Imagine if you could control your own mind with this. Recognizing you need to eat less or socialize more and activating the appropriate circuits as described in the article.
The problem is it will be sold to people that way but once you have chips in your brain there's no off switch
We have a bit of this already. Like viagra and ozempic. I just don't like too much taxes going to support consooming fatties. Not sure if less regulation around health insurance and PBMs is the solution though.
This is just another pharmaceutical intervention in place of actual virtue to fix bad habits. It's destined to fail and have all sorts of terrible side effects like its predecessors.
When I look at people who struggle in ways that I don't, I don't think to myself "those peasants lack virtue that someone like myself has", but I feel compassion in understanding that if they could consciously make the decision to turn off such impulses they would.
As should have been implied from my message, I agree that it's destined to fail but it will be launched maliciously from day 1 so it will fail by design in spectacular fashion
I'm sorry if you think using the word virtue means lacking compassion or just feeling better than others. I'm using the word correctly here.
Virtue is defined by Merriam-Webster as "conformity to a standard of right". So rather than promoting that conformity, a pharmaceutical intervention is a shortcut bypassing that conformity to the right way of dealing with this.
The best defense against a vice is more virtue. Though perhaps more accurate to say virtues plural. Virtues encompassing hard work, faith and discipline.
-ist (scientist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (scientism). Those who suggest -isms gain remote control over those who consent to be -ists.
Few suggest; many consent to follow suggested...that implies remote aka response to (re) distant in place (mote). Perceivable inspiration moves through ones perception, while suggested information has to be taken remotely from the distance of another.
Imagine if you could control your own mind with this. Recognizing you need to eat less or socialize more and activating the appropriate circuits as described in the article.
The problem is it will be sold to people that way but once you have chips in your brain there's no off switch
We have a bit of this already. Like viagra and ozempic. I just don't like too much taxes going to support consooming fatties. Not sure if less regulation around health insurance and PBMs is the solution though.
This is just another pharmaceutical intervention in place of actual virtue to fix bad habits. It's destined to fail and have all sorts of terrible side effects like its predecessors.
When I look at people who struggle in ways that I don't, I don't think to myself "those peasants lack virtue that someone like myself has", but I feel compassion in understanding that if they could consciously make the decision to turn off such impulses they would.
As should have been implied from my message, I agree that it's destined to fail but it will be launched maliciously from day 1 so it will fail by design in spectacular fashion
I'm sorry if you think using the word virtue means lacking compassion or just feeling better than others. I'm using the word correctly here.
Virtue is defined by Merriam-Webster as "conformity to a standard of right". So rather than promoting that conformity, a pharmaceutical intervention is a shortcut bypassing that conformity to the right way of dealing with this.
The best defense against a vice is more virtue. Though perhaps more accurate to say virtues plural. Virtues encompassing hard work, faith and discipline.
-ist (scientist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (scientism). Those who suggest -isms gain remote control over those who consent to be -ists.
Few suggest; many consent to follow suggested...that implies remote aka response to (re) distant in place (mote). Perceivable inspiration moves through ones perception, while suggested information has to be taken remotely from the distance of another.