To what extent has Eugenics morphed into a Transhumanism? What drives this obsession to make man part-machine and to make robots feel?

'The merge scenario with AI is the one that seems like probably the best. If you can't beat it, join in. So from a long term existential stand-point that's like the purpose of Neuralink, is to create a high bandwidth interface to the brain such that we can be symbolic with AI. Because we have a bandwidth problem. You just can't communicate through egos. That's too slow...

(Imagine) like a collective AI in the google search where we're also plugged in like nodes on the network, like leaves on the big tree. And we're all feeding the network with our question and answers. We're all collectively programming the AI and google plus all the humans that connect to it are one giant cybernetic collective. This is also true of Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, and all these social networks. They're giant cybernetic collectives..

It feels like we are the biological boot-loader for AI effectively, we are building it. Then we're building progressively greater intelligence and the percentage of intelligence that is not human is increasing and eventually we will represent a very small percentage of intelligence. But the AI is informed strangely by the human limbic system. It is in large part our it'd writ large.. primal drives, all the things that we like and hate and fear. They're all their on the internet, they're a projection of our limbic system... the success of these online systems is the function of how much limbic resonance, the more limbic resonance the more engagement...

I think people don't like normally the way that regulations work, it's very slow, so usually they'll be some new technology that will cause damage or death, there will be an outcry, investigation, years will pass... eventually regulations... how long did it take for seat-belts to be required?... The industry fought this for years successfully- Eventually after many, many people died, regulators insisted on seatbelts. This time-frame is not relevant to AI , you can't take ten years from the point at which it is dangerous. It is too late.- Elon Musk

As Elon Musk states, Transhumanism (otherwise known as Bio-Digital Convergence, or even more simply as Eugenics), where humans with disability or even just less desirable genes are partially-replaced and modified by alternative technological innovations, is a huge deal, and very very frightening. In fact the most powerful governments of the world have acknowledged exactly this in the Bletchley declaration, signed by signed by the UK, US, EU, Australia, China and in total, 23 countries. In the Bletchley declaration it is stated - 'We are especially concerned by such risks in domains such as cybersecurity and biotechnology, as well as where frontier AI systems may amplify risks such as disinformation. There is potential for serious, even catastrophic, harm, either deliberate or unintentional, stemming from the most significant capabilities of these AI models. Given the rapid and uncertain rate of change of AI, and in the context of the acceleration of investment in technology, we affirm that deepening our understanding of these potential risks and of actions to address them is especially urgent.'

Technology is being used to do all kind of spooky things on the grounds of science and humanitarianism, and the issue isn't technology itself, but that as Elon Musk and the Bletchley declaration says - it's progress is so fast and it is so potentially dangerous, the likes of Silicon Valley, the CIA and military-industrial complex, tech-experts and governments themselves (who all specialise in technology for profit, control, safety etc.) need controlling, transparency and to be regulated on an unprecedented scale, by society and individuals who know what it threatens the most - our liberty, safety and health. Some innovations are famous, such as the neuromorphic supercomputer called DeepSouth, which was created to precisely mimic the human brain's structure and functionality, using artificial neurons and synapses to process information, and which is capable of 228 trillion synaptic operations per second, roughly the level of the estimated number of operations in the human brain. Even more famous, are generative AIs, like GPT-4 (ChatGPT), which can already create new poems, stories and images, and the question is, is such a creation a harmless time-saver or will it just create output but with little quality and make the majority of humans lazy and deter the real creative drive within us? One thing for sure, it is mighty powerful. Do we really need ChatGPT? The answer is probably no, not at all, but was ChatGPT inevitable? The answer is yes, probably. absolutely. In which case, we need to regulate it very carefully, because people trust what they find on the internet but the internet is full of misinformation and computers make the worst judges.

Yet people glorify being judged by AI. In 2016 an artificial intelligence judge was developed by UCL computer scientists — for what purpose, I can only imagine to make the world a complete disaster. Academics jumping on similar band-wagons, such as Yuval Noah Harari, have popularised the idea of omniscient computers and social-genius AI. Harari even said that ‘ google can create an algorithm that knows you better than you know yourself’ and that ‘ even today in the embryonic stage of the AI revolution, computers already make decisions about us — whether to give us a mortgage, to hire us for a job, to send us to prison’ . However, the idea a human’s character could be judged well by an inhuman algorithm resembles an obsession with information and zero-context, and the day humans make computers their judges will never come because it is simply so misguided.

It has already been proven by the 2008 crisis and by a million personal anecdotes that AI is fundamentally flawed and over-used when making decisions over whether to give a mortgage, or whether a project is a good investment, yet alone when used for job or prison decisions. Now, I am not condescending AI, look at the creative and sophisticated game of chess for instance. It was a pivotal moment, showing the power of computers, when Deep Blue beat one of the greatest grand-masters of all time, Garry Kasparov in 1989. Chess is a creative game and there so many possible different chess games that there are as many possibilities as there are atoms in the galaxy, so it is impossible for a programmer to train a computer to play the the best move to every combination of pieces in a game through minute detail and specific programming. Instead, programmers let go off control - a computer has to learn to read patterns thanks to its programmer, and in that way it is actually uncontrollable - the programmer teaches it to read, but doesn't tell it what to do, and literally can't, yet the computer still beats the human at chess. However, chess is rule-based, and life isn't. Hence, as strong as computers are in highly structured environments, no matter if they're as complex as chess, they are equally weak in dealing with complex issues, dealing with emotional issues, or even not being run over when crossing roads.

Harari himself warned Davos that 'alongside inequality, the other major danger we face is the rise of digital dictatorships, that will monitor everyone all the time.' Harari wrote, reminiscing George Orwell's 1984, that 'humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls – we are now hackable animals... imagine North Korea in twenty years, when everybody has to wear a biometric bracelet which constantly monitors your blood pressure, your heart rate, your brain activity twenty-four hours a day. You listen to a speech on the radio by the great leader and they know what you actually feel. You can clap your hands and smile, but if you're angry, they know, you'll be in the gulag tomorrow.''

Probably one of the world's most influential companies specialising in biotechnology is the Wellcome Leap, which sadly is very little known and yet played a very large role in the development of mRNA technologies prior to corona-virus and is most certainly an organisation centred on Transhumanism and Eugenics that needs to be known. To illustrate how it mixes health care and robotics, one of its ten projects (which are all reputedly $50 million dollar programs) is called RNA Readiness and Response with a focus on ‘fully or largely automated implementation (of RNA), through robotics or other technologies, ensuring real-time product quality and performance monitoring through high-density digital sensors and computerized control’. The Wellcome Leap is headed former deputy Director of DARPA Ken Gabriel and former Pentagon-DARPA director (under the Obama administration), Regina Dugan who also worked for Google where she headed projects to store passwords in people's skin and stomachs (though tattoos, an idea copied by Microsoft), Facebook where she headed projects such as 'neural wearable wristbands that claim to be able to anticipate movements of the hand and fingers from brain signals alone' and who happened to be special advisor to the US Army from 2001 to 2003 during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is when looking at the other projects of Wellcome Leap that it becomes clear there are incredibly dangerous research projects being seriously taken by researchers working at Cambridge, Princeton, Stanford and the like, out of sight from the public. Take the 1kD program, supposedly conducted to aid children with under-developed Executive Function (EF). Wellcome Leap wants to develop 'fully integrated models and quantitative measurement tools of network development in the first thousand days and to create scalable methods for optimizing promotion, prevention, screening, and therapeutic interventions to improve EF by at least 20 percent in 80 percent of children before age'. That is correct, they want to improve 80% of children who don't fit perfectly their model of a perfectly developed child, based on models obtained from 24/7 surveillance of as many children as possible, using various technologies that map their neural networks. And if you are in the unlucky worst 20% of performing youngsters, they promise to be able to 'improve EF by 80%' by basically reshaping their brains. That is Eugenics at its absolute worst, and as an aside researchers will use their findings on how babies' brains grow in the first three years to develop AI synthetic brains and the like.

Then just like how Google has teamed up with the Pentagon to develop predictive health programs, that predict cancer diagnoses, the Wellcome Leap has another program titled 'Delta Tissue' which goal is predicting diseases before any symptoms appear - a crazy project with the most obvious flaw being that how could a person know if the prediction was going to be wrong, if they start treatment before a doctor could even give an diagnosis, only based on tissue models - on what they describe as a ‘tissue time machine' that supposedly predicts well how tissues will change in the future. Of course there will be a lot of money involved in such projects, which are as ambitious as they come, with Wellcome Leap writing themselves 'Delta Tissue will require the integration of technologies that are typically expensive to buy and run, and require expert staff that are in short supply.' Looking at other Wellcome Leap projects it is clear, they are wishing for everything to be measured - for example, the Multi-Psych Channel project envisages to diagnose anhedonic depression through using 'technology to directly interrogate human brain state. Examples include, but are not limited to, a non-invasive spinal tap equivalent (i.e. reading out CSF metabolites without requiring a lumbar puncture); behavioral or biomarker probes of neural plasticity that can be repeatedly administered to both properly time interventions and monitor their efficacy; and single-session neural monitoring capabilities that define a treatment-predictive brain state within a single subject.' They say this is all non-invasive but when a project sets out to 'develop new scalable measurement tools for reliable and high-density quantification of mood (both subjectively reported and objectively quantified via biometrics such as voice, facial expression, etc.), sleep, movement, reward system functioning, effort/motivation/energy levels, social interaction, caloric intake, and HPA axis output in real-world situations', it leaves the feeling that in the wrong hands society will end up stuck in George Orwell 1984 dystopian nightmare - why develop such dangerous technologies? In fact, the Wellcome Leap give away that their motive for the project is merely to make better-motivated workers, not actually understand depression for its causes, since they write 'whilst there are many definitions of anhedonia, we are less interested in the investigation of reduced consummatory pleasure, the general experience of pleasure, or the inability to experience pleasure. Rather, as per the description above, we will prioritize investigations of anhedonia as it relates to impairments in the effort-based reward system– e.g. reduced motivation to complete tasks and decreased capacity to apply effort to achieve a goal'

Likewise, their project 'Untangling Addictions' is actually very invasive since it seeks to gain 'understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of an individual's use of known addictive substances. Develop scalable measures to assess individual addiction susceptibility to a range of addictive and potentially addictive substances.' It may sound positive, but when searching just for potential for a mental-health problem, how far off is such a project from treating genetics instead of actual addictions i.e. Eugenics? The Wellcome Leap is essentially asking individuals to take gene therapy based upon an algorithm stating it would be best for them, not on any actually symptoms, and worse, what is not stated but true is that the therapy itself is high-risk CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing therapy that has been shown to sometimes cause irreparable damage often to DNA and to often lack precision and success. Then there is the Human Organs, Physiology, and Engineering program (HOPE) that has two principle aims, one from scratch to bio-engineer from stem cells synthetic organs to test drugs on, and two to develop 'biological synthetic hybrid organ systems to transplant into people'. The effects of such a transplant is anyone's guess the Chair of Wellcome Leap, Jay Flatley, writes that we won't have to wait long to find out (at least short-term ones), stating in the programs dossier 'in the next decade, we have the potential to create fully functioning human organs that pose low rejection risk. This program will fund the breakthrough technologies necessary to enable that bold ambition.'

Transhumanism is Eugenics in its most unnatural form- it is essentially a movement that states what's natural and formed from evolution over hundreds of thousands of years, our bodies and minds, aren't enough - that we need singularity, and it is rapidly threatening civilization - AI scientists like Ray Kurzweil are stating that intelligence will be expanded 'a million fold by 2045' through non-invasive nanobots that turn us into a 'combination of our natural intelligence and our cybernetic intelligence'.

The issue with cybernetic intelligence is it is as inaccurate as human intelligence but has no doubts. As Harari warns we are facing a threat of 'digital dictatorship' and 'digital colonialism'. As Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger himself warned the Internet's largest encyclopedia Wikipedia can no longer be trusted. Valid theories are most regulated and mocked, many being described as 'conspiracy theories' when that was a term actually popularised by the CIA, to 'deflect criticism of the Warren Commission, regarding whether the CIA were involved in the JFK assassination' and now there are thousands of trash 'fact-checkers' bombarding the likes of Facebook and Google everyday. Corporations manipulate the public through storing private data and creating vulture-like algorithms, freely. The idea of opposing ideas being properly understood by artificial intelligence is absurd, as they rely on human intuition and feeling to be grasped. As governments, corporations and the elite have exploited the internet releasing a tsunami of mind-numbing, trash misinformation to the public in the media, science and every frankly in every profitable sector imaginable, how on earth could anyone trust that health would be any different - Transhumanism is most scary.

The principle danger isn't human-judgement, it is consent. No human with sane judgement would leap at the opportunity to be part-robot, but technology is most dangerous as it can be used in a thousand ways, and there's no way of knowing if any greedy technocrat will in the future find the sneakiest way to implement it. How do we know we are not being brainwashed right now by technology, not of our choice? How do we know that MK-Ultra projects aren't taking place on a scale previously unimaginable, even unspeakably so?

Let's not forget, how enticing eugenics is. to people on the left and right. Look at history, eugenicists are everywhere, the likes of Hitler are in fact outnumbered by famous socialist writers. It is clearly a part of the human psyche, a dangerous part most associated with the obsession of intelligence, and now in the time of technology is it the most dangerous part?