general Microchipping humans may be one argument religious people have for pro religious movements

[SkyMame92 16]

Since religion isnt technically dead, it has been heavily undermined as irrational. But considering Microchipping is a scary thing creeping in society. First it is voulantarily, then it becomes mandatory. Usually how it works. Religion may be one force left that can form as a superstitious group to object to corporate greed rather than allow it.

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by SkyMame92

[Justin_Case001 4,855]

Hmm.  While I'd like to take more time to formulate a good response, I've got to dive in here quick before this gets locked.  (I'm still soured that we can't talk about interesting things anymore...  )  I'm not very familiar with this human microchipping tech, but it's definitely not something I'd be comfortable with for myself.  However, I disagree that backwards, iron-age superstition is the only force that can oppose it.  If some people did try to make something like this mandatory, I believe that secular humanism is more than adequately equipped to oppose such violations of bodily autonomy with reason and rationality.  For once, I'm not worried.

[Props Valroa 26,038]

I know this will probably be locked but I am very against the idea of being microchipped.

[King of Canterlot 9,588]

Why would anyone even want to be microchipped? We're not pets 

[Sazama Ichida 2,352]

These things are gonna shorten peoples lives. I mean really, this can't be healthy. I'm calling it right now. These things are gonna start giving people cancer, metal poisoning and more.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

[Comment re-inserted. I see the thread is still open which indicates to me that the staff currently do not oppose the topic discussed.]

How would microchips in humans be normalized? My speculation would be something like the following. Perhaps some technocratic special interest will lobby to government officials and push propaganda stating that micro-chipping is progressive and inevitable and that people may as well embrace it sooner rather than later (mentions of the rejection or suggestions for alternatives to micro-chipping will be avoided). Then perhaps micro-chipping will become the new fad and most influential people, politicians, "experts", celebrities, and anyone else who has significant influence in shaping public opinion may go on to promote such a thing because it is progress and people love progress. Anyone who opposes this fad will be accused of being irrational, backwards, enemies of progress, and so on and any concerns about privacy simply dismissed as non-issues.

Let us return to early 2020 and assume this technology is more advanced and prevalent. Politicians can decide that all citizens will be required to be micro-chipped with the justification that it helps them keep track of who has and who does not have Coronavirus. While the public was initially more in panic with the initial outbreak of the disease, they are temporarily more submissive and servile than they would be in more regular times. This is perfect opportunity for the government to expand their power and they could make micro-chipping mandatory and, in propaganda, emphasize the ability to track the spread of disease and other benefits; never mind concerns about privacy and other trivial matters. After time has past, micro-chipping is now the new normal. People have accepted it as legitimate. Perhaps there will be complaints about the effectiveness of the micro-chips, but the range of topics will only be on how to further develop the technology; suggestions to reverse mandatory micro-chipping will be off-limits. Proportional to the extent to which the population was rendered submissive and servile, to then go on to say that micro-chipping is immoral would take on more political effort; it is far easier to just continue on with the new normal. It may be the case that, at this point, anyone who wishes to oppose micro-chipping will be accused of being dangers to society and selfish for preferring people to die rather than wanting some little bit of selfish privacy. If there is indeed a discrepancy between the people and the elites, then, best case scenario for those opposing such measures, the negative reaction by the people must be so overwhelming that micro-chipping must become a taboo subject for multiple generations to come. Otherwise, the views expressed by users in this thread will become seen as antiquated by future generations or perhaps even by the same users in the future.

 

5:35 - "Sweden is set to become the world's first cashless society..."

Efforts such as these strikes me as being rather disturbing.

 

Edited November 30, 2020 by Luna the Great of all the Russias

[Evil Pink One 12,974]

Religion isn't bad... Its main purpose is to make people do good things.... Bbbuttt! Someone has to make quick bucks out of it. Politics isn't bad aswell... Alot of things arent supposed to be bad.... 

Money isn't

Science, isn't bad

That micro chip in your body. Its purpose isn't bad!... Its the greedy bastards... Miss using stuff

Either they gonna make cheap materials, or control you.

 

[Sazama Ichida 2,352]

This is unethical and evil. It's a way to control people. There's some kind of conspiracy here I tell you! Surely the united states government wouldn't sink this low...Would they?

[Props Valroa 26,038]

5 minutes ago, Asbel Lhant said:

This is unethical and evil. It's a way to control people. There's some kind of conspiracy here I tell you! Surely the united states government wouldn't sink this low...Would they?

My thoughts exactly. I believe they already have, but still. 

[Misty Shadow 7,084]

Not a dig against religion, but why do you even need a religion to see that microchipping is a human rights violation? 

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

20 hours ago, Asbel Lhant said:

This is unethical and evil. It's a way to control people. There's some kind of conspiracy here I tell you! Surely the united states government wouldn't sink this low...Would they?

20 hours ago, Califorum said:

My thoughts exactly. I believe they already have, but still. 

I tend to be on the side of pessimism. I do not see why Americans themselves would not eventually come to embrace such things as progressive and desirable. With enough crises and propaganda, the metaphorical boiling frog, any population can be made to be increasingly submissive and servile as has been the case for the United States over the past century or so. The unprecedented growth in the role of government during the Great Depression being the notable case. In 1900, for instance, the American government did nearly nothing as it has done since the founding of the United States. Some thirty years later, Roosevelt signs an executive order which allowed the government to confiscate gold owned by the American people and, to my knowledge, to whatever extent there was dissent by the citizens, it was not sufficient to reverse the order being carried out.

Do Americans really value liberty or are they increasingly desiring minimal contentment in exchange for liberties revoked? The sort of attitude of which I am thinking is the following: "I do not personally want to take responsibility to maintain the social cohesion of my community or to be productive. I want to instead have that responsibility assigned to some politicians and bureaucrats. Liberty intimidates me because it is too chaotic. I desire stable totalitarianism who will provide me my needs and I desire the amount of sacrifices I make to be minimal." Though perhaps such a sentiment would be expressed in more euphemistic ways. And if such an order requires micro-chipping, why not listen to what the leaders, "experts", celebrities, etc. say is best for you? To me it seems that liberty has become an increasingly abstract and antiquated notion for generations in the United States.

Edited November 30, 2020 by Luna the Great of all the Russias

[SharpWit 2,472]

Not sure how religion plays a significant role in this? But I don't think microchips are anything to worry about for a few simple reasons.

We know they wouldn't cause any degredation to your health if implanted properly, because we already put these things in our pets. The most they're ever going to do is maybe migrate off to the side.

Short of someone logging into your own devices and accounts while you're next to them unconscience, these chips don't pose a technological risk. They act as a key, and get be used to access anything of yours alone.

For the same reasoning, a chip alone can't be used to track you. At most it could be used as a form of identification.

Our governments already have the means to access our criminal, medical, and financial records, and can track down additional information, including our location via the voluntary use of cellphones.

So there's no need to worry about human rights violations because there's no reason to do so a second time over with an impractical method.

[Stardust 640]

I know that a certain kind of christians quote a part of the bible about the mark of the devil (which is also often used against the idea of tattoos). Also popular amongst conspiracy theorists. Not totally related but like they say how certain foods have certain tracking devices in them probably not true (im sure there is much debunking) but the idea comes from the existence of real tech.

But I think its a concern for everyone.

Honestly transhumanists r like blegh to me. They can say how they like its not a security concern or its a convenience and not much different to what we have already. Unless there is a need for it like u have apart of body broken etc overall tech inside ur body is just like meh. But worse is tracking things. I guess dogs and other animals already get microchipped. But i think this kind of tech is just gonna lead to more herd control.

Not sure ppl will let it happen but in the future if it medical implants are normalised they could be used for more than just this, tracking may be a small concern in comparison.

Edited November 30, 2020 by flurry

[SparklingSwirls 21,261]

I think this will definitely become more common in the future, even in just the next 5-10 years or so. It could potentially save people's lives because in an emergency situation all someone's medical data could be accessed by the hospital in an instant. On the other hand there is the big question about who will have access to the data and what would happen in case of a security breach. Maybe that's why this really took off in Sweden, because there is more trust in the government over there.

I don't really see what this has to do with religion.