
Supercharging the nervous system with biological, ion-transistor computer chips - ukdm
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/130111-supercharging-the-nervous-system-with-biological-ion-transistor-computer-chips
======
vadman
The last paragraph of the article (about the chip in one's brain) is quite
scary. Force brain chip implants that keep the serotonin levels artificially
high to keep the unwashed masses content; some kid at school is too active -
put a chip in his brain to keep the hormonal level down; etc. etc. The
possibilities are endless.

EDIT: typo

------
ricree
This article was fairly low on details and high on futurism hype.

Has anyone found a better one that isn't behind a paywall?

------
Morg
I find it quite humorous that humans will end up plugging chips in their
brains to make them "better" before even trying to do it without - once again
the path of least effort is the way.

~~~
gouranga
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but the Nazis had the right idea:
eugenics.

This is not something I am opposed to from a scientific point of view.

We do it with livestock, so why not us?

(Before I accidentally invoke Godwin's law, I'm not saying I agree with the
other things the Nazis did or that I agree with eliminating non-eugenic
friendly individuals).

EDIT: I actually disagree entirely with eugenics - this was an experiment ot
see what happens if you apply plain logic and no ethics to the problem. The
number of upvotes was slightly worrying!!! For reference, my daughter is
disabled and would fall foul of any appropriate eugenics principles which is
not right.

~~~
dawson
Interesting, what kind of family policy would you propose, if not that of
eliminating non-eugenic individuals? I mean, is there a way eugenics can work
without removing human rights? (serious question, no judgement made) I haven't
read Francis Galton's original doctrine so apologies if this is obvious to
those who have.

~~~
burke
Strong financial incentives for selected individuals to reproduce; penalties
for others.

~~~
aswanson
Who forms the selection criteria?

~~~
nnq
Make the "penalty" a "tax" and money becomes the criteria. Add tax exemptions
for valuable but not so well paid professionals like researchers, university
professors etc. (it's not like the poor that would desperately want kids will
suddenly struggle to become medical researchers or university professors just
to avoid the tax). Plus, you can use the tax money to improve education and
give free university education (some countries already have this). And if
you're smart but you're not the "academic type", you'll probably find a well
paid profession for yourself anyway so you shouldn't worry.

~~~
vadman
If you want to prevent individuals who are e.g. predisposed to certain
disorders from being born, I don't see how money as criteria can help.

~~~
nnq
It's not supposed to do that! It's supposed to have people with "higher levels
of" positive traits like intelligence, self-control, imagination to have more
children then those with lower levels (and also to improve the chances that
children get raised in families that can afford to offer them good education -
so it takes care of the "nurture" part too, not just "nature" - and yes, this
means that such a social engineering strategy would be more than just
eugenics).

People predisposed to certain disorders usually have less offspring anyway...
so nature does a pretty good job at this without help (ever seen a person with
a severe mental illness having more than a couple of children, even by
accident?)

~~~
vadman
Hmm. Well I was thinking in the context proposed by the grand-grand...parent,
even though he backtracked:

"...eugenics. This is not something I am opposed to from a scientific point of
view. We do it with livestock, so why not us?"

You can be predisposed to a lot of things -- diabetes, heart problems, and so
on -- most of those don't necessarily prevent you from reproducing. But being
"intelligent, motivated, imaginative" has little to do with having a
"disadvantageous" genetic makeup leading to health issues. So you are not
taking the whole "nature" part into account, only part of it.

Also note that I am not necessarily supporting eugenics, just thinking aloud.
At the same time, I don't see how your proposal is any better than "classical"
eugenics from the human rights point of view. We can take it one step further
and assign an importance coefficient for voting. Let the professor/researcher
vote count for 3 units; as for the proles, .7 will suffice. After all, why
shouldn't people with intelligence, self-control, and imagination have more of
a say in where the country is headed -- it's mostly their kids who will live
in this country in the future, so it's only fair.

~~~
nnq
Ok, the thread is dead and we're off-topic but to clarify: I just don't find
important things like good physical health (you can revolutionize theoretical
physics before dying of a heart attack at 45... and yes you could be very
unhappy knowing that you would die sooner but I don't care about about
happiness either). The only worthy purpose for any eugenics-like social
engineering strategy for me would be ACCELERATION OF SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS AT ALL/ANY COST, as I believe that in the long run this
will lead to better overall health and change everything for "better".

NOTE: Yes, such a measure or anything similar would lead to human rights
erosion that might amplify further, and this is why I wouldn't actually
promote the proposed soc-eng strategy in any current society, but that's a
different thing....

~~~
aswanson
I don't understand. Happiness doesnt matter, but the ultimate virtue in your
philosophical schema is scientific progress to make things "better", which is
presumably aiming towards happiness, no?

