Darwinism and The Fourth Industrial Revolution

[Karlysymon]

Darwinism, Atheism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Honest question to all who subscribe to non-theistic thought.

What legitimate qualms do you have over the aspirations and goals of the (drivers) Fourth Industrial Revolution? If we are evolving to our new and improved super-human selves and the FIR is going to get us there by synthetically rewriting nature, on what grounds would you argue against that? I mean we were going to get there anyway, right? And we have to remain philosophically consistent. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the guys over at the World Economic Forum and their great FIR plans?

Sure, you could contend that man should just let “nature” take its course rather than charting the course of our evolution but how was “nature” ever going to make all of us super-human and immortal?

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….the threshold at which we stand….immortality within reach?

This video was in the link in my thread on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Some people may not have seen it, so I’ll let Alicia Jackson close out my query.

 

[free2018]

Hmm.

 

[morita]

Darwinism, Atheism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Honest question to all who subscribe to non-theistic thought.

What legitimate qualms do you have over the aspirations and goals of the (drivers) Fourth Industrial Revolution? If we are evolving to our new and improved super-human selves and the FIR is going to get us there by synthetically rewriting nature, on what grounds would you argue against that? I mean we were going to get there anyway, right? And we have to remain philosophically consistent. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the guys over at the World Economic Forum and their great FIR plans?

Sure, you could contend that man should just let “nature” take its course rather than charting the course of our evolution but how was “nature” ever going to make all of us super-human and immortal?

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….the threshold at which we stand….immortality within reach?

This video was in the link in my thread on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Some people may not have seen it, so I’ll let Alicia Jackson close out my query.

To what end do you think the elite could use immortals or super humans? My guess is to win wars (like in the movie the return of the dead 3)

 

[lightseeker]

Darwinism, Atheism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Honest question to all who subscribe to non-theistic thought.

What legitimate qualms do you have over the aspirations and goals of the (drivers) Fourth Industrial Revolution? If we are evolving to our new and improved super-human selves and the FIR is going to get us there by synthetically rewriting nature, on what grounds would you argue against that? I mean we were going to get there anyway, right? And we have to remain philosophically consistent. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the guys over at the World Economic Forum and their great FIR plans?

Sure, you could contend that man should just let “nature” take its course rather than charting the course of our evolution but how was “nature” ever going to make all of us super-human and immortal?

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….the threshold at which we stand….immortality within reach?

This video was in the link in my thread on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Some people may not have seen it, so I’ll let Alicia Jackson close out my query.

That's the thing about evil. There's always a "good" side to it. There's always benefits that it offers. It's only in the face of truth, or God, that it can be shown for what it is.

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….

I think you're on to something there. It's hard to tell if those types of ideas, darwinism, marxism, were dreamt up intentionally to be what they are. Or if they're used as such. But for sure, the idea of continual evolution, man being an animal, naturalistic fallacy, material being stripped of spirit, and what is deemed advancement or progress are at the heart of these nwo movements

 

[illuminatimess]

To what end do you think the elite could use immortals or super humans? My guess is to win wars (like in the movie the return of the dead 3)

They don’t need humans to partake in wars, they’ve been developing military robots.

 

[illuminatimess]

Financed by the TV licence fee levied in France and Germany, ARTE produces various TV programs which are also available online. 2017 they published a documentary series called "Homo Digitalis" which was quite shocking and interesting at the same time.

I don't know if it's available in your country, but if it is, it's worth watching!

Homo Digitalis - Sciences | ARTE in English

Will Homo Sapiens become a new species with the ongoing technological developments?

www.arte.tv

 

[Karlysymon]

That's the thing about evil. There's always a "good" side to it. There's always benefits that it offers. It's only in the face of truth, or God, that it can be shown for what it is.

I think you're on to something there. It's hard to tell if those types of ideas, darwinism, marxism, were dreamt up intentionally to be what they are. Or if they're used as such. But for sure, the idea of continual evolution, man being an animal, naturalistic fallacy, material being stripped of spirit, and what is deemed advancement or progress are at the heart of these nwo movements

I believe the Darwinists owe the rest of us an explanation. This is the road they’ve led us down, I mean apotheosis is the logical conclusion to their school of thought. Even they, themselves, are afraid of losing their humanity or ceasing to be human. Which is quite contradictory. Shouldn’t they eagerly embrace the next stage of their belief system? So iam hoping that some of the resident (evolution) adherents will chime in with some clarity/answers.

I will leave this article here since its relevant to the subject…Kissinger certainly thinks that this (FIR) is how the Enlightenment ends.

How the Enlightenment Ends

Philosophically, intellectually—in every way—human society is unprepared for the rise of artificial intelligence.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Karlysymon]

Funny, I haven’t heard a word from prominent Darwinists like Dawkins or Harris applauding ^this dawn of the next stage in man’s evolution. Sure, they’ll probably argue that its unethical and that we should let nature take its course but how else was nature going to chart Schwab & Co.’s course without it being manipulated? And does anyone genuinely believe that FIR proponents are going to be first in line on the road to apotheosis or is it just an empty promise for you plebs?

Edit:
Youtube scrubbed the video.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Darwinism, Atheism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Honest question to all who subscribe to non-theistic thought.

What legitimate qualms do you have over the aspirations and goals of the (drivers) Fourth Industrial Revolution? If we are evolving to our new and improved super-human selves and the FIR is going to get us there by synthetically rewriting nature, on what grounds would you argue against that? I mean we were going to get there anyway, right? And we have to remain philosophically consistent. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the guys over at the World Economic Forum and their great FIR plans?

Sure, you could contend that man should just let “nature” take its course rather than charting the course of our evolution but how was “nature” ever going to make all of us super-human and immortal?

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….the threshold at which we stand….immortality within reach?

This video was in the link in my thread on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Some people may not have seen it, so I’ll let Alicia Jackson close out my query.

You raise some interesting and important questions here... I will have to give this some careful consideration...

 

[Journeyman]

Darwinism, Atheism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Honest question to all who subscribe to non-theistic thought.

What legitimate qualms do you have over the aspirations and goals of the (drivers) Fourth Industrial Revolution? If we are evolving to our new and improved super-human selves and the FIR is going to get us there by synthetically rewriting nature, on what grounds would you argue against that? I mean we were going to get there anyway, right? And we have to remain philosophically consistent. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the guys over at the World Economic Forum and their great FIR plans?

Sure, you could contend that man should just let “nature” take its course rather than charting the course of our evolution but how was “nature” ever going to make all of us super-human and immortal?

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….the threshold at which we stand….immortality within reach?

This video was in the link in my thread on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Some people may not have seen it, so I’ll let Alicia Jackson close out my query.

That was me until quite recently.

I changed my mind after I found evidence that some of the people, perhaps many or most, who were pushing this had very different views in private to the ones they pushed in public.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

That was me until quite recently.

I changed my mind after I found evidence that some of the people, perhaps many or most, who were pushing this had very different views in private to the ones they pushed in public.

Funny, I haven’t heard a word from prominent Darwinists like Dawkins or Harris applauding ^this dawn of the next stage in man’s evolution. Sure, they’ll probably argue that its unethical and that we should let nature take its course but how else was nature going to chart Schwab & Co.’s course without it being manipulated? And does anyone genuinely believe that FIR proponents are going to be first in line on the road to apotheosis or is it just an empty promise for you plebs?

I hope you will both expound on this a bit more... Im interested to learn your perspectives of this. It seems so important, yet seems so off of most peoples radar as well.

 

[Journeyman]

I hope you will both expound on this a bit more... Im interested to learn your perspectives of this. It seems so important, yet seems so off of most peoples radar as well.

I had a materialist view which was to a large extent predicated on the demonstrable progress of science, it's reliability in demonstrating results and the integrity of the scientific method and the majority of those that espoused it.

What changed? Well, the cliched answer is that I woke up. I began to discern the connections that through elite bloodlines and once I found evidence that some of the arch rational explainers of science came from an undisclosed background of very different beliefs, then I looked afresh at some of the positions I was actually holding 'on faith' in those people to honestly reflect the truth.

Epistemically, I had to look at the foundations of Empiricism and recognise that Francis Bacon was both scientist and occultist, though the latter had been downplayed from the history books. Likewise Newton, who spent as much or more time in alchemic research as he did on the Principia.

The world today somewhat ironically makes more sense once one views it with at least some occult knowledge and once one realises that CERN or NASA have a second, hidden agenda, which their own code requires them to signal in an indirect way, then one has a good rational basis for looking again at all the cosy assumptions of the 'rational' approach.

Of course once that bedrock has been shaken, it becomes difficult to know what is or isn't real. What's been hidden? What deliberately distorted? What level of certainty can I attach to the reports of this scientist or that university once it's clear that there are gatekeepers at work with agendas of their own to support?

It does mean however that when I see Alicia Jackson now, I'm as minded to look into her biography, note the DARPA involvement, maybe cross reference some of the people she's worked with and take anything and everything that she says with a grain of salt!

 

[Orwell's mentor]

Darwinism, Atheism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Honest question to all who subscribe to non-theistic thought.

What legitimate qualms do you have over the aspirations and goals of the (drivers) Fourth Industrial Revolution? If we are evolving to our new and improved super-human selves and the FIR is going to get us there by synthetically rewriting nature, on what grounds would you argue against that? I mean we were going to get there anyway, right? And we have to remain philosophically consistent. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the guys over at the World Economic Forum and their great FIR plans?

Sure, you could contend that man should just let “nature” take its course rather than charting the course of our evolution but how was “nature” ever going to make all of us super-human and immortal?

And I wonder….could it be that Darwinism was dreamt up and promoted precisely to provide a backbone to what would transpire 200yrs later….the threshold at which we stand….immortality within reach?

This video was in the link in my thread on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Some people may not have seen it, so I’ll let Alicia Jackson close out my query.

This might be a bit off topic, but the hubris of some people is just laughable at times. Alicia Jackson should've gotten some good lip balm before talking about wanting to be a superhero because she reminds me of Spleen from Mystery Men and appears to be using used car salesperson's tactics when discussing the theory of removing or inserting genomes into an embryo.

As well, she doesn't discuss the cons of altering a human's DNA. What if they just create more babies with Down Syndrome or something more dreadful? Who would become liable and how can it be proven, provided the family wants to be compensated for the extra care the child would need for their desire for a "Superhero" but is not resembling anything close to it? I suppose the parents would have to sign an indemnity agreement before conceiving the child?

While I have my tongue in cheek making this statement, their Darwinist/evolutionist version of a "superhero" might turn out like this.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I had a materialist view which was to a large extent predicated on the demonstrable progress of science, it's reliability in demonstrating results and the integrity of the scientific method and the majority of those that espoused it.

What changed? Well, the cliched answer is that I woke up. I began to discern the connections that through elite bloodlines and once I found evidence that some of the arch rational explainers of science came from an undisclosed background of very different beliefs, then I looked afresh at some of the positions I was actually holding 'on faith' in those people to honestly reflect the truth.

Epistemically, I had to look at the foundations of Empiricism and recognise that Francis Bacon was both scientist and occultist, though the latter had been downplayed from the history books. Likewise Newton, who spent as much or more time in alchemic research as he did on the Principia.

The world today somewhat ironically makes more sense once one views it with at least some occult knowledge and once one realises that CERN or NASA have a second, hidden agenda, which their own code requires them to signal in an indirect way, then one has a good rational basis for looking again at all the cosy assumptions of the 'rational' approach.

Of course once that bedrock has been shaken, it becomes difficult to know what is or isn't real. What's been hidden? What deliberately distorted? What level of certainty can I attach to the reports of this scientist or that university once it's clear that there are gatekeepers at work with agendas of their own to support?

It does mean however that when I see Alicia Jackson now, I'm as minded to look into her biography, note the DARPA involvement, maybe cross reference some of the people she's worked with and take anything and everything that she says with a grain of salt!

I wouldnt say its a cliche, and Im glad you are here posting!
Bacon was an intriguing individual on a number of fronts and I fully co-sign your process for the discernment and vetting of Alicia Jackson!

 

[TempestOfTempo]

This might be a bit off topic, but the hubris of some people is just laughable at times. Alicia Jackson should've gotten some good lip balm before talking about wanting to be a superhero because she reminds me of Spleen from Mystery Men and appears to be using used car salesperson's tactics when discussing the theory of removing or inserting genomes into an embryo.

As well, she doesn't discuss the cons of altering a human's DNA. What if they just create more babies with Down Syndrome or something more dreadful? Who would become liable and how can it be proven, provided the family wants to be compensated for the extra care the child would need for their desire for a "Superhero" but is not resembling anything close to it? I suppose the parents would have to sign an indemnity agreement before conceiving the child?

While I have my tongue in cheek making this statement, their Darwinist/evolutionist version of a "superhero" might turn out like this.

My disabled homies would all cheer and gather round when Handiman came on. Living Color seemed to find the right balance of allowing them to be in on the joke and laugh at themselves while still being cooler than the "normal" people in the skits! Sorry for the off topic post.

P.S. Tiny Avenger STAND UP!!

 

[Karlysymon]

As well, she doesn't discuss the cons of altering a human's DNA. What if they just create more babies with Down Syndrome or something more dreadful? Who would become liable and how can it be proven, provided the family wants to be compensated for the extra care the child would need for their desire for a "Superhero" but is not resembling anything close to it? I suppose the parents would have to sign an indemnity agreement before conceiving the child?

Neither does DARPA. It is no secret that DARPA has plans to give each one of us a 47th chromosome.** Thankfully, as Alicia says, it can only be inserted at the embryonic/conception stage. Which made me think that if “they” make the majority of the world’s population sterile and in the future a couple wants to have a baby, the test-tube babies that the “baby bank” will offer will already have that extra chromosome.

What also irks me about all this is the mantra used that it’s all about curing diseases. If they stopped raining chemicals from the sky, or dumping chemicals in the water supply, the use of RoundUp, genetically modifying the food etc wouldn’t most of the diseases, especially cancer, simply disappear? Liver cancer is on the rise around the world precisely because of how toxic our environment has become.

What is the point of tweaking the genome for a higher IQ when you are still drinking fluoridated water that dumbs you down? I’ve often found the idea of donating to “cancer research” or research into the diseases that have appeared in the last 120yrs to be a scam. Remember the “ice bucket challenge” for ALS afew years ago? The point being, the cause of some of these diseases is already known and the donated money is funneled elsewhere.

Spoiler: **

"....DARPA Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering Project seeks to create a biological platform inside the human body, using it to deliver new genetic information, and thus altering humans at the DNA level. DARPA wants to insert an additional 47th artificial chromosome into human cells.
This chromosome will deliver new genes that will be used for engineering the human body."
WMD America: Inside the Pentagon’s Global Bioweapons Industry

 

[Karlysymon]

That was me until quite recently.

I changed my mind after I found evidence that some of the people, perhaps many or most, who were pushing this had very different views in private to the ones they pushed in public.

I had a materialist view which was to a large extent predicated on the demonstrable progress of science, it's reliability in demonstrating results and the integrity of the scientific method and the majority of those that espoused it.

What changed? Well, the cliched answer is that I woke up. I began to discern the connections that through elite bloodlines and once I found evidence that some of the arch rational explainers of science came from an undisclosed background of very different beliefs, then I looked afresh at some of the positions I was actually holding 'on faith' in those people to honestly reflect the truth.

Epistemically, I had to look at the foundations of Empiricism and recognise that Francis Bacon was both scientist and occultist, though the latter had been downplayed from the history books. Likewise Newton, who spent as much or more time in alchemic research as he did on the Principia.

The world today somewhat ironically makes more sense once one views it with at least some occult knowledge and once one realises that CERN or NASA have a second, hidden agenda, which their own code requires them to signal in an indirect way, then one has a good rational basis for looking again at all the cosy assumptions of the 'rational' approach.

Of course once that bedrock has been shaken, it becomes difficult to know what is or isn't real. What's been hidden? What deliberately distorted? What level of certainty can I attach to the reports of this scientist or that university once it's clear that there are gatekeepers at work with agendas of their own to support?

It does mean however that when I see Alicia Jackson now, I'm as minded to look into her biography, note the DARPA involvement, maybe cross reference some of the people she's worked with and take anything and everything that she says with a grain of salt!

I genuinely enjoyed reading your post!

Shouldn’t that make us question all the more why a lid is kept on the private beliefs of the “rational explainers of science” rather than the ones they push publicly? Unless it is to lend credence to the idea that their public beliefs serve and advance the agendas of the higher echelons of power.

Spoiler: As an example

The link in that comment is now unavailable but this is the best i could find

http://orlandomasons1876.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/royal-society-freemasons.pdf

 

[Journeyman]

I genuinely enjoyed reading your post!

Shouldn’t that make us question all the more why a lid is kept on the private beliefs of the “rational explainers of science” rather than the ones they push publicly? Unless it is to lend credence to the idea that their public beliefs serve and advance the agendas of the higher echelons of power.

Spoiler: As an example

View attachment 47993
The link in that comment is now unavailable but this is the best i could find

http://orlandomasons1876.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/royal-society-freemasons.pdf

Absolutely! Even after I was convinced years ago of a secret power structure governing the world I used to think, naively, that they may harbour benevolent, or at least non malignant wishes towards the masses. There's potential reasons for maintaining secrecy other than evil ones after all. Knowledge of course is power. Secrets and the keeping of them are also a method of controlling those within the power structure. Then there's preserving their own safety, they are few and we are many.

I hoped that over time we'd see evidence of them trying to raise the consciousness of humanity, but they increasingly seek to degrade it. They appear to want a serf class to fuel their utopia which can be easily controlled and stifled and all their efforts are bent on achieving this. The main reason therefore for the deception I think is control. We would not take direction easily from someone who was obviously from a very different culture or worldview, but we would from 'one of our own'. The celebrity 'explainers' or entertainers for that matter have cover stories which establish them as simply talented members of our global community. They have the credentials, the skills and without any reason to disbelieve either one they are free to push the lines determined by our 'narrative controllers'.

So we are given the classic disinformation mixture of some truth amongst the falsehoods. The presenters tell us half the story, mix in the misinformation and ensure that we're never sent anywhere near the knowledge that they keep to themselves. After all, as the Masons would put it, we are 'profane' or 'cowans' and once you've dehumanised someone with a label it becomes so much easier to treat them as less than human.

 

[Karlysymon]

I hoped that over time we'd see evidence of them trying to raise the consciousness of humanity, but they increasingly seek to degrade it. They appear to want a serf class to fuel their utopia which can be easily controlled and stifled and all their efforts are bent on achieving this. The main reason therefore for the deception I think is control. We would not take direction easily from someone who was obviously from a very different culture or worldview, but we would from 'one of our own'. The celebrity 'explainers' or entertainers for that matter have cover stories which establish them as simply talented members of our global community. They have the credentials, the skills and without any reason to disbelieve either one they are free to push the lines determined by our 'narrative controllers'.

Unfortunately, “trying to raise human consciousness” and the desperate desire for control don’t go hand in hand. You can’t build up while destroying at the same time and the best example I can give is the garbage idea that is the Singularity.

I think that everyone who has gone through the dominant school system (in any country) has been propagandized for this particular point in time. It is going to create some sort of cognitive dissonance and while the conversation is certainly not happening in mainstream circles, iam positive it will be in afew years’ time. People are rightly apprehensive of transhumanism but it is also directly rooted in evolution, as is androgyny. Network tv scientists will be trotted out to make the case for us to embrace the next stage of our “advancement” as a species.

I was watching an interview with a virologist (can’t remember the UK university he was from) who stated, apprehensively, that now that mRNA vaccines have been used for the first time publicly, there is no going back now and that future vaccines will carry this technology.

The world today somewhat ironically makes more sense once one views it with at least some occult knowledge and once one realises that CERN or NASA have a second, hidden agenda, which their own code requires them to signal in an indirect way, then one has a good rational basis for looking again at all the cosy assumptions of the 'rational' approach.

Of course once that bedrock has been shaken, it becomes difficult to know what is or isn't real. What's been hidden? What deliberately distorted? What level of certainty can I attach to the reports of this scientist or that university once it's clear that there are gatekeepers at work with agendas of their own to support?

Afew names letting slip how the story ends
"
Much theoretical work has been done, experimentation is ongoing, and major breakthroughs have occurred. It's amazing what has already been accomplished; the question now isn't, "should we look to alter the human species?" But what will the new human experience be?

Ironically, while the future is being played with in laboratories and technical institutes, the foundation of transhumanism rests on an ancient desire: Man becoming Deity, Apotheosis. Posthumanism, therefore, is the technical quest for the Holy Grail, Ascension through engineering. It's modern-day Alchemy and Magic, the contemporary manifestation of the Secret Doctrine; "All is One, and that One is Divinity." Or said another way; "Jesus is no less Divine because all men may reach the same Divine perfection."

Mark Pesce, a co-inventor of 3-D interfacing for the worldwide web, and a panelist and judge on ABC's show The New Inventors, puts it this way,

"Once the genome was transcribed, once we knew what had made us human, we had in that moment passed into the Transhuman. Knowing our codes, we can re-create them in our so-called synthetic rows of 1s and 0s. Artificial Life.

And now we have discovered the multiverse, where nothing is true and everything is permissible. And now we will reach into the improbable, re-sequence ourselves into a new Being, de-bugging the natural state, translating ourselves into supernatural, incorruptible, eternal.

There is no God but Man."

Pesce, a leading Transhumanist, depicts ascension in Biblically twisted terms.

"Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something more a transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form. An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our image for our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. "
The Rise of Techno Gods

In a way, iam glad the Fourth Industrial Revolution has/will drop the mask....so we can all stop pretending that Darwinism or evolution is diametrically opposed to other world religions.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Karlysymon

I noticed Mark Pesche’s quote “nothing is true and everything is permissible” seems to have popped up in a computer game by Ubisoft...



The Masonic imagery and the connection to ideas of apotheosis that are promoted far and wide should not be underestimated!

btw - I reject Evolution on scientific grounds, but that’s another thread!

“The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ Revisited” - An invitation to examine both sides of the origins debate

[Edit] This heated presentation by Dr James Tour reflects the closed shop of Evolutionary science. His response is as incisive as it is scathing! I found something I wrote years ago... “Earlier this century the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial proved to be a turning point in science education...

www.vigilantcitizenforums.com