The explicitly stated goals of global elites are sounding more and more like science fiction these days. We’ve already seen the nascent use of microchips implanted in one’s forearm to pay for goods and services – and with the advent of self-driving cars in a time of climate change concerns and scare tactics, plenty of people predict that it won’t be long until we see automated driving restrictions and mileage rations. (Imagine getting this message on your dashboard when you turn on your car: “You have already driven your allotted mileage for this month. Press 1 to purchase an additional 100 miles.”)
What sort of implications do these “innovations” have on the future of human health, bodily autonomy, medical freedom, and even the right to mobilize freely in society? These and other ethical questions cannot be ignored, especially as agencies like the World Economic Forum support more and more invasive methods of “health” interventions.
Bring on the cyborgs: Are “implant technologies” bound to become a predominant mode of influence over human lives?
In a blog post published by the World Economic Forum on August 16, 2022, author Kathleen Phillips says that “augmented reality technology has the ability to transform society and individual lives, particularly in health care and mobility.” She adds that the world is already “making the first strides towards an ‘augmented society.’”
By augmented reality technology (defined generally as “technology that combines virtual information with the real world”), Phillips means “the extension of rehabilitation where technological aids such as glasses, cochlear implants or prosthetics are designed to restore a lost or impaired function. Add it to completely healthy individuals and such technology can augment.” She references well-known products like night goggles, exoskeletons, and brain-computer interfaces as current real-world examples.
But apparently, it doesn’t stop there.
Saying that augmented technology can impact people at all stages of life, Phillips writes: “Many children with attention deficit struggle in school. In the best case, they get special education services or classroom accommodations. However, with extra visual and audio guidance that blocks off excess stimuli, an otherwise-enabled child can cope with a standard school environment. And when class is over and playtime begins, they can just take the aids off.”
She also implores the reader to imagine the “handy” use of implants or wearable devices that can “sniff out COVID-19 or food allergens.” One can only imagine the possible privacy violations this may incur, especially regarding the detection of communicable diseases.
After all, why stop at COVID-19? What’s to stop scientists from creating wearable devices that can “sniff out” other conditions like the flu, HIV, HPV, MRSA, syphilis, herpes, hepatitis, and cancer? How would this affect the social milieu? Health insurance and life insurance coverage? Employment opportunities? It’s a slippery slope, indeed.
Tech, Pharma, and geopolitical powerhouses seem more than willing to modify the human body in the name of scientific innovation
So, should our children really be exposed to this type of technology? Phillips insists there are “solid, rational reasons for it, like safety,” such as implanting a hypothetical tracking device into your child. She entertains this eerie idea before acknowledging that even for “lifesaving technologies, proper ethical counseling and legal framing are a must.”
We can’t agree more. But in all likelihood, there will be biomedical companies who will encourage parents to implant these devices into their growing children even in the absence of long-term safety data, obvious privacy and security breach risks, and other ethical conflicts.
And if transhumanism truly is in the works, these types of technology could certainly help it along.
Sources for this article include: