|
Just saw this fascinating talk over at ted.com. Speaker Paul Root Wolpe talks about the current state of bio-engineering, where it is headed and about ethical problems that rise with this development.
Apparently, scientist are today able to control insects and rats with computer chips attached to their brains. Also they are able to connect a living brain from an eel to a cart which would mimic the eel's photophilic (Sp? Attraction towards light anyway) behavior. Overall fascinating and pretty scary stuff. Definitely check it out if you have some spare time.
Here's the link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_question_bio_engineering.html
Personally, I know too little on the subject to make any sort of ethical evaluation but from a scientific point of view it is extremely interesting.
|
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.
|
Canada7170 Posts
I have a course in nanobiotechnology right now, and it's extremely interesting.
Even though Ted talks kinda piss me off I'll take a look.
"Photophilic" should be the correct spelling, yes.
|
COOL STUFF!
We're all gonna be brown in the future.
|
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?
|
I think bioethics is kind of a useless field if you ask me. Any ethical questions are already known by the biologist/bioengineer, and from there it's just a matter of seeing what the public thinks about it.
|
oo this is awesome. Maybe they can remote control a grizzly bear, tie chainsaws on it, and make it the ultimate fighting machine!
|
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?
|
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?
No, it's true. "Scary" is a buzzword used to sensationalize. It conveys zero real qualitative information.
If you asked me to explain what a pterobigerachnidasulox was like and I said, "Well, it's really interesting but scary at the same time," what picture would you get in your head? I doubt it would be anything remotely like what I have in mine.
"Scary" has no substance but evokes a visceral reaction from the reader, which is a dangerous dynamic. That's all turdburgler was pointing out, and I find his opinion valid especially in the context of an OP trying to begin a debate on matters of science. When it comes to science, accuracy is everything, and using that type of language is detrimental at best, malicious at worst.
I don't think turdburgler was arrogant, he just used rather strong adjectives which you took offense to. His point still stands. Yours on the other hand is kind of nebulous.
|
No.
–adjective, scar·i·er, scar·i·est.
1.
causing fright or alarm.
2.
easily frightened; timid.
You can't define scary for others because it's entirely relative. According to my cat an active can of air duster is the scariest thing in the world. Just because there is no legitimate reason to be afraid of it doesn't remove that fact that he is scared shitless of it. It causes fright and alarm, it's scary, to him. Why on earth do you think being scared has to follow some scientific process? It is describing a feeling or emotion, that's it.
|
On March 30 2011 05:25 mikeymoo wrote:
I have a course in nanobiotechnology right now, and it's extremely interesting.
Even though Ted talks kinda piss me off I'll take a look.
"Photophilic" should be the correct spelling, yes.
what's bad about them?? ive only seen like parts of two or three, but i found them all to be quite interesting
|
On March 30 2011 06:59 Treemonkeys wrote:
No.
–adjective, scar·i·er, scar·i·est.
1.
causing fright or alarm.
2.
easily frightened; timid.
You can't define scary for others because it's entirely relative. According to my cat an active can of air duster is the scariest thing in the world. Just because there is no legitimate reason to be afraid of it doesn't remove that fact that he is scared shitless of it. It causes fright and alarm, it's scary, to him. Why on earth do you think being scared has to follow some scientific process? It is describing a feeling or emotion, that's it.
Your definition consists of synonyms. Hence why it's qualitatively useless. You don't seem to understand the concept of what constitutes qualitative information in science. Relative data is useless.
So no to your no 
|
Again I wasn't trying to argue or provide any qualitative information of science. I was just describing how something made me feel. Don't really see what the big deal is.
|
you're calling a field of science "scary" by linking to something and admitting you know nothing about the subject on a website solely dedicated to nerds. of course this is going to cause a reaction lol
|
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
|
Scary in the possibility of what might be possible decades from now in a dystopian future that runs in an eerie parallel to something Orson Welles would have written? Sure.
But now? Nope. Our brains are ridiculously more advanced than a rat. So much so, in fact, that experiments with rats that use anything eventually meant for humans has been called into question many, many times over the years.
I definitely see the scariness inherent in this, though. I take solace in the fact that I don't think it would be able to get by in a world increasingly aware of injustices and also that I'm a Permanent Resident of the US who has Canadian citizenship so that I can flee the country (I was born in Canada). I even have Italian ancestry and could apply for citizenship there.  BACKUP PLAN, HELL YEAH!
I think bioethics is an important field, but one of my majors is philosophy, so there you go (no, I'm not just a hopeless liberal arts major: I won some programming competitions in high school but just decided against going into computer science). I've considered questions like this, and I partly think that we can't make any solid judgments until the technology is pretty much upon us. A good example is AI: what is human? Does a certain level of intelligence all of a sudden attain that extra quality that we consider inherent in human beings? I feel like that can't truly be answered until we start making AI systems that can actually answer us naturally. After all, if a system can't fully answer as a human would than it really only reaches the level of an animal at the very best and only in the most charitable of viewings.
|
I definitely think it's reasonable for people to be scared of the possibility of having their minds/thoughts/or even physical makeup(genetics) manipulated without their consent.
I also don't think the possibility of it is far off, if it isn't here already. I am pretty sure they can already mechanically alter moods.
|
If they invented a happy pill, would you take it? Yeah.. yeah you would you hippie.
|
On March 30 2011 08:08 travis wrote:
I definitely think it's reasonable for people to be scared of the possibility of having their minds/thoughts/or even physical makeup(genetics) manipulated without their consent.
I also don't think the possibility of it is far off, if it isn't here already. I am pretty sure they can already mechanically alter moods.
I'm pretty sure you'd notice them sticking a microchip in your brain and forcing your body to do things without you instructing it to. So I'd suspect consent isn't a real issue here. Beyond that, how is it any different from a gov't holding a gun to your head and telling you what to do? The fact that they can do it with a remote control now without having to hold a gun to your head the whole time? The dynamic really doesn't change IMO, hence why it's not some terrifying new advancement that will lead to the complete obliteration of civilization as we know it. The whole Frankenstein, fear of science schtick really gets old after awhile.
In my opinion, the only two technologies right now in development that are truly worth contemplating in terms of changes in society are:
1. Technological Singularity (Development of AI)
2. Telomere Reconstruction/Telomerase (Anti-aging therapy)
1. because it is basically the point where humans never have to invent a single thing ever again and science will continue to progress at an exponential rate. Self-perpetuating R&D and population growth with only energy and processing power as the necessary resources. Insanity mode.
2. because it effectively makes humans immortal (other than through trauma). And actually combine the two together, and you are not just effectively immortal, you become truly immortal and self-replicating.
So, yeah, I somehow don't find this specific advancement all that mind-blowing. It's just a derivative of the basic knowledge we already had that the brain and the body are controlled by electrical impulses.
|
It's pretty clear how the things mentioned in the OP are scary. The potential to control people with microchips is downright frightening. I don't know where you're from, but I'm not about to trust my government with mind control given its track record in that area.
People don't fear science. There's nothing scary about working out a way to control living things with a microchips. But are scary people out there who would really like to have a way of controlling living things with microchips. People fear some of the applications of science that certain people have in mind.
|
On March 30 2011 10:21 meaculpa wrote: It's pretty clear how the things mentioned in the OP are scary. The potential to control people with microchips is downright frightening. I don't know where you're from, but I'm not about to trust my government with mind control given its track record in that area. People don't fear science. There's nothing scary about working out a way to control living things with a microchips. But are scary people out there who would really like to have a way of controlling living things with microchips. People fear some of the applications of science that certain people have in mind.
And these scary people could do the same thing with a gun or a knife... Compulsion can happen in tons of ways. A chip in the brain is just another one and as such does not constitute anything especially frightening. Fear occurs when something is unknown. There's not much unknown in a situation where someone is being controlled by a chip, hence why there is little cause for fear.
|
Well, if you're a radical behaviorist then perhaps these are all the same things. But most people like to believe there such a thing as a mind and that even in the worst kinds of situations like slavery, we can still think what we want. Hence, anything that might imply the possibility of mind control is scary.
|
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
