On March 30 2011 08:01 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 05:09 turdburgler wrote:
being able to control behaviour in humans is one of the easiest things to do in the world wtf? that's quite a statement there buddy there's a whole lot of humans out there and a lot of them are going to be unpredictable
define control? control like you control the tv? or control like convincing people that not only are they thinking for themselves but its also a good thing that they are doing x? thats just as real as flipping a switch
On March 30 2011 05:32 Belano wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 05:09 turdburgler wrote:
its not scary at all. scary is an emotive word that gets thrown around by uneducated people as a way to argue a point without knowing anything. being able to control behaviour in humans is one of the easiest things to do in the world, let alone a "stupid" animal like a mouse or whatever, and you dont need a microchip to do it either. I'm not arguing anything here, I'm just stating how I feel. And dude, they controlled a mouse with a control remote. They created an organic robot. That's not even a little cool to you?
very cool, but thats not what i said is it 
On March 30 2011 06:19 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 05:09 turdburgler wrote:
its not scary at all. scary is an emotive word that gets thrown around by uneducated people as a way to argue a point without knowing anything. being able to control behaviour in humans is one of the easiest things to do in the world, let alone a "stupid" animal like a mouse or whatever, and you dont need a microchip to do it either. Despite your arrogant attitude on this, you don't get to define what is scary to someone else and be correct at the same time. It's pretty ironic that you are trying to accuse people of being uneducated when you don't even have a proper grasp on what "scary" means. Yes there are plenty of ways to control people but there are also ways to overcome those control methods when you learn about them, will this always be the case? Even crude methods of control are very alarming and some people are dominated by them their entire lives. Slavery is on the rise IMO, governments will eat this tech up, and some are already investing quite a bit into methods of control. Anyone around here familiar with MKultra?
im not defining the word scary, is that seriously what you took from what i said? something being scary is an opinion, and its usually formed by people when they dont understand the subject at hand. a ghost is only scary till you turn on the lights.
|
These experiments don't indicate any proof, even theoretical, of emotional manipulation or thought control. That is a bizarre extrapolation you are making. They're merely using electrical impulses which then compel physical motion, hence why they are only capable of working with such low complexity creatures as bugs and eels.
The dynamics of actual thought are vast orders of magnitude higher than motor functions. To imply something as incredible as microchips controlling thoughts from the results of these experiments is a logical fallacy. Just because movement, thought, and emotion all start in the brain doesn't mean controlling one allows the others in any way, shape, or form.
Further, I have some issues with the TED talk in general. He uses some rather alarmist examples to try to rile up and interest the crowd, but much of what he talks about are non-issues and really rather ridiculous to bring up.
First, he obviously doesn't keep up with actual biological research, considering he's still espousing the Darwinian model of evolution, even though epigenetics is pretty much accepted by most of the scientific community nowadays. Hence, why his model for human evolution was flawed.
Second, he brings up the issue of hybrids. Humans have been creating hybrids for hundreds of years, eg mules. There is nothing sacred about a "species." In fact, the very definition of species is rather nebulous and plastic. There are several "species" of salamanders that have proven to break away and form new "species" within a very few generations, then somehow, within a few more generations, morph back into the old species and regain the ability to interbreed with the parent population. There are tons of other "species" out there who mutate at a very high frequency and categorization of their traits is rather arbitrary.
Also, the very foundations of sexual reproduction are exchange and combination of new genetic information. How the fuck would it make any sense to say there are ethical concerns with combining new genetic information simply because the genetic info comes from a different species? There is no ethical dilemma here. The man is simply using some strange moral platform from which to speak where the concept of a "pure species" is somehow sacred to him, and perhaps to other ignorant people who don't understand the plasticity of species and genetics in general.
Then he brings up the issues of GMO's. Yet there are no solid reasons for why GMO's should require regulation beyond that of any other product. So what if it's genetically modified? That's simply a different way to construct a product. Shouldn't EVERY product be tested for consumer safety, impact on the environment, impact on the biosphere, etc? Every story I've seen of bad results caused by GMO's, it's a story that could have been prevented if Normal proper regulation and oversight had been in place. There's no need for any new sort of regulation, just proper regulation. There is nothing special about GM.
The only thing I would say he has a good point about is that living things are dangerous in the sense that they can perpetuate more of themselves and become actual competition to the human race. It's not a big deal to manipulate some bugs, or even people, or that we can design other animals. Humans have been doing that for centuries through selective breeding. How else would creatures like English Bulldogs come about without humans screwing with their genetics? But it is a big deal when someone might be able to create a life form that serves as a worthy adversary to the human race.
Aside from all that though, SF has been exploring this question for decades. TED's way behind the curve
|
EPT
