Brain Cells Fused With Computer Chip

Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Seigneur
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 233
Location: Maryland

23 Apr 2006, 7:28 pm

Aeturnus wrote:
This sort of stuff is straight out of Orwell's 1984.

1984 didn't have computers, firstly, and there are a lot cheaper and subtler methods of survelliance than the surgical implantation of a computer chip into the brain.



Aeturnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 835

24 Apr 2006, 2:09 am

Seigneur wrote:
1984 didn't have computers, firstly, and there are a lot cheaper and subtler methods of survelliance than the surgical implantation of a computer chip into the brain.


Not just surveillance, but domination. Think of the movie, Boys of Brazil. Surveillance is just one aspect. The US government would gladly get their hands on such a chip. Even NTs would be controlled at that point. The military would love to get their hands on something like this. If the US no longer wants another Michael Moore to ruin its plans, then by all means ... it will try to make sure one can't be created. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I would not put it past the current establishment at all.

I saw a documentary about four years ago. It was about the new age of technical and genetic engineering. It used "crimes" committed by environmentalists, placing environmentalists who burn genetically-engineered crops as criminals, while submitting to its audience the most outrageous support for genetic engineering I have ever heard. It literally praised the Genome Project, and its host, whom I believe was Shepard Smith (though I could be mistaken), talked about the glorious day when "parents would be able to decide whether their kids have brown or blue eyes." That quote may not have been exact, but it was very close.

Placing computer chips inside anyone's brain creates freaks of nature.

- Ray M -



Seigneur
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 233
Location: Maryland

24 Apr 2006, 8:20 am

If you're a bit paranoid, I'm a bit idealistic too, so it's all good.



parts
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,713
Location: New England

24 Apr 2006, 11:43 am

Quote:
It used "crimes" committed by environmentalists, placing environmentalists who burn genetically-engineered crops as criminals


I'm not saying I'm not a little paranoid on some of this stuff but unless they owned the crops it is a crime.

Quote:
Shepard Smith (though I could be mistaken), talked about the glorious day when "parents would be able to decide whether their kids have brown or blue eyes." That quote may not have been exact, but it was very close.


I too don't think this aspect is something to brag about but if they could change a gene that would give you immunity to say AIDs,Anthrax or put a chip in a severly elpilectic person that would control his seizers that would not be bad.


_________________
"Strange is your language and I have no decoder Why don't make your intentions clear..." Peter Gabriel

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php


Aeturnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 835

25 Apr 2006, 3:04 am

parts wrote:
I'm not saying I'm not a little paranoid on some of this stuff but unless they owned the crops it is a crime.


Yes, but that's not exactly the point. Big business commits lots of crimes and get away with it. The legal structure is set up for them. We have trade-related patents on a lot of genes these days, and our own life strands are on the verge of being owned. That should be a crime, but it is not. It is not, because the major pharmaceuticals run everything. Some environmentalists feel that the only way to stop a lot of this is to burn the crops down.

parts wrote:
I too don't think this aspect is something to brag about but if they could change a gene that would give you immunity to say AIDs,Anthrax or put a chip in a severly elpilectic person that would control his seizers that would not be bad.


AIDs is not genetic, so there can be no gene to give one immunity against AIDS. Anthrax is not genetic either, because it has to be contracted. Yes, epilepsy may be able to be prevented in this way.

But do we really want a society in which our entire genetic lifecode needs to be looked at by the medical industry, such that it need be engineered to avoid all known genetic anomalies? This would be very expensive, therefore it is very doubtful that it would ever happen. Even if it were possible, what if mistakes were made? Tinkering with DNA is very risky business. It's sort of like raw computer code. One minor wrong move, and you have a mutation. None of this is worth risking.

- Ray M -



parts
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,713
Location: New England

25 Apr 2006, 6:39 am

Quote:
AIDs is not genetic, so there can be no gene to give one immunity against AIDS. Anthrax is not genetic either, because it has to be contracted. Yes, epilepsy may be able to be prevented in this way.


Yes AIDS and Anthrax are not gentic but the are people who have lived much longer with it genetics does play a role in that maybe you would no longer be able to conctract it or have a milder form

Quote:
But do we really want a society in which our entire genetic lifecode needs to be looked at by the medical industry, such that it need be engineered to avoid all known genetic anomalies? This would be very expensive, therefore it is very doubtful that it would ever happen. Even if it were possible, what if mistakes were made? Tinkering with DNA is very risky business. It's sort of like raw computer code. One minor wrong move, and you have a mutation. None of this is worth risking


Its already begun and something once started is very difficult to stop someone will always be looking at it for adavntage weather its done in serect with no regulation or in the open with is the question. Lots of things are risky businsess .

Quote:
Yes, but that's not exactly the point. Big business commits lots of crimes and get away with it. The legal structure is set up for them. We have trade-related patents on a lot of genes these days, and our own life strands are on the verge of being owned. That should be a crime, but it is not. It is not, because the major pharmaceuticals run everything. Some environmentalists feel that the only way to stop a lot of this is to burn the crops down.


Enron didn't get away with it and with proper oversight niether should they. I don't think any of the big industries has a monopoly on runing everything it's big money that does. Maybe its something we should work on changing but thats another topic.


_________________
"Strange is your language and I have no decoder Why don't make your intentions clear..." Peter Gabriel

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php


MagicMike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2005
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 559

25 Apr 2006, 7:41 am

Now if only to fuse my brain with a remote control linked to my own private Mecha...Super Happy Fun Power Activate ^_^



danlo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
Location: Western Australia

25 Apr 2006, 9:41 am

Enabling people to fight off Anthrax or AIDs via genetic modification would consist more of increasing their body's ability to create antibodies to those problems. It probably isn't that far off, either, and is well-conceivable.


_________________
"Hitting bottom isn't a weekend retreat, it isn't a goddamned seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go!"


Anubis612
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 152
Location: Massachusetts

25 Apr 2006, 3:43 pm

The problem with these chips for me is that it would simply create a larger division between the rich and the poor. The one's with the chips will find another reason for their dominance over the poor, and will continue to strive for more power, while the poor of third world countries would most likely be unable to receive these chips. The powerful become more powerful, and the weak stay weak.



parts
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,713
Location: New England

25 Apr 2006, 6:31 pm

Quote:
The problem with these chips for me is that it would simply create a larger division between the rich and the poor.


There will always be rich and poor does this mean we should let technolgy stagnate till every body catches up? Or should we move to a more communist tpye state they seem to work so well :roll:


_________________
"Strange is your language and I have no decoder Why don't make your intentions clear..." Peter Gabriel

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php


Anubis612
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 152
Location: Massachusetts

25 Apr 2006, 6:44 pm

I never said that specifically, but everything has its flaws. Of course I find the technology interesting and beneficial, but something that alters the body so much will have a hell of an impact, not all of it postive. For every positive aspect for something, there shall always be a negative.



parts
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,713
Location: New England

26 Apr 2006, 5:39 am

Anubis612 wrote:
I never said that specifically, but everything has its flaws. Of course I find the technology interesting and beneficial, but something that alters the body so much will have a hell of an impact, not all of it postive. For every positive aspect for something, there shall always be a negative.


Then we should proceed carefully but still go forward trying to minimize the negative aspect.


_________________
"Strange is your language and I have no decoder Why don't make your intentions clear..." Peter Gabriel

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php