Concept for Truth

Posted by on Apr 6, 2010 in politics, Transhumanism, Truth

Concept: Skin color changes instantly through speech.
Target: Television News Pundits
Reason: Media Reform
How: Nanotechnology changes skin pigmitation through
instant fact checking and reading of the vital signs that signal truth telling.
Skin Colors:
Blue equals the truth
Yellow equals a lie.
Green equals bending the truth.

Outcome:
Population is able to instantly watch news pundits
as they lie or tell the truth. Lies are no longer allowed and
fake news channels that lie are seen as yellow skinned.
They eventually lose all commercial funding and go off air.

“Yellow Skinned” becomes a derogatory term.
“Blue Skinned” becomes a term of endearment.

The new technology begins to be used by the general population
starting with the President, all politicians and leaders in our community.
Eventually the general population is given the nanotechnology injection
at birth.

A world of truth is not only preferred but begins.

Share

8 Comments

  1. Akbar Lightning
    April 6, 2010

    wowzer pants…the old globatron is back, shootin from the hip…i love it…i love that it is out of the box, a new direction…

    also, it’s not a bad freakin idea….helz yeah…

    Reply
  2. globatron
    April 6, 2010

    thanks mate. i don’t have time to turn something like that into a poem right now as i’m on a road trip. to be honest I’m getting a bit burned out on poetry. it comes and it goes.

    think i might do quick concept sketches like this and make work from them. for instance i can already see so many media pundits in yellow face right now.

    thought some more on it and it’d be fine with me if my skin changed color really quickly then back to the original color for the sake of truth. it should be the price we all have to pay for living in a democracy. Without the truth freedom of speech is a joke.

    Reply
  3. Blue Skinned 1 | Globatron.org
    April 17, 2010

    […] From the Truth Project. […]

    Reply
  4. Greg
    April 19, 2010

    Ummm. No. Just no. In order for society as a whole there needs to be certain level of deception and non truth. I know that in some cases the truth would be nice but in others it would do more damage than good. Another thing to consider, remember the phrase, “Many of the truths we cling too depend on a certain point of view.”

    Yeah define truth for me and then I will tell you this is a great idea. Ever consider that someone might believe the lie long enough that they believe it is true?

    Reply
  5. ken vallario
    April 19, 2010

    greg, what you say is true….what you say is true…but, as you said, it is true to a point, to your point…

    but let us not take the relative position to mean more than it is meant to mean…in other words, there is a realm of factuality that for all practical purposes operates as ‘the truth’ and therefore should be respected as such, when we are dealing with social realities that call us to leave our existential obscurities behind, when it comes to agreeing on facts, and being able to point to malicious forms of deception.

    a good example is the current republican person who has consciously sought to spin the wall-street reform as a ‘bailout’, it seems the consensus is clear that he is being misleading, that he is pretending that his interpretation is valid, when in fact it manipulates an understanding. in this case, there is a ‘truth’, a set of simple principles that surround the issue that would demand a kind of destructive obstinacy to play the ‘relativity’ card.

    anyways, there are truths…there are truths in this world…they are human truths…cosmic truths are another matter, they are the playthings of intellectual discussion, and are valuable as such..but in social functioning kindness, fairness and the value of sharing and compromise are indisputable truths, as far as i’m concerned…they are self-evident.

    Reply
  6. globatron
    April 20, 2010

    I’m speaking of factual truth. That is why there is an instant fact checker on the nanobot that accesses the database of factual truth.

    The nanobot also checks for intention by reading certain biological key indicators. If one lies but thought they were telling the truth they would turn green. That way we would know that they had good intentions even though it was a lie. That way folks would be check their facts more before speaking.

    Reply
  7. Greg
    April 20, 2010

    Factual truth? Like physical laws or other things of definitive understanding? Like 2 + 2 is 4. Ok. As well intentioned as your proposal is I still stand by that the truth is not as simple as you want it to be sometimes. There is also the fact that perception is very large factor in determining our view of the truth. Regardless of your desire for “factual” truth it is quite often just not that simple. If it was then Bill Clinton did have relations in the Oval Office, George Bush lied about WMD to get justification for Iraq, and Tiger Woods is really not really a sex addict unable to control his urges but just a scumbag.

    While I share your desire for more honesty, clarity, and transparency in the government (at all levels) I do not believe it will happen in our lifetime due to human nature. I actually did not vote for Obama but was very intrigued and hopeful he would keep his committment to an open and transparent government. This unfortunately has not happened and has gone to the other extreme with deals made in the back corners and secret meetings to develop policy. I really hoped and thought he might be a man of his word and would pull back the curtain of Washington and let the PEOPLE get involved.

    So in the desire of truth, let us first consider is truth based in fact, perception, or intent? That is the things we should judge, because sometimes truth is not enough.

    Reply
  8. Krs
    April 21, 2010

    Interesting as a concept but even though the truth might set us all free I find myself wondering…

    “Who guards the nanobots?”

    Reply

Leave a Reply