Right, the science is a means to an end: immortality, superintelligence, superhealth, etc. It is unclear if, how, and when those goals will be achieved. I don't know how one can assert that nanotech will be used to achieve any of those goals when we don't know what form nanotech will take.
That is right, as far as it goes (and it goes far enough to be fairly damning on its own to the presumptions of the futurologists and Robot Cultists and so on), but, remember, we are in a position to make an even more forceful critique.
It actually isn't at all new for True Believers to handwave about "immortality, superintelligence, superhealth, etc," after all. Priests and gurus have been selling that sort of crapola for centuries.
It actually matters that there are conspicuous conceptual confusions that beset notions of superintelligence, superlongevity, and a politics-circumventing superabundance if you really take the time to submit them to scrutiny. It's not just that the goals are questionable as to developmental timetables, it's not just that the technoscientific assumptions deployed in their service are marginal and yet treated as consensus.
It's that other things are afoot when people pine after or claim to be able to secure for the properly faithful an immortalization of life when life as it is lived in the world has always been a vulnerable embodied metapbolism of organisms with their environment... or to produce a spiritualized certainty-bearing superintelligence when intelligence as it is experienced in the world has always been embodied, social, contingent... or to arrive at a superabundance (whether technocraticized, roboticized, plasticized, fabbicized, nanoboticized, utilifoggicized, digitized, virtualized, femtocized, or who knows what the magick presently preoccupying the futurological congress happens to be) that could circumvent the actually ineradicable impasse of stakeholder politics in which a diversity of equitable peers differ on ends in a shared world, an impasse that cannot be circumvented but can only either be democratized (if you are of the left) or authoritatively controlled by force and its threat according to privileged ends (if you are of the right).
These aren't problems of misplaced confidence in marginal technoscientific or even pseudo-scientific notions mistaken for warranted consensus (although, of course, there is a whole hell of a lot of that kind of thing going on around here wherever corporate futurology and Robot Cultists are on the scene), but it is a problem of using words in a deeply problematic or confused way in order to feed personal delusions or sell some scam.