We will not discuss STEM of TRANHUMANISM this week---we are discussing the use of MARKETING AND ADVERTISING AS PUBLIC RELATIONS in selling MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD tied to creating SUPER-HUMANS as WINNERS and ordinary NATURAL HUMANS as LOSERS.
That is all this is------MARKETING the term SUPER-HUMAN as public good----the moral thing to do.
We used the phrase yesterday-----CRASH TEST DUMMY referring to the car manufacturers use of DUMMIES to determine the extent of HUMAN BODY DAMAGE in crashes at various speeds. We discuss often how PEOPLE have been used as CRASH TEST DUMMIES these few decades as not ready for prime-time PHARMA and medical procedures skip the decades of CLINICAL TRIALS and released to be studied to our general population.
DO NO HARM HIPPOCRATIC OATH GONE----GENERAL HUMAN POPULATION IS MADE CRASH TEST DUMMIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE.
SIENNA was so smart and strong-------and she endorsed SUPER-HUMANS and TRANSHUMANISM as a social good.
Gene Editing for ‘Designer Babies’? Highly Unlikely, Scientists Say
By Pam Belluck NY TIMES
- Aug. 4, 2017
News that an international team of scientists in Oregon had successfully modified the DNA of human embryos has renewed apprehensions that babies will one day be “designed.” But there are good reasons to think that these fears are closer to science fiction than they are to science.
Here is what the researchers did: repair a single gene mutation on a single gene, a defect known to cause — by its lonesome — a serious, sometimes fatal, heart disease.
Here is what science is highly unlikely to be able to do: genetically predestine a child’s Ivy League acceptance letter, front-load a kid with Stephen Colbert’s one-liners, or bake Beyonce’s vocal range into a baby.
That’s because none of those talents arise from a single gene mutation, or even from an easily identifiable number of genes. Most human traits are nowhere near that simple.
“Right now, we know nothing about genetic enhancement,” said Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford. “We’re never going to be able to say, honestly, ‘This embryo looks like a 1550 on the two-part SAT.’”
Even with an apparently straightforward physical characteristic like height, genetic manipulation would be a tall order. Some scientists estimate height is influenced by as many as 93,000 genetic variations. A recent study identified 697 of them.
FIXING A HEART DEFECT FOUND ON ONE SINGLE GENE? OH, REALLY????
'Published online 2017 Apr 1. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-1343
PMID: 28381817The Complex Genetic Basis of Congenital Heart DefectsEhiole Akhirome, BSc, Nephi A. Walton, MD, Julie M. Nogee, MD, and Patrick Y. Jay, MD, PhD'
“You might be able to do it with something like eye color,” said Robin Lovell-Badge, a professor of genetics and embryology at the Francis Crick Institute in London.
But “if people are worried about designer babies, they’re normally thinking of doing special — different things than the normal genetic stuff.”
The gene-modification process used in the new study also turns out to be somewhat restrictive. After researchers snipped the harmful mutation from the male gene, it copied the healthy sequence from that spot on the female gene.
That was a surprise to the scientists, who had inserted a DNA template into the embryo, expecting the gene to copy that sequence into the snipped spot, as occurs with gene editing in other body cells. But the embryonic genome ignored that template, suggesting that to repair a mutation on one parent’s gene in an embryo, a healthy DNA sequence from the other parent is required.
“If you can’t introduce a template, then you can’t do anything wild,” Dr. Lovell-Badge said. “This doesn’t really help you make designer babies.”
Talents and traits aren’t the only thing that are genetically complex. So are most physical diseases and psychiatric disorders. The genetic message is not carried in a 140-character tweet — it resembles a shelf full of books with chapters, subsections and footnotes.
So embryonic editing is unlikely to prevent most medical problems.
But about 10,000 medical conditions are linked to specific mutations, including Huntington’s disease, cancers caused by BRCA genes, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and some cases of early-onset Alzheimer’s. Repairing the responsible mutations in theory could eradicate these diseases from the so-called germline, the genetic material passed from one generation to the next. No future family members would inherit them.
But testing editing approaches on each mutation will require scientists to find the right genetic signpost, often an RNA molecule, to guide the gene-snipping tool.
In the study reported this week, it took 10 tries to find the right RNA, said Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a co-author and geneticist at the Salk Institute.
Dr. Greely noted that while scientists work to get human embryonic editing ready for clinical trials (currently illegal in the United States and many countries), alternate medical treatments for these diseases might be developed. They may be simpler and cheaper.
“How good one technique is depends on how good the alternatives are, and there may be alternatives,” he said.
The authors of the new study do not dismiss ethical implications of their work. In fact, Dr. Belmonte served on a committee of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine that in February endorsed research into gene editing of human embryos, but only to prevent serious diseases and conditions, and as a last resort.
“In theory this could lead to the kind of intervention which, of course, I’m totally against,” said Dr. Belmonte. “The possibility of moving forward not to create or prevent disease but rather to perform gene enhancement in humans.”
For example, soon “we will know more and more about genes that can increase your muscle activity,” he said. The hormone EPO, which some athletes have been disciplined for taking, “is produced by a gene, so you could in theory engineer yourself to produce more EPO.”
That is the kind of genetic engineering that raises alarm.
“Allowing any form of human germline modification leaves the way open for all kinds — especially when fertility clinics start offering ‘genetic upgrades’ to those able to afford them,” Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, said in a statement. “ We could all too easily find ourselves in a world where some people’s children are considered biologically superior to the rest of us.”
Scientists and ethicists share the concerns about access. “Any intervention that goes to the clinic should be for everyone,” Dr. Belmonte said. “It shouldn’t create inequities in society.”
This is what far-right wing global banking 1% are selling to our 99% of global citizens-------if a parent does not ENHANCE their child with these SUPER-HUMAN medical procedures that child will be a LOSER in attaining employment----in being that global 2% player as SMART CITIES ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY culls more and more human workers from having a job.
We are already seeing MARKETING telling us we need to go to ENHANCEMENT CLINICS for DESIGNER BABIES to assure a future for that child in MOVING FORWARD ----NO JOBS FOR YOU. All this has a goal of promoting medical research that is SUPER-DUPER harmful having no social benefit for 99% of global citizens. Will there be a RACE OF SUPER HUMANS? These technologies will KILL and bring EARLY DEATH to billions of people before any REAL BENEFIT is found. The only people who will be able to access SUPER-HUMAN technologies that MAY be developed will be -----the global 1% and PLANETARY MINING SLAVES for which much of SUPER HUMAN technology is aimed.
Stephen Hawking predicted a race of superhumans will take over the world
STEPHEN Hawking made a grim prediction before his death that a race of superhumans will rise up and destroy the social fabric as we know it.
Nick Whigham@NWWHIGHAM October 15, 20183:58pm
THE late Stephen Hawking believed advances in genetic science would lead to a future generation of superhumans that could ultimately destroy the rest of humanity.
In newly published writings, Dr Hawking suggested an elite class of physically and intellectually powerful humans could arise from rich people choosing to edit their DNA and manipulating their children’s genetic makeup.
“I am sure that during this century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence and instincts such as aggression,” he wrote.
“Laws will probably be passed against genetic engineering with humans. But some people won’t be able to resist the temptation to improve human characteristics, such as memory, resistance to disease and length of life.”
The renowned theoretical physicist, who died in March this year, made the grim prediction in a collection of essays and articles recently published by the UK’s Sunday Times, prior to the release of a book containing a collection of writings by Dr Hawking.
Those without the means will become relegated to a sub-class of “unimproved humans,” he suggests in Brief Answers To The Big Questions due out this week. The wealthy who have power and access could tweak their genome to boost strength, memory and disease resistance.
This two-tier system of humans, Dr Hawking predicted, could have grave social consequences.
“Once such superhumans appear, there will be significant political problems with unimproved humans, who won’t be able to compete,” he wrote. “Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings who are improving at an ever-increasing rate.
“If the human race manages to redesign itself, it will probably spread out and colonise other planets and stars.”
While the rise of a superhumans won’t happen in our lifetime, new gene-editing technology has already led to concerns about the potential of designer babies.
Most notably, CRISPR-Cas 9 is a recently emerged technology that can be thought of as acting like a tiny pair of molecular scissors that can cut and alter nucleotides which make up DNA, enabling scientists to find and modify, or replace, genetic defects.
“The fear is that they could use these techniques to create, some way, genetically modified people. You know designer babies where parents pick and choose the traits of their babies, make them taller, stronger, smarter or something like that,” NPR said in a 2016 report about a Swedish scientist using the technique to edit human embryos.
Dr Hawking was known for bringing clarity to some of the most mind-bending ideas in science such as the nature of black holes and the possibility of a multiverse.
But towards the end of this life, he grew increasingly vocal about future problems the world might face.
HAWKING’S AI WARNING TO THE WORLD
In recent years, Stephen Hawking had raised the alarm about the potential threat of artificial intelligence — something that also featured in the latest collection of published writings.
“The advent of super-intelligent AI would be either the best or the worst thing ever to happen to humanity,” he wrote.
“The real risk with AI isn’t malice, but competence. A super-intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours we’re in trouble.”
Speaking at the Web Summit in Lisbon in November last year, the famous physicist said the scary reality is we just don’t know yet whether AI is good or disastrous for the world.
“We cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI or ignored by it and sidelined, or conceivably destroyed by it,” he said.
While AI could be hugely beneficial for reducing poverty, disease and restoring the natural environment, it’s impossible to predict “what we might achieve when our own minds are amplified by AI”.
“AI could be the worst invention of the history of our civilisation, that brings dangers like powerful autonomous weapons or new ways for the few to oppress the many.
“AI could develop a will of its own, a will that is in conflict with ours and which could destroy us.”
Hawking warned that scientists and global governments needed to focus on maximising benefits for society rather than pure capability.
“We need to employ effective management in all areas of its development,” he said. “We stand on a threshold of a brave new world. It is an exciting, if precarious place to be and you are the pioneers,” he told the audience of researchers and technologists.
We liked the story line of SIENNA being a child genius---having lots going for her-----made STERILE from experimental ASTHMA PHARMA. It is IRONIC that SIENNA, a victim of NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME PHARMA would be promoting TRANSHUMANISM which is the POSTER CHILD of NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. Sienna as a doctor would KNOW the damage done to her---STERILITY ---having damaged her not only physically but emotionally and mentally-----would be compounded in TRANSHUMANISM.
Sienna does another round of OPPOSITES by going on and on and on about a FAKE overpopulation-----its all that food, medicine having created longer lifespans that has made population density soar------so, SIENNA is promoting SUPER-HUMAN as extending LIFE-----having goals of LIVING FOREVER------while selling the idea of over-population and need to stop modern medicine's longevity goals.
So, we come away from INFERNO with this idea of a RACE OF SUPER-HUMANS having greatly expanded LONGEVITY with a 99% of MERE MORTALS needing to be culled because longevity has created over-population.
And none of this is true.
SIENNA AS THE EVIL GENIUS TRANSHUMANIST ARE MEMBERS OF THE 100 YEAR CLUB----LONGEVITY WHILE SELLING THE IDEA THAT LONGEVITY FOR OUR 99% HAS CAUSED OVER-POPULATION.
Keep in mind---all of this TRANSHUMANISM research is tied to global private military complex-----it is not a PUBLIC INTEREST----PUBLIC BENEFIT.
The premise in the INFERNO that TRANSHUMANISTS are EVIL GENIUSES-----was the correct stance. Only far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---with all that 1000BC corrupted DNA------would be advancing these policies.
The impossible body
‘We will get regular body upgrades’: what will humans look like in 100 years?
Royal Opera House dancer Jordan Ajadi. Photograph: Gustavo Papaleo for the GuardianMechanical exoskeletons, bionic limbs, uploadable brains: six experts’ visions of 2118
by Richard Godwin
Sat 22 Sep 2018 07.00 EDT Last modified on Tue 9 Oct 2018 05.26 EDT
Predicting the future is a fool’s game at the best of times. Right now it’s madness – so much is up in the air technologically, politically, economically, ecologically and spiritually, it seems as likely we’ll be shivering in caves as enjoying our new bionic exoskeletons by 2118. For all the talk of humans living longer, life expectancy has flatlined in recent years. The near future doesn’t look younger and fitter so much as older and fatter, as the median age in the developed world powers past 40 towards the middle of the century.
But of all the developments emerging now, it’s technology focused on the human body that would appear to introduce the most chaos into the system. California biotech startups talk of making death “optional”. Facebook is working on telepathic interfaces. Bionic limbs will soon outperform human limbs. Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing technology theoretically allows us to fiddle around with genomes.
We could look, think and feel in radically different ways.
Are we ready to treat our bodies as pieces of hardware? We might be getting there. Take something as innocuous as tattoos, which have boomed in popularity roughly in step with the information age. Seen in one light, they’re a faintly retro fashion trend. In another, they show an increased willingness to alter our physical selves. You might think of them as the surgeon’s marks before the real enhancements arrive. I asked six scientists and thinkers to share their vision for the body in the next century.
When we started in 2014, we decided to focus not only on bringing down the cost of prosthetics, but also on tackling the social stigma around disability. We found the best way to do that was to harness the narrative of superheroes and to make the devices super-stylish and enviable. We wanted children to walk into school and show off their new bionic hand and make their friends envious. It’s the exact opposite of the experience amputees had before, where they’d have a fake hand with zero functionality, or a prosthetic hook.
Now we’re seeing this interesting social phenomenon where bionic devices have become cool. They’re more embedded in popular culture, more celebrated. And we’re seeing how this technology might be used for able-bodied people. The German corporation Ottobock has produced prosthetic limbs for medical use and is now making mechanical exoskeletons for VW workers to enhance their performance in the factory. Roam Robotics has created an exoskeleton for skiers. We’re going to see more of this. All we need is smaller motors, better batteries; once the components advance, the products will come to market.
I’m of the opinion that the hardware is going to get to the point where it can outperform the human body. That’s not a small challenge – the human body is unbelievably complex. The strength, dexterity and sensory feedback of the hand is really hard to replicate. But we will get there. And then what will stop people wanting to swap their limbs? We’ve already had plenty of people on social media saying they’re tempted to replace healthy limbs with bionic ones.
I feel there has been a huge cultural shift. We’ve found a very distinct gap between younger amputees and those aged 40 and older. The older ones wanted a bionic hand as close to real skin as possible. The younger generation all want highly personalised hands. We’ve moved from a society that valued conformity to one that celebrates individuality. People are more willing to experiment with their body. It’s wide open.
‘By 2030, I expect humans to be regularly going into body shops for upgrades’: Zoltan Istvan, transhumanist author and campaigner
I got a chip implant injected into my hand while running for the 2016 US presidency as the nominee of the Transhumanist party. At the time, I only knew a handful of people who had them. Now tens of thousands do – and some companies encourage their employees to get chipped, so bosses can better track workflow. Implants are a small part of our transhuman future. Already biohackers I know plan to amputate healthy limbs and replace them with brain-controlled robotic ones. Robotic limbs are still 15 years from being more functional than human limbs – but that won’t stop people who desire to be cyborgs. Robotic limbs can be upgraded as new technology becomes available.
The real gamechanger for future human health is bionic organs. Already dozens of medical companies are surgically fitting humans with robotic devices that mimic and replace specific organs, such as the pancreas, eyes and heart. Within 20 years, all these bionic organs will synchronise via personal instruction from one’s smartphone, allowing humans to achieve feats they never imagined: climb Mount Everest at 80, or have wild sex all night. Bionic organs can and will outperform their biological counterparts; by 2030, I expect humans to be regularly going into body shops for upgrades.
The future of work is more complicated. Robots threaten to steal all our jobs. Companies in California such as Kernel and Neuralink are already tackling the problem, trying to make humans more efficient workers. They aim to create neural prosthetics that allow the human brain to communicate in real time with machine intelligence, including AI and the internet. And if our thoughts are connected directly to machines – supercomputers can already do 200,000 trillion calculations a second – where does that lead humanity? Transhumanists believe it leads to the Singularity, a moment in time – likely around 2045 – when the exponential evolution of machine intelligence grows beyond the comprehension capacity of the biological brain. Like an ant trying to understand people, homo sapiens won’t understand AI that gets too smart. The only way for humans to stay at the top of the food chain will be to merge directly with AI – by uploading our thoughts and entire personality into it.
This future, sometimes called the hivemind – because everyone is jacked into AI and one another simultaneously – is a controversial outcome. But economics might force more of the transhuman future than people want. To be better than robots, we’ll have to beat them, and that means joining them. Biology is simply too limited for us to remain competitive for much longer.
‘You could have people living for thousands of years’: Aubrey de Grey, biomedical gerontologist and chief science officer of the Sens Research Foundation, a charity focused on age-related diseaseI’d say there is a 50/50 chance we will have brought ageing under decisive control within 20 years. In 100 years, there’s an 80% or 90% chance we will have achieved that goal. There will still be aspects of ageing we can’t control – various types of cellular and molecular damage – but we will be able to stay well within a comfort zone where that damage doesn’t bring significant risks.
Once we don’t have ageing, our longevity will be defined by other factors. We can put a crude number on that, if we extrapolate from today’s mortality rates in early adulthood. The proportion of people who die at 26 is now less than one in a thousand. If we eliminate ageing, that rate will stay the same with each passing year: extrapolate from that and you could have people living for thousands of years. We’ll also be bearing down on car accidents, pandemics, asteroids – so it makes no sense to put a number on how long people will live on average.
I don’t believe solving ageing will increase an economic divide. The benefits will be extraordinarily valuable
We have seen a levelling off of life expectancy recently – but that’s largely because the advances that brought about the great increases in the 19th and 20th centuries are now hitting diminishing returns. There’s also an obesity epidemic. But that ceases to be a problem when people don’t need to look after themselves because the medicine is good enough, which will be the case fairly soon.
The single tipping point will consist of a combination of a number of therapies that repair various types of damage that accumulate in the body. We have worked to classify these types of damage into seven big categories, which allows us to work out how we might treat them. One of them is loss of cells, where they are dying and not being automatically replaced by the division of other cells. If that’s happening, we need stem cell therapy. Different organs need slightly different types – but only slightly different, which is why the classification is useful.
I don’t believe solving ageing will increase an economic divide. The benefits will be extraordinarily valuable; it will pay for itself in no time. Any country that makes the political decision not to pay for this through taxation will soon become bankrupt, as other countries keep their chronologically elderly populations contributing to society.
I don’t see any existential risks. I’m interested in other risks, such as asteroid impacts; once we begin to understand that ageing is being eliminated, we will care much more about those risks and feel more invested in them. I’m not too worried about overpopulation, either. Overpopulation is really about pollution – the damage that people do. But we are acquiring solar technology, desalination, many things that will reduce the harm we do to the planet and therefore increase its capacity. There’s no reason it couldn’t house 70 billion people.
‘My partner and I identify as cyborgs’: Moon Ribas, co-founder of the Transpecies Society in Barcelona
Human beings will evolve. We haven’t always been human. We were sea creatures, then we were living in the trees, then we became human. Soon we will become something else. Technology is part of our lives and it will become part of our evolutionary journey, too.
In 2013, I designed an extra sense for myself. I have sensors on my feet so I can perceive the seismic activity of the planet: when there’s an earthquake somewhere, I feel it. I call it the seismic sense. I don’t consider it a body-hack but a mind-hack – my aim was to use technology to change my perception of reality.
Some companies encourage their employees to get chipped, so bosses can better track workflow
We’re moving into an age where we can use technology to perceive things we couldn’t otherwise. It’s exciting that everyone will be able to design their own senses. My business partner, Neil Harbisson, has an antenna implanted in his skull that allows him to hear colour waves. It picks up colour frequency, which creates vibrations in his skull, which he perceives as sound. His colour perception is now greater than ordinary human perception as it includes ultraviolet and infrared. A friend has extra senses in his ears that can detect atmospheric pressure and allow him to predict the weather. We’re designing a retro-ceptive sense so you can see what’s happening behind you; cars have it already. Instead of uploading new senses for our phone we will soon be uploading new senses for the self.
My partner and I identify as cyborgs as we are no longer 100% human. We have new body parts that give us access to perceptions that are beyond usual human perception. It’s not about augmenting reality, or living in virtual reality; it’s more about revealing a reality that already exists.
I’m sure there will be companies offering this commercially in future – but for me, that’s not as interesting as the creative possibilities. I now have two beats in my body, a heartbeat and an earth beat. I don’t feel closer to machines; I feel closer to nature and other animals. I think it’s perfectly conceivable that we will be able to alter our bodies in such a way that we feel closer to the planet. We can be inspired by other creatures and how they perceive reality. That’s my optimistic point of view.
‘The body will have human elements, but will be integrated with technology’: Braden Allenby, environmental engineer at Arizona State University and co-author of The Techno-Human Condition
We are entering the Anthropocene – an era in which it is humans who are the most critical to the way life on the planet evolves. But humans are not only altering the Earth – we’re also designing ourselves. Artificial intelligence and gene-editing technology mean the human being has become a design space.
I believe the split between the human world and the natural world that we’ve all grown up with will begin to look obsolete. The human will become very different, as we fuse our individual selves into techno-human networks. We’re used to thinking of ourselves as Cartesian individuals: separate from nature, separate from other human forms. But if you look at what’s happened to our cognitive processes in the last couple of decades, you’ll see that’s already changing. We’ve already outsourced much of our cognitive ability to Google. People can’t read maps any more because Google Maps tells them where to go. Darpa (the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) recently chipped an individual so he could telepathically control multiple drones. That’s just the beginning.
At the same time, our individual identities have become a new battle space – and the implications for cognition are huge. Everything we learn about the brain shows how flawed our decision-making processes are, particularly when we’re under stress. Our cognition is not as effective as we think. The modern information environment is far more complex and faster than anything we’ve experienced. People are responding by falling back into simple narratives and identity politics as a defence against this complexity. Malign actors are learning how to manipulate these identities.
If we can survive this moment, I think we will move towards a world where man is no longer the measure of all things. It will turn out we’re simply components of large operating systems. Rather than the Frankenstein image of technology destroying humans, we will integrate the two. The body will still have human elements; but it won’t look like anything you and I call human. It sounds hard to imagine – but it is already happening. Look at any city street. At least half the people are looking at their phones. We’re already integrated into networks beyond our physical environment.
‘I’d like to bring the brain online’: Bryan Johnson, founder of Kernel, the California startup that designs brain-machine interfaces
What we will be like in 100 years is one of the most relevant questions we could be asking as a species. It’s generally been the case that humans could reasonably predict the circumstances of their life and their children’s lives, too. Now, the rate of change is such that we can’t see further than a decade or two ahead. The aim is not to get people to predict the future. It’s to get them to appreciate that they can’t predict the future and to create alternative models to think about the future.
We’re just a few tool discoveries away from being able to radically improve ourselves. I’m building brain-machine interfaces that will bring the brain online, in a similar way to how other bodily functions are now online. Your footsteps are “online”, if you want them to be. The nutritional value of the food you eat can be “online”, too. But your brain is offline. If I want to know what’s going on inside your brain, I have to ask you: “What’s going on in your head?” You will then query the small portion of your brain you’re aware of. What I’d like to do is bring as much of the brain as possible online, and make it as much of an intermediary of our existence as smartphones are.
We can measure what computers are doing with megabytes and gigabytes. I’m trying to imagine a scenario where we can quantify our brain activity in “attebytes”. At the end of the day, you can download a pie chart of your brain’s neuro-processes. You might find you’ve allocated 737,000 attebytes of attention to a conversation about the future. You might discover you thought about an argument you had with your partner 45 times that day. Think of it as a step counter for the brain.
If that data goes online, what would happen? There is a dystopian scenario where the brain becomes open for business. You can imagine the goods and services that could evolve around knowing what’s happening in someone else’s brain. Facebook is currently working on brain-machine interfaces, but adding something like this into their ecosystem would be a really terrible situation for everybody. We cannot be careful or thoughtful enough about how we do this.
If we could establish a single priority for the human race, it would be improving our cognition. Everything we are, everything we are doing, is downstream from the brain. How we govern ourselves, how we deal with climate change, how we manage the economy – everything depends on our cognitive processes.
Humans have been remarkably skilled at making enormous progress. We struggle with a lot of things. We’re prone to negative dispositions and biases. But it wouldn’t be smart to bet against the human race. I’m very bullish about our potential.
Our using the term CRASH TEST DUMMIES does not mean our 99% WE THE PEOPLE are dummies------it refers to the dismantlement of all our US medical morals and ethics to make global corporate research cheaper---and allow a NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME release of these medical procedures and PHARMA to expand corporate profits.
It has been a goal of global banking 1% to get rid of all PUBLIC INTEREST INTERNAL REVIEW BOARDS that protect PUBLIC HEALTH to MOVE FORWARD the fast-tracking of DAMAGING MEDICAL PRODUCTS.
This SUPER-HUMAN goal SUPER-SIZES the damages to humans from medical research and development------the CRASH TEST DUMMIES will show lots of damage to human body parts.
Crash Test Dummies - Superman's Song
Crash Test Dummies – Superman’s Song (Official Video) Listen on Spotify -…
Global banking 1% FREEMASON STARS are releasing lots of cultural arts selling the FAD that MOST EVERYONE ELSE wants to LIVE FOREVER. At the same time academic research shows that MOST EVERYONE is not seeking that goal. People simply want to live a healthy productive life knowing that our human bodies will fail after too much aging.
The goal of LIVING FOREVER even if it is medically successful will always be TOO COSTLY a procedure to be made mainstream for our 99% of global citizens.
‘By 2030, I expect humans to be regularly going into body shops for upgrades’: Zoltan Istvan, transhumanist author and campaigner'
We never read about our 99% WANTING TO LIVE FOREVER until MOVING FORWARD needed to sell the goals of TRANSHUMANISM.
Let's remember the difference between NATURAL HYBRIDIZATION -----which is blending animal and plant species to create a new, a stronger, a better plant or animal breed--------and genetic manipulations of body chemistry----and implantation of artificial body organs.
NOTHING in science is showing these MANUFACTURED MANIPULATIONS OF GENETIC MATERIAL WILL EVER WORK WITHIN THE TOTALITY OF OUR HUMAN SYSTEM.
Jan 2, 2018, 07:03am
Who Wants To Live Forever?...The Super-Rich, That's Who (And Most Everyone Else)
Russ Alan Prince Contributor
Thought Leaders I write about the creation and management of exceptional wealth.
Not only do many of the super-rich want immortality, but a good number of them are doing something about it. The likes of Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, Larry Ellison, Co-founder of Oracle, and investor Peter Thiel are all putting money into ventures that are focused on extending the human life span.
A multitude of approaches being taken are aiming for immortality…or, at the very least, a much longer and healthier life. There is the idea of merging artificial intelligence with humans to avert death. By transferring your consciousness into an artificial brain, you will continue to live even though your body is worn out. Cryogenics is being seriously considered. Here they freeze your body and, at a minimum, your head until the field of medicine advances enough to bring you back.
Hacking our DNA is another approach being taken. Our ability to use stem cells to cure disease is becoming increasingly an opportunity. Very possibly using stem cell technology, as well as modifications to our DNA, can result in significantly longer fruitful lives. Today, some people are using a procedure called parabiosis. In 1924 a physician by the name of Alexander Bogdanov transfused himself with the blood of younger people claiming it helped him become younger. (He died when he took the blood of a student with malaria and tuberculosis.)
According to Daniel Carlin, M.D., CEO of WorldClinic and author of The World of Concierge Medicine, “Medicine is advancing where it is possible to extend the lives of people, and we’re seeing a solid percentage of the wealthy are taking steps to benefit from these advances. At WorldClinic, we’re very focused on longevity planning. Our goal is to use state-of-the-art medical science to enable our clients to live longer in good health. We’re finding more and more people signing up with us who are most interested in longevity.”
The super-rich are investing in cutting-edge medical research to live longer, and concierge healthcare companies, such as WorldClinic, are taking available knowledge and approaches to help give their affluent clients longer healthy lives.
Other physicians are also taking steps to foster longevity in their patients. “Wellness is an often tossed around term, but for us it’s all about living a great life and living a long life,” says Jeffrey Friedman M.D., Director of Medicine at Community Health Associates and a member of MDVIP. “Our practice is designed to not only treat patients when they’re ill, but to work with them to prevent them becoming sick and to live a very long life.”
It is very likely that medical advances will result in much longer lifespans, and a good number of the super-rich are putting substantial resources into finding solutions to death. In the meantime, people can often take steps that will increase the probability of them living longer, healthy lives. Physicians like Carlin and Friedman can help to achieve this goal.
I am president of R.A. Prince & Associates, Inc. I consult with family offices, the ultra-wealthy and select professionals.
We would like to address another misconception in DAN BROWN'S INFERNO------the novel uses VENICE as an example of human OVER-POPULATION making it appear that it was increased human population that created these few decades what is indeed a ridiculous number of tourists hitting the streets of VENICE.
What DAN BROWN doesn't tell his readers is this: a few decades ago, against the will of 99% of WE THE VENETIAN CITIZENS-----laws were passed to allow HUGE CRUISE SHIPS into the PORT OF VENICE. Everyone knew that many people released into a very small VENICE would be a disaster----but as usual those global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols working for global corporations passed these laws.
Here we see these laws being reversed.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES have called this super-density global cosmopolitan city structure FAILED DEVELOPMENT because it destroys natural population and economic structures to create what IS A BAD STRUCTURE OF OVER-POPULATION.
Think today in US how over these few decades our RURAL counties have been emptied of people-----because of need for jobs. We must have balanced development so our rural areas can maintain their generations of family. OUR US 99% WE THE PEOPLE KNOW THIS----global banking 1% MOVING FORWARD making SUPER-DUPER density US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES knows this too.
This is why LANGDON and SIENNA had a hard time making their way through VENICE.
Big Cruise Ships No Longer Allowed in Venice
The plan calls for cruise ships over 55,000 tons to dock at the mainland’s Marghera port and avoid transiting through the Giudecca canal.
Supplier: Associated Press
The Italian government and Venice officials have agreed on a plan to block giant cruise ships from steaming past the lagoon city’s iconic St. Mark’s Square and instead re-route them to a nearby industrial port.
The agreement reached Tuesday, the latest in a years-long debate and still subject to final details, seeks to balance the environmental concerns of Venice’s delicate ecosystem with tourism and maritime jobs.
Transport Minister Graziano Delrio said the plan, to be phased in over three-five years, calls for cruise ships over 55,000 tons to dock at the mainland’s Marghera port and avoid transiting through the Giudecca canal, one of the main waterways through Venice that empties into the St. Mark’s basin.
Environmental groups rejected it since it still allows polluting cruise ships to enter Venice’s lagoon.