MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Over the weekend, I was reading a few stories that were indicating to me that the entire world has no idea what awaits in the not too distant future.
All of our traditional ideologies are about to change and it certainly is part of the technocratic agenda that has been put into play by the United Nations when they stated during their 2030 Summit, the bold political moves that are about to happen.
Throughout history, the human experience has been extremely brutal. While for the most part, our civilization behaves in a civil manner, freedom now is determined to be the ability to tear down and destroy everything including morality as an act of expression.
We are on the brink of an evolutionary leap and that what we are calling the human condition is something that has become outmoded — we feel a sense of entitlement, we depend on violence to protect us and we welcome an iron fist of enforcement without the need for fair trials or the court system– the court of public opinion has eliminated due process.
The fabric of the Constitution is thinning and we are beginning to evolve in so many ways as the constitutional republic is being trampled on by the resistance that sees the common values we all share as antiquated and in need of change.
It seems a bit too late to revive the Constitution and Americans are too stunned to move out of the way of the steam roller of technocracy that will flatten any and all that defy. The implications of many Americans from the lowly to the high and mighty in crimes against the state will become the norm in just a few short months.
The crimes will be loosely defined and censorship along with erasing of the messengers from the net will also come under fire for calling out the scientific justifications for the elimination of certain individuals that will be declared to be anti-science.
We have all been assured that technology is supposed to bring the promise of a ‘brave new world’. We have been beguiled to bite into the Luciferian apple and play with the Promethean fire as we see unprecedented advances in computers, telephony, artificial intelligence, genetics neuroscience, and biotech.
All of this technology and advanced science is here to transform the world in so many ways, and we have been told that these new technologies will mean abundance for everyone.
Many Americans today would quite possibly consider Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” to be a utopia of sorts with its limitless drugs, guilt-free sex, perpetual entertainment and a genetically engineered society designed for maximum economic efficiency and social harmony.
Conversely, most free people today would view Orwell’s “1984” as a dystopian nightmare, and shudder to contemplate the terrifying existence under the iron fist of “Big Brother”; the ubiquitous figurehead of a perfectly totalitarian government.
Although both men were of British descent, Huxley was nine years older than Orwell and published Brave New World in 1932, seventeen years before 1984 was released in 1949. Both books are widely considered classics and are included in the Modern Library’s top ten great novels of the twentieth century.
It would be great if we could make 1984 fiction again, or tame the inevitable dove tailing of “Brave New World” and maybe avoid another dystopian future “The Children of Men.”
I can imagine all three scenarios happening simultaneously as a technocratic dictatorship will give us what we want as long as we give them our souls and our genetic codes in order for them to have control over us.
The “Ministry of Truth”, in 1984, also known as “minitrue” in Newspeak, served as the propaganda machine for Big Brother and the INGSOC regime. Although it’s main purpose was to rewrite history in order to realign it with Party doctrine and make the Party look infallible, the Ministry of Truth also promoted war hysteria in order to unite the citizens of Oceania while broadcasting simple messages designed to discourage any self-determination or autonomous thought.
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. War is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength.
Whereas the citizens of Brave New World used the drug, Soma and cursory material distractions to vanquish any desire for real knowledge or truth; the “memory hole” in 1984 was a chute connected to an incinerator and served as the mechanism by which the Ministry of Truth would abolish historical archives as if they never existed.
In other words, truth was unimportant to the citizens of Brave New World and it was summarily rescinded from the realm of 1984.
Children of Men was written by P. D. James in 1992.
In Children of Men, the year is 2027 and immigrants are hunted down like cockroaches. Chaos reigns as 20 years of human infertility, followed by the extinction of children, have left civilization in a bleak and hopeless state.
Many people leave the chaos in their various countries and become refugees. They flock to England.
As people with no nation, the film’s refugees are positioned as the scum of society and treated with a horrible animosity. The government has no other solution but to hunt them down, detaining them in cages, holding them in camps to be deported back to the hell they escaped from. The military roams the streets for “civilian protection”; various terrorist and rebel groups fight against the totalitarian government.
In the story, there have been no reports of any children being born for years and then suddenly a miracle happens and a mother of the only child – an immigrant must be protected in order for civilization to continue.
The baby does not solve the pain in this dystopia — the child is supposed to signify salvation; however, I conclude that it would mean that science would have to take it and determine a way to use its’ stem cells and other parts in order to secure that civilization continues, even while the general public sees itself facing peril.
Science is a two-edged blade, it can be used to cut off ignorance, or sever the head altogether. When Science is used for the good of the people, progress is assured, but when it falls into the wrong hands, the rest will suffer.
The political edge of science becomes technocracy –and I would say that for many years and many dystopian tales later the world may not be leaning its lesson and the cautionary tales of leadership playing God does not appear to scare scientists away from acting as if they are ready to fill that position.
Compartmentalization and redefinition of scientific terms and agendas really are always in the menu of the Dark Masters intent on fooling the simple-minded. There’s a need to carefully sift through all the things they’ve been throwing us along the way.
Today, I read something that reminded me of the story of “Children of Men” in a way and that is the first human to live for 1,000 years may have already been born.
Ben Goertzel, founder and CEO of artificial intelligence firm. SingularityNET, sees a large-scale shift over the coming years as super-advanced machines predict how different drugs will interact with the body.
Everything from drugs that identify genetic markers to nanotech particles are now at the ready to bring us closer to immortality – or at least have us live longer lives.
Speaking at the Human-Level Artificial Intelligence conference organized by GoodAI in Prague, Czech Republic, Goertzel said “it’s pretty clear to me” that researcher Aubrey de Grey is correct in his assertion that the first thousand-year-old person is already alive. De Grey argues that scientists need to solve seven types of aging damage, which will enable humans to receive regular top-up treatments to extend their lifespan.
Goertzel further explained that:
“It’s not even that extremely visionary in the view of what longevity freaks like Aubrey and I believe, because I think we could easily be 10 or 20 years away, or even five years away from something that would let most people who took the therapy extend the lifespan by say, 10 or 20 years beyond it would be otherwise,” Goertzel says. “And once you’re at that point, then hopefully there’s a virtuous cycle that happens. Because once there’s some therapy that will let the person who took it live to an average age of 95 instead of 85, then the world gets excited. And then you’ll see more resources and enthusiasm going into this type of research, and then you’ll see more discoveries.”
Just this week, a new study from the University of Exeter found that disrupting certain genetic processes could help reverse aging in cells. Some are done waiting for new tech – the entrepreneur Serge Faguet has already spent $250,000 on biohacking to extend his lifespan.
Goertzel’s global A.I. network SingularityNET powers the Sophia robot sees smart machines playing a big role in this area as it can simulate and discover the effects of changes on the body.
He cites rapamycin, which has been found to extend the lifespan of lab mice by 30 percent but has the unfortunate side effect of immune system dysfunction.
An A.I. that can predict and understand these effects could make key recommendations, and it could even lead to machines devising their own experiments on both animals and humans.
Again, it is Artificial Intelligence that can prolong your life or snuff it out of it so chooses.
These advancements seem like small, behind-the-scenes jumps, but they could pave the way for machines that directly administer drugs to patients. This could also pave the way for nano tech to be activated and used for cures or even repair of bodily functions.
We know that our bodies and our health are very complex things, we are complex forms of life. For any particular medical problem, there are innumerable ways to treat it, and research can go in any direction to figure out how a treatment works. Nano particles would have an up-close look at the cells of the body and see exactly what effect a chemical, nutrient, mineral, or vitamin has on it and on the DNA.
Stem cells are also a key factor in body reparation.
According to STAT News, a health and science publication, for any given medical problem, it seems, there’s a research team trying to use stem cells to find a solution. In clinical trials to treat everything from diabetes to macular degeneration to ALS, researchers are injecting the cells in efforts to cure patients.
But in one study expected to launch later this year, scientists hope to use stem cells in a new, highly controversial way — to reverse death.
The idea of the trial, run by Philadelphia-based Bioquark, is to inject stem cells into the spinal cords of people who have been declared clinically brain-dead. The subjects will also receive an injected protein blend, electrical nerve stimulation, and laser therapy directed at the brain.
The ultimate goal: to grow new neurons and spur them to connect to each other, and thereby bring the brain back to life.
This is not the first time that this has been proposed.
There was a study launched in Rudrapur, India, in April 2016, but it never enrolled any patients. Regulators shut the study down in November 2016 because, according to Science, India’s Drug Controller General hadn’t cleared it.
Now new trials will start in Latin America in coming months.
If that trial mirrors the protocol for the halted Indian one, it’ll aim to enroll 20 patients who’ll receive a barrage of treatments. First, there’s the injection of stem cells isolated from the individual’s own fat or blood. Second, there’s a peptide formula injected into the spinal cord, purported to help nurture new neurons’ growth.
The company has tested the same concoction, called BQ-A, in animal models of melanoma, and traumatic brain injuries. Then they apply a regimen of nerve stimulation and laser therapy over 15 days to spur the neurons to form connections.
Researchers will look to behavior and EEG for signs that the treatment is working.
This raises ethical questions: How do researchers complete trial paperwork when the person participating is legally dead? In the United States, state laws most often define death as the irreversible loss of heart and lung or brain function.
If the person did regain brain activity, what kind of functional abilities would he or she have? Are families getting their hopes up for an incredibly long-shot cure for death?
The company hasn’t tested the full, four-pronged treatment, even in animal models. Studies have evaluated the treatments singly for other conditions, like stroke and coma, but brain death is a quite different proposition.
One small, uncontrolled study of 21 stroke patients found that they recovered more mobility after they received an injection of donor stem cells into their brains.
On the usage transcranial laser devices for neuron growth, the evidence is mixed. The approach has been shown to stimulate neuron growth in some animal studies.
However, a high-profile Phase 3 study of one such device in humans was halted in 2014 after it showed no effect on 600 patients’ physical capabilities as they recovered from a stroke. Other trials to revive people from comas using laser therapy are underway.
Scientists are confident that all of the protocols will revive those who are declared brain dead.
In fact, scientists are saying that a cure for brain death will probably happen before there is a cure for cancer.
They are claiming that the first trial should give positive results and those results should be ready by next year.
A person who is brain dead may appear alive – there may be a heartbeat, they may look like they’re breathing, and their skin may still be warm to the touch.
But doctors say there is no life when brain activity ceases.
According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act, an individual is dead when he or she “has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.”
What that essentially means is that the brain, an extremely complex organ, no longer helps the patient function.
Without brain function, the body eventually shuts down, unless there is medical intervention.
The legal definition of brain death can vary from state to state.
Setting aside the sheer regrowing human brain tissue for a moment, this attempt at bringing people back from brain death begs a much larger question: should they?
The easy answer for anyone who has ever dealt with losing a loved one too soon, is “yes, of course, they should.” But even if the technology is feasible, regenerating a brain is not the same as growing a kidney in a lab or generating skin in a petri dish. The brain is the center of life. It is the absolute basis of who we are. When the brain dies, the memories, the personality, the human being inside, dies with it. Regenerating the brain would be generating a person without memories, without a self.
A new person.
While this may not sound like a bad thing at first, just stop for a moment and think about the ramifications. When this new person wakes up, family members might initially be elated, but the person probably would not recognize their family – their memories would be wiped clean and they would have to go in for years of therapy to regain cognition.
Each new scientific advancement comes with a price; reviving a brain after brain death means that a whole new person would be created and would inhabit a body.
What the trial actually represents is the specter of near immortality where you have the opportunity to be a 1000 year or 2000 year man or woman.