People are different and unique; it is the diversity of human nature that emotionally makes us vulnerable but biologically perfect. It is not how long we live that is important but the quality of life we lead. But how do we measure the quality of life? Do we measure it by the material items that we own, the number of friends and family we have or the absence of disease? “Transhumanism makes a series of promises: the increase of physical and intellectual capacities, the elimination of genetic disease, and the potential for personalised drugs and vaccines.” (Ayerra, 2019) Is it possible that transhumanism could answer the problems of climate change, elimination of disease and diminishing natural resources. In what situation could we envisage people agreeing to interventions that may alter our understanding of what it is to be human? Am I part of the problem when proudly stating that I am a socialist and want an equal and just society. To create such a society have we created the divisions that would allow an authoritarian or totalitarian power to flourish? We have constructed social groups in an apparent attempt to understand one another and our uniqueness. Yet the celebration or recognition of human diversity has perhaps created the very divisions we were trying to overcome.
Laurent Standaert and Rosi Braidotti (2019) trumpeting the need for the Fourth Industrial Revolution states:
“One of the first things the Left and progressives need to do is to get rid of the social constructivist, dualistic methodology that has become our mode of thinking. It’s binary. It’s us and them. It’s nature and culture. It’s machines and humans. In particular, the idea that technology and humanity are opposed is ridiculous. Ask your readers who are against technology to shut down all their devices.” Standaert’s and Braidotti’s view is far too simplistic. Suggesting that the opposition to increasing technological advancement is simply a matter of technology versus humankind ignores the power relationships and ultimately the goals of those who wish to advocate for a more technologically advanced transhumanist society.
Briefly let us return to the opening statement that the diversity of human nature emotionally makes us vulnerable but biologically perfect. We are vulnerable emotionally, but our biological diversity may make us stronger. Our biology adapts to the environment in which it interacts, and our immune system learns to fight illness and disease. This would partially explain why in an influenza pandemic some people succumb to the influenza infection while others remain healthy. This does not mean that the immune system does not at times require assistance to overcome infection and disease. However, to enhance the cognitive and immunological nature of the body to eradicate illness and disease may lead us to a world in which we no longer recognise what it is to be human. Seeking human perfection through technological advancement is nihilistic as it ultimately removes that which makes us human. In the film Terminator Salvation; Marcus Wright exclaims:
“What is it that makes us human? It’s not something you can program. You can’t put it into a chip. It’s the strength of the human heart. The difference between us and machines.”
The quote is an important starting point, but it does not capture that which makes humans special, the intangible nature of the soul. In their pursuit of the Ubermensch the transhumanists do not understand that what it is to be human cannot be explained by biology alone. We are already witnessing the personal and internal conflicts individuals have with their own sense of self-identity. Cosmetic surgery provides those who can afford it the opportunity to change their appearance through implants etc. but the advancement of medical interventions does not stop with cosmetic changes. Implants are now being used to aid sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and dementia (Vanessa Pataia, 2020). It may seem moral to pursue interventions to treat existing conditions, but should we be chasing interventions that seek to alter our biology to protect us from the unknown. Is it possible we heading for an existential nihilism that creates life without any intrinsic value, meaning or purpose (Pratt,1994). For existential nihilism to be reached we would have to go through a process of Political Nihilism. This would be achieved through the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious structures as a prerequisite future improvement. Power for Foucault is:
“Spread throughout society. You and I are just as much conduits of power as a CEO or a member of congress: we internalize the norms of our society, and we end up policing ourselves and other people, whether we realize it or not. We all act as unwitting enforcers of the power structure” (Joshua Landy, 2018),
Once we recognise this, we are then potentially in a position to challenge the power structures that constitutes the social framework of society; medicine, politics, religion and education etc. Throughout history we have witnessed the power struggles between science, medicine, religion and education. For instance, it could be argued that the witch hunts were used to dominate women and diminish their role as lay healers and midwifes. It was certainly not in the interests of the church for lay healers to cure the physical problems of the sick. They wanted the population to believe that faith in a spiritual being could cure their ills and should a person succumb to an illness their suffering would end in the next life. Anyone challenging that doctrine was a threat and needed to be removed or controlled. (Barbara Ehrenreich, 1972)
Today it is the assertion of this article that we are witnessing a new power struggle that is close to achieving Political Nihilism as a result of surveillance capitalism. Political power is being usurped by surveillance capitalism because we have allowed: “new surveillance–based ecosystems in virtually every economic sector, from insurance to automobiles to health, education, finance, to every product described as “smart” and every service described as “personalized.” By now it’s very difficult to participate effectively in society without interfacing with these same channels that are supply chains for surveillance capitalism’s data flows. For example, ProPublica recently reported that breathing machines purchased by people with sleep apnoea are secretly sending usage data to health insurers, where the information can be used to justify reduced insurance payments.” (Shoshana Zuboff, 2019).
Another aspect of this power struggle is the convergence of political power. We still have political ideologies, but they are being overwhelmed by surveillance capitalists who use the regime to hide their intentions by manipulating the behaviour of others. They use politics, media, health and education to enable their vision of the future.
In America there is barely any difference between the Republican Party and the Democrats while in the UK can anyone say that a change in government from Tory to Labour or Liberal Democrats would bring significant change. Meanwhile the EU are seeking to create an EU army and a central bank all of course in the name of health, prosperity and freedom.
In this environment a manufactured global crisis can achieve what surveillance capitalists and transhumanists want. A transition to a Fourth Industrial Revolution that will increase our reliance on technology and achieve integration between nature and artificial intelligence.
Covid is the vehicle that is being used to pave the way for the Übermensch and Transhumanism. Enslaving people into never ending cycles of lockdowns, masks, and vaccinations to prepare them for what transhumanists believe is natural human progression. The danger of allowing this increasing dependence on technology is that:
“Given the history of humankind, it is extremely unlikely that we [the "naturals"] will see the posthumans as equal in rights and dignity to us, or that they will see us as equals. Instead, it is most likely either that we will see them as a threat to us, and thus seek to imprison or simply kill them before they kill us. Alternatively, the posthuman will come to see us (the garden variety human) as an inferior subspecies without human rights to be enslaved or slaughtered pre-emptively.” (Jesse Reynolds, 2008)
In V for Vendetta a fictional book and film the Norsefire regime led by Chancellor’ Adam Sutler achieves a totalitarian society because of an act of bioterrorism an act performed by his own party to achieve power. While V is fictional history has taught us that governments are not afraid to use the people they represent as guinea pigs.
The UK and America have never been afraid to breach any code of medical ethics and such breaches maybe continuing today. In 1963 a small box of powder was dropped from the window of a Northern Line train, just as it pulled out of the south London station of Colliers Wood. hundreds of men, women and children were exposed to spores of Bacillus globigii, unaware that they had just become test subjects in one of the largest ever field trials of a simulated biological attack. The results show that the organism dispersed about 10 miles. Similar tests were conducted in tunnels running under government buildings in Whitehall.
Between 1952 and 1974 the British government conducted large scale biowarfare trials on the unsuspecting public. The agents used included Bacillus Globigii, serratia marcescens bacteria and zinc cadmium sulphide. Bacillus Globigii and serratia marcescens bacteria were also used by the American military in a 1950 trial called Operation Sea-Spray. The bacteria were sprayed over San Francisco Bay to determine how vulnerable San Francisco was to a bioweapon attack. Canada also participated in open-air experiments as part of a tripartite agreement it held with the U.S and the UK. However, in several tests conducted by America on Canadians in Winnipeg and Alberta local and national government was never informed that the tests were being conducted. Earlier this year a heated questions and answers session took place in a senate hearing in which Sen. Rand Paul questioned Dr Anthony Fauci about funding for the Wuhan Laboratory in China where many believe the Covid19 virus originated. Rand Paul was eager to question Fauci about funding by the CDC of gain of function tests (The enhancement of a virus in one species “bats” to allow it to cross to another species “humans”. Funding of the laboratory has not been denied but the use of funds for gain of function has (Newsweek, 2021). Meanwhile back in October 2020 a European Union MEP Derk Jan Eppink started to ask questions about EU funding.
"In 2015 and 2019, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan (China) – where the COVID-19 virus is reported to have originated – received grants from the European Union.
EUR 73 375 were granted in 2015 and EUR 88 436 in 2019.
1. Can the Commission comment on the context in which the WIV received these grants?
2. Has a European Union delegation visited this institute in the past five years?
3. How did the EU monitor whether the recipient of the grants spent the money effectively?" The question appears to have been answered in June 2021 with the following response:
"In the answer to question E-005649/2020(1) by MEP Derk Jan Eppink, the Commission confirms that funds have been transferred to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). The WIV was the probable source of the COVID-19 outbreak(2). The virus is most likely to have escaped as a result of ‘gain of function’ research. The WIV is a level 4 bio-safety laboratory, where the highest safety standards apply(3)."
Many will read these musings and immediately dismiss them as the words of a crank. An alternative perspective is that it demonstrates the ability to think critically and analyse the current world status by using personal freedom to express concerns regarding the encroaching surveillance state.
According to Sam di Bella (2019) this individual act of defiance along with many others is proof that the monopolisation of power that many believe tech companies have is an illusion. Di Bella argues that workers walking out of Google to stop collaboration with the US military are examples that the Tech companies do not yet have a monopoly. The act of defiance by Google workers was of course a moment to be optimistic however it happened before the Covid19 crisis. A crisis created by fear of an invisible biological threat that may have been created in a laboratory in a distant country. The Covid19 fear factor enabled the advancement of Tech providers into the political realm. They then merged to suppress the voices of dissenting scientists, doctors and allied heath professionals. In concluding this article may appear pessimistic but the fact that it has been written and you are reading it gives us reason to be optimistic Di Bella may well be right each individual act of defiance is a beacon of hope.
Comments