Bio-Nanotechnology; New Modes of Human Enslavement, By Brian Simpson and James Reed

 Both technocracy and transhumanism represent a disturbing convergence of technology and control that undermines human autonomy. The argument here:

https://www.technocracy.news/humanity-enslaved-in-the-nanotech-prison/

focuses on the dangers posed by bio-nanotechnology and its integration with human bodies, which is presented as part of a broader trend toward controlling and conducting surveillance of humanity.

The claim that technocracy and transhumanism work together in perfect harmony suggests that both are driven by the same underlying motivations: the desire for control and optimisation of human beings and society. Technocracy is a system where technology, rather than traditional democratic processes, determines societal management, often emphasising efficiency and scientific management. Transhumanism, which advocates for the use of advanced technology to enhance human capabilities, is seen here as the logical progression of technocratic ideals.

Technocratic Control: The technocratic movement emphasises efficiency and control, often at the expense of individual autonomy. As technology advances, it increasingly controls every aspect of life, from the economy to politics, education, and even personal health.

Transhumanism and Autonomy: Transhumanism, in its most radical form, envisions the enhancement of human bodies through technologies like gene editing, cybernetic implants, and brain-computer interfaces. While the promise of self-improvement and physical enhancement may seem appealing, critics argue that it could ultimately lead to the loss of individual autonomy. If such enhancements are mandated or socially enforced, individuals may no longer possess full control over their own bodies.

The concept of a bio-nano prison is a metaphorical description of how nanotechnology and biotechnology could integrate into human bodies, creating a system of surveillance and control. The article refers to NBIC (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno convergence), which is a framework for the integration of these technologies into the human body.

Inescapable Control: The integration of nano-bio technologies could create a system where individuals' biological functions are monitored and controlled in real time, much like a panopticon (a prison design where inmates are always visible to a central watchtower). Through nanotechnology, our biological systems could be interconnected with a digital network, allowing for constant surveillance and even remote control of bodily functions.

Potential for Misuse: Critics, such as the researchers in the article, argue that these technologies could be exploited for manipulation and surveillance by governments or corporations, removing any remaining personal privacy. The idea is that once integrated into the body, these technologies would be inescapable and could be used to track, monitor, or even manipulate thoughts, behavior, and emotions.

Ethical Considerations and Medical Interventions

The text raises concerns about the ethical implications of bio-nanotechnology being used in medical interventions, such as mRNA vaccines or other forms of biotechnology that alter the human body. The use of these technologies is framed as an "intervention" — an intrusion into the natural, sovereign body.

Safety and Autonomy: The article argues that there is still insufficient research into the long-term effects of integrating these technologies into the human body. Critics of the current pace of technological advancement point out that the long-term risks to human health are unknown, and yet these interventions are often promoted or even mandated without fully considering the potential harms.

Profits Over Ethics: One of the central critiques is that the rush to deploy these technologies is driven by profit motives, rather than genuine concern for human health or well-being. Companies and governments may prioritise financial gain or control over informed consent and the ethical treatment of individuals.

The concept of the bio-nano panopticon explores the possibility that, as nanotechnology integrates with human biology, individuals could become part of a global surveillance system, where their every action and even thought is monitored. This system, inspired by Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, suggests that the perception of constant surveillance could lead to a society where individuals modify their behavior to conform to the expectations of those in control.

Personal Privacy and Bodily Autonomy: As bodies and brains become interconnected with digital networks, the ability to maintain privacy and autonomy would diminish. If personal thoughts, emotions, and actions are monitored, it would be impossible to maintain a sense of individual freedom or privacy.

Government and Corporate Control: The article suggests that such technologies could pave the way for a partnership between government bodies and powerful corporations. This "corporate state" model, described as a form of fascism, could lead to extreme power imbalances where unelected elites control both the political and economic systems, leveraging technology to exert control over individuals.

One of the more alarming consequences of integrating bio-nanotechnology into human bodies could be the creation of a new form of social stratification. The text discusses the concept of social classes emerging from technological enhancements, where those who can afford or are chosen to receive enhancements will have significant advantages over those who cannot.

Three Categories of Humans: The article refers to "tweaked," "freaked," and "geeked" categories, suggesting that a new form of social hierarchy could emerge. The tweaked would be the elite, enhanced individuals who receive access to longevity and cognitive enhancements. The freaked are those who undergo significant physical augmentation, while the geeked are those who rely on external devices, such as smartphones or wearable technology, to enhance their capabilities.

Access and Inequality: This raises the issue of inequality, where only a select few will have access to enhancements that extend their lifespan, improve intelligence, or grant them superior physical abilities. Those left behind could become the underclass in a society where biological enhancements define one's social worth.

The article's concerns reflect broader debates about the intersection of technology, ethics, and personal freedom. Critics of bio-nanotechnology and transhumanist movements warn that unchecked technological advancements could lead to a loss of autonomy, a dystopian society of surveillance and control, and increased inequality, enslave it in a high-tech prison.

https://www.technocracy.news/humanity-enslaved-in-the-nanotech-prison/

"The evil twin of Technocracy is Transhumanism, and they coordinate together in perfect harmony. What people missed with Technocracy is bad enough: Transhumanism (which is abjectly personal) will kill all human autonomy. NBIC (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno), or Convergence Science, is not about improving human performance but rather is about constructing an inescapable bio-nano prison around all humanity. Like Harari said, "the technology is going under your skin."

Interviewer: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. My name is Vance Evermonde, and I am honored to be your host today on Kla.TV, the media network. We have an important discussion ahead, one that delves into the intersections of technology, human autonomy, and the future of society. Today, we will be exploring the themes of the research paper, Cyborgs Are Us, the Bio-Nano-Panopticon of Injected Bodies, co-authored by Dr. Valerie Keary and Dr. Daniel Broudy. This work critically examines the integration of bio -nano technology into society. To help us navigate this complex and thought -provoking topic, I am privileged to introduce Dr. Daniel Broudy, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Okinawa Christian University in Japan.

With a deep background in language, media analysis, and critical theory, Dr. Broudy brings a unique perspective on the ways power structures use language and technology to shape public perception. The questions I will pose today are designed to provoke deeper thought and foster awareness. They will encourage critical discussions on technological ethics, societal impacts, and the balance between innovation and Human Rights. So without further ado, Dr. Broudy, could you begin by introducing yourself and sharing what more you have to say about humans rights? motivated you to co -author this research paper?

Dr. Broudy: Thank you, Vance, so much for the invitation to come and talk and to go over the details that we've been trying to explore over the past four or five years. So I appreciate the invitation and also appreciate the questions. They're really good questions and I would like to, I had to take note because they're very complex answers to the questions. So my background is in psycholinguistics, but my research area has broadened over the past 20 years and intersected with cognitive linguistics and neurolinguistics. I'm really interested in how language, signs, symbols, colors, sounds, image, how they're all used in the media landscape to influence our perceptions and our emotions of the world around us.

So my research has raised more questions about the differences between the mediated world and the empirical world. And it seems to me that more and more, especially over the past 20 years, at least since 9-11, the mediated world has become increasingly more powerful over our perceptions of reality as we're urged as citizens to pay more and more attention to the mediation of the world through the increasing number of screens. So I've been in Japan doing this work. I originally came here about 30 years ago. I was teaching in Korea for a couple of years. And before that, I was in the military for about seven years, doing imagery analysis. So a lot of my professional experience when I was in the military has been very helpful in seeing patterns in the analysis that I do in language and media. So that's just, I guess, a brief introduction.

Interviewer: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Broudy. So my first question will be this one: What ethical considerations arise from integrating bio-nanotechnology into human bodies, particularly through medical interventions like mRNA vaccines?

Dr. Broudy: I think this is a great question. The term. . . First of all, maybe we can just talk briefly about the question itself and the term intervention. I really think this is an interesting way to frame a discussion because the term intervention, to me, it kind of frames a kind of assault. The connotation suggests helplessness of the object to the intervention or a kind of self -justified interference or intrusion against the target. I imagine, for example, a drug addict, for example, whose family sees it necessary to intervene in this person's life and carry out some sort of intrusion that will, you know, that will help this addict to recover some normalcy. And also, If you think of the past, you know, when so -called humanitarian interventions, quote -unquote, you know, were carried out in various African nations, you know, these precipitated any number of preemptive attacks. The term itself, it reminded me of Celia Farber's pretty famous essay, I imagine still, the 1989 essay in Spin magazine about the intervention that was leveled against dying AIDS patients in this very poisonous AZT drug that had been abandoned. And it was a very interesting example for cancer patients, was sort of repurposed for, you know, to see how it would work on AIDS patients. So, you know, the term itself, intervention, is really interesting. And when I think about nanotechnology, you know, nanotechnology interventions, I think they can be understood in a very similar light.

It seems to me that no one in power likely knows conclusively, whether the integration of nanotechnology with flesh and blood is actually safe. And I think this is why many, many years ago, decades ago, Antionetta Gatti and Stefano Montanari pioneered the area of nanopathology. So, I think if we really want to, see the latest research on these integrations of nanotechnology, we have to look at the work that they've been doing for many years now. You know, as any good scientist, Antionetta and Stefano ask the kinds of questions that seems to me aren't being asked today by so-called scientists. You know, the question of whether nanotechnology is something that is actually safe to be integrated with human bodies. Is it okay, you know, to use these technologies? And, you know, if so, what are the effects? You know, we expect, what are some of the effects we would expect to see on human health? Any ethical considerations about their uses, it seems to me have been sort of hastily reduced to considerations about their potential profits for investors. And this like blind march, in my estimation, toward the promise of profits has translated into lots and lots of casualties. You know, everyone talks about the lipid nanoparticle, right? Some people studying microscopy, doing microscopy studies, say that there are trillions of these lipid nanoparticles on the loose in bodies, billions of people all around the world. So my question would be, why hasn't, you know, mainstream media, why haven't they done any stories of excess deaths, for example, in the wake of the, of the campaign, the initial campaigns, injection campaigns? So this is just some of my thoughts about these quote unquote interventions.

Interviewer: Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Brody. So the following question is about how does the concept of the bio-nano panopticon reflect the potential for technological surveillance within our biological systems?

Dr. Broudy: Well, this is Bentham's 18th century idea, right? About social theory idea about prisons and how to rehabilitate or incarcerate. I think those ideas are actually, you know, quite important today. Very prescient. He was referring to a prison in which inmates, they don't know if or when they're being surveilled, being watched. And so the idea is that this, this perception, this impression of real time omnipresent surveillance motivates the inmates, to be on their best behavior. You know, where have we heard that before? Very, very recently, within the past few weeks. This is precisely what we're hearing. You know, the technocrats talking, technocrats and their minions talking about today.
I prepared a slide, if you'd like me to share some of the details of what this might look like.

Interviewer: Yes, sure. I'd love to.

Dr. Broudy: Okay. Okay, can you see that?

Interviewer: Yes, I do.

Dr. Broudy: All right. This, I believe this is from a paper from 2015 on the Internet of Bionano things. This is a figure that is quite interesting. You can see that the components of the Internet of Bionano things is comprised of nano-nodes, nano-routers, nano-micro-interface devices, bio-cyber -interfaces, gateways, and application -specific servers. So, the, I guess what we're seeing here, it's difficult to see from the text alone, but, the idea is that bodies, blood, and brains will serve as media to, they'll serve as media to, it's hard to conceptualize, the body as a, maybe as a, as the architecture, for connectivity. You can see, maybe I can like illustrate this better in this slide, so you can see how sort of nano, micro, and macro scale devices will perform various tasks such as data sensing, transmission, and computation. I suppose if you thought of your laptop or your smartphone, the IOBNT, the Internet of Bio-Nano Things, is comprised of various components that carry out a range of similar tasks. So, you can imagine your flesh and blood are now form part of the, you know, integrated circuits in the, the global central nervous system. Well, oh, sorry, that's in Japanese. So, you have the nano scale, micro scale, and macro scale devices here.

Interviewer: Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Very impressive, actually. And, my following question is about what are the implications of such technologies on personal privacy and bodily autonomy?

Dr. Broudy: Hmm. Well, it seems to me that because bodies and brains will be connected to the Internet in real time, privacy and bodily autonomy will disappear. In the United States, you know, there's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that limits and prohibits the government from conducting unwarranted searches and seizures. Well, these new technologies leave citizens exposed to intrusion, not just of house and home, but the biological housing of your soul, your mind. Yeah, I think if this all sounds kind of like science fiction, it does seem, it does seem quite absurd, even the slides that I've shown you from these scholarly papers. If it does seem like science fiction, you know, consider the extent to which, say, the technologies have already been well established in policy papers and executive orders throughout Europe, the UK, Canada, the United States, Australia. I have some slides if you'd like to see them, but. . .

Interviewer: Sure, of course.

Dr. Broudy: Okay. So, I thought it would be nice to point to some of the evidence in policies. This, for example, from 2014, the EU envisions the implementation of these new technologies. You can see I've highlighted some interesting sections in here. I think the whole document is very interesting, very telling. But here you have in yellow, you can see genetically enhanced humans, transhumanism, and the enhanced mankind, artificially enhanced, the technological singularity. I mean, this is like long-term. So, you can also see, I don't know if you can see the pointer here, my cursor?

Interviewer: Yes, yes, I do. And the N -B -I -C.

Dr. Broudy: Yeah, the NBIC. We will talk about that in more detail in a little bit. So, you know, keep in mind, this is 2014. You can see this slide kind of struck me because of what seems to be, the call for these technological interventions in the name of securing peace and security or peace and safety. And this actually put me in mind of a passage in the New Testament, the Thessalonians, „for when they say peace and safety, then sudden destruction will come upon them". So, we can see today many calls for peace and safety or peace and security as a, it seems like a pretext for many kinds of interventions. Of course, we have the technological or the technocratic interventions here. In 2022, we saw an executive order coming out of President Biden's White House. And this, I thought, was quite interesting, a section of the order, genetic engineering technologies, techniques, we need to pursue these to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way we write software and program computers.

It seems to me that this is just more of the same conceptualizing the body as a machine, very reductive thinking about dynamic, complex biological processes and how human beings tend to oversimplify and use these. On one hand, very good metaphors, but they're misleading metaphors, too. Every, so many people think of, you know, biological mechanisms as machinery. It's useful on one hand, but not at all on the other. And then you have in Canada, the exploration, the policy positions exploring biodigital convergence, which the head of the World Economic Forum has been talking about for some time. The integration of the digital identity and the biological identity, et cetera. So these are all, these can be found in government position papers and white papers and policies. And then you have the EU that spent a billion, a billion euro, I believe, on nanotechnology, graphene, and then the UK's human augmentation, the dawn of a new paradigm. So lots of really interesting transhumanist interventions.

Interviewer: Incredible. Yes. Great. So now, my following question is, in what ways might bio nanotechnology alter the relationship between individuals and governing bodies or corporations?

Dr. Broudy: Well, I think have a slide for this. There are many good slides, but I didn't prepare one, actually. I would say the distinction between, if I understand your question correctly, the distinction between governing bodies and corporations. So governing bodies would be like governments, I imagine. I think you can argue it is effectively erased. Was it Mussolini who said that, you know, fascism is the marriage of industry and state?

Interviewer: Yeah.

Dr. Broudy: Bertram Gross actually covered this really beautifully in 1980 in his book, „Friendly Fascism". And he warned about a new form of fascism germinating in the world, you know, the post World War II world, which kind of is, you know, dressed up and fancy and comes to you with a wink and a smile and, you know, promise of peace and security and speed and efficiency. Everything, everyone wants in a world where, we're pressed into service and nine -to -five jobs and how, you know, what's life all about? We're asking these questions about what is life about? And, we're spending most of our waking hours trying to commute to work. And so, Bertram Gross talked about this at great length. It's a brilliant book. I would highly recommend it, Friendly Fascism. So, he's writing about, the really sophisticated systems of information collection and kind of like emerging forms of remote electronic surveillance. And it's amazing that he saw this, you know, in the 1970s. He produced this book. And one of his observations is, particularly prescient today, is a kind of beguiling sort of fascism has arisen. And I want to get the quote just right. And, quote, „more concentrated, unscrupulous, repressive and militaristic control by a big business – big government partnership, that would preserve the privileges of the ultra rich, the corporate overseers and the brass in the military and civilian order."

Now, if that's not, an image of what we see today you know in these public private partnerships and the rise of all these global forums of unelected people making decisions for citizens, human beings, I don't know what is. I mean it's a brilliant description there and you know it certainly appears I would say we're now witnessing a new form of technocratic order taking seats of power and authority. So the relationship between new classes of citizens, or subjects we can say, will essentially be a relationship of master and servant. And it seems a lot of people don't want to or can't see this like tidal wave of technocratic control coming which is I think part of the the problem that we all face is that how do you, how do you help people coax them into seeing what's unfolding around them. To look away from their smartphones or you know from the one screen or another screen and awaken people to what's unfolding. Big, big problem.

Interviewer: Could the integration of these technologies exacerbate existing inequalities in healthcare access or create new form of societal stratification?

Dr. Broudy: I think you can get a pretty nice sense of stratification, social stratification if you look back at the Proteus documents that came out in the mid -2000s, I think 2007, 2008, and the goal of the Proteus project was to offer this kind of like expert commentary that will help strategic and high -level decision -makers and planners and analysts with kind of like, I think they say like out -of -the -box or like outside -the -box considerations for analysis of national military intelligence issues. And this was within what was called the Joint, inter -agency, inter -governmental, and multinational environment. Nice acronym, JIM. What was envisioned in Proteus were ESIs, which were people who would one day populate the world. Exceedingly high -functioning people, ESIs. So you can see the new concept of social strata in the names that are given to people, to classes of people like the „tweaked", the „freaked", and the „geeked". Should I expand?

Interviewer: Yes, if it is possible, because I'm not sure our audience is familiar with this.

Dr. Broudy: So, the tweaked are, the tweaked's abilities, they come from the integration of singularity technologies with individuals' biological systems. So you have like biofeedback and virtual reality. Also, people achieve like exceptional mental states.

Interviewer: It's incredible, incredible.

Dr. Broudy: Yeah. So the tweaked will be, the category of the tweaked will be offered to like a select number, a select group of people. They'll have like access to quote -unquote longevity technologies, and they'll be able to leverage the advantages to live for decades longer than ordinary. And the tweaked are, it's envisioned that the tweaked will comprise sort of like the mainstream ESIs, those who, will benefit most from these broad front of technologies.
And then you've got the freaked. These are like quote -unquote new creations, you know, cyborgs or, the next generation of humans with significant mechanized parts. You might remember from the 70's, the Six Million Dollar Man.

Interviewer: Yeah.

Dr. Broudy: You remember that show?

Interviewer: Yeah, I remember that was a, I remember it was a series, an episode. I'm old enough to remember. Yes. Yes.

Dr. Broudy: I Remember that too. So, yeah, this category reminded me of, like, Steve Austin, man barely alive, but we can rebuild him, right?

Interviewer: Yes.

Dr. Broudy: So AI -guided robots, clones designed for single functions, group minds operating through open source mental systems via embedded quantum chips. And the freaked will be seen as, like, kind of the outliers of the singularity.
And then you've got the last category, which are the geeked, and these are individuals who are probably on the lower strata. They're unenhanced individuals who depend upon, like, wearables. You know, external devices. I suppose you can put a lot of people today in this category, you know, we're a bunch of geeks walking around with our mobile phones, and we have to use these to achieve a kind of competitive edge in this future global society.

Interviewer: Yes.

Dr. Broudy: And we'll have some access to supercomputing and control of virtual worlds leveraged into real -world advantage.

Interviewer: Yes, you continue, Dr. Brody.

Dr. Broudy: And so, yeah, so it's observed back, even back in 2007, 2008, that the geeked are essentially already with us. You know, they're in high -tech industry. And, you know, so, like, many of the abilities that's been observed that we owe to technology would probably have been considered magic.

Interviewer: Hmm. Yes. You know. Yes. I was just wondering, like, how the first category that you mentioned earlier. You know, how the people will be selected. Would it be, you know, if you have money, you can apply for having all this enhancement, or the people will be chosen who will be in the first category of the three you mentioned?

Dr. Broudy: That's a great question. It seems to me that we're already, self-selecting. I mean. . . It seems to me that, for example, in some parts of Europe, some countries in Europe, from reports that I've heard, some especially young people are already lining up for their, you know, for their freak, or their tweak. And they want to be integrated, for example, with new chips that will, you know, connect them to the financial services.

Interviewer: Yes. So, these three categories that you mentioned will be the servant, right? Not the, you know, the masters are above them. You know, the three that you mentioned would be considered the servant of the, what we call the crypto rulers.

Dr. Broudy: That's what it seems to be. Yeah, that appears to be. Yeah, so some servants will have exceptionally high ability. I suppose one way that you can think about it is the new films that have been exceptionally popular over the past, at least 10 years, Avengers and super. . . The superhero genre, where you begin to see almost a cultural conditioning of upgraded entities. Yeah, so, what I'm talking about, it seems so science fiction. So, incredibly absurd, but it's there in the literature.

Interviewer: Good. And Dr. Brody, where can our audience find your work. Like, if they want to know more, where, you know, can you give them some information about where they can find your work?

Dr. Broudy: Well, I'm a co-editor for a journal, Propaganda in Focus. Some of the articles that, over the past few years, focused mostly on COVID issues, Transhumanism, you can find them there. It's an interdisciplinary journal. Lots of really interesting contributors to the journal. Not just in transhumanism, but. . . Issues that of public import, where people write about all sorts of forms and practices and techniques of propagandizing. So probably Propaganda in Focus would be a good resource. The other, I suppose, a bibliography on ResearchGate. Some of the selections of research that I've done and published can be found on ResearchGate.