Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Brenner
@brenner.eth
The case for altering our brains 🧠: news about danger was far more important than good news - only the paranoid survived. In modern times, the danger is far away and rarely actually affects us, but our vestigial limbic resonance with scary news remains. If procedure helped change this bahavior, would you do it?
2 replies
1 recast
11 reactions
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
This is really good question. A form of “danger regulator” could have significant effects, it would make us likely happier. But we’d ignore important signals that could be harmful for us. And a sufficiently motivated person could take advantage, not that our existing state already isn’t.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
I would be comfortable with starting a low dose “danger regulator” in pharmaceuticals form (barring side effects). We could probably use that as a modern society. But a full operation seems to be an over correction. Also related: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0mtGvcjttGF7WgjKJPZAPB?si=e6NYH-BwRLiZJjnVNLHf-w
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
Back to the original point: only the paranoid survive. Though survival is a low bar in modern society.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
