- rwmalonemd.substack.com - Robert W Malone MD, MS - MAR 22, 2023 -
As many know, I have written and spoken extensively about the dangers of transhumanism, also rebranded by the military as human augmentation or human enhancement.
One of my more recent essays was titled Physicals, Virtuals, Machines and Overlords: Is the dark vision of a new caste system for the fourth revolution inevitable?
The constraints on this research currently lie solely with the informed consent and normal bioethics regulations needed on any clinical trial. In fact, the SIENNA report was commissioned to study the ethical guidelines of such research, and the report essentially falls back on the same regulatory processes currently in place, which can be found in my essay “Ethical Parameters for Human Enhancement?”.
The fact is that despite the current clinical trial processes already in place, these rapidly developing technologies fall under that old saying, “Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should do something.”
We do not need more guidelines or regulations that can be broken in times of duress or “public health emergencies” to decide whether these technologies are for the good of society or not. Such “process oriented” procedures miss the point.
What we need are politicians and/or governments to sit down, commission studies without conflict of interest from biotech and the military to determine if mankind will benefit from these inventions, or whether mankind is more likely to be harmed. We need a nationalized and globalized response, even a treaty, regarding the ever increasing emphasis on the evolution of human augmentation in our military and civilian life which is now an accepted reality. As a world, we can just say no. The world has rejected many technologies as too dangerous or morally wrong. Humankind has a choice to make. Let’s make that choice, let’s ban human augmentation or, at the very least, put restrictions on these technologies. True guidelines that assess benefit and risk to humankind. My bet is that a true assessment would shut down much of this research in its tracks.
Just think about all the decisions that the world has made because something is ethical. We don’t reuse the bodies of our dead for food or even fertilizer. We don’t generally allow incest. We don’t allow murder or human sacrifice or allow people to be used as unwilling organ transplants. The list goes on and on.
Even technologies have been banned because they have been determined to be morally or environmentally detrimental. In the USA, we almost never allow new dams on major rivers for hydro electric power. We don’t allow mustard gas to be used in war. Offensive biowarfare is not allowed. We have nuclear treaties. Human civilizations have shown that they can say no.
Likewise, many technologies have been determined to be too dangerous. At least for now, we do not allow our cars to be powered by nuclear fission. After the Hindenburg accident of 1937, the idea of hydrogen vessels for air travel was abandoned. Human society can and has said enough when technologies are not safe.
So, why is there so little push-back to the idea that altering humans for either individual, military or societal benefit is ok? Even though ethicists have been warning about the abuse and potential catastrophic consequences of these technologies for generations. Dystopian visions of the future abound with what the horrific consequences of these technologies could do to mankind. Yet still “we” persist.
As I have been tracking the evolution of these technologies, I was recently directed to news story in Science Daily quoted below.
But please watch this 3 minute video first on what researchers in the Defense and Space labs, University of Technology Sydney, AU have developed. This is biosensor technology that use thought control device operation, such as for robots and machines.