arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/cyb/ - cyberpunk and cybersecurity

low life. high tech. anonymity. privacy. security.

formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1499069673559.gif (282.92 KB, 500x280, 1496029402347.gif)


Is there any scientific studies done on using nanotech in the bloodstream to alter brain chemistry. It is scary to imagine how a government or corporation can control thier citizens by making them feel a certain emotion under certain stimuli, such as anger when hearing a government opponent or not when seeing a company product. This could probably needs to be achieve with a botnet body modification such as eye contacts or even a prosthetic.


I don't know of any, but you could search for one using the many academic search engines, like Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic or Semantic Scholar. Many of the articles are freely available but if they are behind a paywall you can try fetching them using libgen/scihub:


Yeah, I know. I guess I'll be dumping here after the search.
A good discussion about how to avoid them in the near future is more or less what I want to get out of this thread.


You don't need nanotech when testosterone-disrupting soykaf is in everything from receipts to shampoo.
What does low T do to men? They become docile and weak. Exactly what the spooks want.


I've never read or heard of any, and I presume there isn't any, because it's not really viable technology.

This, at least in principle.
Shampoo is likely fine (I have never washed my male frogs with shampoo so I can't guarantee that).

>It is scary to imagine how a government or corporation can control thier citizens by making them feel a certain emotion under certain stimuli

Ever heard of conditioning?
>such as anger when hearing a government opponent
Ever heard of public school history courses, status quo, social engineering, mass media, social media, Hollywood?
>or not when seeing a company product
Ever heard of advertising, product placement, brand image & association?

To go along with the example brought up by >>844, you don't really need to directly influence testosterone levels when culture makes boys despise who they are, leaves them fatherless or father-hating, raised & taught from the very young age by, almost exclusively, women-strangers (who discourage masculine behavior, because it makes their jobs easier), causes the society to think that, say, hiring, employing, admitting, promoting women (i.e. non-men) is a virtue, or even financially or legally incentivized; you will end up in a situation where some of these boys go as far as voluntarily assuming feminine form and taking estrogen pills (providing that they haven't been involuntarily fed those by their parents since a pre-pubescent age).
You can do much more with culture than you can with direct influence; also, culture is much more sneaky and will not result in a blowback reaction.
I know that a shady team in hazmat suits spilling a barrel of stinky, steamy, colorful chemicals in a water processing plant is much more cinematic than legally and financially encouraging divorce and making the father figure a pathetic bumbling moron in every piece of popular culture. Even more so, robotic drones injecting you with mind control nanobots against your will. However, it's not efficient to carry out a costly procedure on every individual, even if we did have the means to implement mind control this way.

It hurts me everytime tech-minded people are concerned with potential future applications of so-advanced-that-science-fiction technologies, absolutely not cost-effective, not viable; (also, implying that everything about human physiology, endocrinology and mental state is worked out); while we already have highly developed, multi-million, often -billion, dollar programmes achieving the very thing with centuries-old/intuitive knowledge.


dont be scared!

nanobots arent practical as you approaching a strong electric current will render them useless because of the electromagnetic field.

i dont say go close to an electric current(take a magnet if you insist), but that there are too many such occassions where you would need to reinstate a
new system.
not efficient enough.

ye i would rather go for an psychological attack vector. try to get your selfesteem up.


As >>844 and >>852 pointed out, it's cheaper to brainwash via schools and chemicals than nanobots. Just remain skeptical.



Nanotech was a scam, you wont believe the billions that were burned with that during the past decade

Result? we don't even have a way to build carbon nanotubes in industrial numbers and thats some of the simplest forms of nanotech there is

Point is if the govs want to control your mind its much easier: think about how everybody has a smartphone these days or else they feel like nobodies, do you have any idea how much information about themselves is in those little glass bricks?

When brain implants arrive it will be the same thing: eventually everybody will want one because of the "advantages" and because 'well why don't you have one? are you one of those tinfoil hate weirdos?' which is the same soykaf you get today if you say you don't use social media or have a fucking megacorp beacon (aka: smartphone) in your pocket

With a brain chip controlling you is easier than ever because they can manipulate not just what you are looking at right now through photorealistic augmented reality but they could even rewrite your memories

Some megacorp fucked you up? well now you don't remember it. Voted for X sockpuppet politician? now you don't remember why so you don't feel betrayed because he sold out to the megacorps

No need to put any soykaf on your water, when this tech comes out the average fool will be paying to get an implant


We are not really there yet, or even close.
Nanotechnology is currently limited to "look at this cool nano-structured pattern I put onto this surface" and these patterns basically do nothing in most cases (there are niche uses in semiconductor technology). I also know about people looking into nanocontainers for pharmaceutical delivery, which again, don't actually work. We are far, far away from doing anything remotely useful or viable on the molecular level. It might never happen, honestly.

Actual "nanomachines" are nothing more than a dream at the moment as well.

>we don't even have a way to build carbon nanotubes in industrial numbers and thats some of the simplest forms of nanotech there is
You can make macromolecular nanofibers of carbohydrate derivatives and similar stuff really easily on a large scale, but again the problem is, you can't use it for anything.

The methods for producing nanotubes are scaleable in theory, but extremely expensive.



>Actual "nanomachines" are nothing more than a dream at the moment as well.

I'd bet good money on nanotech research projects being replaced (in whole or in part) by genetic research projects. CRISPR/Cas9 is a prime example of how rapidly genetic manipulation is progressing. It's looking more and more like cells and viruses, properly programmed, can do just about anything that nanotech proponents have claimed that nanotech could do.


I don't really know or care too much about the research that goes on on the biochemical level, but the main issue with biochemistry and biotechnology in general is that the way it actually works is ridiculously complicated due enzymes acting as more or less "magical" catalysts.

The main issue with biotechnology I feel is that you can't make your own enzymes that do things you want them to. It's not something you can do, due to how complicated protein structures are and how important the very structure is to the functionality. You need to be able to actually design enzymes that work, before this has any "true" potential.

So basically right now all you can really viably do is make things produce proteins you have already sequenced and found somewhere. And no, this isn't really scaleable, so you can't really use enzyme catalysis on a large scale. And I don't think this is going anywhere either.

This means that any sort of biotechnology on the microscopic level is really limiting and easily as far away from being practical as the purely chemical/physical nanotech ideas.


Seems like something a super computer would be useful for.


A supercomputer should be able to simulate the way a certain protein sequence would fold in an aquatic environment for instance, even if it might take a while. Modeling molecular interactions is pretty harsh on the hardware. But I doubt that you can dictate a structure and expect to get a sequence, this seems like the sort of problem mathematicians would be struggling with even now.

And going from sequence to simulated structure turns this whole thing into a ridiculous trial and error exercise and you don't even know if the structures you're trying to create work.


why would you need nanotech for this? Everything from controlling the nutrition available to the air we breathe (e.g. removing lead pollutants from gas) can alter the general tendencies of the population like aggression.

Also, both nanotech and my thoughts above would be way more expensive than good ol' social conditioning, as many others in this thread have mentioned

[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]