Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @06:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the next-level-sterilization dept.

[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)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:35PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @07:35PM (#213297) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 24 2015, @07:55PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday July 24 2015, @07:55PM (#213306) Homepage

    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

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @07:58PM (#213307) Journal

      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

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @11:41PM (#213378) Journal

      And we need to stop motherfuckers who lack the resources to take care of their kids, from having kids.

      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

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Saturday August 01 2015, @05:25PM (#216791) Journal

        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

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 02 2015, @01:54AM (#216905) Journal

          We have THOUSANDS of years of culture developed, where the abundance of children was of economic security.

          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