An interview with an Instapundit

One of my favorite bloggers is Professor Glenn Reynolds, better known to conservatives and Internet news junkies far and wide as the voice behind the powerhouse website Instapundit. I had a chance to virtually sit down with Glenn and chat about science and science policy. His answers may surprise you.

Steven Andrew: How did a mild mannered law professor end up with what is ranked by some accounts as the second most popular conservative blog in the world?

Glenn Reynolds: Pretty much by accident. I teach Internet law and have done a lot of hands-on Internet things -- sites and "radio" stations at the old MP3.com, a pro-electronic-music site called Raverights.com (the DEA was raiding raves, I was working with the ACLU to defend them), and so on. In summer of 2001 I encountered an early version of the website platform “Blogger” for the first time, and decided to try my hand. I'd already been reading Kausfiles, Andrew Sullivan, Virginia Postrel, and Josh Marshall. From there it just sort of took off.

I don't really know why it became so popular. I think a lot of it was just timing, as the blog-wave got started and the aftermath of 9/11 ensured lots of news and lots of interest in different perspectives. Also, I post frequently, which plays to the Internet characteristics of boredom, procrastination, and short attention span.

A lot of people who don’t know you that well probably assume you’re a traditional conservative, do you think that’s accurate?

I don't think so. In fact, people who know me are always amused by that. See the item on raves and the ACLU, above. During the Bush Administration, support for the war in Iraq was the litmus test for "conservatism," but my views have generally been libertarian rather than traditionally conservative. I support gay marriage – though I'd prefer to separate marriage and state entirely -- was president of Students For Choice when I was in college, and just generally don't fit the TradCon mold very well.

Elements in the conservative movement, and to be fair plenty of people outside it, believe in Young Earth Creationism, or in some way reject evolutionary biology. How about you?

I don't think you find a lot of Young Earth Creationists among libertarians, and hardly any among the libertarian transhumanists that make up my political flavor. In fact, I wrote a piece a while back, called "Is Democracy Like Sex?" that incorporated some (then) cutting-edge evolutionary biology.

Another field of science that breaks down along partisan lines is anthropogenic climate change. Where are you on that?

Lukewarm. I find the issue politicized and not very interesting, since we ought to be burning less fossil fuel anyway. Burning coal and oil is filthy, and they're far more valuable as chemical feedstocks anyway. But I also think that cap-and-trade is mostly a moneymaker for Wall Street and doubt that it will do much for the environment. I favor solar over the longer term (orbital solar and nanotech solar -- current solar tech is unsatisfactory) and nice, clean nuclear power in the nearer term.

Speaking of which, you write and link articles about nanotechnology, what is it about that topic you find exciting? Where do you think the technology is headed?

What's exciting about nanotechnology is that it offers the kind of control over matter that a word processor offers over words. While you can't violate the laws of chemistry or physics, you plug atoms and molecules together to create any substance or structure you choose within those limits. Mature nanotechnology promises very cheap energy and material goods, at much lower environmental cost. Here's an article (.pdf) on the ups and downs that I wrote for the Environmental Law Reporter a while back.

It also promises to revolutionize space travel. It turns out that if you could build something with the engines of the space shuttle out of diamond-like materials -- which you can do if you plug carbon atoms together properly -- you're already halfway to having a spacecraft that can travel to Mars or beyond. You would also see solar cells cheap and durable enough to use as paint, and perhaps even paving material.

Along the same futurist vein, you’ve speculated a bit on the idea of extending the human life span to hundreds or even thousands of years. When can we expect to be immortal, and what do you think the consequences, good or bad, might be?

Immortality is a tall order, since if you live a long time, even unlikely accidents will eventually catch up with you. But there's nothing supernatural about aging. We don't get old because God is punishing us for original sin. We get old because various structures in cells and organelles wear out and break down over time. People like Aubrey de Grey at Cambridge are looking at how to prevent and repair that damage, and that damage is all that aging amounts to.

Consequences good and bad? Well, right now the burden of taking care of old people is threatening to sink the economies of the industrial world. If old people stay healthy and vigorous, they don't need to be taken care of (I wrote about that here ). One downside might be that it would cause the ossification of the professions, as people wouldn't die to open up new slots. I’ve written about why I don't think that's right, but I suppose it's a possibility. Still, though we accept it because we're used to it, the unpleasant and protracted death of everyone alive from a terminal disease -- because that's what aging is -- seems bad enough that the downsides would have to be pretty awful to outweigh it.

While immortality is another story, an end to aging is something we might plausibly see within this century. Possibly within our lifetimes, though one of my friends says he's done the math and ours will probably be the last generation to die. That would suck.

Glenn Reynolds is a Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee and is a frequent contributor to Popular Mechanics. Glenn has written three books, the latest in 2006 is An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths.