Micro-chipping in Humans - Share your view

[Aikayai]

My cat recently went missing. Its a horrible feeling of not knowing if she is safe or not. This lead me to a conversation with my friends about how the local council identify lost or deceased pets using a microchip. Our cat is chipped and while we cannot locate her with it, it will be used when she is found. The conversation turned to microchips in humans and that is where the conversation took a bizarre turn when I learned that they are disallowed purely because it would spark a religious debate, particularly in predominantly Christian countries.

As one argument puts it, a microchip is considered the "Mark of the Devil". This is the argument against having a chip system to identify loved ones in case of an accident or provide emergency contact information. I could understand the argument being fear of information being provided to the wrong people but instead we have this.

I would like peoples views on the matter and possibly a discussion for and against to get some insight into what people actually want. I won't include a poll, but I will make note of everyone's opinion.

 

[Glongpre]

I would be against it because it would take away your privacy and possibly eventually your freedom.

Why worry about your cat so much, it can take care of itself, if it couldn't it wouldn't have run away.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm somewhere inbetween. While it will be useful when when you're lost (like lost in sea or in the desert etc) but I sure as hell don't like to be monitor 24/7.

 

[Heronblade]

I would be against it because it would take away your privacy and possibly eventually your freedom.

Why worry about your cat so much, it can take care of itself, if it couldn't it wouldn't have run away.

Uh, how?

At least assuming the chips in question work the same way as those used with pets, it is no different than the driver's license and other identifying documents most of us carry around every day. When it gets to something a bit more... advanced, like a GPS locator, then you might have an argument.

P.S. Cats are by and large rather arrogant, they get in over their heads all the time on their own. He is right to be concerned.

I'm somewhere inbetween. While it will be useful when when you're lost (like lost in sea or in the desert etc) but I sure as hell don't like to be monitor 24/7.

The chips in question only help with identification, not navigation or anyone else's ability to find/monitor you. Maximum range on most unpowered RFID chips is about five meters, the type used subdermally has an even shorter range, the scanner for those have to be within a few centimeters in order to pick it up.

Regardless, I have zero problems with the idea of such chips being implanted in people who wish for it. Furthermore, I have few problems with implants that can indeed be used as the previous posters apparently fear, (such a device would consume significant power, you would have to let the user control when it is on anyways). In fact, the only line of cybernetics I would balk at crossing would be allowing any implants direct or indirect control of brain impulses outside of sensory feedback.

Concerning the "mark of the devil" thing, there's a passage in revelations that refers to people living near the end times being unable to trade without bearing the mark of the beast or the "number of his name". Because of this, some people have chosen to interpret any form of identification worn on or part of the body as a sign of Armageddon, and furthermore, that the person is a servant of the Antichrist (whether knowingly or not.) I'm not really sure I see the connection, but yes, there will be a big uproar over the matter.

 

[Leemaster777]

As long as there's no GPS tracking involved with the chip, and as long as it can't tell where you've been, I'm all for it.

Personally, a subdermal chip with all of your information, medical history, and contacts just seems like an entirely intelligent thing to do.

It would help police identify found bodies, it would help hospitals identify allergies and other issues in unresponsive patients, and it would be helpful in locating the homes of missing children.

 

[mitchell271]

I'd be okay with just an identification function for it, wouldn't even mind GPS all that much to be honest. I mean, my phone already records where I am all the time with the built in GPS and it's not like I'm going to crack houses all the time (or at all for that matter). I'm a firm believer in the saying, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Then again, I'm a fairly bitter, misanthropic person so maybe that's just me.

As for the religious reasons, I think that's hilarious. That's like arguing that you don't want fillings in your teeth because God made you that way.

All in all, I'd want one. I wouldn't want it to be like the career chips in Futurama though.

 

[JimB]

I learned that they are disallowed purely because it would spark a religious debate, particularly in predominantly Christian countries.

As one argument puts it, a microchip is considered the "Mark of the Devil."

I...what?

I'm sorry if this is a low-content post, but I cannot think of any other response right now. My bafflement is all-consuming.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

It depends a lot on the pros vs the cons, naturally.

I mean, it's true for a lot of things, isn't it? People will resist if they don't like it.

I mean the chip/tracking could only activate when you're being sought after, and it could let you know. If you're lost somewhere, it could be a life saver. It could help ID the dead, too.

It could also be used to track, and monitor people 24/7, though the practicality of something like that might be a bit hard to have an infrastructure for.

It's not a simple question because chipping is a tool. Like any tool it can be used for good, and/or bad depending on the user. Dynamite was not intended to be a weapon, but people used it as such. A screwdriver is meant to help with screws, but that doesn't stop people from using it as a shiv.

 

[piinyouri]

I learned that they are disallowed purely because it would spark a religious debate, particularly in predominantly Christian countries.

As one argument puts it, a microchip is considered the "Mark of the Devil."

I...what?

I'm sorry if this is a low-content post, but I cannot think of any other response right now. My bafflement is all-consuming.

A mark on the hand is very synonymous with satan in christian belief.
Well certain christian belief, mainly the new evangelical one, the one that spawned those Left Behind books.

 

[Vegosiux]

You know, I have a valid ID document on me at all times. I don't need a microchip. And living off the grid every now and then is nice. If only for a respite from the damn adverts.

Right, okay, an ID card can be stolen I suppose...but I'm not too sure a chip would be any more secure in the long term.

 

[Jux]

I'd be ok with it so long as it were optional, and limited to adults that can consent. I personally wouldn't mind having an RFID chip with my medical history in it, though I wouldn't want anything like my SSN in it. As technology advances, so do the methods that thieves use to steal from you.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I'm really rather technophobic, so I really wouldn't want anything implanted in me.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Chip technology is a double edged sword: The benefits are doctors, parents, and various other people will be able to react more quickly to medical issues or just simply being lost. I have a feeling parents would want to make sure their child is safe and the elderly would want to make sure that help is on their way as soon as they fall or have a stroke. In addition, I bet that the technology will improve so that observation can become intervention against problems; current research could potentially enable a chip to administer medicine in emergency situations and I bet that electric stimulus of the brain can help with depression and various mental disorders

On the other hand, the invasion of privacy issues are massive: Syndicate( the recent one, while bad, brought up a good point) illustrated that it could create a population divide and also cause rights and freedoms to be destroyed as companies are able to target you aggressively with ads and also sell information to agencies like the NSA.

All I'm saying is that chipping will a hot topic when the technology becomes available to the public. We just keep debating

As for my stance, I'm for it. The medical benefits, the ability to intervine in emergency situations such as crimes or disasters and the eventual ability to link the chip to machinery would be a massive step for transhumanism.

 

[JimB]

A mark on the hand is very synonymous with Satan in Christian belief.

Ssssssso...why couldn't the microchip be put somewhere other than the hand, then? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

 

[Miss G.]

I suppose only if it's something that you can activate at will to help if you're lost/kidnapped/in dire need of medical assistance/in other danger, otherwise having other people have more agency over it than you do consensual or not, like the government or hackers, is too scary a thought.

 

[DragonStorm247]

The religious thing strikes me as very odd, but the privacy concerns are all too valid.

BTW, we basically already have them, they are called cell phones.

 

[Joccaren]

A very good idea, if complete control of the device's functions were in the hands of the user. All medical and personal data stored in it, possibly placed on the back of the neck or some other place you hope wouldn't be removed in an accident, and with an activatable GPS locator with alternate modes; Off, Simple Tracking where anyone with your ID # or W/E can track you, Personal Tracking where only specified people can track you, and Emergency Tracking where a signal is sent that emergency services are on the lookout for, and will respond to when it appears.
Controlling it could be a bit of an issue, but technology is advancing and one day maybe it'll happen.

 

[tilmoph]

I would be ok with a locator version on children; they don't have much of a need for privacy, they're generally more at risk, and keeping them safe should always be a top priority. It would have to be removed once they hit say 16 or 18, maybe 15, and it would certainly be optional (except max remove date, which must be upheld unless the child specifically requests to keep it).

An optional ID chip I'd be ok with, since et could contain identification info as well as medical data (surgeries, allergies, chronic conditions, etc.) as long as it's optional. I personally wouldn't get one, but I can see them as a good idea for someone a little less... concerned about government spying than me.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I WANT ONE.

Not the kind to know my location. Heaven no. But the kind of augmentation that would improve my memory, or give my eyes a computer interface and my brain an internet connection? Yes please.

As much as I'm paranoid of other people intruding in my life and freedoms. The idea of having a computer in my face at all times without having to put on a pair of glasses like Google Glass sounds terrific.

I want to enter a world where I no longer have to carry around electronic devices, because all the electronic devices I'll ever want and need are already right in my own body.

 

[piinyouri]

A mark on the hand is very synonymous with Satan in Christian belief.

Ssssssso...why couldn't the microchip be put somewhere other than the hand, then? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Don't know. My crazy attribute isn't high enough to decipher that.