Dream Warrior

Transhumanism

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Transhumanism

Post  Manahuna on 20.07.09 17:24

June 27, 2009 at 12:00am

Til now, we would like to think that we contain the social freedom to think what we wish to think. Even in the most suppressed societies, where many aspects of our physical lives are regulated, our freedom to think is still present.

China's sociological restriction on birth control can never suppress the actual act of conceiving more than one child through policy alone. While having more than one child may be against the law, it would not be against your biological means. This is just a single example of the physical control that is exerted on individualism through the use of policy, transhumanism for the first time gives policy makers the ability to implement social control at a biological level.

Would it not be increasingly logical for a totalitarian state that wishes to control it's population to engage in means of biologically imposing limits to the reproductive organs or simply removing all reproductive functions, in order to move the state into having even more control over it's population? Yes all of this may seem extremist, yet it really isn't. Much work has been laid out into what is called the creation of the "New Man" or what transhumanists call the "posthuman". The problem is that this posthuman new man will be more like a complete biological quasi robotic slave.

So far I have only explored the reproductive aspect of biological control, but this article is about the ultimate nanny state. Biological control is merely one of the baby steps towards reaching this. With all the developments of deep brain stimulation and other behavioral neural modifications currently being conducted, future developments of these experiments suggest that complete control of the mind may be obtainable.

Aaron has also blogged about this in he's piece on Huxley's "ultimate revolution" being the complete and pervasive Big Brother state. A world where not only are you programmed to feel happy, and content with what ever living conditions are provided, but also suppressed from having any type of true individuality. This can easily go down the path of the creation of the hive mind, which unfortunately will not be explored in this article due to its very own extensive complexities.

Lets dive in deeper shall we? Already there exists talk in the field of neuroscience that the human condition may have to be re-engineered to bring fourth a more Utopian/enlightened state of mind. The concept that crime, selfishness, and all the personality traits that in the past have provided us with occasional unpleasant emotional states can be removed genetically for the means of ultimately ending suffering. The root of your suffering will be seen as defects in your mind which can and need to be corrected. This will give an ever increasing justification to transhumanists to modify the current human condition in an effort to create a peaceful, enlightened human.

There's already tons of talk in tranhumanist circles of how genetic re-engineering will give us the ability to turn our selves into anything imaginable. Yet when you factor in the very real elements of control that exist, its hard to think that this controlling factor would not act quickly to maintain its control over the population. Remember the need to wield power over other people will not easily go away. It may also in fact increase as a new power race begins. A race to merge your consciousness with a machine in order to reach, in essence, "at one with the universe" this will drive those in power to seek out even more power. The reasoning being, that obtaining a universal mind can only be achieved if AI nanomachines go on to turn the entire universe into computronium, which there minds will be the driving force behind such an act.

But lets take a step back and attempt to plot a "progress" timeline to all of this. As mentioned above, simple genetic tweaks will be done for health reason and overall protection. At least that's what will be told. Slowly the genetic tweaks will become more and more pervasive; things such as anger, sadness, depression, and even happiness will be throttled down, and tamed. Before long anything that is believed to lead to antisocial behavior or heightened emotional states will slowly go, mood suppression and happy pills will keep the mind under a cloud of content.

This alone will be enough to put the general population into a command accepting sleeper society, although some out there will still have undesired thoughts. To increase control brain implants will have to be implemented along side genetic modification. The brain implants which can easily be delivered via vaccines in the form of biological nanobots will set up camp on key specific centers in the brain providing total non evasive brain access. Hard-wiring the brain will open the gates to direct thought monitoring and control. At this point any thoughts can be injected directly into the neural cortex and Huxley's ultimate revolution where a slave will learn to love his servitude is finally achieved.

This will be last time I will state that this article is not about how complete mind control can be achieved, but rather about the ultimate nanny state. Til now I have fully shown you how transhumanism and or the enabling technologies that fall under transhumanism open the flood gates to a complete biological control of the human species, but to me this is still one step way from full and total control.

Source:TransAlchemy
avatar
Manahuna

Posts : 716
Join date : 2009-06-02
Location : Berlin

http://nerofix.com/id1685

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism

Post  Manahuna on 20.07.09 17:51

NWO Congressman Mark Kirk's Plan to Track Every American





RFID Nanotechnology (THAT CAN FIT IN VACCINE SOLUTIONS)




Emotiv Epoc Press Demo



Brain-computer interface and virtual reality - A man paralysed almost entirely from the neck down navigates through a virtual world using a brain-computer interface The subject was able to do so about 90% of the time

avatar
Manahuna

Posts : 716
Join date : 2009-06-02
Location : Berlin

http://nerofix.com/id1685

Back to top Go down

The Golem Project

Post  Manahuna on 25.07.09 15:33







BBC
By Jonathan Fildes
Technology reporter
July 24, 2009

A detailed, functional artificial human brain can be built within the next 10 years, a leading scientist has claimed.

Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project, has already simulated elements of a rat brain.

He told the TED Global conference in Oxford that a synthetic human brain would be of particular use finding treatments for mental illnesses.

Around two billion people are thought to suffer some kind of brain impairment, he said.

"It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years," he said.

"And if we do succeed, we will send a hologram to TED to talk."

'Shared fabric'

The Blue Brain project was launched in 2005 and aims to reverse engineer the mammalian brain from laboratory data.

In particular, his team has focused on the neocortical column - repetitive units of the mammalian brain known as the neocortex.

"It's a new brain," he explained. "The mammals needed it because they had to cope with parenthood, social interactions complex cognitive functions.

"It was so successful an evolution from mouse to man it expanded about a thousand fold in terms of the numbers of units to produce this almost frightening organ."

In Search for Intelligence, a Silicon Brain Twitches




The Golem 1920 (1/7)

The legendary silent film by Carl Boese and Paul Wegener.
Rabbi Loew creates the Golem to protect the people,
but the monster begins to wreak havoc instead.
avatar
Manahuna

Posts : 716
Join date : 2009-06-02
Location : Berlin

http://nerofix.com/id1685

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism

Post  Manahuna on 25.07.09 15:37

Will You Resist the Borg Agenda?





Or Will You Be Assimilated?





avatar
Manahuna

Posts : 716
Join date : 2009-06-02
Location : Berlin

http://nerofix.com/id1685

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism

Post  Manahuna on 03.11.09 13:42





Judge OKs Challenge to Human-Gene Patents

Wired
November 2, 2009
By David Kravets

A federal judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit can move forward against the Patent and Trademark Office and the research company that was awarded exclusive rights to human genes known to detect early signs of breast and ovarian cancer.

The first-of-its-kind lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law claims that the patents violate free speech by restricting research.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet of New York, in ruling that the case may proceed to trial, noted that the litigation might open the door to challenges of a host of other patented genes. About one-fifth of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims.

Sweet wrote:

The challenges to the patents-in-suit raise questions of difficult legal dimensions concerning constitutional protections over the information that serves as our genetic identities and the need to adopt policies that promote scientific innovation and biomedical research. The widespread use of gene sequence information as the foundation for biomedical research means that resolution of these issues will have far-reaching implications, not only for gene-based health care and the health of millions of women facing the specter of breast cancer, but also for the future course of biomedical research. (.pdf)

The case against the patent office and patent-holder Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City is the first to challenge a patented gene under a civil rights allegation — in this case the First Amendment.





How human genes become patented

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/13/genes.patent.myriad/

(CNN) -- Here's a little-known fact: Under current law, it's possible to hold a patent on a piece of human DNA, otherwise known as a gene.

Companies that have acquired patents for genes have specific rights to their use, which may include diagnostic tests based on those genes, as well as future mutations that are discovered.

In a new lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union and Yeshiva University allege that the policy is unconstitutional.

The targets of the lawsuit, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, hold patents to BRCA1 and BRCA2, the genes responsible for many cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is also named in the suit.

The lawsuit asserts that the patents prevent some people from accessing medical screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2. It also challenges the general patentability of genes, which has been legal since 1980. That year, in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court found in favor of Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, who used bacteria to engineer a microbe that dissolves oil. Watch Dr. Gupta explain the lawsuit »

Genes form the basic unit of heredity. With modern technology, researchers have determined that particular genes carry an associated risk of illness.

A striking 20 percent of all human genes have been patented. However, now that all 20,000 to 25,000 human genes have been mapped and sequenced through the Human Genome Project, they are in the public domain, meaning they would no longer be considered "new" for the purposes of patents, said Lee Silver, professor of molecular biology and public policy at Princeton University. Now, patents on human genes must specify a new use, such as a diagnostic test.

If a company wants to patent the purified form of an antibiotic that exists in nature in a fungus, no one challenges that, Silver said. Plant DNA, as well as human DNA, can be synthesized in a laboratory. Distinguishing this case from a patented human gene that is useful in diagnostics would require the ethical argument that the human genome is sacred -- and even then, things get murky, considering that about 25 percent of human genes are shared by chimpanzees, he said.

"The patent law says nothing about ethics," he said.

But Josephine Johnston, bioethicist at the nonpartisan Hastings Institute, said she thinks that allowing patents for human genes was probably a mistake. She said she would draw the line at modified genes being acceptable as intellectual property, but not genes in pure form. From a legal point of view, that would mean unmodified plant and animal genes would also be off-limits.

In a moral argument, however, one could say that there is a "common humanity" -- that human genetic material belongs to all humans -- or agree that no plant or animal genes should be patented.

"I think that legal arguments about why this kind of thing isn't really something that should be patentable are really strong at a theoretical level," she said. "I wouldn't be that confident that the American court system would agree."

Patents protect inventors and spur innovation by giving companies an incentive to create new things. The invention must be "useful," "novel" and "nonobvious" and carry a description that enables someone to use it for the stated purpose, according to U.S. patent law.

Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, who partnered with the ACLU in the lawsuit, said the lawsuit's argument is akin to "saying if someone removes your eyeball ... just because you remove the eyeball and wash it off, that doesn't make the eyeball patentable."

But Silver finds this analogy faulty. Though an individual's eyeball is unique and cannot be made in a laboratory, any given form of any gene is present in many people and can be synthesized. The DNA molecule is defined at the atomic level by a genetic sequence. Scientists can make purefied substances with the same characteristics as human genes, whereas they cannot exactly manufacture any person's eyeball.

"The main problem is that people don't understand what genes are and what they're not," Silver said.

Some ethicists do not take issue with Myriad's patents but with how the company uses them. Part of the ALCU's argument is that Myriad charges $3,000 for its diagnostic cancer test, a price that prevents some women from seeking this preventive measure.

"I think we're talking about unreasonable profit and exploitation of people at risk," said M. Sara Rosenthal, director of the University of Kentucky Program for Bioethics. "The issue is greed, which is never ethical."

From Rosenthal's perspective, the main issue in this case is no different from a situation in which a pharmaceutical company, regardless of where the ingredients came from, uses a patent to charge unreasonably high prices for drugs. Such companies have a right to recoup their costs, but they should make their health care products available to the average person, she said.

The patentability of such tests, however, gives companies an incentive to create them in the first place, Silver said.

"If you patent any diagnostic test, this should be no different," he said.

Myriad's attorney, Richard Marsh, said Wednesday that the company plans to "vigorously defend our intellectual property rights."

The patents on genes also expire 20 years after the date of application, meaning the plethora of existing patents on the human genes themselves will run out relatively quickly, Silver said. Moreover, with exceptions such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, there are relatively few genes whose patentability is actually profitable, Silver said.

"I suspect that 95 percent of patents on genes are worthless in an economic sense," he said.

A good use of a gene patent was for the insulin gene, which led to recombinant human insulin, which led to essential treatments for diabetes, Rosenthal said.

"Gene patenting should not mean that commercial companies unreasonably profit from those of us unlucky in genetic lotteries," she said.


Craig Venter: One day I will patent all of your pathetic genetic blueprint....
avatar
Manahuna

Posts : 716
Join date : 2009-06-02
Location : Berlin

http://nerofix.com/id1685

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum