that any layman could whip up a device of mass destruction as a result of nanotechnology is just as unlikely as with current technology, and just as absurd. We have students of nuclear physics capable of making materials necessary for a fission bomb (fusion's a bit more elaborate), but to say that it's rare is an understatement. The amount of equipment, education and energy required would make home-grown nano-tech a near impossibility. No, it is not an impossibility; yes, there certainly are risks of misuse, but along with those risks come benefits of untold proportions. I need not lay a sample out for you here, I'm certain that I'm taking up enough of your time as it is. As for the extended life, again, I'm not sure that either you or Mr. Reynolds has got the proper impression on the matter. Whether or not we're able to cure aging,- the ultimate intention of Aubrey de Grey's research - we maintain any number of other causes for death. The only grounds for concern is regarding population control; any other outcry is one based in hypocrisy, as we've already extended the human lifespan in developed countries well beyond anything "nature would have intended." And if after the 50th, 90th, or 140th year of living, you feel that your margins have diminished, you have had, and will continue to have the option to leave this existence. I understand that this is not an argument of policy on your part Charles, but it worries me that you've formed these opinions because I see you as someone with great potential and true determination, and I know you're going to go on to have a significant impact in this country, and I feel you ought to be exposed to some of the reason and, more importantly, the potential behind these sciences before you dismiss them. I think both Mr. Reynolds’ and your opinion come from a lack of scientific understanding of the kind of research that is taking place and the range of potential it carries with it, though I see that you’re aware of the downsides. Simply put, the idea that any layman could whip up a device of mass destruction as a result of nanotechnology is just as unlikely as with current technology, and just as absurd. We have students of nuclear physics capable of making materials necessary for a fission bomb (fusion’s a bit more elaborate), but to say that it’s rare is an understatement. The amount of equipment, education and energy required would make home-grown nano-tech a near impossibility. No, it is not an impossibility; yes, there certainly are risks of misuse, but along with those risks come benefits of untold proportions. I need not lay a sample out for you here, I’m certain that I’m taking up enough of your time as it is.

As for the extended life, again, I’m not sure that either you or Mr. Reynolds has got the proper impression on the matter. Whether or not we’re able to cure aging,- the ultimate intention of Aubrey de Grey’s research – we maintain any number of other causes for death. The only grounds for concern is regarding population control; any other outcry is one based in hypocrisy, as we’ve already extended the human lifespan in developed countries well beyond anything “nature would have intended.” And if after the 50th, 90th, or 140th year of living, you feel that your margins have diminished, you have had, and will continue to have the option to leave this existence.

I understand that this is not an argument of policy on your part Charles, but it worries me that you’ve formed these opinions because I see you as someone with great potential and true determination, and I know you’re going to go on to have a significant impact in this country, and I feel you ought to be exposed to some of the reason and, more importantly, the potential behind these sciences before you dismiss them.

]]> By: Rick http://charlescouger.com/national-politics/how-the-instapundit-is-wrong/#comment-37 Rick Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:31:42 +0000 http://charlescouger.com/?page_id=115#comment-37 This is awesome. You should probably adjust the last line. Other than that, I think you are right on. I see no value in a 200 year life-span. I like how you attack his argument, but not explicitly attack nano-technology. This is awesome. You should probably adjust the last line.

Other than that, I think you are right on. I see no value in a 200 year life-span.

I like how you attack his argument, but not explicitly attack nano-technology.

]]> By: Philip http://charlescouger.com/national-politics/how-the-instapundit-is-wrong/#comment-36 Philip Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:45:44 +0000 http://charlescouger.com/?page_id=115#comment-36 I implore you to reconsider this. I implore you to reconsider this.

]]>