A Study on the Abolition of Man
In 2018 Yuval Harari delivered a presentation to the World Economic Forum titled “Will the Future Be Human?” In his presentation, Harari seemed to be confirming our very worst fears of a dystopic future right out of a sci-fi movie. That we risked annihilating ourselves if we continued down the path we were already on as we progressed into an age of advanced technology.
These stark predictions by Harari were received almost as if he were a prophet, his visions of the future he was certain would come about, but he was unclear as to any detail concerning such a future, when it would come about, how it would come about and most importantly exactly how do we avoid such a fate? When Harari was questioned after his presentation and in another Q&A session at the same WEF meeting, all Harari could repeat was his own algorithm for a very general doomsday prophecy. To all other questions that pertained to specifics or mechanics of how such a dystopic future would play out, he would answer that he did not know.
This should strike any thinker as problematic. That is, are we supposed to listen to Harari as if he were a scholar or a prophet? If we are to take Harari as a scholar, that has developed insight into the subjects he discusses from the studies he has made, then it is a problem that he cannot discuss such specifics but rather entirely avoids them.
In fact, as we break down Harari’s own algorithms that he uses to form his vision for such a dystopic future, we see them riddled with personal assumptions, judgements and conclusions masked as objective algorithms.
[Note: For those who may not be aware an algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.]
Before we look at some of these biological algorithms of Harari, which have purported his theory that humans are hackable, we should quickly review how such a mathematical and evolutionary viewpoint came to be accepted in the first place, within academia, in defining human nature and the universe we live in.
Harari has heavily drawn from the works of Darwin, Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells in his work and thus it is useful for us to review how their works influenced our understanding of human nature and the universe, that is, how a modern science was created, to in turn create a modern religion, which in turn would promise us, a modern utopia. If this sounds outlandish to you, may I remind you that H.G. Wells, as well as Russell, Aldous Huxley, and Harari himself have written and discussed about the need to bring such a thing about.
In Harari’s presentation to the WEF in 2020, the moderator brought up the parallels of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World in relation to Harari’s predictions of the future.
This is most certainly relevant but not in the way you may be thinking…
This excerpt from Huxley’s Brave New World gets at the very core justification for why a scientific dictatorship is needed and how it is perpetuated. Namely, by denying purpose, by denying intention. This does not just pertain to us discussing evolution and human nature but even to how the universe itself functions.
In fact, Aldous is the continuation of that legacy to deny purpose in the sciences. It was his grandfather T.H. Huxley, who self-professed himself as Darwin’s bulldog, who propelled Darwin’s theory of evolution to such heights that the entire field of the sciences were never to be the same again, they were to become the modern sciences. What this meant was that centuries upon centuries of scientists from all around the world, from diverse cultures who had largely viewed the universe as having intention and purpose with a creator, were now to be relegated to the dustbins of irrelevance.
Darwin had apparently proved that the universe was without purpose, and that there was no creator with an intelligent design. However, this is not true, Darwin never proved such a thing…
Darwin’s theory of evolution came about after reading Thomas Malthus’s “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” what would in turn coin the term “Malthusianism” or “Malthusian” in referring to population control policies.
This point of catastrophe, as shown in the graph, is calculated as the point when the human population will exceed its carrying capacity. However, what determines the carrying capacity?
[Note: Carrying capacity is the calculated number of organisms that an ecosystem can sustainably support.]
Thomas Malthus, who created the Malthusian growth model, never actually specified an exact number for when the human population would hit its carrying capacity. This was because it was understood that the carrying capacity is not something fixed but could be increased or decreased depending on human-made innovations, such as agriculture.
Thomas Malthus did however, make the prophecy that we would hit our carrying capacity by 1890, about 100 years from the time he made the prediction, which needless to say was very much off the mark.
[It should be noted that Malthus was fully convinced that his prophecy was accurate and that the only way to avoid such a catastrophe was to severely curb the growth of the human population immediately. This included the denial of medical care and food to the needy since it was thought by the followers of Malthus, that the postponement of their death would only use up further resources without any contribution to society. Sounds a little familiar doesn’t it?]
The reason why Malthus was so far off the mark was because such a point in the future concerning the human carrying capacity, cannot be determined by a linear extrapolation, as Malthus attempts in the above graph. This is because human innovations change our relationship to the resources we use in a qualitative manner and not just a quantitative manner. Qualitative change has always been the mathematician’s nightmare in producing models that will supposedly predict trends in the future. How can a mathematical model predict all qualitative change that will happen in the future, which would mean a prediction of all future forms of innovation, invention and discovery. Is it even possible? Thus far, the answer is no.
As we will see, this will be a common theme when analysing mathematical models that attempt to predict the distant future.
In 1838, upon reading Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” Darwin formulated his theory for “evolution” based on the “natural selection” of the fittest, he coined the term as an analogy of what he termed the “artificial selection” of selective breeding, with reference in particular to the practice of horse breeding. Darwin saw a similarity between farmers picking the best stock in selective breeding, and a Malthusian “Nature” selecting from chance variants.
That is, Darwin’s ideas of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” implied no directionality to evolution but rather was based upon Nature’s selection of random variants. But how does one part of an organism evolve without affecting the other parts of said organism?
Contrary to how we are made to think of the discussion of evolution today, by the first part of the 1800s the scientific community was primarily in agreement that living processes and their environments did indeed “evolve.” That is, Charles Darwin was one among many scientists at the time who were proponents of evolution. It was not a one man show. The debate was thus not if evolution was indeed occurring but rather how evolution was occurring.
Again contrary to how we are encouraged to think of this discussion today, there were many prominent and well respected scientists in this field who did not think that the process of evolution contradicted the existence of a creator with an intelligent design.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire are two prominent examples of this. Their pioneering work in evolution is respected to this day, which opened up questions about what shapes evolutionary change that have yet to be resolved.
According to Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, there is an inherent “potential” in evolution; the potential for change is inherent within the organism, and the shaping of its many parts occurs in a harmonic, coherent way. That is, change moves in a purposeful manner, not a random manner.
The evolution of wings for flight, the eyes for sight, the nervous system for thought; Geoffroy was stating that these were not the result of countless minute mutations occurring and being selected upon separate from the other, but that the transformations were occurring with the very intention to create forms of flight, sight and thought.
By Darwin rejecting this thesis, he created a paradox within his own theory. Either the potential for change is inherent in the organism in which many parts are able to change in a harmonic/coherent way, or it is not. However, if it is the latter, as Darwin claims it to be, random change of any part by itself without acknowledgement of the whole would more often than not lead to the death of the organism, as seen in studies of embryo formation, or would create a Dr. Moreau’s Island of freaks (which by the by is another novel by our anti-hero H.G. Wells).
The elegant creations we actually do see arise through evolutionary processes would be an extreme rarity in such a world of randomness.
With everything we know today of the incredibly intricate details of biochemistry, the coordination of metabolic processes which occur in their thousands of “parts” would all need to evolve as randomly separate processes and yet, would also need to occur simultaneously and in conjunction with the other functioning parts. This would make Darwin’s concept for the selection of random variants within a coordinated functioning whole fundamentally impossible.
Not only is the evolution of the eye one of the miracles of evolution, it has countless variations upon itself, such that there is no one standard model for what is an “eye.” Are we thus to believe that this has randomly occurred not only once but thousands of times in each species with its own distinct variation of what is an “eye”?
At the time there was strong opposition to Darwin and Huxley within Europe and the United States. James Dwight Dana (1813-1895), a contemporary of T.H. Huxley, was among the American leadership that opposed this view, and argued that evolution did progress with a directionality, using examples such as the observation that biological organisms were proceeding towards greater “cephalization.” That is, that evolution was forming a general trend towards increasingly sophisticated nervous systems that could respond and interact with their environment. Thus, evolution was towards greater forms of complexity with more sophisticated forms of function.
However, Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog” was vehemently against this view of purposeful directionality in Nature. It did not matter that Darwin’s theory was just that, a theory, which still failed to explain much that was being observed in the evolutionary process.
T.H. Huxley would be victorious in elevating Darwin’s theory into accepted dogma, and successfully circumventing the numerous holes in Darwin’s theory in answering how life is formed and evolves. Despite these questions remaining unanswered to this day, Darwin’s theory of evolution was celebrated as heralding a new age of science, a modern science.
Out of this two major changes occurred as a result of T.H. Huxley’s avid promotion of Darwin’s theory of evolution, 1) Nature, and thus one could say the Universe, was not governed by purpose but rather by randomness, and that 2) Man was but a beast, no longer to be among the Children of God, no longer regarded as partaking in anything that was divine or sacred.
And if Man is but a beast what does he care for higher truths? What more does a beast need than the simple forms of comfort and happiness the likes to which Mustapha Mond promoted in the Brave New World?
I would like to quickly add that the worshipping of DNA is a continuation and outcome of Darwin’s theory of evolution which is how we got to this whole transhumanist idea and how we went from being compared to apes to now being compared to computers.
Apparently we are allowed to think of ourselves as anything but human it would appear.
The discovery of the molecular structure of DNA was hailed as a Holy Grail when it was first discovered in 1953 by Watson and Crick. Everything that we are, was apparently already contained within the supposed molecular instructions we had within us, that not only instructed how we were to be physically formed, but laid out the so-called blueprint for how our personalities, our temperaments, our desires, our addictions, our depravities were to be programmed within us.
Those who upheld this view to its extreme began denying that there was such a thing as free will and that we had all been programmed from birth and thus predetermined in every action and outcome within our lives. As we see, Harari has continued this false belief in his thesis of humans being hackable algorithms, which I will discuss further shortly.
The Human Genome Project, which set out to map the entire human genome thought it would be able to find the deterministic genes behind such unwanted traits as having a gambling addiction, debt, alcoholism, homelessness etc. Applications towards sterilisation and eugenics should not go unnoticed here, under the guise of “medicine”.
Suffice to say to this day there is no such proof that genes determine such things. The project had successfully collected a massive amount of data, but it is data largely without any meaning (they have relegated approximately 90% of our DNA as so-called “junk DNA”). The Human Genome Project failed in accomplishing its set out goals though, it continues to be believed in academia that genes are what code all existence. Dawkins took it further and added the concept of a so-called “selfish gene”, that is a gene which contains a program for specific outcomes, outcomes that we as individuals are unaware and thus unable to oppose.
It was Watson and Crick who first championed the idea that the DNA determines everything about the organism. They termed it the Central Dogma of Biology. For the past 70 years university textbooks and funding have unquestionably followed this dogma. Crick had stated that he as a mere man had eliminated the need for god or any other intelligence in the universe since everything about us flows from our DNA.
However, today, especially in the field of electromagnetism, this worshipping of DNA as the end all be all blueprint for all life has come under serious scrutiny. In a 15 min. presentation available on youtube titled Electrical Shaping of Biology, Dr. Michael Clarage goes over some of the key problems with upholding DNA as the blueprint for life.
One case study he cites was from an experiment led by Tufts University biologists. Flatworms have the ability to grow back their head or tail when it is cut off. However, in this experiment, the scientists had cut off the head of a species of flatworm and subsequently, by changing the elecromagnetic field surrounding the decapitated area, and were able to induce a new head to form that was from a different species of flatworm.
The electromagnetic field needed to be specific in order to form one species of head vs another. The DNA did not change, only the electromagnetic field, thus the ability to adopt the form of another species is clearly not limited to the so-called “deterministic” structure of DNA.
Maybe that was the intention all along?
We have gone to comparing ourselves to apes to now comparing ourselves with computers, there is a clear avoidance in discussing what it is to be simply human.
Alongside the biological studies in Darwinism of the 20th century were the mathematical studies which would uphold the same core Darwinistic principles of human nature and the universe, and that change was random not purposeful, at least it was not a purpose we could ever understand as mere mortals.
At the very start of the 20th century, the influential International Congress of Mathematicians organised a conference in Paris, France 1900.
It was at this conference that David Hilbert, a leading mathematician at Göttingen University was invited to speak on the future of mathematics, where he stressed the need for the field of mathematics to “prove that all axioms of arithmetic are consistent” and to “axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important role.”
What Hilbert was calling for in his challenge for the future of mathematics was that all scientific knowledge be reduceable to the form of mathematical “logic”; that it be contained within a minimum of accepted truths and rules of derivation, which could be proven by consistent and complete formal mathematical proofs.
Thus, all scientific knowledge would in the future be deduced from such mathematical models, there was nothing left to “discover” in the typical sense of what defined scientific investigations during the 19th century and earlier, scientists only needed now to refer to the appropriate mathematical model.
In 1900, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead set out to meet Hilbert’s challenge which resulted in the “Principia Mathematica,” published thirteen years later.
Although Kurt Gödel would disprove the entire premise for the “Principia Mathematica” with his “incompleteness theorems”, the “Principia Mathematica” remained as one of the most influential works of the 20th century, on not only shaping modern logic but also formed the basis for the latter development of cybernetics and systems analysis by Russell’s student Norbert Wiener during WWII, which was used as the operating system upon which transhumanism was based.
In other words, Principia Mathematica put forward the argument that all knowledge is reduceable to mathematical logic. Despite having been disproven, it is irregardless, viewed as a mainstay in philosophy and mathematics to this day and is what has led to the development of cybernetics.
Before you conclude that Russell himself didn’t personally believe that irrationality was a fundamental force in the Universe simply because he tried formalizing said Universe, it is worth reading a section of his bitterly misanthropic view of humanity presented in his 1903 “A Free Man’s Worship”:
At least Russell does not deny the result of a so-called free man’s worship, which is according to Russell the denial of the existence of a loving creator and thus the belief ultimately that man can, must replace god.
As we have recently discovered, this idea of “the vast death of the universe, something so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand” has also become an assumption that is now on very shaky ground. Russell, was so certain of this Big Bang Theory, as yet another triumph over those arguing for a universe with direction and purpose with a loving creator, that he was actually proud of his apparent “free man’s worship” that was built on “the firm foundation of unyielding despair”!
However, it turns out the Big Bang Theory is also wrong and now we can prove it.
Thus, Russell looks rather ridiculous in his version of a free man’s worship.
It rather looks like Russell has been eating out of a trash bin this whole time when there was an abundant feast laid out beside him…
Whether deterministic or random in view, the goal was the same, to dishonestly promote a concept of the Universe that had no governing purpose, no directionality and no morality, that it was essentially a mechanism, discoverable by a few simple mathematical laws.
With such a view our connection to the Universe becomes inconsequential, with the Universe seen as something cold, unknowable and ultimately dead or dying. Such a concept only further enforces that there is no real meaning to anything, there is no purpose, at least, it is not a purpose that we have any place in.
However, as we have seen thus far, none of these dogmatic beliefs in the “modern sciences,” in other words the sole focus on the materialistic reductionist sciences, has been demonstrated through the rigours of actual scientific investigation though it has been assumed that this is the case.
In fact, these dogmas have been seen on rather shaky ground when put under an honest scientific scrutiny or have been outright disproven. Yet, the belief continues under the guise of “modern science”.
It turns out Harari is not the only one that relies more on prophecy than on scientific or philosophical rigour, rather, after closer inspection, it would appear Harari is a descendant of a school of thought that seems to be made up of primarily false prophets and wannabe demi-gods rather than what would even remotely qualify as a scientist.
Lastly, before discussing the algorithms of Harari, let us review a mathematical model that has come to govern all levels of how society functions. Game Theory is considered by many to be an essential tool when modelling economic, political, sociological and military behaviours and outcomes, and is taught as such in many prestigious universities as something pretty much set in stone.
Game theory, the mathematical theory of games of strategy, was developed by John von Neumann in his book “Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour” which he co-authored with Oskar Morgenstern.
The crux of the theory is that an individuals’ behaviour will always be motivated towards achieving an optimal outcome, which is determined by selfish self-interest.
It is acknowledged by John von Neuman in his own book that the entire functioning of their model relies upon the assumption that we are governed by rational selfish behaviour, and that they feel confident about this assumption since reality has apparently confirmed this fact to them.
The reason why mathematicians feel safe in making such assumptions, like the assumptions Harari’s algorithms are laden with, is due to the continued dogmatic belief in Darwinism, and thus such an assumption that is put into an influential mathematical model no longer needs to be questioned. It is regarded as a fact in the world of mathematics, however, it is not a fact, and thus the entire model is rendered as a useless tool of prediction.
It is however, a very useful tool in conditioning, in programming the desired behaviour a controller like a Brave New World Mustapha Mond would like to see in the people.
In the case of Game Theory they do not even attempt to prove that we are ultimately these predictable computer programs that will operate based on the most optimal outcome motivated by selfish self-interest. The entire hypothesis is based off of an assumption, and this is what we are calling “modern science” which is apparently free from dogmatic belief-systems?!
Such an oversimplification of human nature shows the audacity behind the assumptions that make up such formulations like game theory. You are nothing more than a virtual avatar in their synthetic world with programmed limits to what you can and cannot do in the game they have created for you.
Game theory does not represent the motivations behind human nature, but rather imposes such limitations since, as they acknowledge themselves, it is easier to predict and control your chosen selfish behaviours which are encouraged and rewarded with “incentives” within these games.
It is a system of enslavement that encourages its slaves to fight each other for “table scraps” and never question the hand that withholds, the system that creates false scarcity and promotes antagonism over artificial stressors.
We are taught never to question the rules given to us in these game theory scenarios, but to react accordingly to what has been defined to us as a limited set of options in an artificial scenario.
The entertainment industry has pushed this idea that the best we can do as we are told we are headed towards an apocalyptic future is to merely adapt and survive. A ‘survival at all costs.’
We’ve been conditioned to this idea of a survival at all costs, that is, a survival of the fittest within a post-apocalyptic world. We have learned to view this as our ‘liberation,’ this false and delusional idea that as long as one can survive such a life is worth living. We have been conditioned to not question our circumstances or how we got here. We’ve been conditioned to think that there is no solution and the only thing we can do is just accept the increasingly bleak future we are told is necessary and inevitable. Our life becomes similar to that of a lab rat who has no choice but to abide by the parameters of the game they were put in and figure out any means for survival. And in such a life, we have been conditioned to view that freedom and liberation can be attained if we earn the gold medal in such apocalyptic Olympic Games.
Freedom is no longer about questioning, resisting and challenging the oppression and enslavement of a society but rather it focuses on its ‘best subjects’ so to speak, its ‘best survivors’ who can best wield the sort of behaviour its controllers want to see.
It is Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” in its final conclusion.
Let us all be honest with ourselves. Is there any dystopic vision we have for the future that is not imagery we have collected from some Hollywood sci-fi movie or novel? The very pictures in our head about major issues and subjects, including about the future, are increasingly being placed in our mind from the entertainment industry.
Can you really say you are in charge of your thoughts if you allow yourself to be governed by such dystopic imagery?
Thus it should not surprise us that Harari has stated that the best use for the so-called “useless people is to put them on drugs and play video games.” That is essentially what we are already living in if you are an adherent to game theory, cybernetics and transhumanism.
However, this is not a superior human, or humanoid computer, this is a human bounding themselves to the rules of a game that has been artificially created to enslave them rather than to the laws of the universe, and abiding by the artificial parameters created for them within such a game, believing this to be more real than reality itself.
Let us look at some of the formulations Harari has made in order to promulgate his theory that humans are hackable.
Harari tends to use sexual orientation and generalised political leaning, reduced to cheerleading for a team, as his examples of the Controllers knowing what we think. It is possible that Harari thinks humans are this simple, since he himself may be this simple, however, this is a lower order of existence, it is a beast like existence, where Harari claims the Controllers of all data will know what excites you, causes you fear, makes you desirous and so forth based off of biometric data, but can it know your deeper more profound thoughts?
If you think of yourself as a mere beast governed by your senses, then such a system simply based off of biometric data may be able to predict your future behaviour and incentivize or deter certain behaviours, but you would have to voluntarily reduce yourself to the existence of a beast that lives from moment to moment, day by day in order for this to work.
Just like the false prophets of game theory, Harari’s so-called “hackable human” is in reality someone who has on some level voluntarily reduced themselves to fit into the parameters of such a reality. In other words, if you see yourself a slave or just a pawn to the game-masters you will act like a slave or a pawn, but this fate is not inescapable.
This is the centuries old game, those who control the economics governing a people are able to create the illusion of false scarcity and thus a lack of opportunity and choice in what happens to us in life.
The concept of Harari’s Biological Algorithms, like Game Theory are meant as justifications for our self-imposed enslavement. What is being claimed as the omnipotence of biological algorithm is essentially the same thing that was being said about DNA and the selfish gene, that you can’t change your destiny, it is predetermined, you have no free will.
This is why they want you to be as simple minded as possible, and why they want you to believe that you are just a blob of flesh programmed to desire pleasure and avoid pain.
If you agree to lower yourself to this simple existence, you will be the most easy to predict and control.
Lie detectors use a great deal of the same measurements that biometric sensors measure, such as blood pressure, heart rate, breathing rhythm etc.
However, polygraph test results are inadmissible in court, as they are not scientifically reliable enough for use when the stakes are so high as in court. This is because it is well documented that certain people can pass the test while lying and others who are telling the truth can fail the test.
Yet Harari is claiming that biometric sensors, which are pretty much just measuring the same things as a polygraph except for also eye movement are somehow going to tell us what is going on in our brain which he equates to the mind.
If a polygraph isn’t even admissible in a court of law why are we going to believe Harari’s stark predictions for the future as something even possible?
They want you to think that they have maximum control over you so that you are defeated in your own imagined parameters that don’t even exist in reality. In a mental prison there is no need for four actual walls to confine you.
If we believe in our mental prison there is no need to have an actual prison. If we believe they are capable of all these incredible capabilities, we are accepting that we have essentially lost. You have been defeated within a mental construct that is but an illusion.
It is the ultimate tool for absolute control, to defeat someone in their own mind before they can even fully contemplate the thought of rebellion.
Such a technique was already outlined in Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon scenario. The concept is to allow all prisoners of an institution to be observed by a single security guard, without the inmates knowing whether they are being watched.
Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates’ cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched motivates them to act as though they are all being watched at all times. They are effectively compelled to self-regulation.
Based off of this doom and gloom prophecy of Harari’s what does he finally offer up as a solution to the inevitability, two years after his first presentation to the world economic forum?
Why world regulation of course!
And who are to be the world regulators of this technology? Well, the WEF attempts to be coy in this, but obviously it is themselves.
Apparently our future is only doomed if we fail to elect the WEF as the overseers of the world…
Now let us return to the question:
H.G. Wells was among the very first to discuss the need for a modern religion now that science had become modern. Religion was considered still a useful tool, but now its focus would not be on a creator of the heavens but rather on the worshipping of man as creator, who would take on the task of creating future man and all living life for all of futurity.
It was T.H. Huxley who was H.G. Wells’ mentor. And thus Wells was also heavily influenced by the work of both Malthus and Darwin.
Wells would write in his Open Conspiracy:
The reference to communism and socialism by Wells is best understood through the work of Georges Sorel, who was investigating how socialism and communism could be warped in order to support a fascist outlook. The Italian Fascists largely took up Georges Sorel’s work and is why they called themselves National Socialists before the world came to know them as Italian Fascists. H.G. Wells was also involved with the socialist and communist circles surrounding the Fabian Society, as well as the pro-fascist circles in Britain. Oswald Mosley publicly supported Wells’ vision for a scientific dictatorship (for more on this refer to my book “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set”).
Wells concludes in his Open Conspiracy:
H.G. Wells among his many sci-fi novels wrote “The First Men in the Moon,” where he put forward what he had concluded as the most superior form of community organization, modelled off of the ant colony. Each sub specie type would have the physical and mental attributes best suitable to their specialised narrow tasks in serving the ant community.
H.G. Wells was also obsessed with equating head size with intelligence and thus we see the most intelligent members of the ant colony with bulbous heads, the smarter the ant, the larger the head…”wabbling jellies of knowledge”…
This was Wells’ dream for what could form a stable peaceful organizational system for humans, it was what inspired the work of Aldous Huxley in his “Brave New World” and his biological hierarchy or biological caste system created in a lab to produce Epsilons, Deltas, Betas, Alphas, Alpha+s and the about 13 or so World Controllers…likely imagined with bulbous heads.
The Abolition of Man
For those who are not already aware, C.S. Lewis wrote a response to Wells’ “The First Men in the Moon” in the form of a sci-fi trilogy.
For more on this refer to my lecture series on the subject.
Lewis also wrote a response to this transhumanist trend in the form of an essay, titled “The Abolition of Man” the conclusion to a three-part series (“Men Without Chests,” and “The Way/The Tao”).
Lewis writes in “The Abolition of Man”:
All of these lofty ambitions they hold as the self-professed new gods of the world, will fall very short from their mark since they are striving to achieve the impossible. You cannot create the laws of the universe anew. Thus, far from achieving the status of a god, like Icarus and his wax wings, they have only caused their own self-destruction.
Thus, don’t be fooled by today’s self-professed magicians, the Wizards of Oz who claim such lofty powers. It is all sitting on a hill of sand and is only a mere illusion of what it is to be all powerful.
To deny that anything noble came out of civilization, such as the wonderful discoveries that have been made in various fields, which have not only uplifted our life but offered us such wonders as being able to ascertain a beauty that can only come through higher learning. If we deny this, we are denying that civilised part within ourselves, we are cutting out our better nature.
Schiller talked about the savage and the barbarian in his Aesthetical Letters. He wrote “Man can be self-opposed in a two-fold manner; either as savage, if his feelings rule his principles, or as barbarian, if his principles destroy his feelings.”
If we convince ourselves that we are most noble as a savage or barbarian than we will be most easily controlled through our base desires and enslaved.
The more noble our nature, the more free we are. Thus it is no coincidence that a system of empire would not want us to identify with a just and beautiful concept of our civilization. It is the most prevalent and effective censorship one could have. There is no need to censure books and free speech when people have no desire to read or speak them in the first place.
The problem with the misuse of technology is thus what is the governing structure’s intention for such a society. Today our world primarily lives to benefit tyranny. Our financial system, our education system, our culture, our rewriting of history or outright censorship of history, our sciences have all been taken over.
Thus, it is not just a technological crisis we are living in, it is foremost an existential crisis.
We will not solve an existential crisis by simply taking certain materials out of our lives. We have to become re-connected to our better selves and no longer abide to serve a system that upholds tyranny.
Tyranny does not require advanced technology to exist. Tyranny reigns supreme wherever we find a people who do not view themselves as free, strong and dignified.
That is our crisis today.
It is in the wannabe Controllers best interest that we view the situation as hopeless, that we view it as inevitable since we will not oppose such a future if we are already mentally defeated. We will not risk anything to fight for a better future if we think a better future is not possible. We will simply be content to live moment to moment hoping we can delay as much as possible the dark clouds looming ahead.
Our nature is not what we have been told by the likes who have promoted the doctrine of modern science and modern religion. We are in fact beings that are sacred and partake in the good, the true and the beautiful. We have been lied to and debased, in order that we be more easily controlled. It is up to every individual whether they choose to exit this artificial reality that has been created to enslave their mind within a mental construct and participate in what it is to be truly human.
Our freedom, our salvation from the spiritual torment of our existential crisis can rather simply be accessed if we recognise our true nature, not as a savage or barbarian nature but our best nature, our most noble nature.
As Schiller wrote it in his “Aesthetical Letters” it is through Beauty, that is a Noble Soul, that we arrive at Freedom.
[For more on Schiller and the subject of Freedom see my lecture (with transcript) titled “The Battle for the Mind: How to Exit an Artificial Reality.”]
Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and a writer at Strategic Culture Foundation, consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page Through A Glass Darkly.