Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vaccine to Prevent Killing Human Beings?

Cliff posted about 9 years ago | from the all-hail-the-reign-of-ye-implied-foot! dept.

Biotech 66

jawahar asks: "I wanted to ask Slashdot whether it is possible and desirable to develop a vaccine which, when consumed, prevents a human being from intentionally killing a fellow human being. How much funding is required to develop and distribute such a vaccine?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


And if you could distribute it airborne... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12111663)

...it would make a great weapon!

Empathy (1)

rylin (688457) | about 9 years ago | (#12111664)

Sorry, I don't think empathy comes in pills.

Re:Empathy (4, Informative)

orangesquid (79734) | about 9 years ago | (#12111684)

Ecstasy does. It's decently cheap, too. Just pump up the whole nation on it, and we won't have any problems with violence. We will have problems with STDs, though.

Re:Empathy (2, Informative)

serialhex (780586) | about 9 years ago | (#12111799)

i second this! one simple pill that makes you love anybody, everybody, and ultimately everything (especially fuzzy things, just cuz they're so fuzzy)

Re:Empathy (2, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | about 9 years ago | (#12111880)

what if the supply runs out , we would have an entire nation on a comedown bringing a new meaning to the phrase "the Great depresion"

Re:Empathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12114831)

It was used/researched by the army. Search for "extacy army truth drug" on everyone's favorite spyware^Wsearch-company.

Re:Empathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12119551)

yes its called right to bear arms

It's a Brave New World (1)

Ewann (209481) | about 9 years ago | (#12138716)

Ever read that one? Everyone takes "Soma" which keeps them happy. Sorta like X. Pretty visionary for a 1920s (30s?) book.

Riiiight.... (2)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 9 years ago | (#12111665)

April fools question obviously.

How about nanotech that prevents stupid "ask slashdot" questions or dupe posts?

ENOUGH ALREADY! (4, Insightful)

sebFlyte (844277) | about 9 years ago | (#12111669)

*points at subject*

*waves angrily*

*stamps feet*


*sits down*

*sips martini*
*calms down*


Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12112339)

One swallow does not a summer make. Similarly one moment of happiness does not make a person entirely happy. - Aristotle

My girfriend swallowed quite a few times that summer. Those moments of happiness actually made me entirely happy, for a time.

Already available (2, Funny)

crow (16139) | about 9 years ago | (#12111689)

It's already available. It's called cyanide. Upon consuming a sufficient dose, the subject will never intentionally kill anyone.

Re:Already available (1)

skinfitz (564041) | about 9 years ago | (#12112075)

But what if that person knew they would be eaten by cannibals after they die and the cannibals would eat the cyanide and die also?

Re:Already available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12112338)

No such side effects were noted in clinical trials. Release the product to market.

Acceptable losses.

Re:Already available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12118454)

give that one to the MPAA and the RIAA

Considering (1)

wowbagger (69688) | about 9 years ago | (#12111690)

The stupidity of this 1 April's /. stories is making me want to kill all the authors who created such garbage, and the editors who are approving it.

Perhaps funding on such a vaccine should be increased.

No. (1)

recursiv (324497) | about 9 years ago | (#12111699)

First check the definition of vaccine [answers.com]. Then you will see that vaccine is not the word you are looking for.

Less pedantically however, the answer is no. Right now, no amount of funding could produce such a thing. I cite no sources. It is immediately and intuitively obvious.

Glad I could clear that up.

Re:No. (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 9 years ago | (#12112513)

However, it may be possible to make a shot that when given to an infant will kill all their eggs/remove their sperm producing capacity. No more procreation will (eventually) lead to no more death....

Re:No. (1)

Mr Z (6791) | about 9 years ago | (#12120759)

Well, I suppose if you could identify some psychoactive chemical that you could trick your immune system into generating as an antibody, and then construct an artificial pathogen to stimulate production of said antibody, it might almost be a vaccine.... if you squint, tilt your head sideways and glance at it just so. :-)

The question though just sounds like something out of Clockwork Orange. Bah. Yay 01-Apr-2005.


what is "intentionally killing"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12111734)

Since it's in the news lately.. does taking out a feeding tube count as "intentionally killing"?

Also I assume you mean that if someone takes this vaccine, *they* will be unable to kill. Just making sure.

It seems like the boundary between intentional killing and, say, maiming, or being violent or angry might be pretty fuzzy. I think a person who takes the vaccine would have quite an interesting personality.

Would it be possible to develop a vaccine (based on the knowledge of this one) to create murders?


Re:what is "intentionally killing"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12112633)

You can't kill something that's already dead.

Re:what is "intentionally killing"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12113983)

does taking out a feeding tube count as "intentionally killing"?
You can't kill something that's already dead.
OK, but what if you were to, say, remove the feeding tube from someone who's not already dead, or even terminally ill? Would that count as "intentionally killing"?

i have a better idea... (1)

serialhex (780586) | about 9 years ago | (#12111750)

why dont we just implant shock-collar like things into people that react to thoughts of evil-doing. that way whenever people think about hurting someone they'll get a nice big shock, kinda like cartman and his implanted v-chip. and then we can just start breeding it out of our kida through gene therapy? and eventually why not instead of giving birth or even conceiving people we'll breed and grow them so they wont ever have any 'wrong' thoughts or concept of evil. we'll even make them all look the same and have the same skillset so no one will be different, which will deterr killing anyone because if you kill someone, or hate someone, your really just killing/hating yourself! or why not just teach tolerance instead of forcing tolerance - which isnt very tolerant.

Re:i have a better idea... (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | about 9 years ago | (#12122249)

This sounds a lot like a book I read once by Robert Heinlein... I think it was called "The Alliance." -:sigma.SB

We already have them (1)

crstophr (529410) | about 9 years ago | (#12111751)

They're called cyanide tablets and they will remove your ability to kill another human being quite effectively.

Solution without medication??? (1)

BrynM (217883) | about 9 years ago | (#12111768)

If you are trying to prevent person A from killing person B, simply preemptively kill person A. No drugs needed, just cleanup and pinning the blame somewhere.... It works for the US government!

Yeah, I'm a sick bastard sometimes. This question sounds like something from a 50s sci-fi or something. I honestly don't think it's possible to turn off something as complicated as a desire to kill with some kind of hormone or inhibitor though.

Happy fools!

Funding resolved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12111777)

"I wanted to ask Slashdot whether it is possible and desirable to develop a vaccine which, when consumed, prevents a human being from intentionally killing a fellow human being. How much funding is required to develop and distribute such vaccine?"

Well, when we stop trying to kill you, you can stop paying us. ;)

Nope... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 9 years ago | (#12111839)

but I hope there are vaccines to prevent intentionally killing jokes.

Seriously, I'm already fed up with the supposed jokes of today, but this must be the lamest of the lame.

Re:Nope... (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | about 9 years ago | (#12112005)

I have an itunes playlist to play "killing joke" if that would help

ofcourse you do realise the irony of "killing jokes" in a joke story about preventing killing dont you ;)

Already done (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12111857)

It works really well on rats.

Is this a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12111882)

I'm asking because jokes are otherwise easily spotted by the fact that they're funny.

Somebody needs to read Clockwork Orange. (1)

infonography (566403) | about 9 years ago | (#12111983)

And I mean the book not watch the movie. Threat of violence is that keeps not just people in line, but their governments. That's why the 2nd amendment exists. Should there ever come a time when we have to take up arms to throw out a dictator.

Painting with a broad brush, in pre-Meiji Era (1868-1912) in Japan if you were impolite you could have your head lopped off. Similar to the Old West of the United States and at least one episode of Blake's Seven.

A society of Sheeple would not be desirable.

Re:Somebody needs to read Clockwork Orange. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12113956)

WTF? The only difference between the book and the movie is Alex's transformation into an old, docile house-husband at the end of the book.

Frankly, the movie is the definitive version of ACO, just as the Fincher flick is the definitive version of Fight Club.

It already exists (1)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | about 9 years ago | (#12112037)

Such a vaccine already exists.

It's called, "Hemlock." Large amounts of "Draino", "Cyanide," "Autoerotic Asphyxiation" and "Jumping in front of a bus" have also proven effective in clinical trials.

This vaccine and its substitutes work by the voluntary self-imposition of a disruption to the human condition on an individual level -- after all, logic holds that an individual who is not living cannot kill another human being. When properly self-administered, (that is, the patient does not plant a bomb beforehand, go on a shooting rampage, or otherwise plan murder and/or mayhem to conclude or coincide with the administration of the vaccine,) the vaccine is 100% effective.

Who cares? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 9 years ago | (#12112070)

Rape, pillage, murder all you want. What we NEED is a vaccine to prevent lame humor on /. on April 1st. This is weak even compared to past years.

It seems like every year they turn over editorial duties to 6-year-olds. Next thing we'll see dupes of April Fool's pieces.

And, yes, I am complaining and being mean, if the editors don't like it, then they should quit their jobs. In the words of Stu Hamm: If you're scared, stay home!

Obligatory Science Fiction reference (1)

dpilot (134227) | about 9 years ago | (#12112462)

Unfortunately, I forgot the title, but a rough synopsis...

A scientist invents a thing called "Viral Construct" (hereinafter, "VC")and tries it on himself. He runs into a friend in a bar who is already slightly tipsy, and the friend takes it, too. The friend goes home and sleeps for 3 days straight, but wakes up feeling astonishingly good. The scientist is dead - it turns out because he didn't let himself sleep the 3 days straight, but forced a normal waking schedule. Kind of an odd, silly, unlikely beginning, but it sets an interesting stage.

It turns out that VC is readily communicable, and has the same effects on those so infected. Not only do they feel good, but they tend to lose their bad habits. They generally quit smoking, and while they may enjoy alcoholic beverages, they no longer abuse. They also tend to automatically eat better, get more exercise, take a more positive outlook on life, etc. In essence, it's a "sanity infection." A small group of people forms around this, and keeping one of them uninfected as a control, the rest set out to infect the world.

One typical case was advance scout soldiers who had not reported in on schedule. Their followup found them - having lunch with the scouts from the other side. They had met and talked, and discovered how much their lives were alike, and that they'd likely be friends, if only they weren't wearing different uniforms.

There was a loose movie adaptation called, "What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063799/ [imdb.com] starring a young Mary Tyler Moore, in between The Dick Van Dyke Show and The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Toucan Son of Sam? (1)

infonography (566403) | about 9 years ago | (#12112959)

"What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" Seen it, It was reversed in "28 days later". They had a Toucan in it, Was that Toucan, Son of Sam?


Follow your nose, it always knows the flavor of death where ever it goes,

Terror in the supermarket, shoppers are in horror,

Shredded boxes in the aisles, corpses on the floor,

Those who ran, this joy is mine, now they're going to pay,

Super gory slaughter now the order of the day!

Toucan Son of Sam!!

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

Follow your nose, it always knows the flavor of death where ever it goes,

Orphaned at the age of five, parental guidance missed,

Reschudwich (???) wouldn't talk to him and he got really pissed,

The remittal chemicals have driven him insane,

Now we know the calling like it's ringing 'round his brain,

Toucan Son of Sam!

Snap! Crackle! Pop!

Toucan Son of Sam!

Part of your nutritious breakfast

--- Green Jello cereal killer soundtrack

Use dihydrogen oxide. Meets requirements. (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 9 years ago | (#12112550)

Use dihydrogen oxide. That will do the trick. Administered in very small quantities into the lungs, or in large quantities through injection, it can render any human being incapable of any action...including murder.

Re:Use dihydrogen oxide. Meets requirements. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12114551)

Dihydrogen monoxide, or hydrogen hydroxide. Not dihydrogen oxide.


Re:Use dihydrogen oxide. Meets requirements. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12125737)

WOW! That joke's been passed around longer than your mother.

Dearest Jawahar Mundlapati (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12112772)

you may quite possibly make it to the top of the list of dumbest motherfuckers out there. are you seriously asking for a drug that can "magically" intercept an unidentifiable series of chemical pulses through an unmappable (for the foreseable future anyway) medium?

if you really are try this:

  1. insert left index finger up ass.
  2. pop your right thumb up beside it.
  3. leave them there and wait until i come out of your mothers room for a beating that you clearly require.
    • while you are waiting for the "beating" you could read back up on your college notes on democracy and other forms of social managament
    • grays anatomy.
    • submit yourself to the Darwin awards for recognition.

Re:April Fool's Day (1)

Kaamoss (872616) | about 9 years ago | (#12112892)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm a nerd or something, but I'm sitting in my office right now and it would be nice to read some real news as opposed to fictious stories intended to amuse me. Please, make this garbage end.

Mother Nature Beat You To It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12114177)

Start with a daily morning dose from a bong or a joint, mix with some patchouli cologne/perfume, let your hair grow to your waist, and continually say "make love, not war"

Question is too broad (2, Insightful)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 9 years ago | (#12114253)

I know this is April Fool, but let's explore the question anyway. Some people have asked this question in other forms before, and meant it seriously. There's usually a political motive behind it, such as "if we could we could stop war", or "if we could then we could immediately enact this utopian society I came up with while drinking absinthe."

The question is too broad (or the asker's mind too narrow). Is it allowable to kill another human being in the course of self-defense? Or use both your brain cells to figure this one out: what if you could save the lives of two people by killing their imminent assassin?

Write these questions large. If the purpose is to stop war, what do you do when an unvaccinated army comes invading? Do you take up arms in defense to save your fellow vaccinated citizens? Or do you comfort yourself on your deathbed knowing that although you could have prevented ten million deaths, at least the Halkan Council will remember you kindly?

Here's another one. What if Judge Greer had been vaccinated? Would he have been able to order the removal of Terry's feeding tube? Or what about abortion? Really think about that last one. If you don't believe that the fetus is a human being, then the vaccine won't prevent you from performing an abortion. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, it will. Follow that logic and you'll soon discover that the vaccine will not prevent any killing that the killer can mentally justify. What if the only thing preventing the killing is the killer's *belief* that he is not killing?

Re:Question is too broad (1)

dhalgren (34798) | about 9 years ago | (#12138637)

Like the Sword of Truth--no matter how hard you try, it will not harm that which the wielder does not believe needs harming. Goodkind explored this aspect of its power, but IMHO never took that route as far as I would have liked.

jawahar might want to carry some of it with him... (1)

mmortal03 (607958) | about 9 years ago | (#12114283)

...because these April Fools articles are making people want to do exactly what the said vaccine cures.

Psychotropic inhibitor. (1)

man_ls (248470) | about 9 years ago | (#12114340)

If it were somehow possible to chemically inhibit the aggression regions of the brain, then yes, this would be possible.

Unfortunately, lowering the levels of certain neurotransmitters implicated in aggressive behaviors would ultimatley kill the person: the same chemicals are needed for many other, very important brain functions.

Hey! (1)

ignatzMouse (447031) | about 9 years ago | (#12115516)

Wasn't there a movie [imdb.com] about this?

Re:Hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12133344)

No there wasn't.

laziness pill (1)

burdalane (798477) | about 9 years ago | (#12135165)

A pill that makes people super-lazy could do the trick. An extremely lazy person would be too lazy to intentionally kill other human beings. But people would die of starvation because they would be too lazy to eat.

Won't Be Allowed (1)

tilleyrw (56427) | about 9 years ago | (#12136262)

Government will not allow a happy populace to exist.

  • Why is marijuana illegal in many countries?
    Because users are happy and non-violent.
  • Why is sex criminalized in so much of the world?
    Because sexual satisfaction leads to a happy, productive, and inventive populace.
  • Why does male-oriented rule exist in the majority of the world?
    Because males outnumber females. Simple.

    Happy people do not war and strengthen government.

Males are physically stronger than females. In this Age, this allows male testosterone to rule because males have only two drives: fuck it or kill it.

It is females that are the creative, imaginative, life producers. Women currently are mostly subjugated slaves who unknowingly contribute to a world of hate, violence, and war.

What is the answer? Yoga and tantra. Life has not changed in recent millenia nor in the past 5000 or 10000 years. Life is about loving connection with friends and realization of the Self. All else is delusion and mental masturbation.

Re:Won't Be Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12138633)

Why is sex criminalized in so much of the world?
Because sexual satisfaction leads to a happy, productive, and inventive populace.

Ah, no wonder the U.S. government allows and encourages male circumcision...

Re:Won't Be Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12139060)


What does that have to do with sexual satisfaction?

Either you're an idiot or haven't entered puberty yet.

Re:Won't Be Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12140898)

LOL, it is you who are niave. Read about male anatomy and the function of an intact foreskin.

Re:Won't Be Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12141469)

Males don't outnumber females in many countries, probably including the one you live in
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account