Family Awaits Medical Chip Injection

Fox News ^ | April 01, 2002 | AP

[Pern]

BOCA RATON, Fla.

[Pern]

The original article has a picture of these idiots smiling away. The gullability of sheeple amazes me.

Resistance is futile, Mein Herr!

[Fish out of Water]

index bump and fyi

[philman_36]

It's inconceivable this could do anything but good.
Inconceivable. Wasn't that the buzzword in "The Princess Bride"?

[Quila]

High-tech medic alert bracelets, that's all.

[billybudd]

If those people want to use the chip, what's the harm? If the government were implanting those things in people against their will, then there would definitely be a problem. But I don't understand this instinctive reaction against technology, as if guns are inherently evil because some people use them to commit murder.

[Quila]

If those people want to use the chip, what's the harm? If the government were implanting those things in people against their will, then there would definitely be a problem.

There is the appropriate slippery-slope concern. For example, a while ago they encouraged the use of seatbelts, now they're mandatory.

[billybudd]

You still haven't responded to my basic argument - if you ban technologies because they could be used maliciously by the government down the road, then we'd have to eliminate computers, satellites, guns, etc. There's obviously an inherent risk in technological progress; there can be good uses and bad uses. What you should be fighting is government control, not the technology itself.
By the way, if the government truly wants to use this technology to spy on its citizens, why do you think it would go to a private company like the one mentioned in this article? It would develop it secretly in-house, of course! In fact, they already have! The only thing that eliminating private development of this technology would accomplish would be to prevent all its positive uses.
Also, it would be hard to force this kind of device on people since the signal can easily be disrupted.

[billybudd]

I only noticed now, but your seatbelt argument is really dumb. So, by your logic, the government should ban people from wearing seatbelts of their own free will, because if they start doing so, the government might force them to do it down the road? Huh?

[Quila]

You still haven't responded to my basic argument

Perhaps I was not too clear. I'm on your side, I like new technologies and think this thing is absolutely great. But I do understand some reason for showing concern (not paranoia, just some concern) about future possibilities for misuse just as some recent events, while benign in themselves, are showing the potential for a future GATTACA situation.

Also, it would be hard to force this kind of device on people since the signal can easily be disrupted.

In the dystopian society at the end of that slippery slope, being caught with a disrupted transponder would be cause for imprisonment. A Jew could easily remove his star in 1942.

[Quila]

I only noticed now, but your seatbelt argument is really dumb.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, it's not so dumb. A nice device that will help in your protection is offered to you. You use it because you like it and feel safer. Lots of people do this in fact. Years later, you suddenly notice that if you decide to take it off, you'll get a ticket!

A good example is me. While I always wear seatbelts, I've hated airbags ever since I was mangled by one in a very low-speed accident a few years back. Yeah, I believed the hype about how good they were for you, and they're the only reason I was injured. But now they're mandatory in all new U.S. cars and the government won't allow it to be disconnected for me. So in the U.S. I'm out of luck. But I'm glad my new car in Germany didn't even come with airbags (or ABS or power steering for that matter).

[billybudd]

being caught with a disrupted transponder would be cause for imprisonment. A Jew could easily remove his star in 1942.

Point taken. Ultimately you can't run from tyranny.
I have a working theory about the effect of technology on society in the long run. I think technological progress tends to magnify the true nature of society. So, with a higher level of technology, a free society can be freer and a tyranny will be even more tyrannical. Technology expands the field of possibilities, not only in dealing with nature, but in dealing with men. Yet, technological progress itself doesn't cause a free society to turn tyrannical or the other way around. That kind of shift can only be caused by human will.
Though, I tend to think that in the very long run, technological progress will benefit freedom more than tyranny, because progress not only magnifies the true nature of society, but the true nature of man. And if man is free by nature, then logically such a magnification should yield greater freedom.

[Quila]

I think technological progress tends to magnify the true nature of society. So, with a higher level of technology, a free society can be freer and a tyranny will be even more tyrannical.

Very good points. You have the Internet and digital communications unleashing almost unlimited freedome to communicate showing the ideas of freedom in our society, and people flock to it. Then you have the government showing its tyrannical side by immediately moving to control it with CDA, COPA, DMCA and CBDTPA (aka SSSCA).

[tahiti]

"...because progress not only magnifies the true nature of society, but the true nature of man..."

You are obviously showing your very young age or lack of historical knowledge.

The "true nature of man" is evil, that is why we have to spend some much time and effort dwarting it, for example Christianity, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule.

Now to the question of mandatory seatbelt use, any such law is violation of Amendment IX, of the U.S. Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others RETAINED by the people."

My right to drive my automobile on public roads cannot be denied or disparaged by our government.

Rights are categorical, absolute, and inalienable. Only privileges can be legislated. Rights can never be legislated.

[billybudd]

Yes, I'm young, but I was making a valid point. Let me elaborate on what I was saying so you don't misunderstand me. Technology is essentially the ability to do something, to get from here to there, from point A to point B. Technological progress is the expansion of the field of human activity to include actions that were previously unavailable. It is the application of human nature to an expanded set of circumstances. So, human nature is magnified in the sense that the human behaviors of particular circumstances can be filtered out, and we can see the behaviors common to all circumstances.
Regarding the "true nature of man", you display an ignorance of theology. Man is not evil - he is free, to make a choice between good and evil. That is the essence of man. And I was saying that because technological progress will tend to expose and magnify this fundamental aspect of man, in the long run, the conditions necessary for man's freedom will become more viable. So I'm an optimist.