4 ms·

> Honestly, if a brain implant was proven to be as safe as vaccination, and could get me to be happy while working 3 jobs in a mine and eating bugs. I probably

• grayhatter 5y ago
  > You would really give over so much control over your person? You'll not that I never said I'd give up my anatomy, just that I'd be happy regardless of whatever tasks or life I'm living. And yes, absolutely. If I was freed from negative emotions and experience. I could instead spend my time on what I want to, or need to. You didn't state what I think you meant to wrongly imply that it was a mind control device. > Regarding the concern, the kind of control this technology puts upon another person is extremely powerful. I could for example imagine a torture device where it simply zaps you when you have any positive thought - how many weeks will it take to make you submissive? I don't know, my current understanding of torture is you can break a person, meaning get them to give up on life. But can't actually ever control how they behave. I have no reason to believe that would change with better technology. Say you do break me, destroy my ability to do anything. I'd have no motivation to do anything at all ever. People suffering from such a severe breakdown or depression lose the ability to function. You can do that with torture now, "new technology allows us do to something faster" isn't impressive, nor revolutionary. > How long till you'll carry out that assassination attempt? Never... humans have tried to create manchurian candidates already. It has always failed. Failed so drastically that we've never even come close to getting any human to willingly do something outside what they'd do through positive motivation. So you haven't given me a reason to suspect otherwise. > The hypothetical scenario serves as commentary on our currently eroding freedoms (whether you believe it is done for positive or negative reasons). It also shows a viable slippery path for where such a future could exist - each one of the mechanisms I suggested are not pulled from thin air, they all have basis in recent developments. Let's pretend for the sake of this argument, that I do agree with you that we're losing additional freedoms that we have. And setting aside the reasons. (For the record, I don't. Arguments that this is a new scary thing we all should be afraid of are made without merit, with a single exception.) I'm assuming you're familiar with one, but not both versions of the slippery slope fallacy. I'll try to refute both. The first being `A will lead to B; B is bad; therefor A is bad`. That's a fallacy, it's not true. A could be good or bad, and B could be good or bad. But that doesn't mean A and B is bad. Billy is a mass murder, he's caught and sent to jail. Him being sent to jail means he's not allowed to do what he really wants, that's bad. A leads to B, B is bad. A and B happening together are still better than not happening. The other; `A might lead to B; B might lead to C, C is SO SO much worse than A and B could possibly be; thus A is bad and should be avoided`. This is the more common one, but it's logically flawed because you both have to prove that C is worse than A (which you haven't in this case), *AND* prove that A MUST lead to C. Which you also haven't done. Requiring people to prove that they have made an attempt to ensure they're not infectious/dangerous before being allowed to interact with a community, is not the same as requiring invasive treatment for a non-contagious disease. And you haven't given me a reason to think anyone's trying to apply that logic to it. One's infectious, the other isn't. You've said nothing to change my mind on this. Just because someone might say or do something stupid, isn't a reason to believe it will happen. There's a reason these fallacies are common, they seem like they could be true, and they're scary. The probability of it happening * how bad it could be = how scary it feels. The problem is, just because they're something that could happen, doesn't mean it's logical or reasonable to think it will happen. Thus it's just an argument people use to make others feel scared. Because they pretty much are pulled from thin air. There's no logical reason to say because all of these things exist, they will all be used together. Microwaves exist, and are good at heating water, humans are mostly water, why don't we heat our homes or ourselves with microwaves? Wireless power transmission exists, the hardware is cheaper than cables, why do we still use cables instead of wireless power? Because it exists, doesn't mean it will be used wrongly or maliciously. Stop being afraid that bad things might happen, instead focus on the bad things that ARE happening. If you don't want vaccines because they're dangerous, prove they're dangerous. Don't be opposed just because it might lead to something that you're afraid of.