The Future of Mind Control 30
LarsWestergren writes "The Economist has two interesting articles about neuroscience. While a lot of media ink has been spent discussing the possible gains or threats of genetics, not much has been heard about the advances made in neuroscience which has a greater and more immediate threat of "overturning the essential nature of humanity". For instance, test subjects who were treated for depression by having their pleasure centers stimulated with electrodes fell in love with the experimenters. New drugs to combat shyness, forgetfulness, sleepiness and stress are on the way to the market, as well as a new breed of Super-Prozacs. The articles are here and here."
Electrodes? (Score:2)
Your eyes are getting heavy.... (Score:1)
(C) Slashdot MindBot v1.0
Ethics? (Score:2)
I think it would be unethical not to explore those possibilities.
D
Re:Ethics? (Score:2)
There's nothing inherently unethical about the research. But not considering possible downsides definitely is unethical. Not to mention dumb. No shortage of that kind of dumb, these days, when any mention of possible downsides is written off by corporate spokesdroids, etc, as if it's all from irrational anti-science people.
Re:Ethics? (Score:1)
What if others don't share your definition of "happier" or "smarter"? Or don't think thinner is a virtue?
If you are changing yourself, hey, go for it - it is every competent adult's right to transform themselves in any manner they choose.
But manipulating children - not merely leading them, as a parent should, but forcing them into your constraints - is a different matter. You're not letting them grow into competent adults, not letting them explore their own natures.
Re:Ethics? (Score:2)
Likewise with thinner - and if you don't believe me, just look at how many fat people there are who would be a great deal better off being thin.
There's nothing inherently good about the constraints we get from nature; if we can improve on nature, I feel we should. Yes, that brings different constraints, but I think on the whole both individuals and society would be better off.
D
Re:Ethics? (Score:1)
Problem is, how do you define "intelligent"?
Who's more intelligent, someone who (like my girlfriend) speaks eight languages but can't figure a 20% tip, or someone who can do vector calculus in their head but has poor skills in their native language, let alone any others?
Part of the danger we face is creating a "monoculture" of intelligence.
There's a difference between "healthy" and thin. People should strive for the former, not the latter. Some people would be healthies if they were thinner, some people would be healthier if they were less thin.
If you want to make that choice for yourself, hey, go for it. But when you start forcing it on children who can't choose for themselves - and who, in the absence of your tampering, might have grown up into adults who would have choosen differently - that's a different kettle of fish.
Yes, I'm glad my parents chose to get my twisted legs straightened out when I was an infant, and years later to pay for braces to re-arrange my teeth to fit into my head. Some things are inarguably defects and should be repaired.
But I'm glad they didn't have the option to mess with my brain to make me better fit their idea of a "perfect" kid.
Re:Ethics? (Score:1)
The future? (Score:3, Interesting)
"No... I'm a clean."
"A real clean? You don't take any mindpills? What an odd way to live!"
You know... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:You know... (Score:2)
But as every tool is going to be used by humans, practically speaking, then every tool will be used well and poorly. Can the proper use of this tool, most likely by some minority of users, counteract its improper use by many, and its diabolical use by some? And is its merely improper use, to say nothing of its diabolical use, so nightmarish that it far outweighs the benefits? Mankind has historically survived with violent and even psychotic individuals in its midst; 'curing' these does not seem a worthwhile goal if it carries with it the threat of such devolution (though certain psychotics might disagree--after all, they're the ones who have to live that way if uncured).
Very scary (Score:2, Insightful)
And who defines "mental sickness". Many people consider religion mental illness. Certainly, it can be cured. Diciplining children, oh they must have violent tendencies. Defining marriage as something other than people of opposite gender, you must really be crazy.
Knowing that people judge others' behaviour is scary enough. Giving them tools for manipulation, is very scary.
Re:Very scary/Defining mental illness (Score:2)
First article (Score:1)
The author certainly has that opinion, and did well to represent it. But, it seems, that instead of presenting the idea for debate, it was considered to be a fact that noone else realized. The article seems a bit crazed.
Re:First article (Score:1)
if you're going to fearmonger, at least you should give sources and details (how many women, what percentage of them fell in love, what was the gender of the experimenters, did the control group also fall in love)..
Why do these articles always miss the point that there already exist very effective, time-honored ways to control other people's minds and behavior - violence, FUD, propaganda..
ah well, other people will post the same thing. Ready to be modded redundant.
This would change the way we argue (Score:2)
I propose right now that we require all national presidents and diplomats to be fitted with these systems. We should start with the Israelis and Palestianians, and the Indians and Pakistanis first.
Re:This would change the way we argue (Score:2)
As it is, most people don't form their opinions based on rational evidence. I can bearly keep up with my own irrationality: I don't need someone else's craziness running through my head, as well.
Re:This would change the way we argue (Score:1)
Re:This would change the way we argue (Score:1)
Re:This would change the way we argue (Score:2)
To go with Meyers-Briggs lingo, only Ps would care to do that. That is, to look at it from all sides and come to a conclusion. Js, don't care to see it from both sides, they just want to come to a conclusion.
Further, only Ns would truly care about having an argument, and the Fs would not want to be argumentative. You'd be left NTPs and NTJs, most likely the Is.
Thus, you're talking about a very few people who would actually care about this. But some INTPs may enjoy it, assuming that they'd *let* another person probe their thoughts.
and have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one.
Probably not. Again, only Ps would care, and they don't care neccessarily to come to make a judgement, but rather to understand the idea so well, that judgement wouldn't be neccesary. With that, there would be no passion. The Js may want that, but it's likely their minds would already be made up, and the other thought would still need to be processed. Both thoughts would not be appreciated equally, at the same time.
Re:This would change the way we argue (Score:2)
have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one
... and your xNxP's already do this all the time without hardware or dope.
Ah Love (Score:1)
Drug for Shyness (Score:1)
Economist Doomsday Scenario (Score:1)