I mentioned what I consider to be current,ongoing abuses, so this response is not relevent.
There is very low awareness of the dangers of gm products, and nearly none about nanotechnology, robots and AI. Yes, the first and last appear in newspapers, there is no public debate and there is no effective government oversight. Industry controls oversight. Yes, there is awareness of global warming. I do not see industry changing much at all.
Why not?
Asked regarding cellphone use and other digital media use by c hildren. For the same reasons that tobacco took so many decades to actually be cut back on: industry lies, industry has powerful direct and indirect ways to control media. Humans are addicted. The programmers used the most recent knowledge of cognitive addiction to get people addicted. So the users are addicted but no one mentions this. The health and emotional effects are kept out of media or appear only when matched by bought industry advocates.
Research are continually done and results published for consideration.
Usually the results and finding take time to be implemented and accepted by the masses.
Research is often sponsored by industry and better marketed with their money. Other research is marginalized.
Note the problem of sugar and calories in drinks which research [long ago] has shown these are very detrimental to health especially children.
But note the recent results;Pepsi vs Coca-Cola: U.S. Soda Sales Decline For 12th Consecutive
Diet sodas sold by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo posted steep volume declines in 2016, dragging down demand for the total carbonated soft drink category as consumers buy more bottled waters and other healthier beverages.
fortune.com/2017/04/19/coca-cola … oda-water/Habits die hard! But many other positive changes are taking effect very slowly & gradually in time after years of complains and recommendations by experts.
I am not making the argument that all technology is bad, far from it. My point was and is that technology is rarely evaluated in holistic ways. This doesn’t matter with many products, but it does with some and many of these can have global detrimental effects.
Precisely like your fantasy treatment for anxiety. It is conceived as if we are modular creatures and as if the direct effects - in the emotions of the patients - are the only ones. What side effects? What feedback are we cutting off?
What concerns me about your thinking is that you seem utterly unaware that there might be a wealth of side effects of cutting anxiety out of humans. We evolved this reaction for good reasons. It may very well be telling us that society has problems. It’s like cutting out our eyes rather than making the environment less ugly. It’s like giving drugs to more than half of the population because they are stressed and anxious, instead of using this information to develop society. We do this now and it is not good. What it does is make us fit a fucked up society rather than fixing society to fit us.
That is rhetoric and deceptive.
I did not state nor imply ‘speculating widely’.
You were speculating wildly. You said it was some future fool proof treatment.
I don’t know if it is language issues or something else but I find you do not quite respond to much of what I write, do not seem to understand many things, repeat the very types of assertions you have already made as if they need no back up. It’s frustrating and, as I’ve said before, comes off as bad faith arguing. I don’t know if it is or not or how much, but I am again going to try to ignore you.