This is an understandable attitude and to an important extent a very sensible one. But you have to be careful not to overgeneralize in a way that misses the force of my critique, or elides differences that make a difference.
I talk here on Amor Mundi quite a bit about contemporary progressive politics and about the ways in which reactionary and conservative politics obstruct them to the cost of us all. But I also talk more specifically about what I think a progressive politics of technoscience and technodevelopmental social struggle looks like and about the ways in which incumbent interests, corporate-militarist assumptions, priestly and reductionist distortions of scientific practice and authority, hyperbolic and even transcendentalizing distortions of foresight, and elitist eugenic and technocratic attitudes obstruct progressive technodevelopmental efforts to the likely ruin of us all.
If in your reference to "other conversations on [my] blog" you are talking about my repudiation of techno-utopian claims about "mind uploading" or "techno-immortalism," be aware that I am not dismissing these as scenarios with "miniscule probabilities," but decrying these as impossibilities that no amount of "can-do" handwaving can accomplish, as profound confusions on the part of their advocates that indicate mistaken assumptions about what consciousness is (a process materialized in a substrate -- in the present human case, an embodied organismic one -- to which it is far from indifferent) and what life is (a finite and vulnerable process in a finite and demanding environment and not, to be sure, a perpetual motion machine) at a very basic level.
This is related but different to still "other conversations on [my] blog" in which I decry the skewed priorities that would, in the name of some generalized commitment to "technology" or "progress," for example,
[one] invest disproportionate resources in efforts to increase the longevity of already privileged minorities over efforts to address actually already treatable but neglected diseases suffered by already overexploited majorities,
[two] invest disproportionate resources in military technology to respond to social instabilities exacerbated by human-caused climate change, water and topsoil depletion, pollution and waste, and so on rather than in renewable energy technologies, subsidizing a diffusion of permaculture and polyculture techniques, and increasing the nontoxic and recycled materials available to us,
[three] invest disproportionate resources to centralized big-industrial solutions to problems that better comport with the continued control of incumbent interests rather than decentralized p2p formations, even when the latter are more robust, resilient, responsive and less costly than the former, solutions like geoengineering over permaculture models to address environmental problems, like nuclear plants over decentralized solar roofs and co-operative windfarms to address energy problems, like copyright extension over open-access or corporate media consolidation over Net Neutrality and free wi-fi to address the uneven global diffusion of useful knowledge and creative expressivity, like techno-utopian paranoid fantasies to harden borders with missile shields and top-down total information awareness schemes rather than open but transparent borders and participatory p2p defense in depth to address asymmetrical attacks and security concerns more generally, and so on.
This, in turn, is different from recognizing the human and social limits that stymie utopian political daydreams: The tendency of human beings to be corrupted by authority in proportion to their insulation from checks and oversight; the tendency of those who seek authority over others to be the very ones least suited to its proper exercise; the tendency of humans retroactively to rationalize any conduct, however harmful or wrong, when this option is available to them; the tendency of people to attend to short term over long term consequences, familiar over unfamiliar conditions, parochial over generalizable considerations, and so on. Anybody who advocates progressive democratic aspirations would be foolish to do so in a way that was indifferent to these human and social limits, but it seems to me any suggestion that these limits render democratic hopes as such impossibly utopian is exactly as wrongheaded as would be the suggestion that engineering is rendered impossibly utopian by the fact of gravity.
I have written elsewhere that a properly contemporary understanding of the Democratic Left demands an embrace of six key inter-connected ideas (and that undue skepticism or outright rejection of these ideas tends to underlie contemporary right-wing attitudes and rhetoric). These ideas are that:
 All people should have a say in the public decisions that affect them;
 People who are not misinformed or under duress tend, in general, to be capable of articulating their own interests, of testifying to their personal knowledge, and of contributing a worthy measure to the collaborative solution of shared problems;
 It is always possible and always desirable, however costly and difficult it may be, to reconcile differences and conflicts between people in nonviolent ways;
 The act of informed, nonduressed consent is a foundation both of personal dignity and public nonviolence;
 The public provision of basic income, education, and healthcare facilitates a scene of consent that is nonduressed, while the public provision of the widest possible access to knowledge facilitates a scene of consent that is informed, and acts of consent are legible and legitimate as such only to the extent that they are so informed and nonduressed;
 Progressive taxation of property and income provides the essential means to meet the basic conditions on which the doubly foundational scene of consent depend, while at once providing a popular check (no taxation without representation) on the dangerous policing authority of government as well as a check on the tendency of individual stakeholders -- especially those who happen to be momentarily invested with conspicuous wealth, authority, reputation, or attention -- to forget or disavow their ineradicable social and historical inter-dependence in the always collaborative project of creative expressivity and problem solving peer-to-peer.
I see this as a delineation of a progressive-left ethos in an era of peer-to-peer democratization in particular. I would disagree with any suggestion that there is anything unrealizable or "utopian" about any of these attitudes. If democracy is first of all the idea that people should have a say in the public decisions that affect them, then democratization is what we call the ongoing, experimental, and probably interminable struggles in which ever more people acquire ever more of a say in the public decisions that affect them. This democratization is very real, it is the farthest thing from a utopian outcome or abstract eidos without material realization in the world, but an actually transformative force in history and a permanent possibility inhering in the dynamic play of the variously powerful in the world.
No amount of technological encrustration will ever deliver humanity to a "transcendent" place beyond vulnerability, beyond mortality, beyond error, beyond frustration, beyond political negotiation. This is not a claim about "miniscule probablilties," but about profound incomprehensions on the part of many Superlative and Sub(cult)ural Technocentrics of the ineradicable condition and consequences of human finitude.
Certainly, this is very different from any blanket cynicism about the emancipatory hopes of the democratic left. Democratization has already and repeatedly unleashed incomparable emancipatory energies into the world historically, and the lowering of the transactional costs of education, agitation, and organizing made possible through the ongoing proliferation of p2p formations in our own historical moment is being taken up opportunistically by people everywhere to carry this emancipatory project of democratization even further still, with who knows what consequences in store for us.
Again, try to be careful how you overgeneralize from skepticism about "miniscule probabilities" at the cost of losing sight of differences that make a difference. We can leave the smirking skepticism about the very possibility of people powered politics or legitimately democratic governance to the reactionaries who deploy this attitude always only to justify and so maintain, for as long as they can and to the extent that they can, their ever more precarious hold on unearned privilege and undue authority.