Actually, NO, I would not refuse an artificial limb or a pacemaker, or kidney dialysis, or blood transfusion. I 'would', however, refuse to be kept on a machine in a hospital that is the only reason I'm alive. What I was getting at is how much automation we'd allow in our bodies? I said nothing about maintaining an 'identity', I didn't even touch on that. All I was saying was that after enough mechanical (unneccesary) implants in our bodies, we'd become more cyborg like than human.
And to say that John was a "delusional schizophrenic" is making you more close-minded than you're claiming I am.
Very good point. Was tempted to bring it up myself. Perhaps one day they'll decide that this chip can be used like a credit card, some machine can do an easy scan and 'voila!' you just made a purchase by walking past the register. So then what happens when maybe this becomes the common currency, like the dollar bill, so you're required to have the chip to buy anything on the open market?
The biblical mark of the beast may not be that far off, who knows. All I know is that whatever they 'tell' me it's for, I'm not going to let them implant anything like that in me. Because even if it doesn't eventually develop into 'the mark' this starts a new trend of automation being implanted in our bodies. I have no problems with metal hips and the such, but when they decide that computers should be implanted in us... when do we decide that we've gone too far, that we've become more machine than man, and that we are in danger of losing our humanity??
Ok, "Anonymous Coward", whoever you are, maybe I'm just confused, but I'm having trouble making the jump from a cure for the common cold, to previously flourishing neighborhoods becoming dens of thieves, drug addicts and the lowest form of society imaginable. Perhaps you're basing your assumptions on information I'm not aware of, but that seems like quite a change jsut because the cure for the common cold may have been found. You yourself seem "out-of-touch and obtuse" perhaps you should clarify for those of us not deeply entrenched in conspiracy theory. Even given the assumption that say, a cure for AIDS was found, and this in turn encouraged those with deviant lifelstyles to continue in the same fashion, are you saying we should withhold the cure as a moral slide-rule? Who made you religion? Should we then simply tell those who contract deadly (but curable diseases) by innoncent means; "Sorry, we have the cure, but we can't give it to you because we're trying to control sexual deviancy."? Are you insane? Also, you seem to think the cure for the common cold will become something like the addiction of 'Soma' in "Brave New World." Apparently we're all going to become so afraid of sneezing that we'll have this stuff continuously pumped into oour veins. Even if that were the case, the appeal of this new drug would not last, because, as you would know if you understood the nature of medicine, the more widely used a drug becomes, the less effective it becomes. Why? Because, as organisms, viruses strive to adapt and survive, and in order to do this, they must develop into new strains (which they do) and therefore become unaffected by the drug. This very thing is happening with penacillin. It's been so widely used for so long that the viruses it was once intended to fight have developed and it has not. Simple as that. An entire population taking a drug 24/7 would simply herald this obsoleteness of the new drug even faster. Not to mention, I doubt this will be an over-the-counter medicine, but more likely a prescription drug, so you'd have to see a doctor to get any. Not that the cure for the common cold and potentially other diseases is not a big deal, but you've blown it so far out of proportion in the wrong direction, that I question your grip on reality.
Slashdot Mirror
And to say that John was a "delusional schizophrenic" is making you more close-minded than you're claiming I am.
Very good point. Was tempted to bring it up myself. Perhaps one day they'll decide that this chip can be used like a credit card, some machine can do an easy scan and 'voila!' you just made a purchase by walking past the register. So then what happens when maybe this becomes the common currency, like the dollar bill, so you're required to have the chip to buy anything on the open market? The biblical mark of the beast may not be that far off, who knows. All I know is that whatever they 'tell' me it's for, I'm not going to let them implant anything like that in me. Because even if it doesn't eventually develop into 'the mark' this starts a new trend of automation being implanted in our bodies. I have no problems with metal hips and the such, but when they decide that computers should be implanted in us... when do we decide that we've gone too far, that we've become more machine than man, and that we are in danger of losing our humanity??
Ok, "Anonymous Coward", whoever you are, maybe I'm just confused, but I'm having trouble making the jump from a cure for the common cold, to previously flourishing neighborhoods becoming dens of thieves, drug addicts and the lowest form of society imaginable. Perhaps you're basing your assumptions on information I'm not aware of, but that seems like quite a change jsut because the cure for the common cold may have been found. You yourself seem "out-of-touch and obtuse" perhaps you should clarify for those of us not deeply entrenched in conspiracy theory. Even given the assumption that say, a cure for AIDS was found, and this in turn encouraged those with deviant lifelstyles to continue in the same fashion, are you saying we should withhold the cure as a moral slide-rule? Who made you religion? Should we then simply tell those who contract deadly (but curable diseases) by innoncent means; "Sorry, we have the cure, but we can't give it to you because we're trying to control sexual deviancy."? Are you insane? Also, you seem to think the cure for the common cold will become something like the addiction of 'Soma' in "Brave New World." Apparently we're all going to become so afraid of sneezing that we'll have this stuff continuously pumped into oour veins. Even if that were the case, the appeal of this new drug would not last, because, as you would know if you understood the nature of medicine, the more widely used a drug becomes, the less effective it becomes. Why? Because, as organisms, viruses strive to adapt and survive, and in order to do this, they must develop into new strains (which they do) and therefore become unaffected by the drug. This very thing is happening with penacillin. It's been so widely used for so long that the viruses it was once intended to fight have developed and it has not. Simple as that. An entire population taking a drug 24/7 would simply herald this obsoleteness of the new drug even faster. Not to mention, I doubt this will be an over-the-counter medicine, but more likely a prescription drug, so you'd have to see a doctor to get any. Not that the cure for the common cold and potentially other diseases is not a big deal, but you've blown it so far out of proportion in the wrong direction, that I question your grip on reality.