Bombshell: Facebook co-founder says it’s ‘time to break up’ the social media giant

In an opinion piece for The New York Times Chris Hughes, the co – founder of Facebook has called for scandal – plagued the social media and data theft behemoth to be broken up and lambasted the “staggering” and “unchecked” power of his former friend and co – founder, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a lengthy and searing critique of Zuckerberg’s amoral, and often illegal behaviour at the helm of the social media corporation.

Hughes co-founded Facebook with Zuckerberg in a Harvard dorm room in 2004 and watched “in awe” as the company grew over the last 15 years — but said he now feels a “sense of anger and responsibility” about how all-powerful and out-of-control the social media giant has become under the management of the increasingly power – crazed CEO.

Lashing out at the company, Hughes wrote in the NYT piece that Zuckerberg’s power and influence goes “far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government.” People may think that is sour grapes, but Hughes has no reason to be bitter,  his time at Facebook made him a fortune estimated in the region of $500 million and he left of his own volition, having been quoted as saying, “ “Working with Mark is very challenging,” says Hughes. “You’re never sure if what you’re doing is something he likes or he doesn’t like. It’s so much better to be friends with Mark than to work with him.”

He has also said he thinks more of Zuckerberg’s friends who were involved in the creation of Facebook, most of whom he’s still in touch with, have left Zuckerberg’s empire in part because, like him, they got fed up with the CEO’s unpredictable and megalomaniacal behaviour.

zuckerberg20trust20me_5

Mark Zuckerberg on ethics (Picture via Sott.net)

“Working with Mark is very challenging,” says Hughes. “You’re never sure if what you’re doing is something he likes or he doesn’t like. It’s so much better to be friends with Mark than to work with him.”

In the article Hughes criticizes Facebook over “sloppy privacy practices,” “violent rhetoric and fake news,” and the “unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention.” “It’s not that Zuckerberg is a bad person,” he writes, but “he’s human” and his focus on growth has “led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks.”

There are many who would argue with the statement that Zuckerberg is human, given his robotic performances in front of members of the US Congress, UK Parliament and European Union regulators, biologically he may appear human but there is something misssing in his make up that renders him unable to understand why people might object to his company sharing users’ illegally obtained personal data with any organisation willing to pay for it.

Hughes also bemoans the fact that the obsessive workaholic Zuckerberg controls three core communications platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) and says that lack of competition, market or government regulation is a major problem. If a competitor crops up, Zuckerberg can simply choose to shut it down “by acquiring, blocking or copying it” in the manner it did with the Instagram and WhatsApp mergers. “There is no precedent for [Zuckerberg’s] ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.” Hughes warns.

It does not stop there, the article also reveals that Zuckerberg alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered.

Hughes also worries that Zuckerberg has “surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.” He believes that neither Facebook’s offer to appoint a “privacy czar” or the expected Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine of $5 billion will be enough to rein in the corporate tyrant who heads Facebook.

The answer lies in more government regulation of technology companies’ activities and increased market competition through breaking up Zuckerberg’s empire into separate, competing organisations Hughes says. The lack of competition means that “every time Facebook messes up, we repeat an exhausting pattern: first outrage, then disappointment and, finally, resignation.”

RELATED POSTS:


Facebook Negotiating Multibillion-Dollar US Fine As UK Labels “Digital Gangsters”

Facebook and its executives were labeled “digital gangsters” by a UKParliamentary inquiry into the social media giant’s abuse of users privacy. The company should immediately be subject to statutory regulation the report published at the conclusion of the 18-month investigation by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport  parliamentary committee recommended …

also read at Boggart Abroad

Facebook Rattled After Report Claims 50% Of Its Users Are Fake

Facebook Senior Engineer Admits: “We Tear Down Posters Welcoming Trump Supporters”

Earlier we reported President Trump’s attack on Google, with his remarks later broadening to include Twitter and Facebook, accusing the Silicon Valley digital media giants of leftist bias and Google particularly of “rigging” search results by presenting only results, in his words, “from National Left-Wing Media.” He claimed “Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives … Continue reading

Trump Warns Facebook, Twitter And Google To Tread Carefully

In Private Meeting, Top Facebook Exec Threatened News Outlets That Do Not Coperate With Censorship Policy

Another Privacy Abuse Scandal Brewing For Big Tech

Google, not a corporation that ever takes ethics seriously, even by corporate standards, made a pledge about this time last year that it would stop its servers scanning the inboxes of Gmail users for information to personalize advertisements, hypocritically stating that it was committed to protecting data so users could “remain confident that Google will keep users privacy and security paramount ”

 

Google tracks your location even when you ask it not to, says report

If, like us, you’ve ever suspected that Google is watching your every move even when you’ve explicitly told them not to, an investigation by Associated Press has proved has your suspicions are full justified.

The investigation has found that Google is in fact storing Android and iPhone users’ location data even when they have chosen privacy settings which tell them THE WORLD’S MOST EVIL CORPORATION is blocked from doing so.

Google claims that if the ‘Location History’ setting on your device is set to off, the company will not be able to store information about where you have been. The company states on its support page, that you can turn off Location History “at any time” and that, with the setting turned off, “the places you go are no longer stored.”

Anyone even slightly familiar with Google’s modus operandi and track record for total lack of ethics will know that’s bollocks. The AP report confirms some Google apps continue to store time-stamped location data even when the ‘Location History’ setting is switched off – without asking for permission.

Some of the examples given by AP include the Google Maps app, which takes a snapshot of your location as soon as you open it and even completely unrelated searches like “chocolate chip cookies” which “pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude” and save it to your Google account.

AP looked into the issue after K. Shankari, a graduate researcher at UC Berkeley, blogged that her Android device had prompted her to rate a recent shopping trip to Kohl’s even though her location history had been turned off.

Jonathan Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist, told the AP that Google’s privacy settings should be made clearer. “If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” he said. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”

Google, however, says it has been clear. A spokesperson for the company said that it provides “clear descriptions” of all the Google tools that people use which may record users’ locations. If you believe that, I have a unicorn that you might like to buy.

RELATED POSTS:

Punish Google Tax Dodging And Sink The Corporate Pirates
With tax avoidance once more in the news but vying for top spot with stories of western industrial decline and Islamic penetration of civilised socities in Europe we hardly know where to start

Servergate: Clinton Emails reveal how Google tried to help Obama Administration defeat Syria’s Assad
The unhealthily close relationship beteen Google and the US government has been known for a while, but despite having been caught in their incesteous coupling, the parent and child relationship seems to be getting more intense. The latest revelation from the Hillary Clinton emails shows how Google was involved in the bid to overthrow Assad in Syria

Facebook begins Europe-wide censorship campaign against free speech.
Facebook Inc (FB.O) has commenced the Europe-wide censoring of posts and comments the ruling elite do not like, thus making good the promise given to Hausfrau – Volksfuhrer Merkel by the social media and data theft site’s founder Mark Zuckerberg.

What The controllers have In Store For Your Future
If you thought the book Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell was something else—even possibly off the wall when written—wait until you learn what’s planned for us by the year 2025! George Orwell, in retrospect, seems to have been able to tap into some sort of future-time-machine or a “worm hole” in physics—what’s known as an “Einstein-Rosen bridge,” because much of what he wrote about has come to realization.

Google: Benefactor Of Mankind Or Evil Empire (or buch of idiotic nerds who got lucky?)
They way Google has come to dominate the internet just as the internet has come to dominate our lives can’t all be down to good luck and careful planning can it? As this page develops you will see how sinister forces guided Google to their current position.

How Google Destroyed the Internet
The idea of the internet was that it would be a communications tool that freed information by making all public domain documents, libraries and archives accessible for everyone. Unfortunately the corporate monopoly men of Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook and political control freaks had other ideas.

How Google Destroyed the Internet
The idea of the internet was that it would be a communications tool that freed information by making all public domain documents, libraries and archives accessible for everyone. Unfortunately the corporate monopoly men of Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook and political control freaks had other ideas. They also understood the technolgy while the hippies and liberals ignored professionals warnings that internet systems would become a perfect toool of censorship.

Google a step closer to developing machines with human-like intelligence
Computers will have developed “common sense” within a decade and we could be counting them among our friends not long afterwards, one of the world’s leading AI scientists has predicted. Professor Geoff Hinton, who was hired by Google two years ago to help develop intelligent operating systems, said that the company is on the brink of developing algorithms with the capacity for logic, natural conversation and even flirtation.

I’ve been trying to warn you for years but would you tech heads and science heads listen?
A facebook friend, Mary Bladley McCaulay writes: Now I know for sure Google earth is following me. Went to the Dentist in Mufreesboro this AM. When I got back to my sons house and got online with my Kindle, first thing I saw was a Dental ad.

Who Runs America? US Federal Trade Commission Takes Orders From Google
Barak Obama runs America surely, you might well be thinking. We would argue that no US President since Eisenhower has truly run the USA. But the latest revelation of how cosy the Obama Administration has become with corporate business, to the extent that government departments are taking instruction from Google will shock even the most cynical Americans

Google Meets White House Officials Every Week, Why?
We have been very suspicious for ten years of the way Google with such apparent ease achieved a dominant position in web search. How did it happen, did Google do something evil, did they invoke the powers of darkness in their meteoric rise. Or were there even darker forces at work, powering Google to a position in which their internet technologies could dominate global information flows? Here’s something cynics should read.

Cashless Society – The Resistance Begins Here
A seaside market town in Norfolk may be less than 100 miles from the world’s financial capital, London, , it may be the commercial centre of West Norfolk’ as the town website boasts, it may be home to 45,000 people — but there, unlike in London, cash is king.

EU taking on Google – Well One German Publisher Is
Those New World Order fanatics at The Guardian, bless them, seldom miss a trick when it comes to promoting the single European Superstate and the globalist agenda. Their latest misrepresentation is to try and make us feel the European Union is somehow protecting our freedoms even as the bureau rats of Brussels are taking them away.

Has Zuckerbugger Been Messing With Your Mind?
It has been revealed that Facebook has been collaborating with the US government and creepier fringes of the academic community in carrying out experiments to manipulate users emotions. “Facebook users have reacted angrily to a “creepy” experiment carried out by the social network and two American universities to manipulate their emotions.”

Pissed Off With Government/Microsoft/Google Online Spying? Be Completely Anonymous Online
Not so long ago our biggest worry online was malware, virus software, trojans and worms plagued the internet cost many people a lot of time and worry. Since about a year ago everything has changed, protecting our digital privacy is the issue and the enemy is no longer spotty little nerds hunched over computers in dimly lit basements, but governments and major technology corporations.

Google Car Driverless Because No Sane Person Would Be Seen Dead In One
A few years ago Google boss Eric Schmidt said the company’s aim was to get as close to creepy as they could without crossing the line. Well they had crossed the line long before he said that. The latest Google wirdness is the much hyped driverless car. It looks as if it was designed by a five year old. On the other hand it might be the ideal car for paedophiles who want to go cruising for jailbait.

Reasons To keep Google Away From your Credit Card Information
I did not use Gmail a lot because although the mail got through, I started to be bombarded with targeted ads related to keywords used in my mail exchanges (they weren’t keywords as far as I was concerned, just conversation. That did not worry me much but the idea that Google were sharing my email content with the bastards throwing these ads at me did.

Don’t be Evil, Google Will Do It For You
Google have abandoned their “Don’t Be Evil motto. Good thing really, they are becoming more evil every day. The latest plans to integrate our brains with their servers may seem like a science fiction freaks wet dream, but these creepy nerds are serious …

Don’t Be Evil, That’s Our Job Is Google’s Real Motto
Don’t Be Evil said Google’s web page. But the search engine giant is the most evil of all the technology companies (though the rest can make Satan, Beelzebub, Belial, Azazel and the other Biblical demons look like choirboys. Read of Google’s latest step in advancing their evil agenda to take over our lives and make us all slaves of their technology.
A collection of articles by Ian R Thorpe on the unethical and dishonest ways Google has gained an unhealthy degree of influence over the internet.

Google To Revive Old Boomtown Rats Hit
Remember the words of The Boomtown Rats biggest hit (their only hit in the USA), I Don’t Like Mondays. First released in 1979 it was about a girl who shot pupils on their way into +School but that is not what I am interested in. It’s the opening lines of the song that brought it to mind as …

Being Evil? Just Another Day At The Office For Google Boss.
Google boss Eric Schmidt has defended Google’s barely legal tax avoidance practices saying Googl;e’s contribution to UK national life is more important than the money they owe us. boycott Google, Big is a good serach engine.

Has Blogging Finally Died?

My traffic to this blog has gone down the pan. I have not been doing a lot to promote my blog recently I admit. So what is he complaining about? you might well ask. The reason I stopped putting the effort in is there seems to be nothing I can do attract readers now. Since Google introduced it’s …
Facebook’s Stockmarket Launch Fizzles Out

Facebook’s much hyped stock market launch fell flat. We examine the folly of trying to pass off a social networking fad as a real, monrey making business.



Google’s New Privacy Policy: ‘All Your Base Belong Us’.Google has defended its decision to change the way it handles users’ personal data as its new policy comes into force today. The internet search giant will now be able to use information about what people are entering into its search engine to target adverts according to users’ interests under the changes.

Google Evil Empire In New Privacy ViolationOnce again the neo-Nazi nerds at Google are in trouble for playing fast and loose with our privacy. Google have bypassed browser privacy setting to track our movements on the web, the bettrer to target us with ads for poxy shite no sane person would buy. What is it these arseholes find difficult to understand about the idea that in the real world or cyberspace same rules apply …

Don’t Be Evil

 

Scary science: Fears surrounding human re-animation

I’ve said it before and no doubt I will say it again, many many times. Scientists are insane. What’s more, in their crazy pursuit of fame, glory and world domination they now seem to have thrown any pretence of ethics out of the window. What same human being could possibly think it is a good idea to reanimate human corpses after natural death, or to keep brains alive and fuctioning in a laboratory jar?
Nobody, surely, it is the stuff of ridiculous Hollywood B movies in the 1950s, mad scientists working in forsaken gothic mansions or the holowed out magma chambers of extinct volcanoes. Laboratoies filled bubbling, gurgling jars and the echoing sound of manic laughter as the main character contemplates his army of revenants conquering the world as he plays something spooky by J S Bach on a Cathedral organ. Yeah, it’s effing ridiculous.
Except it’s not.
A Yale University research team claim to have successfully completed and experiment which reanimated the pig brains after the animals had been slaughtered for chops and bacon. Neuroscientists being excitable creatures with all the intellectual depth of an oil stain, this has prompted a  lot of babble and a few research grant applications based on speculation that human trials could be next.  This in turn has reignited ethical concerns  about scientists trying to usurp god and pursue the goal of of immortality.

As the quest for everlasting life appears to be something these science nuts believe could offer great advances for humanity rather than being inevitably catastrophic (imagine if no one died and no one was born, or worse if no one died and the population kept growing ,  what are the key concerns raised by these experiments?

Nottingham Trent University ethics researcher Benjamin Curtis says ending up as a disembodied brain is likely to  be a “living hell.” Writing in The Conversation he suggested that living in total isolation with no external stimuli and without any actual contact with reality could be a fate worse than death.

“Some have argued that even with a fully functional body, immortality would be tedious. With absolutely no contact with external reality, it might just be a living hell,” Curtis has written.

In the Yale University experiments, led by neuroscientist Nenad Sestan, the pigs did not regain consciousness but Sestan acknowledged that restoring awareness is a possibility and that the technique could work on humans, keeping the brain alive indefinitely. We should not forget however, that in a prize winning experiment a few years ago, neuroscientists discovered meaningful brain activity in a dead fish. Now finding meaningful brain activity in the brain of a live fish might be miraculous, but finding it in a dead fish only proves the nerds don’t know much about how atoms work.

Speaking to RT.com Curtis explained (rather obviously to those of us who rely on common sense,) that the brain is highly integrated with the rest of the body in both humans and animals. It is constantly receiving and sending signals from and to it. “We have no idea what experiences would occur within a disembodied brain. But those experiences may well be deeply disturbing,” he said.

But what is a brain without a body to host it? Renowned neuroscientist Antonio Damasio says without a constant “feedback loop” between brain and body, ordinary experiences and thought are simply not possible. I remember being told in 1997, while in rehab, recovering 9somwhat surprisingly) from a massive brain haemorr”hage, that “We doctors are only now starting to understand that the brain and the mind are very different things.

Damasio’s view was echoed by Dr. Evan Thompson,  philosophy professor at the University of British Columbia. Thompson told RT.com, “Consciousness and mind function are dependent on the brain being functionally integrated with the rest of the body.

In other words, it’s not possible for a disembodied brain to house a normal mind. “The brain and body are in constant electrochemical communication with each other with multiple and dense feedback loops. Take that away, and mental function isn’t likely to be possible,” he said.

Curtis expresses the opinion that the promise of eternal life is not worth the risk of subjecting a disembodied but conscious human brain to “an existence of hellish tedium, or to the mental torture of inescapable madness.”

He said that even if disembodied brains did function more or less as they do now they will still be receiving no input from the outside world whatsoever. “There would be no sights, smells, sounds, or tactile feelings at all. Just an enduring inescapable emptiness,” he said to RT.com.

“I suppose this might be OK for a short while, but for any length of time I doubt any ordinary person would be able to cope.”

“One could perhaps tell oneself stories, or write poems in one’s mind, but with no-one to communicate them to, I imagine this would be cold comfort. In eternity, one would most likely end up repeating the same kinds of thoughts over and over to oneself, a body-less Sisyphus with no way to bring an end to the futility and meaningless of your situation.”

Mind uploading

The quest for immortality is going in differirections that take it beyond the the ‘brain in a jar,’ concept however, for some the ultimate goal of preserving their brain is at eternal life. Presumably they hope to achieve this by constantly patching us up with second hand parts from a human scapyard, the way old cars have been patched up with spares drom a scrapyard.

In March, startup company Nectome revealed it is aiming to develop technology that could preserve the brain while keeping all memories in tact and then upload these to a server so a person can experience eternal digital life. The team has already managed to fully preserve a rabbit and pig brain.

Head transplants

Meanwhile, Italian surgeon Sergio Canavero is determined to complete the world’s first live human head transplant. Last last year, he claims, he completed the world’s first such operation between two corpses.

*

A 30-year-old Russian man who suffers from Werdnig-Hoffmann disease put himself forward as a volunteer for the transplant in 2015, prompting ethical concerns from the wider scientific community.

“I would not wish this on anyone,”said Dr. Hunt Batjer, former president of the American Association for Neurological Surgeons. “I would not allow anyone to do it to me as there are a lot of things worse than death.”

In their paper‘Operation Frankenstein: Ethical reflections of human head transplantation,’ Joshua Cuoco and John R. Davy from the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine argued the procedure could cause substantial psychological difficulty and result in a dramatic alteration of a person’s personality and memories.

“The procedure of human head transplantation dangerously presupposes that transplanting an individual’s head will also transplant an individual’s mind including consciousness, personality, and memories.”

“On the contrary, cognitive sciences have suggested that human cognition does not solely originate within the brain parenchyma; rather, humans exhibit an embodied cognition where our body participates in the formation of self,” the scientists warned.

Let’s talk ethics

Neuroscientists at the fore of this experimental research are calling for discussion around the ethics of their work but argued that these difficult questions should not halt their progress.

In an essay published in Nature, a group of researchers, including Sestan, noted advancements in the field mean tough conversations need to take place: “As brain surrogates become larger and more sophisticated, the possibility of them having capabilities akin to human sentience might become less remote.”

For many on social media the prospect of this Black Mirror-esque concept becoming a reality has left them more than a little unsettled.

 

RELATED POSTS:
A research study led by the University of Edinburgh explored the science behind the biological processes that drive the creation of our memories
The article collapsed when I encountered the abuse of the word science in the above sentence. Biologoy is a natural science, i.e. the study of natural phenomena related to living organisms so in fact the biological processes underlie the science rather that the science driving the biological processes.

US firm makes millions selling dead body parts donated to science – report

frankenstein-tom-carlton1
Baron Frankenstein’s creation (Image source: www.johhnytruelove

An investigation by Reuters news agency has uncovered the shocking news than an American company has made huge profits from selling human organs and other body parts donated to science, for surgical transplant purposes, often without the knowledge of relatives. Under US law it is legal though many people question the ethics involved. It would not be the first time doctors’ enthusiasm for turning us into Frankenstein monsters has run into ethical problems. A few years ago a plan in the UK to replace failing human organs with healthy ones from pigs ended in disaster.

This latest scheme, launched in 2008 by Arizona based Science Care Inc. had the goal of to maximizing profits from the sale of human bodies donated to science. The company’s model for ensuring quality was based on the McDonald’s Corp business plan.

The company promised to provide customers, i.e. the transplan surgery teams of hospital groups linked to the USA’s private healthcare system, with the same cuts from cadavers no matter which Science Care branch handled the order. Company boss James Rogers cited production methods perfected by Ray Kroc, the visionary who turned a hamburger stand into a fast-food empire, according to a Science Care executive turned whistleblower.

“He used the McDonald’s analogy that no matter where you go, you get the same exact thing,” the executive, former quality assurance director John Cover, said in a sworn statement.

“It was all about quality,” Cover said when interviewed for the Reuters investigation. “When you get a Big Mac, it’s going to taste like a Big Mac, whether you’re in Louisiana or San Francisco.”

Instead of selling hamburgers and nuggets however, Science Care has made millions from human body parts according to Reuters report of its investigation, titled The Body Trade.

According to its own website Science Care, along with its subsidiaries, serves as “a link between individual donors and medical researchers and educators”. It also promises cremation at no cost to the donors or their families.

Body donation differs from organ donation which is closely linked to lifesaving procedures such as when a patient receives a heart or a kidney from the recently deceased. Organ donation is strictly controlled in the US, and selling organs and other body parts for transplant is against the law. Body donation provides material for medical research and training mainly in universities.

Science Care doesn’t break the law, as US regulations don’t prohibit doing whatever you want with corpses donated to science. Science Care is free to sell or lease the bodies and their parts, torsos, heads or limbs. Families of people whose bodies are donated will, however, be shocked to learn their loved ones bodies are not being used for valuable research, but “harvested” like a wrecked car for useful parts that will be sold for profit.

Science Care obtains many of its bodies from hospices caring for the poor and from needy families who cannot afford funerals. Body donation commonly saves families lots of money. A funeral including the cost of a coffin, the memorial service, and burial, may cost a family $7,000, while the price for a simple cremation, which is getting increasingly popular, comes in at $1,000.

RELATED POSTS:

Big Pharma Criminality

Big Pharma Profiteers

Health and Heart Disease

Doctors Back NHS-Funded ‘Womb Transplants’ for Transgender People

Ethics out of the window as US Government authorises Frankenstein science

Scientists Debate Robot’s Rights

We’ve been telling you for ever that scientists are insane, totally detached from reality and hellbent on destroying humanity and the planet that supports us simply because we will not give them all the money in the world to buy new toys.

Just before we get into the latest scientific madness, ask yourself what kind of people we are dealing with that would insist on making machines look vaguely humanoid in order to enable socially incompetent science heads to more easily form relationships with them. Why do robots have to look human? Why do they have to have little legs so they can walk like spazzas? Caterpillar Tracks would work much better?

I’ll tell you why; because the semi autistic nerds who design then theik they are building a friend, someone whose thoughts are driven by pure logic, like those of nerds. We should not be giving these people more toys, we should be putting them out of their misery. It’s the only humane thing to do.

The latest idiocy the coneheads are concerning themselves with is Robot’s Rights. Yes they are having a hugely expensive (and paid for by you and me of course) jolly to discuss justice for junk heaps. And naturally they are using humanoid robots and cuddly toys to encourage people to get sentimental over inanimate objects. You see the science heads are desperately concerned that their little android buddies should have equality with humans …

is it ok to murder a robot
Is it OK to torture or murder a robot

Firstly ask yourselves what kind of fuckwits would be talking about rights for robots when human rights are still something the majority of humans frequently struggle for. We are not talking about the rights of bearded queens in bridal gowns to go mincing up the aisle of the local church here, or the right of dark skinned people to vote more than once in elections. We are talking about the right to live, free speech, a fair trial etc. And where wil it end? It can only be a matter of time before we are hearing about black robots, gay and lesbian robots, single parent robots, amputee robots and robots suffering from PTSD after witnessing an accident involving a van carrying computers.

Are rights for intimate objects necessary? Could you eventually face punishment for trashing your programmable toaster? Could you be accused of racism for calling your smart phone a piece of Chinese shit? Could you be banded a sexist pig for kicking your robot fuck buddy when she tells you she is not in the mood.

And of course there is the ethical question. If robots are not our property to command and do with as we wish, if they have human rights, then slavery is surely the most gross violation of human rights. And if robots cannot be our slaves and have the right to say, “Sorry, not tonight darling, I’m having my oil change”, who will want one.

This plan, which has come up before and been laughed out of court, is the latest attempt of the fuckwits to convince sane people that machines can be intelligent in the way humans are. This is of course a step along the road to making humans dumb as machines are.

The majority of people in the world are wrong about most things, but you have to admit, sciencetits are consistently wronger than most people about most things. Human rights are for people (unless of course they are unfortunate enough to live under one of the evil tyrants the political leaders of the FUKUS axis is not pissed off with) Robots are machines.

By all means look after them carefully, they can be useful and do cost money. But giving them rights FFS?
RELATED POSTS: Where is bicycle repairman when the world needs him Will humans Become Redundant In your Lifetime

Should Human Eggs Be Sold?

Should Human Eggs Be Sold?

As the advances in medical science and the demand for designer babies advance hand in hand the ethical debates surrounding in – vitro fertilisation and genetic engineering look set to rage for many years to come.

On one side the people who want to play God are asking “Is it fair to let nature take its course with possibly tragic consequences for the child when a well judged intervention can guarantee a good, if standard outcome?”

For the other side the nature lobby ask “Can it be right to meddle with genes when the gene that determines susceptibility to a terrible hereditary disease might also be the gene that would bestow an outstanding talent as a musician, writer or scientist? Global acclaim and early death from a rare genetic disorder versus decades of mediocrity. Do you have the right to decide on behalf of another?

Can we make the decision for the unborn child that it is better for the world to have another anonymous and undistinguished economic unit who will live to age 80 rather than another Mozart of Keats who will die young but continue after death to enrich the lives of millions? May we be sure that child would thank us for the extra forty or fifty years of undistinguished life? This is one of the great conundrums the unravelling of human DNA has posed.

Another concern about this area of science is the opportunities it offers for governments of a certain political tendency to eliminate short, dark haired, slightly swarthy types from the population (they’re just jealous because we do so well with the opposite sex) or to prevent from procreating imbeciles, people with one leg shorter than the other, people with a stammer, and anyone whose eyebrows meet in the middle or to exterminate those with both legs shorter than the other or whose eyes meet in the middle.

Perversely the strongest supporters of developing such techniques are the people who shout loudest about banning political movements of the extreme right. Still who gives a Goebells about politics.

Another current controversy on the ethical implications of designer babies centres on the questionable ethics of selling human eggs. Should this trade be allowed or not?

Boggart Blog is happy with the sale of human eggs but we would like to think all our readers will only buy eggs from free range women.