Future wars may be fought by synapses

[test_recordings]

From: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... y_synapses

Neuroscientists consider defense applications of recent insights into the brain

By Laura Sanders

Web edition : Friday, November 11th, 2011

Instead of the indiscriminate destruction of the atom bomb or napalm, the signature weapon of future wars may be precise, unprecedented control over the human brain. As global conflicts become murkier, technologies based on infiltrating brains may soon enter countries’ arsenals, neuroethicists claim in a paper published online October 31 in Synesis. Such “neuroweapons” have the capacity to profoundly change the way war is fought.

Advances in understanding the brain’s inner workings could lead to a pill that makes prisoners talk, deadly toxins that can shut down brain function in minutes, or supersoldiers who rely on brain chips to quickly lock in on an enemy’s location.

War's getting more underhand, it seems. Unfortunately, I think this will lead to governments being more likely to sanction covert operations if they are more likely to get away with it and cause a minimum of fuss in doing so...

[Shum]

[DRTY]

[Karoshi]

Ghost in the shell??!!?

[test_recordings]

Ghost in the shell??!!?

Well possibly but without any need to be 'plugged in' or even have the controller inside the machine... just look at the current drone technology and replace the joystick with a skullcap

[ThomasEll]

Shit like this is pretty scary.



For a Computer Science student I constantly surprise myself with how anti-technology I am...

[kay]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

[ketamine]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

How about not fighting at all? Has anyone tried this?

[Shum]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

How about not fighting at all? Has anyone tried this?

[Naan_Bread]

Looks like I'm almost twenty years ahead on this one.

[Pedro Sánchez]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

How about not fighting at all? Has anyone tried this?

With great power comes great paranoia.

[kay]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

How about not fighting at all? Has anyone tried this?

I wouldn't mind not fighting at all. I have seen little evidence that the majority of the human race is interested in such an idea at the moment. Just a stopgap measure until we evolve out of it.

[test_recordings]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

How about not fighting at all? Has anyone tried this?

I wouldn't mind not fighting at all. I have seen little evidence that the majority of the human race is interested in such an idea at the moment. Just a stopgap measure until we evolve out of it.

What, little evidence? Society has become far less violent over time and people are more averse to conflict than before.... there was a book released on this very subject recently but I can't remember the title

[kay]

I would suggest that society has become less openly violent. The violence is still there. It's just in different forms.

[ThomasEll]

Wars will keep happening until we can manage to get off this planet. And once we do that we'll probably just try and find something to fight.

[RandoRando]

Wars will keep happening until we can manage to get off this planet. And once we do that we'll probably just try and find something to fight.

war is gonna happen around 2025 to 2030 era about who controls mars. Doubt me now but it will happen.

[doobyus]

I would suggest that society has become less openly violent. The violence is still there. It's just in different forms.

Violence used to be far more effective in gaining resources, whether that was through hunting, territorial disputes or pillaging and for the most part there are far more effective non-violent ways of achieving that through trade. You no longer need to be violent to rise to the top in this world although the path may exploit the vulnerable as much as the robber barons of history did.

Threats of poverty, incarceration and homelessness are far more effective than a beating, which is why the majority generally go along with what the system dictates without question. People are less likely to take risks when they're one paycheck away from losing their home.

This guy understood

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KLmy ... &q&f=false

[brettheaslewood]

FOXDIE B2B NANOMACHINES

[magma]

War should just be simulated. Less messy, less death, less waste of actual resources, less infrastructure damage. Hacking would all be part of it.

How about not fighting at all? Has anyone tried this?

I wouldn't mind not fighting at all. I have seen little evidence that the majority of the human race is interested in such an idea at the moment. Just a stopgap measure until we evolve out of it.

What, little evidence? Society has become far less violent over time and people are more averse to conflict than before.... there was a book released on this very subject recently but I can't remember the title

The Angels Of Our Better Nature - Steven Pinker

You can really take what he's saying in this several ways and it's most certainly not saying everything's even close to perfect. More people die from murder, war and abuse now than ever before - it's a lower proportion because the population is so high these days.

Friend of mine interviewed him the other week whilst I was in the middle of this book. Great chap by all accounts.