The cyborg priesthood could proclaim to have the divine authority to redefine human rights when humans are no longer considered human: perspective
In giving themselves godlike abilities, the technocratic elites are moving towards a transhumanist future powered by their own intelligent design that could give them the divine authority to rewrite human rights as we know them.
Through gene editing, synthetic biology, and the merger of humans and technology, governments and corporations are fundamentally altering what it means to be human.
In a future where humans are no longer considered to be natural humans, what would that mean for human rights?
“History began when humans invented gods, and will end when humans become gods” — Yuval Noah Harari
The American Declaration of Independence holds that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Rights are rights because they are considered to come from the creator — they are God-given — and therefore, every citizen is born with these natural rights.
Article 1 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights also says that humans are born free: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
“Our intelligent design is going to be the new driving force of the evolution of life” — Yuval Noah Harari
In the era of transhumanism; however, our technocratic elites are looking to replace God, the creator with their own intelligent design.
In doing so, technocrats become the creator — the higher power that endows humanity with certain rights.
n making themselves godlike through their own devices, the cyborg priesthood wouldn’t have to answer to anybody.
Rules do not apply to gods. Gods are meant to be worshipped. Gods can be vengeful.
“Now, the people’s elected representatives face a fateful choice: restore citizen controls of technology or surrender to the cyborg theocracy” — James Poulos, 2021
“Unless ordinary Americans regain a hands-on mastery of our most powerful digital tools, we will become compliant posthumans or ungovernable psychotics, sacrificing what is left of our civilization and nation to vengeful new gods” — James Poulos, 2021
In his written testimony to Congress in December, 2021, author James Poulos observed that our “technoethical elite” believe that “we will fully merge with our technology and become ‘as gods.’”
He added that “unless ordinary Americans regain a hands-on mastery of our most powerful digital tools, we will become compliant posthumans or ungovernable psychotics, sacrificing what is left of our civilization and nation to vengeful new gods.”
Poulos’s message to lawmakers was clear: “restore citizen controls of technology or surrender to the cyborg theocracy.”
Putting technocrats in the place of God could give them the unaccountable, divine authority to redefine human rights as they see fit from their position as the creator.
You don’t have to be a religious person in order to appreciate the role that the “concept of God” plays in the construction of human rights.
Can humans be endowed with natural rights without a higher power to endow them?
“Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled” — Hermetic Principle of Polarity, “The Kybalion,” 1908
The technocrats’ transhumanism agenda is lined with half-truths, where the promise of superhuman abilities will likely be reserved only for a select chosen class while the programmable plebs exist in a constant state of surveillance and control until they become irrelevant.
For the chosen ones, they could receive human performance enhancement that would give them the ability to never tire, think smarter, move faster, jump higher, see farther, hear better, hit harder, live longer, adapt stronger, and calculate quicker than any other human being on the planet.
For the rest of us programmable plebs, the fourth industrial revolution is already merging our physical, biological, and digital identities in order to monitor, manipulate, and reprogram our behavior.
If and when humans become fully integrated with machines on a large scale, where will the technology end and the human begin?
“Eventually, they [our technoethical elite] believe, we will fully merge with our technology and become ‘as gods’” — James Poulos, 2021
It’s like what Obi-Wan Kenobi said about Darth Vader in Star Wars, “He’s more machine now than man, twisted and evil.”
Technology and bioengineering can blur the lines of who or what is responsible for a person’s behavior — the human, the technology, or the humans behind the technology.
This concept of who is ultimately calling the shots between humans and technology can be expanded to the notion of public-private partnerships.
For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — which is a founding partner of the GAVI vaccine alliance — has historically given more money to the World Health Organization (WHO) than every single nation state except the US.
When it comes to WHO policy recommendations that affect billions of people around the world, who’s ultimately calling the shots — governments elected by the people, or unelected and unaccountable globalists with ulterior motives?
“Permitting human enhancement could aggravate existing social or economic inequalities” — World Health Organization, 2021
In July, 2021 the heavily-Gates-funded WHO published a series of reports on human genome editing recommendations and governance frameworks, which acknowledge the profound ethical implications surrounding human performance enhancement.
According to the WHO’s “Human genome editing: a framework for governance” report:
- The possibility that human genome editing might be used for the enhancement of human traits is very controversial. One concern is that permitting human enhancement could aggravate existing social or economic inequalities.
- Societal concerns about human enhancement may differ depending on the context. For example, perceptions of potential harms and benefits may be very different if the proposed enhancement aims to improve performance in sport or academic endeavors, as contrasted with efforts to improve military prowess or aptitude for space missions.
- Good governance should be flexible enough to evaluate proposed enhancements in different contexts taking into account the possibility that enhanced individuals, be they elite athletes or enhanced fighters, could change careers.
Who will own the technology that resides within us or the genes that were altered synthetically?
Will human performance enhancement be reserved only for soldiers and the elite, or will it be made available to all?
What happens when technology embedded within the human body becomes obsolete?
Can a genetically-modified soldier ever return to a normal, civilian life?
“Governments, corporations, and armies are likely to use technology to enhance human skills that they need like intelligence and discipline while neglecting other human skills like compassion, artistic sensitivity, and spirituality” — Yuval Noah Harari
Militaries around the world are already making some of the biggest strides towards transhumanism because of the advantages their super soldiers would have over their adversaries.
- Understanding and improving treatment of and resilience in neurological health, transformative neural processing, fatigue, cognition, and optimized human performance, including in extreme conditions.
- Discovering interventions that utilize biotechnology, biochemistry, molecular biology, microbiology, neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and related disciplines to advance and optimize human performance, including in extreme conditions.
- Developing and leveraging technologies to advance continuous or near-continuous monitoring of an organism’s physiology to elucidate mechanisms of human readiness and resilience.
- Understanding and improving interfaces between the biological and physical world to enable seamless hybrid systems and revolutionary new human-machine interfaces.
- Developing approaches to enhance physiological resilience and performance in extreme conditions (e.g., cold weather climates) or to reduce musculoskeletal injuries via interventions that do not require genomic modifications.
When humans fully integrate with machines, or are otherwise genetically altered through synthetic biology, will we still be able to call ourselves Homo sapiens?
Would our natural rights endowed at birth still apply to us after we are no longer considered natural humans?
The DARPA announcement follows a November, 2021 Pentagon-sponsored RAND report on human performance enhancement that revealed the US Department of Defense was looking into “adding reptilian genes that provide the ability to see in infrared,” and “making humans stronger, more intelligent, or more adapted to extreme environments.”
What sort of advantages would a person with godlike abilities have over a natural human being?
According to the RAND report, “Technological Approaches to Human Performance Enhancement,” modalities for human performance enhancement (HPE) can be grouped into three principal categories:
- Gene editing
- Applications of artificial intelligence (AI)
- Networked technologies that are wearable or even implantable (the so-called Internet of Bodies [IoB])
For the US Defense and Intelligence communities, human performance enhancement offers “the potential to increase strength, speed, endurance, intelligence, and tolerance of extreme environments and to reduce sleep needs and reaction times—could aid in the development of better operators.”
But what is to become of these super soldiers once their tour of duty has ended?
“What happens when I leave the military? Does my implant get removed? Do I get to keep my implant? Does my implant get upgraded?” — Military Officers’ concerns about neural implants
According to the session, “When Humans Become Cyborgs,” at the 2020 annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the majority of military officers were primarily concerned about ownership and bodily integrity when it came to neural implants.
These military officers wanted to know:
- Do I own my own implant?
- Does my implant become part of me?
- What happens when I leave the military?
- Who pays for my implant?
- Does my implant get removed?
- Do I get to keep my implant for life?
- Does my implant get upgraded? Who pays for that?
Hardware may be implanted and removed from the human body without affecting the course of human evolution as long as it isn’t passed down to the next generation.
Genetically modifying human biology; however, can indeed forever alter the course of what it means to be human as the alterations can be passed from parents to their children.
“The ability to edit biology can be applied to practically any cell type, enabling the creation of genetically modified plants or animals, as well as modifying the cells of adult organisms including humans” — Klaus Schwab, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” 2017
Humanity can also split into several different species depending on the types of genetic engineering taking place.
Just as human performance enhancement can create indefatigable superhumans with superior immune systems, improved cognitive abilities, and enhanced digestive systems, it can just as well create a weaker class of humans by removing their “God-given” abilities to defend themselves against viruses, to cognitively think for themselves, or to even break-down certain foods in their bodies.
When WEF founder Klaus Schwab talks about the fourth industrial revolution as not only changing what we are doing, but changes who we are fundamentally, he’s not speaking in metaphors.
Schwab is telling us that technology is becoming part of our anatomy, both above and below our skin.
In his 2017 book, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Schwab remarked that synthetic biology “will provide us with the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA.”
What’s more, “The ability to edit biology can be applied to practically any cell type, enabling the creation of genetically modified plants or animals, as well as modifying the cells of adult organisms including humans.”
Schwab also observed that “The list of potential applications is virtually endless—ranging from the ability to modify animals so that they can be raised on a diet that is more economical or better suited to local conditions, to creating food crops that are capable of withstanding extreme temperatures or drought.”
“The science is progressing so fast that the limitations are now less technical than they are legal, regulatory and ethical” — Klaus Schwab, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” 2017
Following the logic, this means that humans can also be modified to be “raised on a diet that is more economical or better suited to local conditions.”
When it comes to editing human biology, Schwab argues, “the science is progressing so fast that the limitations are now less technical than they are legal, regulatory and ethical.”
Seeing how the unelected globalists wish to drastically reduce meat consumption worldwide, the idea of modifying humans to be raised on a steady diet of bugs and lab-grown protein while potentially making people physically ill after consuming meat would definitely help achieve that goal.
In fact, NYU professor Matthew Liao has suggested on numerous occasions that engineering humans to be intolerant or allergic to meat would serve the climate change agenda because it would cut down on greenhouse gases and CO2 emissions.
“Just as some people are naturally intolerant to milk or crayfish, like myself, we could artificially induce mild intolerance to meat by stimulating our immune system against common bovine proteins” — Matthew Liao, TED Talk, 2013
In his 2013 TED Talk, Liao remarked, “Just as some people are naturally intolerant to milk or crayfish, like myself, we could artificially induce mild intolerance to meat by stimulating our immune system against common bovine proteins.”
The professor has also suggested giving hormone treatments to children, so they don’t grow to be so big and tall, because “being smaller is environmentally friendly” and more energy efficient.
“If too much of the data becomes concentrated in too few hands, humanity will split, not into classes, it will split into different species” — Yuval Noah Harari
Software requires updates from time-to-time.
If there were ever an agenda to normalize software upgrades for a transhumanist future, then incentivizing or coercing the general population into routinely accepting “updates” to their bodies in the form of booster shots would definitely fit that bill.
In order for technology to give humans godlike abilities, it requires a complete surrender of all bodily autonomy to whomever controls the data.
That same data can also be used to enslave all of humanity.
Whether intentions are noble or nefarious, the ability to hack humans requires massive biological data collection in real-time.
“Biological knowledge multiplied by Computing power multiplied by Data equals the Ability to Hack Humans” — Yuval Noah Harari
Once enough biometric data is collected, all that is needed is a lot of computing power to figure out how to hack human beings, which means governments and corporations know more about you than you know yourself.
On one end of the spectrum, the military and anyone else who is rich and powerful enough to get their hands on the technologies can give themselves superhuman abilities.
On the opposite end, people like you and I end up with human behavior modification instead of human performance enhancement.
How did we get to this point?
“Organisms are algorithms” — Yuval Noah Harari
The road to transhumanism starts with digital identity, which lays the technological framework to monitor and record the personal details of every individual on the planet.
From there, the data stored in interoperable digital wallets can merge with the biometric data collected in real-time from devices connected to the human body via the Internet of Bodies.
Once technology gets in-and-under the skin to collect as much intimate data about you as possible, you are well on the way to transhumanism and the beginning of what could be the worst totalitarian surveillance regime in human history.
After all the genetic editing and the technological manipulation stemming from the fourth industrial revolution, will we still be able to call ourselves human?
How much of our humanity will be left after the synthetic overwrites the organic?
If we are to split into different species, can our rights be split as well?
When the time comes, will you bow down to your technocratic, cyborg priest class in service of their AI god?
Or will you risk being made irrelevant if it means there’s even the slightest chance of winning the great battle for the preservation of humankind as we know it?
The Sociable editor Tim Hinchliffe covers tech and society, with perspectives on public and private policies proposed by governments, unelected globalists, think tanks, big tech companies, defense departments, and intelligence agencies. Previously, Tim was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. These days, he is only responsible for articles he writes and publishes in his own name. email@example.com