The technocene and the normalisation of bodily dissociation
Here’s Derrick Jensen talking with Jennifer Bilek about the corporate forces (Big Pharma; Johnson & Johnson are mentioned) that are exploiting vulnerable young people to sell double mastectomies and genital mutilation.
Bilek: “These LGBT NGOs, I would consider them subsidiaries of Big Pharma. They provide healthcare, they provide lobbying, they train people to be lobbyists. And so they're working hand in hand with Big Pharma to drive this narrative into the culture that this is normal. That dissociating from your body to the point where you want to carve it up is normal. This goes way beyond any kind of body augmentation... All those things are in one level but this here is actually mutilating your sex organs or taking drugs to impact your sex organs, so it's really targeting what we are as a human species. We are a sexually dimorphic species, it goes to the very core of who we are. So what we're witnessing here is the corporate colonisation of human sex…the whole human rights framework starts to unravel.”
What she has to say about this corporate colonisation and the grasping for new markets seems to have something in common with what I wrote earlier about COVID imperialism.
And here’s someone who’s very familiar with transhumanist ideas discussing the future that ideologues of this type are dreaming of:
“The post-medicine era is the “Medicine 2.0” that Big Pharma is busy trying to impose on us. It will be less and less about “treating” human beings and more and more about “modifying” them. Natural remedies will be confiscated, opening the door to artificial remedies designed to transform Man and, ultimately, to the “Great Replacement” of Homo sapiens by the Post-Human. As Kurzweil and Grossman point out:
“(…) we will discuss a series of remarkable conceptual designs by Freitas for robotic replacements of our red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets.”. They then state: “A hybrid scenario involving both biotechnology and nanotechnology contemplates turning biological cells into computers.””
(Kurzweil here is Ray Kurzweil, Google Director of Engineering. One of the world’s most influential progress cultists.)
Note the comment on natural health: this is already very real.
It will take a smarter person than me to fully articulate what’s going on here. Obviously, right at the heart of it, there’s greed driving it, but there’s also a cultural connection here that I haven’t yet seen explored elsewhere. That the woke generation have been weaponised by corporate power is not a new thought. The same generation is being used to normalise the mutilation of children and simultaneously to demand censorship with a fundamentalist religious fervour to obscure the fact that the same profiteering entities are carrying out a global genetic engineering experiment. Is that a connection that others have meditated on?
I could get into why this all will fail in the long run but it’s pretty obvious: we always dramatically overestimate our intelligence. It would be simple to produce a long list of how tech has failed, or will fail, to live up to the hype. No problem. A few quick examples: “renewable” energy can’t replace fossil fuels; engineering quantum computing for widespread use is a problem so difficult it’s highly unlikely to be soluble (see also: fusion, living on Mars); AI relies on ever-increasing data collection and processing in a world on the cusp of experiencing diminishing energy supplies. Check out how much data you’d need to stream to run a truly autonomous vehicle. And of course, the things we do occasionally build successfully have a tendency to create enormous downsides, usually unanticipated (but if not, suppressed). GMOs, of the old model, have failed. Certainly, bioengineering and nanotechnology will create plenty of downsides, while gains remain merely speculative, existing only in the minds of those with something to sell and in need of a market.
We do understand a little of life but we’re nowhere near capable of replacing it with machinery of our own design nor of building machines that can do it by collecting and scouring data. These ideas and techologies are incredibly crude and their promotion as the future of health is obscene. In the short run, the suffering of those who have come to regret gender modification is probably just the beginning of the harm that is going to be done by this ideological current. It brings to mind again the comment of Prof. Jack Heinemann of the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, University of Canterbury, who said that throwing the EU into the cesspool of gene editing without safety protocols is: “kindling for the fire of human folly and fanned by our natural overconfidence in our competence.”
If you’ve seen anyone else connecting these things, please let me know.