* Why start with the assumption that no current, emerging or future technology can solve a particular class of problem ?
* Why assume that no technology can be a significant part of a solution or reduction of a problem ?
* People say that it is Utopian and imply it is impossible to solve all of our current problems. Perhaps. But some people who are familiar with technology can try to propose new approaches.
There are many different kinds of technologies and creative approaches and rethinking of issues can change the dynamics of situations.
This site is trying to do several things:
1. Technological due diligence: Up to date status on technology and projects that can have big impact or be very useful. Provide full understanding of poorly understood technology and relevant history. Most people do not understand nuclear power, nuclear fuel/waste, nuclear weapons, molecular nanotechnology, cognitive enhancement etc... People are unaware of many existing and upcoming technological options and real choices and plans.
2. This site is trying to propose better development plans, policies and options. Ideally ones that can be acted upon by smaller and more responsive groups.
3. This site is researching and trying to communicate understanding of what the real risks and scenarios are.
If anything peoples attitudes, beliefs are too entrenched and not changing based on real facts and they do not seek out full information to base their decisions upon.
Technology is often empowering. Technology is also reaching the level where smaller groups can do what previously could only be funded by large and successful nation-states. This is already the case for certain things like funding the cure for some disease. This is a two edged thing. Smaller groups can cause big problems ala super-terrorists but smaller groups can solve bigger problems/challenges. This is a eons long trend. This trend is unlikely to be changed without complete relinquishment, which would likely only be a unilateral move by some Luddites.
Smaller empowered groups means that effective action can be taken instead of allowing deadlocks to persist because there is insufficient consensus to authorize necessary resources.
The new Smart Dew 25 cent sensors can enable a 10 mile deep X 2000 mile sensor grid for border security for $10-100 million including base stations. This should change the debate and dynamics of the border security issue.
New technology can change the facts around access to space. Currently there is a devoted minority that is interested in space access and development. Sufficient reduction of costs would mean that indifferent majorities would not need to be persuaded.
Then the situation becomes what do the groups on the other sides do when more and more minorities can implement their own solutions and break deadlocks in their favor ?
If multiple groups were able to have competing implementations it would be an arms race of solutions and counter-solutions.
Where there is no real opposition to something (say poverty and diseases) but just an unwillingness to spend the money or effort then technology lowering costs or enabling a solution would mean actual progress to results. Being able to actually achieve significant results and improvements would bring things closer to Utopia, when solved problems are happening faster than new or growing problems.