SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[A] report noted that the chip is expected to remain viable for at least 16 years once implanted.
While the "target" population is poor, third-world women, such technology is, of course, ripe for abuse. After all, think about it: If that demographic is the primary target, why would the chips need to be encrypted? How many third-world populations have within their midst the technological capability or the power to resist?
When he began Microsoft, Bill Gates likely never thought he'd become rich enough to hold the power of life in his hands. Talk about your "evil corporations."
The sourced article says that the encryption is meant to prevent hackers or cybercriminals from accessing the device. Robert Langer says the chips could hit the market in 2018.
Additionally: This amazing remote-controlled contraceptive microchip you implant under your skin is the future of medicine [Washington Post] (July 17, 2014)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @06:46PM
Luckily, one of the (at least two) states of the device is "off", and there are many smartphones in the developing world.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @06:49PM
Right, and people have a right to reproduce if they want to. But recent history has shown giving people power over when they reproduce tends to be good for society, and limits birth rates naturally.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 24 2015, @07:02PM
"limits birth rates naturally."
Yep - that image looks pretty natural to me!
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:11PM
Two pedants walk into a bar.
Okay fine. To be more precise: two pedants get beaten to death with a bar.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday July 24 2015, @07:28PM
The problem in the world is not created by a super-abundance of of the impoverished.
It is the superfluity of the mega-rich.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:35PM
There world can have more than one problem.
Population strain has had its negative effects and will continue to do so. It's not that I see there as being a surplus of people, just that there are some problems that are exacerbated by rapid population growth.
If the 20th century was characterized by enormous explosive technological improvement in economic efficiency, the 21st needs to be the gradual shift to sustainable versions of those economies. Like, we want to be able to move people from abject poverty to comfortable, stable living. And we don't want that to demand the whole world using the amount of fossil fuels per capita that the US does. That'd be a disaster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 24 2015, @07:55PM
And we need to stop motherfuckers who lack the resources to take care of their kids, from having kids.
This is the one time I agree with Ol' Billy. Go Billy!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:58PM
The problem is that you can have kids much more easily than you can have a sustainable healthy, productive lifestyle.
Hell, complete dipshits like you can get by, and you're barely capable of forming an opinion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 24 2015, @11:41PM
It simple: give them enough resources to take care of their kids and they'll stop having kids. Happens with all societies passing the under-developed stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday August 01 2015, @05:25PM
We have THOUSANDS of years of culture developed, where the abundance of children was of economic security.
That changes when - as you say - alternative security is allowed for and supported.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday August 02 2015, @01:54AM
Those thousands of years of culture based on "economic security" still doesn't make "passing the under-developed stage" as a society.
Look closer what happens withing the last 50 years or so - every time there's economic and social security, the population stops booming within 1-2 generations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday August 02 2015, @02:31AM
Exactly. Children cease to be a survival necessity.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 24 2015, @08:29PM
That's the best, wish you could get a +50 on that.
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Friday July 24 2015, @08:15PM
There's more than one context and more than one connotation for "natural".