The Most Controversial Inventions of All Time

An invention is something that has never been made before or the process of creating something that has never been made before. Some have a positive impact on our lives, like electricity; others' a negative impact like nuclear bombs. Yet, more often than not, there's a list of perks and downsides to each invention. In this thread, the slogging community discusses the most controversial inventions of all time.

This Slogging thread by Mónica Freitas, Jack Boreham, Sara Pinto, Inception-Cafe, Linh Smooke and Limarc Ambalina occurred in slogging's official #technology channel, and has been edited for readability.

What has been one of the inventions that has generated the most controversy in history?

I'd say the cigarette! Because ya know😂

I'm going to go with vaccines! Even though they were created to promote our health, there's a lot of strong opinions around them.

Jack Boreham, did you just snitch on yourself? 😂

Sara Pinto, oh, the anti-vaxxers...a treat! I think all great inventions have a bit of controversy. If something is new, then it's scary. How do you even argue with that lot of people?!

Consciousness.

As a 100% pro-vax person (literally just took my booster shot yesterday), I’d push back slightly on the simple narrative that people who are anti-vaccine are simply stupid/naive. There’s a long tradition in Eastern culture at least (I’m from Vietnam) of people being wary of Western meds (and just in general, western…shall I say, neo-colonialism and imposition of culture). Then there’s a lot of literature that’s credible on how much money there is to be made in the pharmaceutical industry.
It is absolutely heart-breaking/unfortunate timing that all these long-holding, healthy even, skepticism, comes to a climax with the pandemic, and a lot of bogart pseudoscience started circulating, giving rights to just irrational outrage and eventual tragedies that shouldn’t have to happen. And here we are….

So in short, I agree with Sara Pinto that yes, vaccines have saved and will continue to save so many lives and yet will still remain to be controversial, unfortunately.

I wonder what the anti-vax movement is like in your respective countries and what are the most dominant narratives there?

Not just that Linh Smooke there is an inherent problem with the idea that someone is allowed to force you to put something in your body. Government-mandated vaccines only work if you trust your government.

If you lived in North Korea or Russia would you just as easily trust what needles you need to get? I've gotten vaccinated because I believe in medical science and the effectiveness of vaccines, but I agree this isn't such a black and white issue.

As for my answer to this question I'd probably have to go with social media. I still don't know if it's done more harm than good.

Mónica Freitas 😂😂😂

Linh Smooke, I totally understand the skepticism, especially when a vaccine like the one for Covid as it was produced so fast. Yet most people in my country that I see that are against the vaccine think that it is a governmental scheme to put a chip on them and control them. At least, that is the most extreme mentality that surfaces on social media and television. Then, of course, we have people that don't want to be vaccinated because they're worried that there aren't enough studies, which I get. Besides, I don't think you should make vaccination mandatory. However, there are a lot of vaccines we're administrated early on as babies, without which we would be way more vulnerable and would get diseases that are almost "eradicated."

Limarc Ambalina, that's true. Of course, there is money to be made with all this vaccine race. The pharmaceutic industry has a lot to gain from this. Yet, my trust in this covid vaccine, for instance, is so strong because it is a drug approved in a lot of different countries and based on science. The process was fast, yes, but that's because there was an urgency to try and get the pandemic under control. Obviously, the first company to get a vaccine approved makes the most money, but there's still a scientific base behind it.
As for other vaccines in countries with dubious governments, I get the distrust. Suppose your government is the first to attack its people, then I'd be suspicious too.

Limarc Ambalina, Social Media is a pickle. It can be great but on the other hand...
I saw this video the other day that explained how it can harm the way you go about your day: imagine that the first thing you do once you wake up is open a social media app; this will spike your levels of oxytocin early in the day; obviously, you can't keep them at that high level throughout the day, so once get to your job or school, which doesn't spike your oxytocin, you'll automatically feel demotivated and it will be harder to start your chores as you'll be craving the oxytocin that you know is provided by social media. Food for thought.

Inception-Cafe, Consciousness...hum... what do you mean?

Consciousness is a mode that was discovered recently in our history following a survival pressure humans faced around 3000 years ago. Consciousness helped us switch from perception to conceptualization mode, it brought a lot of benefits but on the other hand, it opened the door to something not that great. Mental disorders, social and economic issues, social control, biological mortality, etc...are the consequences of this step between automatic modes and superhuman mode. So we are kind of in between two mentalities, an old one that disappeared and a new one we could reach if we can make it through the coming few decades.

Mónica Freitas and Limarc Ambalina, I would generally agree with the sentiments that government mandates are usually bad and can lead to abuse…except when it comes to public goods. Examples would be roads and bridges, or universal healthcare. I would say public health is big enough of a challenge that it should be categorized in the same vein, and unfortunately, government mandates are probably the only tool at anyone's disposal that could swiftly stop the spread and hence the deaths. The question is how we prevent the abuse and this bleeding onto other aspects of private life…such as, oops, abortion! (I'm being spicy today)
I feel for the actual benevolent policymakers in this case. How can you prevent so many lives lost while not invading personal liberty? It's a philosophical question and a hard one at that.

Linh Dao Smooke, hi. Public goods, they can be roads, buildings, etc are built by companies. Governments don't create anything, they are a man in the middle. Even border security and police would work better if they were private. Then in terms of privacy, studies show something the opposite of what authorities say. The goal of the propaganda machine actually is to make us believe that we need a centralized government.

Government has access to our online activities, they know exactly what will happen if they play this or that card. So when I give up on my privacy I am giving them more information that actually will be used against me and my people. A very nice PDF from the John Hopkins University was released in 2017 and we see in it how what is happening now is just what was planned decades ago. The book is called SPARS PANDEMIC. Many other studies have been done about how we would react to a C19 like stuff. Government is not the answer, it's just an illusion. A very important point in my opinion before talking about a government is what does it mean government? How do we define it? What other forms of societies can be built? What about a society where every individual is mature and perfectly responsible? Would these societies need a group of guys running other's life (let's call an elected gov)?

Inception-Cafe, oh, that's interesting. Marketing actually takes advantage of those "primary" fear. Before anxiety was a necessary mechanism for survival, the same goes for fear. However, since our everyday struggles are on that level anymore, we transported them towards the immaterial and psychological. Marketing uses these new fears - fear of not fitting in, not fulfilling your dreams, being judged, our insecurities - and throws them back at us, offering temporary solutions. I find this really fascinating, and I think it aligns with your point on consciousness.

Linh Smooke, oof, that's a hard one. It's that old tale: the greater good vs. the individual choice. On the one hand, we want to respect everyone's individuality and preferences. But, on the other hand, what if someone's choice endangers the collective. You can't support one side of this exclusively without being extremist and jeopardizing the other side. It's tricky. The only way is following an in-between path, maintaining the equilibrium.
I think that this is what we're trying to do with the vaccine overall. Those we're falling a bit more on the side of the "greater good."

Inception-Cafe, that's a different view. "What about a society where every individual is mature and perfectly responsible?" Wouldn't this bring on anarchy? If there's no set guide of "rules," and we follow the maxim of utterly free will and freedom, how could we have a functioning society? Each individual would have their own ideas of right and wrong, what's allowed, what's forbidden. Couldn't that lead to chaos? Even small tribes have rituals and set cultural traditions that dictate the ground rules. How could a society like the one you suggested work?

Linh Smooke, as far as I'm aware, and as Mónica Freitas said, in Portugal, the issue with anti-vax is mostly that people believe that its purpose is to control them and question what's in the vaccine (even though they don't question other things they may put in their bodies). I would get some of this frustration if it was mandatory, which is not. But I guess we'll always have two opinions, especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as health

Mónica Freitas, the rules can be very simple: We can start with what is mine is mine meaning I own my life and what I earned in this life (right to my own property), then a second rule could be the "no use of force", meaning that force can be used only for self-defense. Then as in a society, individuals have different ways of living we could set rules to have an organized society, kind of etiquette. Individuals don't tend to prefer chaos. When a society offers enough stability to its individuals what happens is that the society gets safe as humans are not by nature into being violent (The majority believes the opposite). In a free society as people are not limited by gov intervention, we would have so much value created that even crime would not be profitable. In a society where force is forbidden, those using it would lose. We have been following Plato's philosophy for the last 2500 years and this philosophy (see it as an OS) has deep dangerous flaws. We ended up as a civilization that has a lot of mental viruses. A lot to say on this subject :)

Inception-Cafe, I like your reasoning. It does bring me to another point: resources. How would we manage them? We've seen how crazy we, humankind, can get when facing a resource shortage. Take the pandemic, for instance. The stores were "assailed," the shelves emptied, there was nothing left. People were governed by fear of lack. How could we prevent that?