Technology

for me at least until it's a very mature technology, like pacemakers and stuff like that

I'm with you on this. I get the disability argument, but I also get that when things are new and scary, focusing on a narrative for how it can help those who are most in need is one tactic for pushing it through, even if it's a bad idea overall. I trust that China will at least be more humane with this than, say, the US, but it's some of the most terrifying tech humans have ever flirted with, IMO; you just know the capitalist/colonial types of the world are salivating at the idea of how it can be used for ads and/or mind control.

It's also scary from a competency standpoint because, well... this article puts into words better than I think I could: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

But I will try to give the gist: humans have a tendency to make analogies for the brain and body relevant to whatever the latest tech development is (in modern day, computers), but this gets proven wrong time and time again, and causes even competent academics to have a poor framework for how they think about what we have. So the connection I draw here is, I fear for people coming at this from a broken framework to begin with, thinking that they can hook up brain and computer like they are similar things when they are not at all proven to be so.

I would much rather heavy research be going into understanding the brain better (which we still know so very little about) than try to shove computers into it.

I'm sure you'd feel very differently if you had a disability that the chip addressed.