Transhumanism: How The Elite Plan To Live Forever

TN Note: A society of haves and have-nots is at hand. Those with unlimited funds are dumping millions into life extension technologies, but it is very doubtful there will be a trickle-down effect to bring benefit to the lower classes.

The eugenicists at The Royal Society, in conjunction with Academy of Medical Sciences, British Academy and Royal Academy of Engineering came together this month to discuss the potentials, opportunities and challenges of the melding of man with machine (i.e. transhumanism) under the guise of augmentation technologies.

At the Human Enhancement and the Future of Work conference, and further expanded upon in their published report, explains how science and ethics are coming into conflict as technology promises to replace the faulty human body with an eternal, mechanical replacement.

These transhumanists define human enhancement as everything that “encompasses a range of approaches that may be used to improve aspects of human function (e.g. memory, hearing, mobility). This may either be for the purpose of restoring an impaired function to previous or average levels, or to raise function to a level considered to be ‘beyond the norm’ for humans.

Rebuilding the human body is being researched in institutions such as Stanford University in California has recently devised a mathematical algorithm, called ReFIT that can decipher neurological signals in the brain that convey movement, speed and accuracy. The public justification for this study is to improve “prosthetic system performance and robustness in paralyzed people”, yet the implications could serve to create super humans and super soldiers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ReFIT for human clinical trials as the researchers endeavor to create neuroprosthetics where mind – controlled robotic limbs will become a viable future.

One working prototype is the Bebionic3 myoelectric hand, formed from aluminum with alloy knuckles that mimic real human hand movements. This neuroprosthetic sends electro-signals to the human brain and helps the mind operate and control the function of the prosthetic.

The replacement of bio-mechanical creations in “the nature of work” for the future is expected to improve society by:

  • Using autonomous robots in the workplace
  • Altering the global temperament of work and business
  • Transition robotic workforce to provide goods and services
  • Structure organizations that influence international understanding of robotic advancements
  • Utilize robotics in medical care to advert disease, change illnesses and add to the progress of medicine
  • Promote a new sense of physical well-being

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has a $2 billion yearly budget for research into creating a super solider as well as developing a synthetic police force. Working with the human genome, DARPA hopes to manipulate certain gene expressions. In experimentation, DARPA and the military industrial pharmaceutical complex are using natural abilities that are enhanced through genetic engineering.”

Read the full story here…


Genetic Scientists Perform First Surgery On The Human Genome

TN Note: This is a new discovery relating to manipulating the human genome. Previously, editing the DNA strand was a linear process, but now the much more advanced method of 3-D editing is being perfected. This will unquestionably bolster the transhuman movement to push ahead with actual experimentation on humans in the future.

Ever since the human genome was mapped in 2001, scientists have been finding new and novel ways to manipulate it: intervening to remove offending genes or DNA sequences that can contribute to disease, and fixing mutations that can affect people’s health. As remarkable as those advances have been, however, they have only occurred on one dimension—the linear sequence of DNA.

Now scientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences their success in manipulating the genome in 3D. The human genome that’s squeezed into every microscopic cell in the body measures more than two meters long. To stuff it into a space just a few microns wide (the human hair, by comparison, is 40 to 50 microns in diameter) requires some masterful origami-like transformation.

In the study, Erez Lieberman Aiden, director of the center for genome architecture at Baylor College of Medicine and Rice University, and his colleagues describe how DNA performs this shrinking act. It turns out that there is a sequence in the genome—a DNA “word”—that signals when a long string of DNA should turn and form a loop. The end of that loop is signaled by the same word but in reverse, a mirror image of the original. Where these matched-up words appear on the genome determines which genes are exposed in a relatively accessible place and therefore which genes are more active. Loops formed in cells in the heart, for example, will be different from ones generated in skin cells or bone cells.

Read the full story here…

Chinese Scientists Again: Now Its Genetically Modified Dogs

TN Note: First come the animals, then come humans. Chinese scientists are not constrained by ethics or scientific peers in creating odd animals using genetic modification. Just yesterday, it was revealed that micro-pigs were showcased in China. Now its muscle-bound whippets. It is just a matter of time before genetic modification for bizarre human traits are announced.

Chinese scientists have created genetically-engineered, extra-muscular dogs, after editing the genes of the animals for the first time.

The scientists create beagles that have double the amount of muscle mass by deleting a certain gene, reports the MIT Technology Review. The mutant dogs have “more muscles and are expected to have stronger running ability, which is good for hunting, police (military) applications”, Liangxue Lai, one of the researchers on the project, told the magazine.

Now the team hope to go on to create other modified dogs, including those that are engineered to have human diseases like muscular dystrophy or Parkinson’s. Since dogs’ anatomy is similar to those of humans’, intentionally creating dogs with certain human genetic traits could allow scientists to further understand how they occur.

To create the dogs, researchers edit out the myostatin gene. If that is inhibited, animals can gain significantly more muscle mass and become much stronger than usual.

Recent developments in genome editing allow scientists to edit out or change genes relatively easily. The scientists said that the muscular dogs were mostly a proof of concept, and that they hope to go on to create more edited dogs.

Read full story here…

Genetic Modifications: Micro Pigs Make Debut In China

TN Note: Some scientists are already talking about modifying human DNA to create smaller humans in an effort to fight climate change. (see Scientists: Genetically Modified Humans Can Fight Climate Change) With the advent of “micro-pigs”, the possibility moves closer.

Have you been pining for a “teacup” pig but worried that the supposedly petite porcine pet might grow as big as your bathtub?

A Chinese biotech firm says it now has the answer: a genetically modified swine that tops out around 33 pounds.

BGI, a company based in the southern city of Shenzhen that is known for its work sequencing human, plant and animal DNA, recently announced that it intends to start selling $1,600 miniature pigs that it initially created as laboratory models for studying human ailments.

The pigs created a splash late last month when BGI showed them at the Shenzhen International Biotech Leaders Summit. The pint-size porkers were created through a process known as gene editing. Rather than introduce another organism’s DNA into the pigs, scientists “edit” the swine’s own genetic material, disabling a copy of the growth hormone receptor gene so that cells don’t get a signal to grow.

But animal breeders and advocates say the prospect of even a 33-pound pig could reduce the problem of people abandoning pet swine that pack on the pounds beyond their owners’ expectations. Curt Mills, a board member of the Southern California Assn. for Miniature Potbellied Pigs, says four regional shelters for the animals are all at capacity, with about 150 oinkers looking for homes.

“Pigs are good pets, but a lot of issue is the size,” said Patty Morrisroe, a pig breeder in Dallas, Ore., who says she has spent 30 years selectively breeding swine to produce pigs she calls “Royal Dandies” and “Dandie Extremes” that can be around 39 pounds full grown. But with just four breeding sows, her litters are limited — about 20 piglets a year — and she charges $2,500 to $5,500 per animal.

“If you could immediately make a small pig, it would be very cool, but there are still a lot of questions,” she said.

Kenneth Bondioli, a professor of animal sciences at Louisiana State University, said BGI’s gene-edited micro pigs would need to be evaluated to see if they develop healthily and to determine whether they would could harm the environment or other livestock if they were released or escaped. It is unclear whether BGI intends to offer its pigs for sale outside China, but if Americans wanted them, U.S. regulators would have to determine whether they could be imported.

Read full story here…

Scientists: Boost Lifespan 60 Percent by Deleting Genes

TN Note: The holy grail of Transhumanism is longevity, and perceived mastery over the human genome – life itself – is creating a mad race to discover how to turn off aging altogether.

The secret of extending life by decades may lie in switching off certain genes, scientists believe, after showing that small genetic tweaks can make organisms live 60 per cent longer.

Ten years of research by the Buck Institute for Research on Ageing and the University of Washington has identified 238 genes that, when silenced, increase the lifespan of yeast cells.

Many of the genes are present in mammals, including humans, suggesting that switching them off could dramatically increase lifespan.

“This study looks at aging in the context of the whole genome and gives us a more complete picture of what aging is,” said lead author Dr Brian Kennedy.

“Almost half of the genes we found that affect aging are conserved in mammals.

“In theory, any of these factors could be therapeutic targets to extend healthspan. What we have to do now is figure out which ones are amenable to targeting.”

To determine which genes were responsible for ageing, researchers examined 4,698 strains of yeast, each with a single gene deletion and then monitored how long cells lived for before they stopped dividing.

Read the whole store here…

Scientists: Genetically Modified Humans Can Fight Climate Change

It was just a matter of time before Eugenics met Climate Change. Even if it sounds like science fiction and absurd speculation, the discussion is taking place now in scientific circles.

In fact, this is the ultimate application of science to the human condition. For instance, designer babies might be genetically engineered to be smaller as adults: This would proportionally reduce their carbon footprint.

Or genes might be inserted to improve night vision. That would allow nighttime lighting requirements to be reduced, thus saving boatloads of energy and reducing carbon.

Other ideas are increased body hair could keep you warm in the winter to save on heating oil and less intelligence so you wouldn’t be so tempted to be greedy and over-consume earth’s resources. Well of course: Everyone knows that simple-minded people don’t have strong materialistic aspirations.

Somebody might even get the idea to combine all these traits at once to suggest the ideal human design to fight climate change: short, hairy, simple-minded with cat-like eyes to see better at night than in the daytime. Can you imagine a world full of Ewoks?

This stuff is so disturbing that even the United Nations – the global home of climate-change religion – is warning against it. Apparently, people at the U.N. are tracking this discussion and are alarmed.  In a recent press release, the U.N. stated,

5 October 2015 – Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics.

While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications.

“Gene therapy could be a watershed in the history of medicine and genome editing is unquestionably one of the most promising undertakings of science for the sake of all humankind,” the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said in anews release on a report by its International Bioethics Committee (IBC).

But the IBC added: “Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.” The alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics,” it said.

This is not the first time that a UN body has raised such concerns. In 2010, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said that “as we develop technologies that enable us to make life-or-death decisions, we need a shared, value-based approach to what are fundamentally moral questions.”

In 2004, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan questioned whether such processes might promote a world dominated by eugenics like that imagined by Aldous Huxley in the novel Brave New World.

“The greatest fear is that we may be trying to ‘play God,’ with unforeseeable consequences, in the end precipitating our own destruction,” Mr. Annan warned then, asking whether the dangers outweigh the benefits and where the line should be drawn between what is feasible and what is desirable or ethical.

In today’s report IBC, comprising scientists, philosophers, lawyers and government ministers, noted that recent advances have opened the door to genetic screening and testing for inherited diseases, gene therapy, the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research and the possibility of cloning and genetic “editing” for both medical and non-medical ends.

It noted that scientists and bioethicists are calling for a wider public debate about the power of science to modify genetically human embryos in the laboratory, so as to control inherited traits, such as appearance and intelligence.

A new genome “editing” technique called CRISPR-Cas9 makes it possible for scientists to insert, remove and correct DNA simply and efficiently, IBC added. It holds out the prospect of treating or even curing certain illnesses, such as sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and some cancers. But germline editing can also make changes to DNA, such as determining a baby’s eye colour, easier for scientists working with human embryos, eggs and sperm.

The report also cautions against the hidden danger of do-it-yourself genetic testing, saying that consumers who tested their own DNA using so-called Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) kits bought online, needed professional genetic and medical counselling to understand and act on the results. It called for clear regulations and information for consumers about such tests.

UNESCO member States adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in 2005 to deal with ethical issues raised by rapid changes in medicine, life sciences and technology. It states lists the human genome as part of the heritage of humanity, outlining rules that need to be observed to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

However, methinks the lady doth protest too much. The U.N.’s dream of Sustainable Development is precisely a Brave New World. As Aldous Huxley penned that book in 1932, he was looking straight in to the face of the Technocracy movement that was sweeping both the U.S. and Germany.

Even though Huxley well-understood Scientific Dictatorship when he saw it, I expect that even he would agree that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Other resources:

Human Engineering and Climate Change – Matthew Liao

How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change

Is “Human Engineering and Climate Change” Paper a Case of Academic Trolling?

Bioengineer Humans to Tackle Climate Change, say Philosophers

The Genesis Engine


Google Exec: With Robots in Our Brains, We’ll Be Godlike

Futurist and Google exec Ray Kurzweil thinks that once we have robotic implants, we’ll be funnier, sexier and more loving. Because that’s what artificial intelligence can do for you.

suspect a few of you are looking forward to being robots.

Who wouldn’t be fascinated by the idea of becoming someone other than themselves? We do get so tired of being the same dull soul every day.

What kind of robots will we be? Happily, I can provide an answer. For living inside my head all day have been the words of Google’s director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil.

For more than a curt while, he’s been keen on humans going over to the bright side. He’s predicted that humans will be hybrid robots by 2030.

But what will this be like? More importantly, what will this feel like? Are you ready to engage what’s left of your humorous humanity when I offer you the information that Kurzweil believes we’re going to be quite wonderful people when we’re part robot?

Kurzweil has a truly, madly, deeply optimistic view of who we will be when nanobots are implanted into our brains so we can expand our intelligence by directly tapping into the Internet.

Read the full article here…

God or Man as Final Arbiter of Moral Law

I have been following a number of neuroscience issues concerning ethics and morality for years but Dr. Miguel Faria’s observations in his article, “The road being paved to neuroethics: A path leading to bioethics or to neuroscience medical ethics,” appearing in the August 2014 issue of Surgical Neurology International, helped me understand the intricacies of these issues.

As Doctor Faria well knows, the great minds of the world — both past and present — have understood that morality depends on a worldview that recognizes God as the final and only arbiter of moral law (natural law), which transcends man. Morality based on secular principles, as Faria illustrates, creates a hell on earth.

The neuroscientist Sam Harris (photo, left), author of The Moral Landscape, is now leading a crusade to establish that we can derive moral laws from our own reason based on pure scientific understanding — especially neuroscience. In his book, Harris explains that previously neuroscientists avoided the subject of morality and brain function — that is, the field of neuroscience had little to say about the higher functions of human social function, such as moral law. But, he insists that neuroscience can help us develop a moral law by our understanding of brain function. That our technology now allows us to know why man behaves a certain way and better develop, through the use of the scientific method, not only rules of social behavior but to redesign man according to the dictate of the elites of neuroscience.

Further, Harris, as a drug user himself (ecstasy) and devotee to Eastern mysticism, makes the claim that we can reach moral knowledge and understanding with the use of such mind-altering drugs and special meditation techniques. His neuroscience studies are centered on the use of functional MRIs to study belief, disbelief and uncertainty in the observed, living brain. He uses these studies to bolster his argument for his “new atheism.” These techniques are known to be highly speculative and fraught with personal bias.

The idea of secular determination of morality, of course, is in line with the writings and thinking of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his concept of man evolving scientifically to an Omega Point in which man (certain elite) becomes a co-creator and his own god. Of course Chardin borrowed or stole this idea from many others such as Feuerbach, Helveticus, Hobbes, and Darwin. It is also the basis of all left collectivism. Under such a system elites are to decide, based on a combination of science, metaphysics and personal whim, just how society is to be designed and controlled. The essential nature of such a collectivist system is regimentation of all members of society under the tutelage of the elites.

Critical thinking, which was the centerpiece of our educational system during the colonial days and the early founding period of this country and in the better-educated areas of the world, is now all but absent. We have been regimented into functional groups (collectives) that only seek to please the instructors or in the case of the medical profession, the elites. To think critically, logically, and rationally is to be treated as an enemy of social good, or as the communists like to state it — an enemy of the people.

Regimentation is destroying not only creativity but also liberty, which as Thomas Jefferson stated, requires our eternal vigilance. Vigilance necessitates critical thinking and critical thinking requires access to the truth. In today’s world, the “truth” belongs to the state and is created by the state. The media are the transmission conduit that transmits this designed “truth” to the citizen. Richard M. Weaver, historian, philosopher and author of Ideas Have Consequences, called this control of what we are allowed to see and hear “the great stereopticon.” How can one have a realistic understanding of the world when the ideas one holds have been based on illusion and falsehood?

Regimentation is necessary for the collectivist state so as to stifle critical thinking — in essence, the elites are telling us there is no need for us to think critically since they have already performed this task, packaged it, and are now presenting us with the results of their brilliance.

What is critical to understand is that the collectivists do not like intellectual competitors and the individual thinker, the seeker of real truth, is always a danger to collectivized, packaged thought. The media play a critical role in this process as the interpreter of the elites’ thinking — the Rockefellers, the Brzezinskis and the Soros of the world. It is the media pundits who translate these ideas into slogans of political correctness and other collectivist nostrums. Over the past half century a significant portion of the American public has been so dumbed down by their educational institutions, TV programming, and other forms of entertainment that they are incapable of generating enough mental energy and focus to see what is being done to them, and that most of what comes from television news networks is pure propaganda and carefully crafted mind control techniques.

When I was doing some teaching to biology majors in a local university, the professor took me aside before the lecture and whispered, “You have to understand that these students are not like when you and I attended the university, they are on a much lower level. You will need to dumb down your lecture.” As I finished my lecture and listened to the questions and comments I was appalled. Several of the senior biology majors were so poorly educated that I could not imagine they had graduated high school far less were about to graduate from a university.

Yet, this dumbing down of the populace has a purpose — it prepares the youth for collectivization — to become automatons. They ask no questions and accept everything they are told as long as it comes from “official sources” — the teacher, the government and the media. Once they are at this level, they are totally regimented.

Our medical institutions are accepting a full measure of this regimenting system and it now has spread to the practicing physicians and surgeons themselves. In my day, some thirty years ago, we called this “cookbook medicine,” something that was anathema. The practicing doctors, in the minds of the collectivist elitists, should have no role in deciding how their patients should be treated — this is left up to the elite, the designers of medical care. Many of my colleagues have assumed these protocols are reasonable, as they are designed by committees of the top minds in medicine. What is less obvious to those below the elite is the impact and influence of political considerations and social engineering in designing these treatment protocols. These factors are, in many cases, taking precedence, as we see in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

As a result we are fooled into accepting “death panels” as an accepted norm. We are told that only specific classes of people are deserving of certain levels of medical care and that one of our most important considerations as collectivists is social utility. Social utility is a concept that implies one must justify their existence in society based on their usefulness. Prior sacrifices by the individual (such as military service), wealth taken by force (taxes), and purely human factors are to be ignored as useless sentimentality. The collectivist state is concerned only with what is best for the collective — the whole of society or segments of the whole, but never the individual. We dress this in a commonly used term — the greater good.

The greatest enemy of the collectivist elite is the individual person, especially if that person is a critical thinker. The next greatest enemy is the family, a unity that is still very personal and frequently at odds with the collective state. Both of these entities — the individual person and the family — have come under unrelenting attack, especially over the past 50 years.

It is time for us to wake up and start thinking critically and especially teach your children to think critically. Inseparable from critical thinking is access to the truth — which we must seek out with determination, careful study, and resolve.


Dr. Russell BlaylockDr. Russell L. Blaylock is President of Advanced Nutritional Concepts and Theoretical Neurosciences Research, LLC, in Jackson, Mississippi. He has written numerous path-blazing scientific papers and many books, including Excitotoxins — The Taste That Kills (1994), Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (2001), Health and Nutrition Secrets (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He is Associate Editor-in-Chief and a Consulting Editor in Basic Neuroscience for Surgical Neurology International (SNI). His websites are: and