World Today is World Yesterday
“The central theme of our epoch is that of all history – the fate of man. What is taking place in the world today is not a crisis of humanism (that is a topic of secondary importance), but the crisis of humanity. We face the question, is that being to whom the future belongs to be called man, as previously, or something other? We are witnessing the process of dehumanization in all phases of culture and of social life. Above all, moral consciousness is being dehumanized. Man has ceased to be the supreme value: He has ceased to have any value at all. The youth of the whole world, communist, fascist, national-socialist or those simply carried away by technics or sport – this youth is not only anti-humanistic in its attitudes, but often anti-human. Does this mean that we should defend the old humanism against today’s youth? In many of my books I have called attention to the crisis in humanism, and tried to show that it inevitably develops into anti-humanism and that its final stage is a denial of man. Humanism has become powerless and must be replaced. Humanism bound up with the renaissance of antiquity is very frail; its development implies an aristocratic social order and democracy has dealt it terrible blows, with the masses and the the power of technics breaking into cultural life. The machine dehumanizes human life. Man, desiring no longer to be the image of God, becomes the image of the machine. In its process of democratization, beginning with the eighteenth century, humanism goes along the line of subjecting man to society, to social ordinariness, it generalizes man – it is losing itself.”
Nicolas Berdyaev, The Fate of Man in the Modern World (1935), Chapter II “Dehumanization,” Section I, Paragraph 1.
The Pandemic was never just about a virus and a “vaccine”. It was the first mass-scale application of synthetic biology to the human condition. As such, it transitioned theoretical Convergence science into applied science but on a global scale. For a world that mostly never heard of Transhumanism, they have arbitrarily been placed on the conveyor belt of transformation.
As Spartacus concludes:
“There needs to be a public conversation about synthetic biology and neurotechnology, right now, and there need to be policies enacted that strictly define international and binding limits for its use. If not, then the human beings of the future will inevitably be reduced to engineered products.”
This is not a joke. It is not a drill. Humanity is on the brink of losing what it means to be human. When Klaus Schwab talks about how the Fourth Industrial Revolution is going to change YOU, he means exactly that: chemically, biologically, physically. But, he is only pointing to the mad science practitioners who are advancing synthetic biology in relative anonymity.
Klaus Schwab said something recently that got people’s hackles up.
“Artificial Intelligence, but not only artificial intelligence, but also, the metaverse, near-space technologies, and I could go on and on – synthetic biology. Our life in ten years from now, will be completely different, very much affected, and – who masters those technologies, in some way, will be the master of the world.”
Here’s the problem: he’s not wrong. People get pissed off when they hear statements like master of the world because they think it’s an empty threat; little more than the idle bluster of a megalomaniac. It most certainly isn’t. The reason why people don’t see what this technology is capable of is because, for one thing, they aren’t cursed with an overactive imagination, and for another, they aren’t used to holistic systems thinking, and lastly, there has been next to no mainstream media coverage of synthetic biology, because if there was, people would rightly be having a conniption fit.
I’m going to ask you something that may strike you as a little bit strange. What is an internal organ? The textbook answer is something along the lines of specialized tissue in the body that performs a specific function. But what if I told you that an internal organ can be whatever the heck we want it to be?
RSC – A morphospace for synthetic organs and organoids: the possible and the actual
Efforts in evolutionary developmental biology have shed light on how organs are developed and why evolution has selected some structures instead of others. These advances in the understanding of organogenesis along with the most recent techniques of organotypic cultures, tissue bioprinting and synthetic biology provide the tools to hack the physical and genetic constraints in organ development, thus opening new avenues for research in the form of completely designed or merely altered settings. Here we propose a unifying framework that connects the concept of morphospace (i.e. the space of possible structures) with synthetic biology and tissue engineering. We aim for a synthesis that incorporates our understanding of both evolutionary and architectural constraints and can be used as a guide for exploring alternative design principles to build artificial organs and organoids. We present a three-dimensional morphospace incorporating three key features associated to organ and organoid complexity. The axes of this space include the degree of complexity introduced by developmental mechanisms required to build the structure, its potential to store and react to information and the underlying physical state. We suggest that a large fraction of this space is empty, and that the void might offer clues for alternative ways of designing and even inventing new organs.
https://ko-fi.com/thejournaloflingeringsanity
T.L. Davis thank you. Some of his work is online. http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/index.htm
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/05/romano-guardini-and-the-dissolution-of-western-culture.html