| Do you think a brain chip is a good idea? |
| Yes |
|
52% |
[ 9 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 7 ] |
| "Resistance is Futile." |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
 Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:59 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | I voted no. VERY no. |
I'm with you on this one.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:40 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | This is not good. Great. Now they are going to try and start filling our bodies up with computer chips. |
I agree. This totally Scuks!
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:24 am |
|
That half the future belongs to those who idolize the past frightens me.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:56 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | That half the future belongs to those who idolize the past frightens me. |
I'm not idolizing the past just because I don't want my body filled up with computer tech.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:43 pm |
|
As far as I know they're only talking about using this to help disabled people at the moment. If it progresses beyond that, just don't get one.
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:57 pm |
|
New inventions are always expensive at first. When the DVD players first came out they were running at arround $600 for a good one. Now they are under $50.00. Not comparing the brain chip to DVD players, But it is just an example. And aslo, If it were something the government insisted on us doing, I don't think they would make the people pay too much for it.. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:44 pm |
|
As long as we have a democratic government I doubt we have anything to fear about having forced technological augmentation.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:10 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | As long as we have a democratic government I doubt we have anything to fear about having forced technological augmentation. |
As long as we have capitalism, we will need to respond to the increasing economic pressures created by new technology. With the versatility of the Internet and wireless world, the person with the better, newer, faster, technological devices often has an advantage. Offices (are still bureaucracies, yes) have become technocracies. Business is conducted online. Although there is no legal coercion, in the business world it is easier to profit by using these technologies. 
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:20 pm |
|
True, but that's always been true. As technology advances, people buy into it. Take cars, cell phones, laptops.... It's just the way the world is. The only alternative is to stop developing new technologies, and I know I don't want that. We've already discovered a great number of methods to kill and destroy, I don't want to stop until we find ways of helping the problems we have, both natural and man-made.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:21 pm |
|
That doesn't mean we have to accept ALL technological advancements. This isn't bad if it is for handicapp people. But if they start putting things in me that I don't want, then its BAD. What if there is a new teachnological advancement that we put our brains in a jar and get rid of the body. We will reach true "enlightenment" though it. Its not very appealing is it? Just because something new comes around, does not mean we have to automatically embrace it.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:24 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | That doesn't mean we have to accept ALL technological advancements. This isn't bad if it is for handicapp people. But if they start putting things in me that I don't want, then its BAD. What if there is a new teachnological advancement that we put our brains in a jar and get rid of the body. We will reach true "enlightenment" though it. Its not very appealing is it? Just because something new comes around, does not mean we have to automatically embrace it. |
But what then happens if we object to having the chip put in us? There just going to do against our will if too many people stand up and say that they don't want the chip!
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
I don't think your argument is very relevant. I doubt anyone will be forced into this.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
| nadia wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | That doesn't mean we have to accept ALL technological advancements. This isn't bad if it is for handicapp people. But if they start putting things in me that I don't want, then its BAD. What if there is a new teachnological advancement that we put our brains in a jar and get rid of the body. We will reach true "enlightenment" though it. Its not very appealing is it? Just because something new comes around, does not mean we have to automatically embrace it. |
But what then happens if we object to having the chip put in us? There just going to do against our will if too many people stand up and say that they don't want the chip! |
My point exactly. Its bad. Eventually they will force us into it.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:20 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | I don't think your argument is very relevant. I doubt anyone will be forced into this. |
You wanna bet! I'm sure that people are going to be forced into this!
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:23 pm |
|
As Zeke said, as long as we remain a democracy, then it will not happen without the approval of the people. Since most democracies promote the choice of the individual, I don't think that this will be happening against our will until our governments undergo fundamental shifts in political philosophy.
Our maybe until the subliminal propaganda artists get to work. 
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:25 pm |
|
But I still think that people are going to be forced into getting this chip! I think of it as when animal chiping first came into effect, you didn't have to do it but now it's compolsary!
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:30 pm |
|
| nadia wrote: | | But I still think that people are going to be forced into getting this chip! I think of it as when animal chiping first came into effect, you didn't have to do it but now it's compolsary! |
That's because pets are considered property, and hence the chips are effective methods of keeping track of them. Humans are not, in most democracies at least, considered property, they are considered people.
The point of a responsible society is that people are responsible enough to make decisions of their own accord. I use technological augmentation: glasses. As far as I know, glasses are not required by any law, although I am at an obvious disadvantage if I do not have them. People who lose a limb are not required to get an artifical one, it is just easier for them.
Due to the opposition of people, as evidenced by many people here, it is doubtful that any sort of implementation would be forced upon the general public. If the government did manage to do this, possibly through propaganda that convinces people these chips are vital to national security ( ) it would no longer be a democracy (and someone might notice that, eh )
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
You can have you oppinoin and I'll have my'n. But I still think that I'm right.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:40 pm |
|
The argument is irrelevant anyway. You can't un-invent computers. Concern is natural whenever advancement is made. Every time new ground is broken, people get nervous. It's natural. Change comes anyway though, so you might as well deal with it.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:31 am |
|
Who said that I was nervous about this? I just dont like it!
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:41 am |
|
I think it's a good thing for disabled people, but as Nadia said, I don't like what it could be used for in the future. If it was developed they could be used by dictators, to keep track of you etc.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:42 am |
|
MMM..... I don't even like it being used for disabled people.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:02 am |
|
| nadia wrote: | | MMM..... I don't even like it being used for disabled people. |
Why not? It's just another prosthesis, like glasses, prosthetic limbs, or pacemakers. If I were paralyzed, I would view the brain chip as a convenience bordering upon a necessity. Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, and thus has severely impaired motor functions, but can communicate by using a computer with what little motor control he has left.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:09 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | nadia wrote: | | MMM..... I don't even like it being used for disabled people. |
Why not? It's just another prosthesis, like glasses, prosthetic limbs, or pacemakers. If I were paralyzed, I would view the brain chip as a convenience bordering upon a necessity. Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, and thus has severely impaired motor functions, but can communicate by using a computer with what little motor control he has left. |
a pacemaker doesn't take over your brain. it isn't cybernetic.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:18 am |
|
I personally don't like the idea computer chips in the brain. It really not a good idea in my opinion. I know I don't want it in my head.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
