This is mildly terrifying. Imagine a drug that penetrates the blood-brain barrier and inhibits the interaction of these two proteins. Administered over a long enough period of time, could it erase your memories... effectively, erasing you? Imagine such a thing being used maliciously, by governments against their critics, or as a covert weapon.
My first thought is someone is going to do these experiments, probably on a prisoner. Then my second thought was death row prisoners being given the choice of a memory wipe or death as some sort of attempt at rehabilitation. I can't yet see half the ways this could go horribly for humanity.
On the other hand knowing how this works we might be able to boost the process and make people super fast learners, that could be really cool.
> My first thought is someone is going to do these experiments, probably on a prisoner.
In the animal model, they surgically altered the animals to have an injection cannula placed in their skulls, it's obviously hard to target, so you just install it and run the experiment, then after the experiment, you kill and necropsy the animal to see if it was in the right place after all. If it was you can keep those results, if it wasn't, you throw those results away.
Meanwhile the test is putting them on a rotating platform and shocking their feet on certain platform areas. Then waiting for them to avoid it habitually. Then you inject them. Then you see if they still avoid it.
These guys basically know next to nothing about how memories are formed at this point. Their test is so amazingly cruel while being particularly narrow that you can't actually divine anything useful from it. Except maybe more funding to keep shooting in the dark at these animals expense.
Possibly more humiliating to see an opponent mind be completely wiped out, possibly living the rest of their lives as a vegetable and to need the care of someone. When one is killed for their ideas they become a martyr of sorts.
I remember seeing a Vice documentary on this drug, but Googling now it seems a lot of doubts about whether this drug has effects like claimed.
Well I don't know. But having tried drugs like Ambien which is a prescribed sleep medicine and it kind of completely removing all filters far, far more than alcohol would when not going to sleep immediately after and then not remembering anything the next day at all I found it plausible for there to exist really scary drugs like that, which would congitively affect you and your personality.
Murder leaves evidence, namely the corpse/vanishing of the victim, which leads to investigations. Usage of a memory-wipe drug could remain totally undiscovered.
It was an idea before Homecoming, and even before this 2015 paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547388/ But that aspect of Homecoming scripts were probably inspired by the general discussion of possible treatments over the years.
PTSD applies to more than just veterans. They're one of the most prominent discussed class of sufferers of PTSD, but there are victims of crimes, of simply accidents, or of war or terrorism that can also suffer PTSD.
I wonder if there's something in our food and/or environment that effectively does that over long periods of time, ultimately causing some forms of dementia?
Not that Scientific American doesn't deserve to be funded, but I'm not sure how I feel about this article being paywalled while the scientific paper it's summarizing is free:
Advertising based funding was always a scam and doomed to be a race to the bottom as per unit margins can barely support unit costs of production. The incentives for attention capture and sale of private information are the only material market pressure.
Sadly in a world of scarcity journalists need to eat too, have families, retirement funds to accumulate, etc. Quality of work requires paying humans, which requires funds from the consumers of the product one way or another. By paying as a first order user you boost the unit margin considerably and change the incentive structure to prioritize your priorities, not the priorities of advertisers and surveillance economy participants.
Sadly I don’t think anyone has come up with an alternative way of paying for the people to do the work.
Here is a (not very novel) idea: Netflix for news. I would happily pay for a solid aggregator subscription. But the number of times that some random news site from halfway across the world is the site of the day just keeps me away from news subscriptions. It feels like I am pigeon-holing myself and limiting my worldview to that of a couple of editorial boards / companies.
Also, for sites that want to have single-site subscriptions: If you bundle with print, give me the option of donating my print subscription to a library if I don't want the hard copy. Many people for whom the subscription is too much friction / not a great value proposition, will bite if at least they know the libraries are eating for free.
Is that really the best model given how it's an open secret that streaming services aren't profitable? Sure, news expenses are much less, but I imagine demand is too.
People who wanted that "news aggegator" have social media (and technically, HN counts here too).
>It feels like I am pigeon-holing myself and limiting my worldview to that of a couple of editorial boards / companies.
I fear this being an inevitability as well when relinquishing curation to a middleman. Your subscribers will influence what news you approve.
Just imagine this 2034, and the NewStream service is competing with a bunch of newspapers selling their own news streams. The original NewStream is hiring reporters to make its own news, and some people like them.
It sometimes seems to me that news organizations are suffering from self-inflicted injuries. They would be much healthier financially with aggregation.
