Results for - Controversial ideas
3,031 voters participated in this survey
1. Cryopreservation is the use of freezing temperatures to preserve intact living cells and tissues. There are companies out there offering options for anyone willing to be frozen, ultimately with the goal of waiting for a time when science advances enough to eradicate illnesses and maybe even reverse the effects of aging. At this time, the process is pretty much one way: there is no guarantee that this time would ever come and worse off, not even the technology to unfreeze you safely. On top of it, the whole process is quite cost prohibiting.
Let's say they advanced the technology enough to make it cost efficient (or even free!). Would you be willing to use this technology on yourself (in the case of a terminal ailment or after a specific age?)?
2. DIY biology is a type of biohacking where people with education in the field share tips and techniques to help non-experts conduct structured experiments on themselves outside of a controlled experimental environment. This ranges from nutritional plans to full fledge anatomy changes where people become cyborgs. Most of what bio hackers and especially grinders (advocates for cyborg body) promote, is actually prohibited by laws in most countries. However, some claims do have a point - and this next one is one of them:
Should terminally ill patients be allowed to experiment with DIY biology hacks (i.e. build and test on themselves drugs that could potentially cure them)?
3. Still on this topic: Would you agree that people who want to use technology to enhance their body, should be allowed to do it?
Only as far as fixing medical issues (i.e. smart prosthetics, mechanical heart.... )
Allow people to use technology for comfort (i.e. microchips in the body that allow you to open doors, buy stuff, control smart things in your home...)
Allow for technology that can be used to communicate with your mind
Anything goes - it's their body!
None of the above
4. Democracy in essence is a government system where the leadership of a country is chosen by a majority of the population. In practice however this can mean multiple things and various countries adopted multiple methods of implementation, and also (in most cases) allow for separation of power within state.
Which of these systems of voting is better? (I know these are oversimplified systems and in practice it's much more complex but...)
Winner is elected by a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) of the voting population. All citizens are required to vote (with a penalty if they don't).
Winner is elected by a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) of votes . Citizens are not mandated to vote.
The country is split into areas based on population numbers. Each are is represented by a "representative" elected with simple majority of votes from the constituent population. These representatives each vote for the leader.
The country is split into areas based on geographical size. Each are is represented by a "representative" elected with simple majority of votes from the constituent population. These representatives each vote for the leader.
Citizens chose a party through a simple majority vote. The party choses the leader.
Other (please specify)
5. Let's assume for a second that both the Moon and Mars had colonies on them able to support life and there is a campaign out there to call for people to settle in these colonies.
Assuming the trip was free and you would be physically able to travel there, but that it would be a one-way trip, would you go (your family, can all go if they chose to do so and you can also take your pets)?
Yes, to the Moon
Yes, to Mars
Yes - to any of them
10/05/2022 Trivia 3031 49 By: nicster1983