Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

10
the intra-body nano-network (media.conspiracies.win)
posted 2 years ago by glownigger8675309 2 years ago by glownigger8675309 +10 / -0
22 comments download share
22 comments share download save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
▲ 0 ▼
– TallestSkil 0 points 2 years ago +1 / -1

That are basing on open-source-available informations you have. You are assuming openly available technology is most advanced one available

Then it’s on you to prove otherwise. I’m waiting.

Oh,which ones ?

I… don’t think the question fits the context.

No more than 50 years, actually I guess rather 30 max if we are talking about "available science" not being kept secret.

Okay, that’s debatable. It’s hard to give a future timeframe on things we don’t know we don’t know, but going off of what we’ve (failed) to learn for, say, the last half century, I’m not optimistic about the biosciences.

For maintaining control with paralysing of victims/killing or neuromodulation even less/probably even applicable now.

Any evidence of that?

Most complicated is controlling self-assembly without unwanted side effects.

Exactly. I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– cee8hooz 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

Any evidence of that?

Example evidence: https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069/figures

I think it is enough,no need of mind control if you could "discipline" anybody with just clicking a button and freezing this person/making it feeling terrible pains etc.

I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.

Yes and no. It depends on the purpose of use. Direct mind control - very hard and complicated,making many problems unless they have much more advanced secret technologies. Something less however,for example catastrophic headache or paralysing people - 100% available. Or just neuromodulation, causing uncontrollable rage/anger/fury for everybody affected on demand. Or just the opposite maybe: making people apathetic and calm on demand

No need for so strong fields even if there are nanoparticles in planned places.

if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies

Funny thing I notice dual meaning and irony here as I am not english native speaker.

But if you mean mass production - while those graphene oxide nanoelements would be hard and not so cheap - still total control on a person is worth more than microprocessor price, the rest is not the problem at all. Self-replication, DNA or even RNA is the key.

permalink parent save report block reply

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - ptjlq (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy