IMF Chief Lagarde: ‘We Are About To See Massive Disruptions’

IMF head, Christine Lagarde, is fully complicit with the United Nations, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Fintech and hence, Technocracy. Technocrats have created a huge moral hazard that favors the destruction of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. ⁃ TN Editor

It’s time for the world’s central banks and regulators to get serious about digital currencies, according to the head of the International Monetary Fund.

Global financial institutions are taking risks by not watching and understanding emerging financial tech products that are already starting to shake up the financial services and global payments system, according to IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde.

“I think that we are about to see massive disruptions,” Lagarde told CNBC in a Facebook Live interview on the sidelines of the IMF Annual Meetings in Washington D.C.

Asked whether she agreed with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s comments that bitcoin is a “fraud,” Lagarde said it’s important to look at the broader implications of technologies like digital currencies.

“I think we should just be aware of not categorizing anything that has to do with digital currencies in those speculation, ponzi-like schemes,” she said. “It’s a lot more than that as well.”

Lagarde didn’t rule out that the IMF could at some point develop its own cryptocurrency. She pointed to the IMF’s Special Drawing Right (SDR), a currency the IMF created to serve as an international reserve asset, that could incorporate technology similar to cryptocurrencies.

“What we will be looking into is how this currency, the special drawing right, can actually use the technology to be more efficient and less costly,” she said.

Lagarde moderated a panel discussion on Thursday focused on fintech and the role of central banks, featuring central bank officials and executives from fintech companies. Lagarde told CNBC she expects the IMF will play a role in regulating the fintech industry going forward.

“My hope is that we can participate in that process because I see that as a very cross-border process,” she said.

Read full story here…




The Brain

Scientists: By 2040, AI Implants Will Let Us Control Our Environment With Thoughts

Technocrat expectations of AI are far beyond the actual achievement, and their far-off predictions have more in common with science fiction than science. Nevertheless, Technocrats invent because they can, not because there is good reason to do so.  ⁃ TN Editor

Artificially intelligent nano-machines will be injected into humans within 20 years to repair and enhance muscles, cells and bone, a senior inventor at IBM has forecast.

John McNamara, who works at IBM Hursley Innovation Centre, in Hampshire, submitted evidence to the House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee, which is considering the economic, ethical and social implications of AI.

Mr McNamara said that within just two decades, technology may have advanced so much that humans and machines are effectively ‘melded’ together, allowing for huge leaps forward in human consciousness and cognition.

“We may see AI nano-machines being injected into our bodies,” he told Peers. “These will provide huge medical benefits, such as being able to repair damage to cells, muscles and bones – perhaps even augment them.

“Beyond this, utilising technology which is already being explored today  we see the creation of technology that can meld the biological with the technological, and so be able to enhance human cognitive capability directly, potentially offering greatly improved mental, as well as being able to utilise vast quantities of computing power to augment our own thought processes.

“ Using this technology, embedded in ourselves and in our surroundings, we will begin to be able to control our environment with thought and gestures alone.”

Scientists at companies including Microscoft are already developing a computer made from DNA which could live inside cells and look for faults in bodily networks, like cancer. If it spotted cancerous changes it would reboot the system and clear out the diseased cells.

Mr McNamara also predicted ‘Political Avatars’ which will scour all available data from news sites and government debates to provide people with a recommendation on who to vote for and why, based on their world view.

However  he also warned that the rise of AI could bring ‘huge disruption’ to those working in the retail and service sectors and spark widespread unemployment.

“Whereas today, being poor means being unable to afford the latest smart phone, tomorrow this could mean the difference between one group of people potentially having an extraordinary uplift in physical ability, cognitive ability, health, life span and another much wider group that do not,” said Mr McNamara.

In separate evidence to the committee, Noel Sharkey, Emeritus Professor of AI and Robotics, University of Sheffield, who is now director at the Foundation for Responsible Robotics, said artificial intelligence comes with a cost.

“The immediate concern is that by ceding decisions or control to machines, the humans start accepting their decisions as correct or better than their own and stop paying attention,” he said.

“There is a growing body of evidence that the learning machine decision makers are inheriting many invisible biases among their correlations.”

Read full story here…




Experimenting On Embryonic Humans Is Evil And Must Be Opposed

The slippery slope of eugenics-by-Technocrat has been further lubricated with genetic experimentation on embryos as old as seven days. Technocrats assign no value to human life, so experimenting with embryos is just another petri dish in the lab. ⁃ TN Editor

UK scientists are experimenting on seven-day old humans to learn how to “edit” DNA before killing them and discarding them.

A team from the Francis Crick Institute is using “excess” living human embryos for their experiments who were frozen for in-vitro fertilization (IVF). They then “edit” the human DNA by taking out a vital gene from “healthy, normal” embryos.

States the BBC:

Breakthroughs in manipulating DNA have allowed the team at the Crick to turn off a gene – a genetic instruction – suspected to be of vital importance. The easiest way of working out how something works is to remove it and see what happens. So the researchers used the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 to scour the billions of letters of genetic code, find their genetic target and break the DNA to effectively disable it.

They were targeting a gene. You are unlikely to have heard of it, but OCT4 is a superstar in early embryo development. Its complete role is not understood but it acts like an army general issuing commands to keep development on track. The researchers used 41 embryos that had been donated by couples who no longer needed them for IVF. After performing the genetic modification, the team could watch how the embryos developed without OCT4…But without OCT4 the blastocyst cannot form. It tries – but implodes in on itself.

From the embryo’s perspective it is a disaster but for scientists it has given unprecedented insight.

Pro-lifers oppose destructive human embryonic experimentation because it’s a human life that’s being destroyed at his or her earliest beginning.

Governor Sam Brownback, whom President Trump nominated for Ambassador At Large for International Religious Freedom, put it this way: “What lies at the heart of this debate is our view of the human embryo. The central question in this debate is simple: Is the human embryo a person or a piece of property?”

“If unborn persons are living beings, they have dignity and worth, and they deserve protection under the law from harm and destruction. If, however, unborn persons are a piece of property, then they can be destroyed with the consent of their owner,” he said.

Christians have always affirmed that men and woman are created in the image of God from the very first moment of their existence. Since the embryo is a living human being and not just a clump of cells, experimentation involves the willful taking of human life and can only be judged as morally and ethically wrong in every instance.

This isn’t just a matter of rules, but a matter of respecting “persons.”

At no point is one person, no matter what size or what state of development — be they zygote, preborn, infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, senior — of less value or less of a person than another human being.

As Dr. Seuss put it, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

One’s degree of biological development is irrelevant to the fact that a new being comes into existence when sperm meets egg, a person who must be valued and respected as a member of the human family who is a bearer of God’s image.

The embryonic DNA manipulation performed by the UK scientists deliberately targets and kills human beings. Experimenting on people and then killing them, even with the good intention of using the knowledge gained to help others, is simply wrong. No matter what good follows from it, it is always evil to directly murder someone.

The world was horrified when it learned about the horrors of Nazi experiments on those in concentration/death camps. With equal fervor, anyone who stands for human rights and justice ought to be equally horrified with human embryonic destructive experimentation.

Human embryos are people. Experimenting on them is morally equivalent to experimenting on any other human, like you or me.

Pro-life pioneer Dr. J. Willke put it this way: “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t profess to be pro-life and support experimentation on these tiny children that will result in their deaths.”

In other words, the end does not justify the means.

“Common sense tells us that no one has the right to kill another human being, no matter how much good they claim will come from that act. Most people instinctively reject the notion that doctors are qualified to decide who should live and who should die ‘for the greater good.’  That is why doctors have for centuries taken an oath declaring their first duty not to harm, let alone kill, anyone in their care,” said family advocate Gary Bauer.

The manipulation and destruction of human life at any stage have no humility, no reverence, no place for God.

From the perspective of human rights and justice, the issue is clear: The lives of preborn children must be defended from the earliest, smallest, and most fragile stages of development.  Killing innocent human life for experimentation, or for any other reason, must be opposed.

Read full story here…