Isn't it lucky?
staring at my.screen
Thu Jan 9 17:01:15 EST 1997
In article <mbrisbane.100197.0 at netcom.com>, mbrisbane at netcom.com (Martin
> But from the point of view of a would-be dictator, it would be a
> hopelessly coarse (unsubtle) effect. What exactly would a dictator do
> with a babbling populace? And who would be the "middle
> management"/"lesser nobility"? More babblers? How could a dictator
> target it timewise? How could a dictator target it person-wise? That's
> more difficult than simply putting it in the water supply.
Why restrict our prospective perpetrator to a "would-be dictator"? How
about an adversarial nation? For instance, instead of placing an embargo
on wheat shipments to the USSR to discourage their actions in Afghanistan,
we could have spiked their wheat with some agent that would have made the
people rise against the government, or made the regime complacent about
the invasion just long enough to give the Afghan enemy a crucial edge.
(No, I can't think of a drug that would do that either, but we may
dream...) Such manipulation would not have to be permanent. It would just
have to be effective long enough for some end to be achieved, then it
could wear off.
> It's like the old "flouridated water" fears. (Not that I believe
> flourine is psychoactive)
Why would the agent have to be "psychoactive"? Giving people, say,
dysentary would certainly manipulate their behavior.
smisch at tiac.net (emoticons implied by context)
'Where in the world are lunatics allowed to bathe naked in the moonlight?' -- R.D. Laing
More information about the Neur-sci