> [...]
> We talk about governmental theory and revolution, but put our hopes in
I dunno, but it instantly makes me suspicious, when somebody utters
the word 'revolution' NEAR 'governmental'. Deja vu, like.
> some rich people saving us all by funding technology that would be good
> for us and then making it widely available to everyone.
I don't know who is 'us'. At least the online extropian community looks
quite a heterogenous mob from my receiving end of the channel.
> If the research is to happen according to the ideas stated in this
> list, then the people who believe in that research will need to pool
Aw, come on. No community of this size can finance any R&D effort, however
pathetic. Have a look at the cryonics crowd.
(The good news is that our fifth column is the entire marketplace. With
time, even most misguided plans will ripen. But this does not mean to
become complacent -- make a good personal demo of the founder effect!).
> their resources and invest in it themselves (with enough people, of
> course, the individual commitment need not be large). Otherwise, the other
> large investors will, as usual, redirect the research towards other ends.
Their ends are ours, in the end.
> As a more conventional approach, we should be able to find biotech startup
> companies to invest in now. Several have made the news over the past year.
Why biotech? Why not software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, space,
communication startups?
> Some should be acceptable to list members. Nothing stops us from
> identifying and supporting them now.
Besides of significant numbers of investors, and significant means to
invest, you mean?
'gene