Soon, we will all have to comply

[Michchamp]

Weighing the known, tremendous good of a technology against the unproven and much smaller damages of it...seems like a solid approach. I wouldn't be surprised by pockets of resistance; I wonder how much resistance there really is.

I'm all for continuing research, but until there's a good reason too change our strategy, we're doing the right thing. Reminds me of the GMO debate. Even the Pontifical Academy of Science (mwahaha) says GMOs are a positive step forward for evolution.

...still think people should be allowed to choose though, that goes for vaccinations and the labeling of GMOs.

the problem with choice is that it doesn't work in practice.

if you didn't need to incur the potential illness, inconvenience, cost, and pain of a vaccination because you knew everyone else had gotten one, you wouldn't.

free-rider problem.

it's what always damns the libertarian, free-market enthusiasts... sometimes freedom isn't the best option. too bad, so sad. your thinking sounded great on paper, but ignored 100's of years of human experience showing us why it doesn't work. try harder next time.

 

[redandguilty]

the problem with choice is that it doesn't work in practice.

if you didn't need to incur the potential illness, inconvenience, cost, and pain of a vaccination because you knew everyone else had gotten one, you wouldn't.

free-rider problem.

it's what always damns the libertarian, free-market enthusiasts... sometimes freedom isn't the best option. too bad, so sad. your thinking sounded great on paper, but ignored 100's of years of human experience showing us why it doesn't work. try harder next time.

We can handle some free riders. We just need to achieve herd immunity. (We don't with the flu obviously.) But it's inherently risky compelling everyone to do something. We make a lot of mistakes, we can't see the future, and we don't have the ability to keep those that would profit from influencing our political decisions. We need people to doubt and question compulsion.

 

[zyxt9]

1. Difference between shots and drug tests is the drug tests are something you naturally excrete from the body and gets collected without potential side effects. Shots are a direct assault on the human body with less than 100% known outcome.

2. It seems so trivial now, but this is exactly the type of small step that will result in companies being able to tell employees they either get connected with cyborg technology in order to perform better or be let go. The line for allowing something to be forcably applied to your own personal self just became more blurry. Military personnel won't have the choice due to being basically owned by the government.

3. Smart Nanobots will eventually be used in place of these imperfect shots and have a far greater success at keeping their hosts healthy. This will happen possibly before #2, but more likely simultaneously or very shortly afterward.

 

[Thumb]

1. Difference between shots and drug tests is the drug tests are something you naturally excrete from the body and gets collected without potential side effects. Shots are a direct assault on the human body with less than 100% known outcome.

Not the same thing, the issue is whether people have had their rights violated by their employers forcing medical procedures on them, not how invasive the procedure is.

2. It seems so trivial now, but this is exactly the type of small step that will result in companies being able to tell employees they either get connected with cyborg technology in order to perform better or be let go. The line for allowing something to be forcably applied to your own personal self just became more blurry. Military personnel won't have the choice due to being basically owned by the government.

Relax John Connor, that's not even close to a reality, and nothing is "forcably applied", all the people in these cases had a choice.

3. Smart Nanobots will eventually be used in place of these imperfect shots and have a far greater success at keeping their hosts healthy. This will happen possibly before #2, but more likely simultaneously or very shortly afterward.

I'll be sure to get a Smart Nanobot Flu Shot the next time I take the Millennium Falcon in for an oil change.

 

[redandguilty]

Relax John Connor, that's not even close to a reality, and nothing is "forcably applied", all the people in these cases had a choice.

We won't even notice it as it happens. It'll be gradual enough and it's not forced any more than the crappy parts of any job. We know staring at a screen all day is bad for you, but it would severely restrict the jobs available to many people if they refused to do it. Sitting in a chair is worse. Nobody's forced to do it, but the nation keeps on getting fatter and less healthy.

Not that this makes much of an argument in this discussion, but have you seen how companies have people pack boxes these days? Talk about taking orders from a computer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwJ398GmlYE

 

[redandguilty]

"Forced" may not be the right word. It's a pressure to comply or feel that the playing field is tiled against you. There will be early adapters looking to get an edge. More people use stuff when they see it working for the early adapters. Then the holdouts either join in or get left behind.

I'd say taking ADHD drugs in grad school has passed the early adapter stage and is gaining acceptance. I've heard one case of a professor putting his team on drugs, but only one case. The rest of us bitched about it, but it still feels like the vast majority say they won't touch the stuff.