What 'ware would you get? Options

[Cain]

In contrast, pheremones affect a person at a biological level, which is a level humans typically don't interact on socially. Pheromones are drugs. Selectively dispersing them into the air around you in order to affect the physiological functioning of other people and make them more susceptible to your influence is just as nefarious as slipping Rohypnol into someone's drink.

*puts on nurse's hat*

Um, no.

First of all, they're not a drug. A drug is something you take. A pheromone is something you excrete. They're nothing alike.

*takes off nurse's hat, puts on psychologist's hat*

Second, the degree to which pheromones affect human behavior is pretty low. Sure, it's one factor, but there are many others that are much more powerful. Just listen to powerful public speakers: they control an audience through voice and inflection alone. You don't need to be in the same room as them, you don't even need to see them. Vocal ability is powerful.

Third, Rohypnol is a sedative, not an aphrodisiac. It knocks people out and erases their memory. A pheromone is a chemical marker. All it does is identify something as "yours". Even if pheromones were aphrodisiacs-- which they are *NOT*-- they still wouldn't be anywhere near the same league as Rohypnol.

[Stahlseele]

If i had to chose, it'd be one of these in this order.
Sleep Regulator.
Mnemonic Enhancer.
Tricked out Cyber-Eyes.
Skillwire-Set or MBW from 4th Edition.

[Lionhearted]

*takes off nurse's hat, puts on psychologist's hat*

Shrinks wear hats?

Second, the degree to which pheromones affect human behavior is pretty low. Sure, it's one factor, but there are many others that are much more powerful...
... A pheromone is a chemical marker. All it does is identify something as "yours".

Pheromones can have rather strong influence... Not with humans, but among plants and insects pheromones can do some strange things...
I think the idea is to superimpose those kind of pheromones to humans... Which is well, not more farfetched then a lot of soft science...

[Umidori]

First of all, they're not a drug. A drug is something you take. A pheromone is something you excrete. They're nothing alike.

Clearly you're not an actual nurse. (Full disclosure, neither am I, but hey! I don't go around implying I am, except in the case of obvious facetiousness!) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Most chemicals are drugs in the right amounts. Most chemicals are also food in smaller amounts, or poisons in larger amounts. When a person chews or eats the bark of a willow tree we call it part of their "diet", but when they take a prepared dosage of the acetylsalicylic acid that the bark contains we call it a "drug", and of course if you inject a massively overconcentrated dose into someone's bloodstream, we say that you've "poisoned" them. But it all amounts to the same thing - a specific substance is introduced to the body and has a direct affect on its operation.

Even if you were to insist upon distinguishing between excreted local substances and ingested foreign ones, Tailored Pheromones would still qualify as a drug because the person being affected is not the one excreting the pheromones - the pheromones in question are entirely foreign to their body, and thus would qualify as a drug. There is no appreciable difference between extracting acetylsalicylic acid from a willow tree and having it be swallowed by someone, and extracting (and possibly synthesizing) pheromones in one person, and then dispersing them through the air to be inhaled by another.

Second, the degree to which pheromones affect human behavior is pretty low.

It's not, actually, but that's alright. Even if it was, the point of the Tailored Pheromones 'ware is to increase the potency of the pheromones and their effects substantially.

Sure, it's one factor, but there are many others that are much more powerful. Just listen to powerful public speakers: they control an audience through voice and inflection alone. You don't need to be in the same room as them, you don't even need to see them. Vocal ability is powerful.

What, exactly, does this have to do with the morality of willingly attempting to manipulate a person's behavior or state of mind via chemicals?

Third, Rohypnol is a sedative, not an aphrodisiac. It knocks people out and erases their memory. A pheromone is a chemical marker. All it does is identify something as "yours". Even if pheromones were aphrodisiacs-- which they are *NOT*-- they still wouldn't be anywhere near the same league as Rohypnol.

I know what Rohypnol is, and what it is not, and I was not implying that it was anything other than what it is. The point I was making was regarding the morality of the action and the motivations behind it, not the physical mechanisms in play. If you are willing to secretly expose someone else to a foreign compound in order to more effectively control their behavior to benefit your goals or suit your whims, that's kind of abominable. The only difference between secretly drugging someone in order to rape them and secretly drugging them get them to be more susceptible to influence is a matter of scope and scale.

That said, I concede it was an extreme example - in fact, that was the point. They're not equivalent immoral acts, but they're comparable, which is what the juxtaposition was meant to bring attention to. A more fitting comparison might be a pickup artist buying someone drinks in order to lower their inhibitions - except in that case the target is actually aware of the fact that they're being exposed to a drug, and they can choose not to partake. Not so with Tailored Pheromones - they're hidden and undetected, and cannot be avoided.

~Umi

[Cain]

Clearly you're not an actual nurse.

Actually, I am. Or was, technically, I'm retired.

Most chemicals are drugs in the right amounts.

Not even close. All chemicals are just compounds, mixtures of elements. Considering all the possible combinations available to the periodic table, surprisingly few of them are biologically active and/or helpful. Certainly not "most chemicals".

(Yes, I'm being pedantic. No, I'm not going to let a misstep slide when someone attacks my qualifications with something they should have learned in high school chemistry.)

Most chemicals are also food in smaller amounts, or poisons in larger amounts. When a person chews or eats the bark of a willow tree we call it part of their "diet", but when they take a prepared dosage of the acetylsalicylic acid that the bark contains we call it a "drug", and of course if you inject a massively overconcentrated dose into someone's bloodstream, we say that you've "poisoned" them. But it all amounts to the same thing - a specific substance is introduced to the body and has a direct affect on its operation.

No, no, no. Willowbark isn't regulated by the FDA, but there are specialized doctors and nurses who prescribe the stuff. They're called naturopaths. It's still a drug you take, since there's no chemical difference between the raw form and the processed version. Oh, and just because: most chemicals aren't food. There's only three chemicals that are food: proteins, carbohydrates, and fat. (Alcohol too, but it's an edge case.) Everything else is everything else, as any nurse would tell you after passing Nutrition 101.

By your example, water is a drug. Too much water can kill you (google the story on the Wii if you want an example, I'm too lazy to do it for you), and it's a chemical "dihydrogen monoxide". Sorry, but if you try and tell me giving someone water is equal to giving someone rohypnol (they're both drugs, right?) then I'm going to laugh.

Even if you were to insist upon distinguishing between excreted local substances and ingested foreign ones, Tailored Pheromones would still qualify as a drug because the person being affected is not the one excreting the pheromones - the pheromones in question are entirely foreign to their body, and thus would qualify as a drug. There is no appreciable difference between extracting acetylsalicylic acid from a willow tree and having it be swallowed by someone, and extracting (and possibly synthesizing) pheromones in one person, and then dispersing them through the air to be inhaled by another.

You have got to be kidding me. First of all, pheromones are natural. People excrete them all the time, literally. Again, natural isn't always better, but it's basically stuff you sweat. The guy with tailored pheromones is basically putting out more sweat. Your analogy is flawed because people don't normally ingest asprin in a normal environment, but they do absorb pheromones every day. Tailored Pheromones don't introduce anything new, they just add more of what's there.

It's not, actually, but that's alright. Even if it was, the point of the Tailored Pheromones 'ware is to increase the potency of the pheromones and their effects substantially.

*Sigh* Wrong again. This time, I'm just going to point you at a WebMD article on the subject that shows what pheromones do and don't do in regards to human behavior. I'd look up a harder science journal article, but I have the feeling it'd go over your head.

I know what Rohypnol is, and what it is not, and I was not implying that it was anything other than what it is. The point I was making was regarding the morality of the action and the motivations behind it, not the physical mechanisms in play. If you are willing to secretly expose someone else to a foreign compound in order to more effectively control their behavior to benefit your ao,s or suit your whims, that's kind of abominable. The only difference between secretly drugging someone in order to rape them and secretly drugging them get them to be more susceptible to influence is a matter of scope and scale.

You're not secretly drugging them. Pheromones, even in SR4.5/5, simply aren't that powerful. It's just a little more of what your body would already do. To use your analogy, tailored pheromones are the equivalent of switching someone's single drink for a double. They still drink it, and it might give you a mild edge, but nothing spectacular.

Hey, do you remember the 80's when pheromones were the latest craze? Pheromone sprays appeared everywhere, guaranteeing that you would turn into a stud at the push of a button. And for the most part, the sprays delivered on what they promised: huge pheromone releases. Of course, none of them worked, so they soon faded into obscurity. Unfortunately, they didn't fall out of urban myth.

What, exactly, does this have to do with the morality of willingly attempting to manipulate a person's behavior or state of mind via chemicals?

Well, 1) chemicals are not required, and 2) they're not even the best tools for the job. A skilled orator can manipulate millions of people at once, while pheromones can only affect a small room, if you're lucky.

That said, I concede it was an extreme example - in fact, that was the point. They're not equivalent immoral acts, but they're comparable, which is what the juxtaposition was meant to bring attention to. A more fitting comparison might be a pickup artist buying someone drinks in order to lower their inhibitions - except in that case the target is actually aware of the fact that they're being exposed to a drug, and they can choose not to partake. Not so with Tailored Pheromones - they're hidden and undetected, and cannot be avoided.

They're not even comparable. If I buy a lady a drink, and make it a double when she asked for a single, that's maybe mildly immoral but nothing serious. She's still getting what she ordered, and can control the effects herself. If I douse a lady with Rohypnol, I strip away her decision-making ability and her memory, so she can't consent to anything and won't remember what happened. She has no control over that, I've just stripped her control away. That's a whole different world of immoral behavior.

If I approach a lady at the bar tonight, she's *going* to be exposed to my pheromones. Period. No if's, ands, or buts. Now, in 2070, you can control your pheromone output, so you release more of what you normally do. You haven't exposed anybody to anything they wouldn't have encountered anyway, it's just a little more. And quite frankly, that little more isn't a big deal. Exposing someone to something they wouldn't normally encounter-- like Rohypnol-- is far and away different.

Bottom line: Pheromones are NOT mind control! They're not even good aphrodisiacs! They can be a useful aid, but that's about it.

[Lionhearted]

Bottom line: Pheromones are NOT mind control! They're not even good aphrodisiacs! They can be a useful aid, but that's about it.

Well... Not with humans atleast

[Cain]

Well... Not with humans atleast

True, but then I'd have to also go into plant pheromones, which are something else altogether. Keep it simple for now.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Ok, you have been granted ONE piece of fully kitted out 'ware, in delta grade and max rating. What would you pick?

Hrm... Just one?

Well...

That depends.

Does an implanted SR4 commlink come with a max-rating, milspec commlink loaded out with programs? Or hell, even a Rating 6 hacker's commlink? Because if so, I just need to use to use the tutorsofts to teach myself a die of the Programming activeskill, program it to wirelessly interface with, say, modern-day wifi protocols (assuming it doesn't have those in a Translate library somewhere,) and all of a sudden I'm the most novahot hacker on the planet.

Because if so, I'd like to go with that option.

If not... Hrm. Sleep regulator's always been high on my wish-fulfillment list of 'ware. Some kind of dietware would probably edge it out, though. A high-grade tailored pheremones would give me a big advantage, too, but probably not enough of one in these days of few face-to-face meetings. (Maybe if it was DXHR's whole C.A.S.I.E. augment, though...)

A Maths SPU would be a really nice choice, too... High-rating cybereyes would be keen, but... Well, I don't do enough to warrant them, really.

[Sendaz]

Shrinks wear hats?

Yes.

And how does that make you feel? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/read.gif)

[Sendaz]

Double post

[Tanegar]

For pure practicality, datajack, assuming we're positing a world in which a 2070s-era datajack can actually connect to the devices I use regularly. For pure awesomeness, it's hard to beat MBW.

[Umidori]

@Cain

Whelp, I like to think I'm the kind of guy who tries to own up to things when he's wrong, so I'm attempting to do so now. I should definitely try to not post things to Dumpshock in the wee hours of the morning when I haven't slept all night and am not cogent enough to realize what I'm writing is pure drek.

My own core personal philosophy remains unchaged - in general I don't approve of the active manipulation of others for personal gain - but I can at least concede my own poor argumentation, confused reasoning, and lack of supporting evidence in this particular case, and ask you to overlook the fact that I made an idiot of myself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Cheers.

~Umi

[CanRay]

Apparently I'm buying Stainless Steel Bone Lacing on the installment plan...

[Shortstraw]

Canada is too cheap to give you titanium ones?

[Cain]

@Cain

Whelp, I like to think I'm the kind of guy who tries to own up to things when he's wrong, so I'm attempting to do so now. I should definitely try to not post things to Dumpshock in the wee hours of the morning when I haven't slept all night and am not cogent enough to realize what I'm writing is pure drek.

My own core personal philosophy remains unchaged - in general I don't approve of the active manipulation of others for personal gain - but I can at least concede my own poor argumentation, confused reasoning, and lack of supporting evidence in this particular case, and ask you to overlook the fact that I made an idiot of myself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Cheers.

~Umi

That's very cool of you.

[nylanfs]

There's a difference between the social convention of "appropriate" dress, and the act of purposefully tapping into primal instincts to manipulate people.

You mean un-like using extremely attractive spokespeople to sell crap to consumers? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

You mean un-like using extremely attractive spokespeople to sell crap to consumers? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Not making this up, a friend of mine repeated something their mother said:
"I'm going to vote for Bush. I like how he looks on TV."

[nylanfs]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif) WOW

[Sendaz]

Not making this up, a friend of mine repeated something their mother said:
"I'm going to vote for Bush. I like how he looks on TV."

It is truer than you think. The original Nixon/Kennedy debate was one of the first presidential debates to be televised and Nixon's poor appearance, due to a combination of factors including campaigning right up to the last hour and refusing to wear makeup leaving him with a stubble look, did have an impact in the long run.

It is a bit of the industry hypocrisy where a woman's magazine will run articles about being yourself and not falling to peer pressure about weight or beauty and have a wafer thin glamourous fashion model posing on the page opposite who actually has to regularly go and starve herself to keep that particular look because that is what the magazine wants.


Hmmm. An autopurger might be a standard cyberware item for a model. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[MADness]

Fully tricked put eyes. No more glasses, no more missed moments with my wife and children, better privacy with the display link and my phone, safer driving in all weather situations, and I get to make cool shapes, colors, and such on my eyeball. I would also like the eyeball drone option.

[GiraffeShaman]

It is truer than you think. The original Nixon/Kennedy debate was one of the first presidential debates to be televised and Nixon's poor appearance, due to a combination of factors including campaigning right up to the last hour and refusing to wear makeup leaving him with a stubble look, did have an impact in the long run.

And don't forget the infamous sweating. Apparently that's a bad modifier on your social pools.

I'd go with digestive expansion. Then roam the country and sample the fare.

[Sendaz]

And don't forget the infamous sweating. Apparently that's a bad modifier on your social pools.

Rumor has it that was a prototype pheromone implant that still needed ALOT of tweaking. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Didn't exactly come up roses.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I heard people only wash themselves in the hope of getting laid (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Manipulation, pure and simple... Crass behavior at the least. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[CanRay]

Canada is too cheap to give you titanium ones?

Yes.

[Sendaz]

Canada is too cheap to give you titanium ones?

You have to remember they blew the majority of their budget on the adamantium they stuck in Wolverine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Frankly am surprised they sprung for steel and not maple wood lacing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)