Global warming is fearmongering brainwashing FUD

[Brian Atkins]

Eugene Leitl wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Brian Atkins wrote:
> 
> > Eugene you can sit around making denials and criticisms of timelines
> > all you want, but the conservative and safest approach here is to
> > assume that these things can and will happen sooner than you think.
> 
> A lot of things can happen. More things than I can assess or sample. So I

So you admit you could be very wrong...

> have to truncate. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proofs, and such.
> Ockham's razor.
> 
> So, I don't think your future is very probable, given what little I know.
> I see some of what you say happen on a slightly longer timescale, but even
> four decades puts the bulk of it out of my area of interest, unless

(the ole "what me worry? I'll be dead" answer)

> there's some really spectacular life extension in the pipeline, which
> <gosh> does actually work as well as CR.
> 
> > From my perspective you are the one engaging in attempted rational
> > risk assessment when you flatly state this and that and this and that
> > aren't going to happen. You sure must have some powerful crystal
> > balls.
> 
> Balls, yes. Crystal, no. (Darn things jingle too much). In no way did I
> include me from the rest of fellow primates accused of incapability of
> risk assessment. Sheesh, I can't even do statistics.
> 
> So, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, albeit in the right forest.

So what if you're wrong is what I'm asking 'gene. Let's face it, everyone
and their friend around here has their own estimates of likelyhoods and
timelines of various technologies. Some people think global warming is what
we should spend all our time and money on worrying about. What I'm asking
is: knowing all we know, what is the least riskiest plan to the future?
Actually this is too complicated to discuss here most likely.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/