Re: Poverty a subject

Posted by
Kelly on Jan 30, 2004 at 13:16

Re: Poverty a subject (Pasti)

"I am very sorry Kelly, but it was no condescension or arrogance intended from my part. I only offered you the possibility to understand what Amaranth said in a different light, had you be willing to do so."

Of course not, Pasti. For you to dismiss my previous post because I must be young and therefore lack wisdom was no more condescending than the sky is blue. And shame on me for not having the ability to see the light you have so graciously provided.

"However, this does not mean that 'bitter and hollow' grumps like myself are necessarily wrong, just because they are 'bitter and hollow'."

Clearly. It just means that what you have to say should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt.

"And I can only hole that you are joking when you refer to judging change based on news browsing."

Excellent technique! Both inaccurate and dismissive in the same sentence! Well done, Pasti. But in fact I do not judge change based on news browsing. I simply said I look forward to browsing the science sites (,, BBC science news, and Science-a-go-go, among many others) each morning to see what the latest discoveries are. My point was that I found this steady stream of new and interesting things to be something to look forward to each day, which is why I was mentioning it to Amaranth, who is suicidally depressed and sees nothing to look forward to. In other words I was trying to talk her out of killing herself.

Or did you miss that?

"As much as nanotechnology goes,and since you mentioned it,unfortunately for you,I worked directly in the field for more than 6 years, and I know quite in detail the difference between the real thing and the spin in the media."

Unfortunately for me? Meaning that you are assuming you know so much more about it than I ever could and that I am therefore so hopelessly outclassed that I should just give up now and concede whatever point it is you're making? That's probably good advice, Pasti. It's a very odd assumption to make about a total stranger but your wisdom is so great that clearly such things don't apply to you. Unfortunately I'm a stubborn sort who...*sigh*...just likes to argue so even though I'm clearly the David and you're the Goliath I plan to keep arguing.

Not that I don't want the benefit of your experience. Please tell me more about your involvement in nanotechnology research. In what capacity? Have you published any papers? I'm dying to read them! Details, please.

Back to my original point: When Drexler's book "Engines of Creation" came out in the 1980's the entire field of nanotechnology was so far below the DOE's radar as to be non-existant. (The same applies to any other branch of government or any part of the investment community). The few scientists who noticed at all dismissed it as science fiction.

The last 20 years or so (an amazingly short time for so radical a concept) has seen nanotechnology go from not being taken seriously and completely dismissed to being taken very seriously and seen as very important to the economy and national security. That is a Major Change.

The whole thing is an excellent example of Clarke's Law regarding the three stages of reaction to radical new ideas:
Stage 1: "It's completely impossible."
Stage 2: "Ok, it's possible, but it's not worth doing."
Stage 3: "I said it was a good idea all along."

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]