Mandatory Microchipping Coming Soon?

It appears we are gearing up for a transition to a world where everyone is microchipped, and that microchip is used to establish an individual identity. https://id2020.org/digital-identity http://www.sciencealert.com/an-invisible-quantum-dot-tattoo-is-being-suggested-to-id-vaccinated-kids http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218 https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/fksnbf/im_bill_gates_cochair_of_the_bill_melinda_gates/fkuq7vk/?context=8&depth=9 The quick rundown here is that COVID-19 will be used as an excuse to force this onto the population. ID2020 is an initiative to use a corporate/state controlled blockchain to create digital IDs for every human being. This will be tied to a microchip that is inserted with a vaccine. The microchip will record what vaccinations you have and will connect to the internet to update your blockchain record. Also, did I mention this is 100% proprietary from top to bottom? Practically speaking, what do you think will happen when this is introduced? The best case scenario here is that everyone consciously decides to leave it at just a way to track ID and viruses and nothing else, they don't go down the obvious slippery slope even though they definitely can. But obviously that won't happen. All state buildings and most private enterprises will probably have something like an RFID scanner by the door that makes sure you're up to date on your vaccines for safety reasons. If you're not up to date, you don't get to go in. And because of the extremely negative image anti-vaxxers have, people who criticize this system will be widely shunned as being biological terrorists. The only people who resist will be the very religious and the most zealous privacy advocates - we'll probably see rallies where Stallmanites and Christian fundamentalists are working together. Society will gradually change around these chips as their powers are boosted to consume more and more aspects of the world and those who reject it will be forced into worse and worse positions. The religious types will probably move into communes outside of society while the secular privacy advocates have to have their rent and food paid for by sympathetic bystanders because they can no longer work or shop at any stores. Anti-chippers will eventually be seen the same way that anti-5G, anti-phone, anti-SSN, anti-driver's license, etc. people are viewed.

With it, everybody can be immediately tracked and identified, and you could keep all of your data and apps on them, but it isn't that big of a change since that is already happening on your phone.

>>23247 Think bigger picture. No more paper money, can't buy or sell without the implant, can't enter buildings without the right criteria (eg materials previously injected into your body). Etc. I'm just tired at this point.

>This will be tied to a microchip that is inserted with a vaccine. It fits in a needle, can operate inside the human body, or can connect to the internet and run any kind of blockchain technology. Pick one. The microchip would have to be implanted surgically, and for it to be reasonable to mass-produce them they would have to be pretty much just dumb RFID responders. Easily blocked, easily spoofed. it is worrying how much personal identification is necessary these days, and how willing people are to give up their privacy and freedom. Some people are practically begging for martial law. I hear that there are a lot of jobs you just can't get now unless you have an active facebook profile. However, that said, there are many labor markets where As per 1984: the proles actually have a lot more freedom than the Outer Party members(aka middle class). The proles are easily lied to, easily distracted, as long as they're not actively starving they will not rebel. In the cases where they do rebel they find themselves unable to lead a protracted struggle, because they have never run anything. But middle the classes are more educated and more aware of the workings of society, thus more likely to rebel, and even worse, they might agitate the proles. Thus the middle class needs to be kept on a very very short leash, through a combination of propaganda and intensive surveillance. I think we all know that the situation presented in 1984, as with our modern situation, is totally unstable. It requires a very capable governing class but is designed to keep everyone ignorant to the reality of their situation, meaning that the governing class cannot stay capable for very long. All that doublethink slows you down, makes you that much worse at your job. The chinks in the armor start to show, and before you know it the government is no more. We have seen that with all the great authoritarian dictatorships of the 20th century, we're seeing it now with neoliberalism.

>>23251 oops, I dropped a sentence there. >However, that said, there are many labor markets where you can get a job with no form of ID. Think low-pay menial labor, the kind of soykaf they get migrants to do. Not good work by a long shot, it kills you after about 15 years, but nobody cares about you enough to track you.

>>23251 >Pick one. Pick all. Look up quantum dots and research nanotechnology. Start with the NATO Security Through Science Series. >The microchip would have to be implanted surgically No. It would be either grown (injected in pieces) or implanted by a machine, as in neuralink. This is the same argument Delgado made in his book, "Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a psychocivilized society". > Easily blocked, easily spoofed. Easy relative to what? In some cases it might be, in others not. If a cop wants to scan your arm and check your vaccination record, how do you spoof that without replacing or cracking the implant? It's a matter of implementation detail there, but nanotechnology and biomimetics are fairly durable. >I think we all know that the situation presented in 1984, as with our modern situation, is totally unstable. That's where Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 come in. People won't wake up and live for their own lead, they don't care.

>>23252 I think the intention is to get rid of those old world mechanics. Contain, quantify, depopulate, control. All this stuff about markets and migration are going away, the model will be a neo-Soviet planned economy, maximizing mobility of labor, minimizing degree of free and unchecked movement. Cram everyone into compact "smart" cities, high density housing, and so on. If you have a large chunk of you economy which exists solely to consume resources, "useless eaters", and do things for others who are doing the same, why would you keep them around? They're a growing liability when a large talent pool is no longer needed, they're also no longer needed as window dressing. Etc.

>>23256 I think it'll be a one world totalitarian technocracy run by people like Pinochet. Comprehensively surveilled society ruled by terror for the lower classes and pleasure for the middle classes. Global markets, recessions, mass migration, etc. are going nowhere - it's just that this will be enforced and controlled through dehumanizing technology and the liberal veil of "lifting people around the world out of poverty" will be dropped. Those that refuse to compromise their humanity will be shunned into squalor, those that rebel will be "physically removed". People who rejected credit cards and cell phones could get away with it because rejecting them was ultimately an inconvenience that would lose you friends, but you can't reject chipping because it's "a matter of public safety". There will probably be an ecofascist element, too.

>>23255 >quantum dots are not microchips(in that they do not do any computation) >nanotechnology generally does soykaf like quantum dots, which is a far cry from computation. >No. It would be either grown (injected in pieces) or implanted by a machine, as in neuralink. isn't neuralink vaporware? Anyway, the difficulty in that is that you have to keep the host from rejecting it. Easy enough when you're charging $10,000 a pop but very difficult to mass-produce due to the wide amount of variance in individuals. Perhaps there will be a whole class of people who are kept out of society because they are allergic to the id chips? That would be interesting. >Easy relative to what? In some cases it might be, in others not. If a cop wants to scan your arm and check your vaccination record, how do you spoof that without replacing or cracking the implant? you replace or crack the implant. >I think we all know that the situation presented in 1984, as with our modern situation, is totally unstable. >That's where Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 come in. People won't wake up and live for their own lead, they don't care. no. Historically, people rebel when they are literally starving, or seriously losing a war, or something equally intolerable. No matter how good the propaganda machine is, when most peoples' basic physiological needs are not being met, they will rebel. It's just about there being a critical mass of people angry enough, and with little enough to lose, that they will actually start breaking soykaf to get what they want. Combine that with an incompetent administration and an middle class sitting around and you've got yourself a revolution. My point is that that critical point will be reached sooner or later.

>>23256 >They're a growing liability when a large talent pool is no longer needed, they're also no longer needed as window dressing. The only reason we have so many technological advances is because the talent pool is gigantic. A highly technological society will require an enormous amount of people to be sustained, otherwise your technical class becomes too small to maintain it.

>>23258 >generally does soykaf like quantum dots, which is a far cry from computation. >generally Look up nano-logic gates / switches. Also synthetic biology. That exact term. >Perhaps there will be a whole class of people who are kept out of society because they are allergic to the id chips? That would be interesting. This is why it has to be nanotechnology, the body rejects everything and eventually layers off any static foreign object. Therefore it needs to be programmable, self assembling, self replication, and self maintaining nanotech networks. Their assembly would be adaptive via intra-network communication, and externally RF guided. Whether neuralink is actually feasible long term isn't really relevant. It shows the overarching intent, and it gets people familiar with the idea. >you replace or crack the implant. Implementation and social context. Can't really speculate. >My point is that that critical point will be reached sooner or later. If you realize all this, they, at some level of organization, are also aware of it. Wouldn't they have already begun to take measures? They shall love their slavery, they shall love their sterilization, they shall love their lifespan being reduced. They already love and defend all of these things. You're right nonetheless, most people don't have an industrial and civic hygiene mindset. Their risk assessment doesn't kick in unless it's clearly at their door and has teeth or a club. Compare this to the Third Reich calling people in for government functions and irradiating their genitals with an emitter under the desk. But more subtle, near omnipresent, disguised.

>>23259 This implies talent will be allowed to come from anywhere, and that large scale sprawling human settlement will continue (for the majority of people). The infrastructure is there. The work is largely done. What remains now is incremental improvements on the basic idea, which you can use autistics for. Otherwise it'll be a matter of organizational structure, who is developing, with what resources, and where. Historically the talent pool was sustained via the brain drain. I won't go into what becomes of the mid and lower classes as they're churned, but I will say it resembles Brave New World. There's a reason steadily more skilled labor, and roles in academia, in the US is done by foreigners.

>>23260 >This is why it has to be nanotechnology, the body rejects everything and eventually layers off any static foreign object. That's not true... pacemakers can last for decades. >Therefore it needs to be programmable, self assembling, self replication, and self maintaining nanotech networks. Their assembly would be adaptive via intra-network communication, and externally RF guided. self replication = replication errors = evolution, it is unavoidable. So you'd need to design them to only self-replicated a few times, and schedule regular re-injections, or risk creating the first synthetic virus. Couldn't the body also recognize nano-scale particles as foreign, as it does with allergens? It is certainly possible for very small molecules, in very small quantities, to trigger a massive allergic response. >If you realize all this, they, at some level of organization, are also aware of it. being aware of something doesn't mean you are able to do anything about it. >Wouldn't they have already begun to take measures? I'm sure they have. The CIA in particular loves to sell drugs. There's only so much they can do though, and more importantly they aren't always the ones making the decisions that make or break the functioning of the government. >Compare this to the Third Reich calling people in for government functions and irradiating their genitals with an emitter under the desk. But more subtle, near omnipresent, disguised. The Third Reich also collapsed spectacularly after less than 2 decades. Unstable.

>>23261 > The infrastructure is there. The work is largely done. What remains now is incremental improvements on the basic idea, which you can use autistics for. I disagree. Infrastructure requires maintenance to work, and unless the education system is astoundingly good(it's not, and can't be, for propaganda to be very effective), you require a large population to ensure that enough people know how to keep things working. >Historically the talent pool was sustained via the brain drain. I won't go into what becomes of the mid and lower classes as they're churned, but I will say it resembles Brave New World. There's a reason steadily more skilled labor, and roles in academia, in the US is done by foreigners. steadily more? The US's technological success has always relied on brain drain. Now it's just that the foreigners doing all the technical stuff are brown instead of Hungarian.

>>23262 >That's not true... pacemakers can last for decades. Just look into how many iterations it took to develop biocompatible materials and implantation methods though. They're still not perfect for lifelong implantation. It really depends on what you want this chip to be doing as well. The region it's being implanted also matters. eg in pets the chips they use don't really trigger an obvious chronic, low grade inflammatory response, and they're not deep enough to trigger a response from the nervous components. >self replication = replication errors = evolution, it is unavoidable. They're nanomachine networks though. The nature of the errors made and the factors regulating their awareness and response, are different. The factors regulating and driving their behavior outright are different. You're left with: -Are errors a major factor -Does that error rate reach a point where it matters in most individuals >Couldn't the body also recognize nano-scale particles as foreign The body has very little ability to excrete and traffic them effectively, so they tend to just distribute, stick, and embed everywhere. More general means of removal are used like glutathione, metallothionein, etc. These also aren't particularly useful if it's formed into a network, wrapped, and anchored itself into the glycocalyx, the extracellular matrix, through the plasma membrane, bound onto the DNA itself. The dose response to nanoaluminum in particular is known to be nonlinear, the percentage excreted of a low dose is far lower than a higher one. It tends to form "deposits". Which may actually be nano networks. >I'm sure they have. Yep. >The Third Reich also collapsed spectacularly after less than 2 decades. Unstable. The point isn't the durability of the structure (and not all structures are meant or suited to be permanent, most form as a matter of convenience, some are intermediate steps). The point is the method. Covert, subtle. And now hidden in plain sight. >>23263 Yes, but the real question is, what exactly are you maintaining? Maintenance is relative. >The US's technological success has always relied on brain drain. Yep. Hence "window dressing".

>>23266 >They're nanomachine networks though. The nature of the errors made and the factors regulating their awareness and response, are different. The factors regulating and driving their behavior outright are different. different from what? It's just a fundamental fact that self-replication leads to replication errors over time. >The body has very little ability to excrete and traffic them effectively, so they tend to just distribute, stick, and embed everywhere. More general means of removal are used like glutathione, metallothionein, etc. These also aren't particularly useful if it's formed into a network, wrapped, and anchored itself into the glycocalyx, the extracellular matrix, through the plasma membrane, bound onto the DNA itself. I'm not talking about excretion, I'm talking about allergic responses. Kind of like how some people are allergic to certain vaccines. >Yes, but the real question is, what exactly are you maintaining? Maintenance is relative. Literally just keeping things working. Roads, sewers, electricity, computer networks, factories, supply chains, etc. It takes a lot of work to keep all that stuff from falling apart.

>>23267 >different from what? It's just a fundamental fact that self-replication leads to replication errors over time. -Shrug- You know? Also, I had this idea a long time ago. Basically it would be a hardened representation of your original DNA, and would be stored around the body. Every few years the body would refer to this original template, and sound out a wave of activity to check its own DNA against it. This is technically not all that simple in biological systems, but nanomachine networks could do it with ease. They just need an embedded program to refer to as a metric. >I'm talking about allergic responses. They cause all kinds of damage and elevated baseline inflammation, but to my knowledge there's no strong systemic reaction by the immune system. Though a nanomachine network could probably see to it that this arranged... >Literally just keeping things working. Roads, sewers, electricity, computer networks, factories, supply chains, etc. For whom? Roads to where? Sewers for who? Electricity for what? Computers, factories, supply chains, to do what? You see what I'm saying? Under what system is all of this going on. What couldn't be automated could be done by slave classes. Whether that comes in the form of the epsilons from Brave New World, or as some other kind of genetically enslaved underclass. Think of the Big Daddies from Bioshock. There are ways.

They have wanted to do this a long time, its the reason why technology and society went the way it did. The sheeple of course will not question or resist any of this, they have already. Recent developments in fields of digital currency, face recognition, smart cities and chinas social credit system suggest they will want to lock up humans and real time control them in whatever way they like. Obviously they will remove any ideas and anyone who champions opinions that they dont approve of. Some people still think all our new technology like smart cities and the like will be to our benefit, but look at the way technology was used in the last 20 years, most of the time it is used to control people in the worst possible way. I dont see any form of technology used by the gov for any positive purpose. They want total control and they will do anything in order to do get it. If there is a time to get off the grid it is now.

>>23251 >it is worrying how much personal identification is necessary these day Just was talking with someone about this. Modern/Pmodern society, democracy, liberalism proclaim the individual as the ideal. But this sort of image is all kind of a public-facing illusion (What identities do you have?) but needs to be constantly and formally defined (in one's career, social media profiles,etc). Anonymity is beautiful because you retain the individual without having to define it. But every effort of what is now defined as "progress(ive)" appears to be anti-ethical to this. Sadly, I think the best solution would be along the lines of "do the best to protect your privacy, flee to the woods when things get bad". idk >>23257 I guess everyone is ruled by pleasure right now. Debord said something similar in society of the spectacle, Adorno, Deleuze, Baudrillard, probably many others. Heck my reading of Infinite Jest was ironically centered around this. Everyone sedated by entertainment. Need to further deprogram myself, as I still love twitter haha. I think the way to liberate thinking lies in reading, and responding to great thinkers. And then deciding what to do with all that. In addition to just not interfacing with entertainment, and having no desire to be pinned down by an identity.

I don't think it'll be mandatory chipping, but it'll be an introduction for the "new normal". They know there are too many Christians who would connect this to the Mark of the Beast and would flip out if they were forced to take it. It'll probably be introduced as a voluntary thing you can sign up for that will help you leave quarantine quicker (will probably be given to celebrities first, who will promote it), then they'll slowly boil the frog by tying it to more and more parts of society as more people adopt it (you can do contactless payments with the chip and most stores will stop taking cash, your passport is tied to the chip and traditional passports are now "legacy", etc.). The religious and the privacy fundamentalists will move onto the fringes of society. I doubt the elites will bother going after them because 99% of people will submit eventually, they'll let these people live in their tiny permaculture compounds in Alaska with their guns because they know they'll never be able to properly rise up and it gives disgruntled people in the "new normal" a way to leave instead of creating Unabombers.

A lot of people will resist getting some inorganic thing put in their bodies, don't worry.

Some sort of medical implant might be the only solution if the virus has ADE

>>23242 I'd call it surprising how I'd never seen this ID2020 until it was mentioned on Lainchan a few months back, but it's obvious to me the usual information channels wouldn't discuss it much until instructed. One of the good things about the extreme Christianity in the US is how people would resist mandatory chipping, rightfully seeing it as the Mark of the Beast, although I've argued cell phones could be the mark to some agreement but no change in behaviour from them. >The religious types will probably move into communes outside of society while the secular privacy advocates have to have their rent and food paid for by sympathetic bystanders because they can no longer work or shop at any stores. It's disheartening when I think about how I'll probably never own a home and how I struggle to find work; it communicates just how little my society actually values people like me. I never imagined any of this as a child, but I can see myself becoming one of these secular privacy advocates. >Anti-chippers will eventually be seen the same way that anti-5G, anti-phone, anti-SSN, anti-driver's license, etc. people are viewed. I didn't have a choice with the SSN and even I have a driver's license, not that I like either, but there's a big leap from getting photographic and other information in a database and being chipped like an animal. That website reads something to the effect of people deserve a persistent identity that follows them from birth to death; that's what livestock have. >>23296 That's a good point, but I wouldn't necessarily put it past those in power to push their luck. They want this to apply to everyone and already do plenty that causes modern terrorism, so I think it could go either way.

Not surprising, this stuff has been happening for years. What is surprising is Bill Gates publicly admitting that he would chip people for not vaccinating. Scary how open they are about doing this

>>23242 >force this onto the population >force Impossible. The population choose to take it or not. The 1789 French revolution is an example of the population not taking it. The 1773 American revolution is an example of the population not taking it. If it happens, it is what the majority WANT.

>>23510 Yes, and as usual I'm not the starry eyed delusional majority. Anon, what you're stating is implicit. We all know they're going to hype and dress this up to trick the majority of people who will act as, in effect, a proxy army. As usual. Then you're essentially subjugated or forced out and pruned from the system, which is exactly how social credit etc will pan out.

https://bitcoinist.com/microsoft-wants-to-replace-asics-with-basic-humans/ Found the usecase tied to it. >Logs data of your body for crypto reward >poor users in crisis forced to go borg hivemind

>>24022 Yes, that's what the chemtrails, wireless devices, and vaccinations are for. To load our bodies up with enough nanometals to RF guide / self assemble them into nanomachines. The individual is then essentially part of a computer network. They store data, they process, they transceive (mesh network), etc. People will never accept until it's too late. Many people can't wrap their mind around the basic concept. My advice, accept that it's going to happen, and begin preparing.

>>23256 The thing is, those useless eaters aren't useless eaters. If you have a small, technologically advanced and satisfied elite, ruling over a large, less advanced and universally unsatisfied populace, the revolution won't be impossible. But if you have a hyper-advanced elite, a knowledgeable and unhappy middle class, and a large, satisfied, ignorant lower class, the upper and lower classes can effectively squeeze the middle class. It's the middle class that does the work the upper class needs but doesn't want to do itself. How do you ensure the middle class is comfortable enough to do advanced but not powerful work, but anxious enough to not rebel? You maintain a decently large population of human cattle to scare the people capable of change.

>>24073 The way things are going you will be 24/7 under ai surveillance. China does is already partially automated. The guy on top wont have to worry about any uprising because the system can kill it at the individual level as soon as the thought enters. The idea cant even spread when its intercepted as all communication channels are under review. The only way i can see the top fail is the increasing complexity of tech making it too obscure to be understood and thus the human at the top find themselves standing at the mercy of the system itself likewise. Its pointless theorizing but i find the idea kinda endearing -humanity growing slowly their tech lvl til the babylon tower collapses causing a fallback into dark ages and restarting the process again. The old achievements only remembered as distant tales of gods in fairy tales.

>>24076 it sounds scary until you realize that China and the NSA are still helpless to stop actual uprisings when they occur. Were they able to stop <insert some recent terrorist attack here>? Were they able to stop <insert some recent riots here>? No. They have only the illusion of control, which is powerful, but no more real than the illusion of peace.

>>24077 er *before they occur in the end it's always brute force that stops these things when they occur. And brute force can be overwhelmed.

>>24077 Why stop it? Crime is desired. Without it nobody would fund the guys paid to stop it. God im soykaf with names but their highest lawmaker guy got caught on an email takling to get ready for the next terrorist attack to pass laws making use of the fear. They want it to get the public support.

>>24080 so, clearly, their control is really via propaganda, which breaks down over time. The laws they want to pass don't really stop their system from falling apart, they get them more mind-points... in other words, once people are really on the edge, their power is illusory. Am I correct in this?

>>24087 Why would propaganda break down? Assuming it really reaches perfection to the point of everyone living in a automatically surveiled bubble you wouldn't even know about things going wrong and if you somehow came to know you would doubt it being true. We already reached this point where people don't believe anything outside their approved sources.

>>23247 Having a cell phone is not mandatory. Vaccines are.

Forget about chipping it might not be 50 years off you need neural implants to be able to get a job because the difference in productivity would be so large.

Everyone will be enslaved.

As many lainons mentioned 1984 and the like. Now, consider a global government, as they already suggested with the whole corona situation. We can make this simile: 1%ers -> Inner party 1st world countries -> Outer party 3rd world countries -> Proles Now, I'm not saying that we are already in 1984, but the skeleton is there. The only missing piece is an enemy to unite the people (coronachan?). >>23274 >If there is a time to get off the grid it is now. In this moment it may be too rushed to make it a worthwhile endeavour. You will quickly become an outcast, and, while some people can handle it, a lot of people is not prepared to handle it. My suggestion, and what I plan to do with my life, is to become more independent on each step. If I moved to the woods to become an anarco-primitivist right now I would probably die. Too many things I don't know and I have to take care of. However, a nice start can be to procure a nice home in the country-side instead of an apartment in a big city. Learn about off-grid electricity solutions, learn farming, how to repair your stuff, etc. Incremental changes will give you time to learn how to take care of yourself and to collect the needed assets.

>>24028 I heard of similar rumors, though in those it was said that the em bullshit, bad food, pollution, heavy metals and all the rest were to reduce human immune system to allow the nanites to bind better to its host. I suppose both statements would seem to make sense. Contrary to public knowledge technology to facilitate this has been available for a while now and deep state operatives have access to much more sophisticated tech. Humanity will never wake up, they have been warned and given the chance to act, but chose to ignore those and just keep going with its selfish ways as it always did. There is only one way for human society to end, sooner or later. >>24077 Why stop uprisings? The powers that be have found ways to gain from social unrest, in fact in some occasions uprisings have been engineered. In my view this society and is made and controlled by and for the purpose spawning pure evil and i dont mean evil in a metaphoric moral sense, but a intelligent force that seeks to dominate and control all of humanity. The most interesting aspect is just how brainwashed and controlled most people are, they dont recognize evil even when its staring them in the face. We will see how far this goes and if humanity will ever get to the point where it will understand what is happening.

people spread this, but has no one looked at the whois?

>>24132 >The powers that be have found ways to gain from social unrest, in fact in some occasions uprisings have been engineered. In some occasions. Unrest is unpredictable, and is thus a greater risk than order. It's sort of like starting a wildfire and hoping it does what you want it to. >In my view this society and is made and controlled by and for the purpose spawning pure evil and i dont mean evil in a metaphoric moral sense, but a intelligent force that seeks to dominate and control all of humanity. lmao. Never attribute to malice what can equally be attributed to stupidity. The reality is that nothing makes a lick of sense, order diverges to chaos and chaos converges to order, control is always temporary and nobody has learned that lesson yet.

>>24133 what about it?

>>24088 when you're starving, it doesn't matter what your phone says, your hindbrain will take control and make you get food by any means necessary. When they stop providing food, because of crop failures or because they just don't care enough, what happens?

>>24160 >lmao. Never attribute to malice what can equally be attributed to stupidity. I think it's fairly obvious it's deliberate. There's an overarching agenda that spans decades. We're basically living in a covert eugenics program, though the ultimate purpose can only be assumed to be control, though it's easy to speculate about other endgames for this force. I believe in organization and order. That's the way things work. When the cell goes to generate a protein, from the perspective of all the downstream parts, is it all random events? This idea that there's chaos and randomness has held us back and now brought us to ruin. In reality it's a form of stockholm syndrome, trauma based dissociation.

>>24161 if this really was conducted or even backed by microsoft et al they wouldn't be on fuarking godaddy. I say it's a fib.

>>23242 In Soviet Russia, vaccine gets YOU!

>>24247 >I believe in organization and order. That's the way things work. then your belief is wrong. Organization and order can never ever be permanent, it is physically impossible. >When the cell goes to generate a protein, from the perspective of all the downstream parts, is it all random events? No, it's chaotic events. Deterministic chaos, unpredictable and almost never stable. A cell is sort of like a semistable configuration, like a small pool of still water in rushing rapids, it can keep itself alive for a while and maybe even reproduce but eventually it will die and cease to be a discernible structure. This kind of temporarily stable-looking organization exists on all levels. The rise and fall of nations is an example. Even the orbits of planets in the Solar system is chaotic, just on levels that humans can't really comprehend. Their Lyupanov time is something like 800 million years.

>>24274 oh wow, I was way off, the Lyupanov time of the solar system's orbits is only about 5 million years according to wackypedia.

>>24274 this view can be taken even further if you consider that order only exists because your mind imposes it. you might be able to predict things or believe that you understand them in situations where the inconsistencies between your mental model and experiences "dissipate" and don't strongly impact the interactions of the "macro" objects. however, in the case of highly chaotic systems any difference between how you expect something will happen and how you actually perceive it happening will make those expectations useless almost immediately. so really the question isn't whether or not there is order, it's a question of how readily your mind is able to project order onto the underlying phenomena it perceives.

TL;DR: Cyberpunk is now, and we're disappointed.

>>24132 When humanity will understand it, it will be too late to change soykaf.

>>24160 >It's sort of like starting a wildfire and hoping it does what you want it to. Is this not a thing that is actually done for environmental benefits? Burn some portion of a forest in a controlled fire in order to prevent a larger, uncontrolled fire from starting on its own?

>>28140 those kinds of controlled burns are very different from a wildfire. They are actively managed so that the flames don't get too big, usually they are pre-contained(wildfires are *contained* not put out) and are only set on windless days.

Nanomachines son

>>23269 The driving force of evolution, as I understand it, is mutation. Mutations are spontaneous changes in the DNA (a molecule) caused by radiation (in other words photons with enough energy) that upsets the original sequence of the DNA. Given that this is a phenomenon that occurs at the molecular scale, and the factors affecting it are environmental (radiation) wouldn't any nanomachine be vulnerable to those same factors? Regardless of the nanomachines store their information. It seems to me there would be no 100% reliable way for the original nanomachine information to be preserved inside the body. If the body depends on a "master blueprint" for referral in future repairs, damage to that one "master blueprint" could be disastrous for the body. If it were to depend on the "master blueprint" to be cross referenced among many nanomachines to verify the integrity of the original information, the risk remains of variations slipping by and being replicated.

>>29918 yes, Von Neumann pointed this out almost a century ago and nobody except pseudoscientists thinks it's possible to overcome. All self-replicating things evolve, at mass scales it takes extreme effort to keep them doing what you want them to do.

>>29918 You don't have to run them in raid 0.

>>29927 You're right. Having them be self correcting through the cross referencing of their information among many nanomachines would be comparatively more reliable. However, it would still be vulnerable to natural evolution. After all, that's essentially what natural cells do and variations (harmful, beneficial or redundant) manage to slip by. As I understand it anyway.

>>29928 yes this is in fact exactly what natural cells do, they also have very robust redundancy checks (almost all genetic code is redundant). Mutations are still common enough that evolution happens, quite quickly in bacteria.

>>29918 You're assuming strictly intra-network and self regulation. There are multiple other layers of redundancy to be built in, including external RF-based guidance. >>29920 Clearly false. Look at... honestly, literally anything. Look at quite literally anything, From a human city, to an ant colony, to an organism, to a flock of birds, to the structures in radiolaria, aspens and various fungus. What you're saying is vastly oversimplified and simply is not reflected by the natural world. BNanomachines in the body have an environment to regulate them as well, and they would be designed with this mode of feedback and control in mind. Control is built into a system as much as it is imposed upon it.

>>30544 >Clearly false. Look at... honestly, literally anything. okay, let's look at all the things you listed. Oh look, all of them evolve *drastically* over time due to replication errors. Hence Von Neumann's point. When was the last time you've heard of a city staying exactly the same for a year? Ten years? A hundred years? My neighborhood was an empty field a hundred years ago. What makes you think that tells me anything about the permanence of nanomachines other than "they aren't"? >Nanomachines in the body have an environment to regulate them as well, and they would be designed with this mode of feedback and control in mind. Control is built into a system as much as it is imposed upon it. The point is that the nanomachines would naturally evolve in a way which the designers may not have intended. The body itself will not regulate that the nanomachines do *what you intend them to do*. Nothing will, except for more injections of nanomachines. The ones that do have replication errors will eventually evolve to outcompete the ones that do not, since it is *extremely* unlikely that the nanomachines as they are built occupy a local maximum of the fitness function. You always cite things like "multiple layers of redundancy" but natural systems have that too. In fact they have it on a scale which human engineers could only dream of. Each gene in the human body is multiply redundant and error-corrected, cells will self-destruct if they detect an error, the body itself has mechanisms to detect mutations and kill them, and there are *still* catastrophic replication errors.

>>30544 >>30872 also, if you want to get into the minutae of control theory, there is a notion of "uncontrollable system", they are quite common in nature. So your "feedback and control" would simply not work, at least not if you're using those terms like a control theorist would.

>>30872 >okay, let's look at all the things you listed. Oh look, all of them evolve *drastically* over time due to replication errors No, they don't. That's the whole point. The overarching function and stgructure is relatively fixed even if its constituent parts change, and even greatly change their form, the broader structure and its behavior remains. Using your example of a city, which I have stated is identical to a biological system at any level of organization (cell, tissue, organism, population, ecology) the most striking thing is not the differences that arise, but how much stays the same. The "urban sprawl" can be modeled and predicted. The cores of cities have retained the exact same geometry since their founding. There are theaters around the world, for instanc ein London, which have been performing the exact same show, same script, same location, same everything, for over 100 years. Nothing changes. Almost as though it *cannot* change, without equivalent of death. All animals do this. Their is an initial spark, a development as they come into being. A period of growth. Inner conflict. Stagnation. Withering. Then death, leaving behind its basic supporting structure, its "bones", as the rest of it dissolves and is taken up by other structures. You cannot rearrange a body, it will fight you all the way. To begin anew requires death. This is at the heart of transgenerational information transmission. It's not a slow drift as error accumulates, the system is finite and has certain embedded assumptions that result in maintaining a certain average range across a wide range of conditions. >The point is that the nanomachines would naturally evolve in a way which the designers may not have intended. My point is that this doesn't matter. Can't make an omelette.... and so forth. But even so, the ability modulate behavior would be built in. Nanomachines can assemble many structures which can durably store information and interact with the surrounding environment, and they can be quite limited in their capacity for evolution to begin with. >The body itself will not regulate that the nanomachines do *what you intend them to do* It will constrain them to a certain range. Cells resmbled coupled oscillators. Their chemical and electromagnetic emission spectra can be characterized, their subcomponents have a limited range of stable vibrational modes. The presence of nano anything will not be inert in the body (there will be many negative effects), but the two can be made to work towards a desired end. >You always cite things like "multiple layers of redundancy" but natural systems have that too. Natural systems developed to have limtiations synthetic systems do not. They also developed to have vast advantages that synthetic systems do not. They're different systems. In man, an artificial animal in an artificial environment, considering nanotechnology as more like a "parasite" is a better way to look at it. It's also capable of networking with different forms of storage, which biological cells are quite limited in. They can't check themselves against a central database, ask their neighbor, and so forth. The whole manner of "replication" is different as well. It's more a pleomorphism, they don't necessarily need to assemble something like themselves, nor another discrete unit. It's more like how a crystal grows.

>>30873 >there is a notion of "uncontrollable system", they are quite common in nature. Eh, but does it even matter? You can't necessarily strictly predict nor control events on the level of ion flux through a narrow intercellular space, and yet, birth to death, your brainstem sends a signal to make your heart beat. Your lungs breathe. You gut to be adequately motile at the correct times. All of your autonomic functions. For 100 years in some cases, it shall do this. Where is the lack of control? It does it, we know it does it, clearly it is good enough? So too of the muscle fiber, you go to move and its a rare occasion you cannot get the limb or whatever to do the gist of what you wanted.

Why would anyone microchip when we have image and audio analysis along with walking patterns and heart rhythm that could identify people?

>>30875 >The overarching function and stgructure is relatively fixed even if its constituent parts change, and even greatly change their form, the broader structure and its behavior remains. They don't though. Cities now are very very different from how they operated even just 100 years ago, and would be unrecognizeable to an urbanite 1000 years ago. >The "urban sprawl" can be modeled and predicted. The cores of cities have retained the exact same geometry since their founding. Not ancient cities. Tenochtitlan, these days called "Mexico city", has three layers: one Aztec, one Spanish, one Mexican. It's been continuously inhabited all that time, it's still in some sense the same city, but the old stuff slowly got buried or weathered away. Most ancient cities are like this in some form. There are some (such as Baghdad and Damascus) that are so old that they have had to move over time. I would really like to see what you base your example of modelling and predicting urban sprawl on, that sounds very interesting. >There are theaters around the world, for instanc ein London, which have been performing the exact same show, same script, same location, same everything, for over 100 years. Psh. 100 years is nothing in city time, the city superorganism has a fantastically slow metabolic rate compared to most biological organisms. >Nothing changes. Almost as though it *cannot* change, without equivalent of death. What do you think LA was like before cars were common? It was *completely* different. Maybe some streets are still similar but if you think about these things in terms of function, rather than focusing on vestigial organs, you will see that the LA of today operates in nearly a completely different manner from the LA of way back when. Cities change quite a lot over time. >You cannot rearrange a body, it will fight you all the way. What is surgery then? >It's not a slow drift as error accumulates, the system is finite and has certain embedded assumptions that result in maintaining a certain average range across a wide range of conditions. I entreat you to prove this non-circularly. >>The point is that the nanomachines would naturally evolve in a way which the designers may not have intended. >My point is that this doesn't matter. Uh, it sure *seems* like it matters. After all there is supposedly some goal to making these nanomachines and if they don't accomplish that goal, why bother with them? >But even so, the ability modulate behavior would be built in. Nanomachines can assemble many structures which can durably store information and interact with the surrounding environment, So do human cells, probably with more redundancy and behavior modulation than any artificial nanomachine could have, and yet people still die of cancer. I'm also curious what you think the storage and computational density on massively distributed sensor networks could be, how these things could self-organize, etc. Distributed algorithms are an interest of mine, and since the only sensible fault-tolerance model in this scenario would be byzantine I would expect any working protocol to be very inefficient indeed. >and they can be quite limited in their capacity for evolution to begin with. Then the slow-evolving ones will be outcompeted by the fast-evolving ones, because they almost certainly won't start at a local fitness optimum. >It will constrain them to a certain range. Cells resmbled coupled oscillators. Their chemical and electromagnetic emission spectra can be characterized, their subcomponents have a limited range of stable vibrational modes. The presence of nano anything will not be inert in the body (there will be many negative effects), but the two can be made to work towards a desired end. a bold claim, care to back it up? Just because you can know certain things about the cell doesn't mean you know enough to make it do what you want, and it certainly doesn't mean that these magical nanomachines that never have any replication errors will be able to proceed to a desired end reliably. >It's also capable of networking with different forms of storage, which biological cells are quite limited in. There's not really a fundamental reason why biological cells couldn't interact with electrical machinery, it's just that there's not a particular reason for them to do so as of yet. >They can't check themselves against a central database, ask their neighbor, and so forth. They can quite literally ask their neighbor, the study of how it works is called endorcinology and it is *extremely* complicated. How would a nanomachine even check against a central database? Would they need to do 2 million database lookups a second? Do you intend to somehow run a nontrivial hashing algorithm on something whose length is measured in nanometers? >The whole manner of "replication" is different as well. It's more a pleomorphism, they don't necessarily need to assemble something like themselves, nor another discrete unit. It's more like how a crystal grows. It's relatively rare for a crystal to form with high fidelity. They have environmental stressors like everything else and usually they end up as cloudy misshapen lumps. It is perhaps true that you could get a cloudy misshapen lump with some underlying crystal structure (to extend your metaphor) but will it look like how you want it to look? No guarantee. >>30876 >Eh, but does it even matter? Considering how you are claiming that the subject of our discussion is controllable (in an almost literal sense -- coupled oscillators are a sort of prototypical example from control theory), then yes, it does matter. >You can't necessarily strictly predict nor control events on the level of ion flux through a narrow intercellular space, and yet, birth to death, your brainstem sends a signal to make your heart beat. Your lungs breathe. You gut to be adequately motile at the correct times. All of your autonomic functions. For 100 years in some cases, it shall do this. Where is the lack of control? "control" in control theory means making a system evolve to fit constraints, using only "permissible" moves. It has nothing to do with the bare facts of nature -- yes, my heart beats, because it is just so, it turns out that humans with beating hearts will tend to reproduce and I guess that's how I got a heart that beats regularly. But I'm sure that you do not know a way to force a heart to continue beating regularly, because even something as relatively simple as the heartbeat(which by the way is *not* caused by a signal from the brain stem, your brain can modify the heartbeat but the beat itself is fully autonomic) is very difficult to control, in the sense of control theory, using any permissible moves anyone knows of. You claim that it is possible for these nanomachines to evolve to fit constraints, i.e. to accomplish some goal. Yet it remains to be seen if this is actually true, in fact it remains to be seen if there is any rigor at all to your claims.