I have been studying the transhumanist movement for the past few years, and even more so since Bond villain Klaus Schwab and his minions at the World Economic Forum have made it a part of their Utopian designs. That this group of Utopianist authoritarians embraced such a concept tells me that transhumanism isn’t about freedom, it is about subjugation.
Cast against the Davos-based meetings of SPECTRE is Ayn Rand’s quote that the smallest minority in the world is the individual.
I’m sure that most people have faced a situation where something that needs to be done falls solely on them. In my life, I have experienced scenarios in both private and professional life when I was the only one who would or could complete a certain task – or when something fell through the cracks and due to the ticking of a clock, I had to do it myself or it didn’t get done in time. You read stories of true heroism when someone, some individual, performs Herculean tasks to rescue themselves or others and you wonder how that individual overcame fear, stress, and the obstacles to succeed.
My granddaddy used to say that sometimes you must do a thing because that thing just needs to be done. Often that thing falls to a single person to do it – and nobody is there to tell them it needs to be done.
I have been thinking about how it is that the individual, the self, is often the last place of reflection and refuge. It is the last place we can be alone with our own thoughts, with our own selves. We are born individuals, not just a member of the hive, and we grow and mature with unique wants, needs, desires, capabilities, and intellect - everything about us is unique to us as individuals, even at the chromosomal level.
Whether by plan or by accident, it seems these days that everything is geared to the destruction of that natural individuality by creating confusion and chaos within the sanctity of our individual selves.
I hate to keep harping on transgenderism, but it is the most obvious and conspicuous of the attacks by the transhumanist movement on individuality. The idea that the mind can overcome the physical and that sex is not a natural and biological a merely a social construct is the complete denial of our natural individuality. If you don’t like your penis, you can become a woman, regardless of your biological reality, they claim.
But that can’t happen.
And because it can’t happen, that person’s understanding of their own individual self is destroyed. This being “Pride Month”, we all continue to hear all the Hollywood types and woke doctors, academicians, politicians, and social theorists praise transgenders for “living their most authentic life”, when claiming to be a woman after having been born with XY chromosomes is the most inauthentic life possible.
I mentioned that I do not know if this is by chance or intention, but it does favor any person, group or movement that favors collectivism, the idea that there is no value of the individual other than their ability to contribute to the larger society.
The idea is to destroy the individual so that there is no place which to retreat, thereby forcing people to turn to the collective for safety and security.
I’ve quoted him before, but this collectivist idea seems to have been neatly summed up by George Bernard Shaw when he said:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
Where does this end? Let us assume individuality is destroyed, and with it our right to self-determination, what then?
Shaw had an answer for that as well. He was unabashedly and brutally clear about how such a scheme would work. He said:
“I also made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”
A perfect example of how the modern Left is at odds with the principles this nation was founded upon. What some describe as rugged individualism was one of the key pieces of the foundation the United States was designed to protect. From the Declaration, to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the individual was placed at the forefront of the promise that is America. A Republic is in direct opposition to a Democracy and places the individual above the group. A bulwark to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. The State defends against the abuses of the Federal government. The Federal government stands against and offers a haven from the allied governments across the world.
As a nation we've strayed much too far from the intentions of the Founders. Much of this erosion of the precepts that offered hope to the tired, poor, huddled masses, has been a failure of 'public education'. A revisionist history is taught instead of the often turbulent and contentious past. There is an intentional movement to abandon what made America so attractive to begin with. The policy makers in this country are hell bent on bringing America down to the level of the nations so many fled and risked death to escape, in some misguided notion about 'fairness' and 'equity', rather than seeking to lift others to our standards, the trend has been to undermine our good fortune.
Oddly enough those working to dismantle the 'shining city on the hill' are the minority, something we used to defend with pride, but the majority, what we used to openly resist so the individual was truly represented, has been flipped. This radical minority has more resources, more support from those that wield the power we once used to defend against just such usurpations. Somehow the idea that everyone is equally miserable is more attractive than displaying an example that others should seek to strive for. Where this goes and how it's actually addressed is uncertain, but it doesn't look good for those that still believe individualism has worth.
My understanding of the term "transhumanism" is that with the advance of technology, people will initially live much longer lives, and then (in theory, eventually) be capable of uploading their conscious mind to some kind of network and "live forever". The term "transhuman" as such, describes a "new state of humanity" that is no longer dependent on a physical body. I have cautioned my boys (in their 20s) that this may be something in their future, or their kids' future - but it's certainly looking like it will happen eventually, if not in 50 years, maybe more - not very long compared to the thousands of years of written human history. It's just around the corner.
We can't prevent it - in fact, there may be billionaires and oligarchs already working their own path to transhumanism, which they most certainly won't share with others, and thereby possibly emerging as some kind of individual digital hyperpower. THAT particular nastiness will likely not be transcended in the "new, evolved" form of humanity I suspect.
But there are a LOT of technical hurdles which I don't know can even be overcome, before that happens. It would be wise to spend this time in the interim to figuring out precisely what it will mean to be human in this next evolution - and what the concept of rights and individuality will mean for a species that can't be physically killed or die of natural causes.