Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who wants to take a pill that will make you more morally aceceptable in the eyes of society?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
let's just take the "human" out of human...
pathetic. they cannot make a single pill that acts the same on all huiman brains. period.
we are not robots...

how can anyone quantify the result of this? great ideas and discoveries might have come from emotions that get rendered useless.

lame.




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
I think Ann Coulter would try it.

Right after she talks about how many lives big pharma saves every year.


oh she has said that before.? Another one! Another lady conservative that is betraying me



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperZepto
 





they don't give a damn about your health, they just want to sell their pills while simultaneously keeping you in a nice robotic state where you'll produce...you kind of have to stand in awe at the diabolicness of it all
edit on 6-4-2011 by dude69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperZepto
www.smh.com.au...


Testing a url fix



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I've always wondered at the seemingly increasing pressure placed upon people to feel more of this 'empathy'. I've never been inclined towards empathy, instead preferring logic and rationality. I can take other people's empathy on board when making decisions, but in the end it all comes down to logic. That's just how I am, and there's no use pretending I'm otherwise. Maybe that makes me a massive bitch in the eyes of the media and pharmaceutical companies?

Are they really trying to turn everyone into a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders? Actually, this seems as though it relates quite nicely to other social trends. The globalisation of popular culture, the fading of national boundaries, the integration of different cultures into one big happy family... And if you go against the norm, you are called racist, or a lunatic, or cruel, or whatever. Difference of opinion is not accepted, so why should difference of emotion?

It's as though we're all being assimilated into a unified system of thoughts and feelings. Just like a subtle version of Orwell's 1984. In that case, I'll no longer be merely a thought criminal, but an emotional criminal too.

Who decides what is moral and what is amoral? Corporate sponsored media sanctioned by the government and enforced by the pharmaceutical companies who rely on propogation of needless guilt as diagnosed by selected psychologists?

I'd rather be human, and keep my flaws and opinions. I'd rather hang on to my own emotions too (or lack thereof). Can we not retain our humanity, and our character? This is truly the ultimate theft of freedom.
edit on 6-4-2011 by DeepThoughtCriminal because: typo and afterthought



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
This sounds like a new toy ripe for the water system. I swear, it seems the people today are not the same pissed off folk I grew up with in the 70's. Something has happened to them and the new crops of people today are different too in that they have become dependent early on to things like TV. Now it's TV on the internet. Sports, Drama, Music, Porn and Fear. All channels are available. In many ways we are already well confined, dulled down, isolated, dependent and mute. Frosting on the cake for the tptb.
edit on 6-4-2011 by starshift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gatewaywithin
 


many will, they will be told it is good for them. but we might not get a choice if it is added to water or some other method none of us can escape.

the thing is the people that need this the most we all know they will not be having it. it is 100% for the masses only.
which would not be a bad thing if it actually did what it says in the O.P.

there would be more people turning up for protests against immoral issues, like war, killing of innocents etc.
the drug would make people care, unlike today where most are only bothered about themselves.

it just depends how you look at it, but from the description of effects would it make people zombies? or make them give a damn about bad things that happen like war, would they even support war anymore? how would they recruit soliders?



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperZepto
 


You mean its implications on the pharmaceutical market?
edit on 7-4-2011 by ballsdeep because: (no reason given)


edit - also MAPS.org are still running clinical trials? It's not a dead end..
edit on 7-4-2011 by ballsdeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Yeah, they will have to force feed me to get one of them zombie tablets down my throat.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redevilfan09
Yeah, they will have to force feed me to get one of them zombie tablets down my throat.


They won't need to, it will just be snuck into your water supply



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperZepto
www.smh.com.au... -the-answer-may-be-in-a-pill-20110407-1d5c9.html

A new field of science has opened up at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics...they're striving to make a pill that eliminates anger, racism and immoral thoughts and actions.




A pill to enhance moral behaviour; a treatment for racist thoughts; a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries - these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but, with medicine moving closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences...


If anyone has seen the movie Equilibrium, this is disturbing to say the least. Morality and ethics should be chosen, not forced.




Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply but does suggest that if administered widely, they might help humanity tackle global issues. "Relating to the plight of people on the other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature," he says. "This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations."


What does everyone here think about morality and should it be forced via medicine?



When I attempt to envisage a productive, peaceful society, I repeatedly end up with a semi-robotic society

No matter how many times I conduct the exercise, I'm unable to find any other solution

Nor am I able to reconcile unchecked breeding with a productive, peaceful society

So, whether I like it or not, I'm confronted with hybrids or total robots who are sterilized and mind-controlled, with every element of their lives determined by 'overseers'

It's not as negative as it might sound. For example, in such a society, there would be no unwanted children. There would be no unwanted elderly, disabled or sociopaths. All these would be eliminated from the pool by the overseers. What would be left would be neat, sexless, emotionless creatures committed to the continuance and welfare of their society. Housing would be ordered. Lives would be ordered. The environment would take priority, including large national parks devoted to wildlife

In this 'perfect' society, the vast majority of the robots/hybrids would be engineered for drone-like existences whilst others would be engineered for intelligence, others for artistic superiority, etc. This would result in societies where the majority labour uncomplainingly for the benefit of the stability and maintence of their society. Others, according to their speciality, would for example design cities, parks, art-works, etc. whilst others engaged in scientific research and so on

Wars and conflict would be unknown as would poverty, disease, despoiling of the natural environment, etc.

So, a member of that society (gender would not exist) would live in a model city, would travel to and from their place of work on environmentally-friendly transport, would suffer no emotional problems (for they would have no emotions) no marital problems, no financial problems (for everything would be provided by the State) would have no religious conflicts (for there would be no religions, other than a lifetime's dedication to the State and society) no conflicts with neighbours (for they would have no emotions either) no health problems (for their 'bodies' would basically be machines). Members of the robotic/hybrid society would have no troubling thoughts -- no thoughts at all, basically - their lives would consist of an untroubled, obedient, dream-like state

' Children ' would be created in laboratories with their number aligned to the 'termination' (death in our world) of those at their use-by date

In short, the society I envisage when I attempt to mentally create a peaceful, co-operative world, is quite similar to the ' artist's impressions' we see today in advertisements for new housing developments - those neat, perfect renditions where the lawns are always perfect and weedless - where the trees never grow too tall or become ungainly - where there is no litter, no dirt, no hint of crime or genuinely human occupation. And we're drawn to those artist's impressions, aren't we ? Obviously we are, for we mortgage away our lives in order to live in those places, only to discover that they fall short of the ' artist's impressions' once real humans start living in them

We rage about The Powers That Be in this and other fora and we accuse them of controlling our lives. At the same time, we fight to protect our ways of life and expect The Powers That Be to make sure our ways of life are not threatened -- because we don't want our ways of life to become like those of 3rd worlders.

We insist on the right to reproduce and we expect The Powers That Be to assist us financially -- even though we know, at the same time, that this financial assistance is being taken from people who work and are unable to have children of their own because they're being so heavily taxed. The true result of this is one where the less skilled & less intelligent are out-breeding the more intelligent and skilled members of society in the same way unskilled, unemployed or part-employed migrants in our societies are out-breeding the nationals - at the expense of the nationals. What do you believe this will lead to ? Won't it result in migrants of varying beliefs, cultures and religions - in addition to what are referred to as the 'lower' levels of society - will eventually destroy the society upon which it currently feeds ? And what will be the result of this ? Yes, it will result in an overall lowering of the resulting society which will be less intelligent, less industrious, less cohesive, less productive, etc.

Therefore, although when I first read the OP I initially intended to state my opposition to the 'mind control ' pill -- I now find myself in support of it



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Disturbing indeed...
If you never get angry, then you will also never (seriously) protest/influence all the evil, injustices and absurdity you`re faced with. And i have no doubt that`s exactly their real purpose here.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperZepto
 


Isn't this what anti-depressants and bi-polar medication all about? become numb to the world, be happy, fit in, etc?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Their version of morality is not the morality, so my answer is no. It should not be forced because morality is merely subjective. There's no universal law that says racism is immoral and empathy is moral. There are certain people I hate and I choose to hate them, but that doesn't mean I'm absolutely immoral. This pill idea just seems like a method of control because they think their version of morality is an objective aspect of life when it is clearly not.


The thing is that you wouldn't hate anyone because they would all act in a manner that you thought proper. Same with the work ethic, etc. Eliminating violent dissent between humans would be beneficial if the dreams and ambitions (non-monetary) of humans was allowed to coexist.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I wonder how many would take it willingly. Sure they can make it sounds awesome and amazing, i would rather people learn to overcome the less desirable social aspects in a natural way, the way people have done all throughout history.

I always wonder to myself how humanity progressed without anti depressants. The most logical conclusion I can come up with is they got over it, there wasn't a pill to make everything better, people learned to deal with it and obviously came out the other end more or less unscathed.

Whats the point in life if you believe a magic pill will make bad things not happen. Bad things happen. Good things happen as well. Thats life.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
These people need to watch Equilibrium.

Sometimes it's worth the risk..



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
There was a popular thing some years ago that suddenly became as rare as finding
Lily pads in the Sahara Desert now-a-days.
It made people see themselves from the inside out and helped them understand connectedness.

Maybe they should use that stuff instead?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
There was a popular thing some years ago that suddenly became as rare as finding
Lily pads in the Sahara Desert now-a-days.
It made people see themselves from the inside out and helped them understand connectedness.

Maybe they should use that stuff instead?


I can honestly say that's one of the reasons I am who I am.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gatewaywithin
 

Witness the Pharmaceutical industry of the past 60 years or more. I remember in my drug class reading about people taking stimulants back in the 1950's for all manner of things

There's always been the desire to control, but with each generation the capabilities to control increase. It's only a matter of time before we can claim to be a eusocial species.

Some people say we already are.

People of freedom will have to leave this planet to escape the increasing barb wire. It'll be just like how people left europe to settle in North America, searching for freedom.

The real loss is diversity. Increasing order destroys it. Need order for security of the commons. To fit everybody on this small planet - so they don't conflict - they make us all the same.

People in the future will look at today's world and pity us and won't even notice that they've lost freedoms. They'll be so blinded by the walls and the propaganda and the dependency.

But some people will escape. Not everybody is meant to live this way. True explorers. People who, like it or not, can't fit in well and are so driven to be independent they'll leave. I gave the people who settled North America as an example, but anybody living outside the norm is sort of. In fact, my own theory is that evolution forces diversity no matter how hard we fight to control it. This element of diversity might be a minority but it'll be enough to break down walls and settle new frontiers.
edit on 1-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Supposedly flouride does that so that's why it's in the water. So I avoid water does this answer your question?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join