Monthly Archives: June 2016

Let's face it: the only real justification for using vaccines to "immunize" ourselves against disease is derived from the natural fact that when challenged our immune systems launch a successful response. Were it not for the elegance, proficiency, and mostly asymptomatic success of our recombinatorial (antibody-based) immune systems in dealing so well with infectious challenges, vaccination would have no cause, no scientific explanation, no justification whatsoever.*

In fact, ever since the adaptive, antigen-specific immune system evolved in early vertebrates 500 million years ago, our bodies have been doing a pretty good job of keeping us alive on this planet without need for synthetic, vaccine-mediated immunity. Indeed, infectious challenges are necessary for the development of a healthy immune system and in order to prevent autoimmune conditions from emerging as a result of TH2 dominance.

In other words, take away these natural infectious challenges, and the immune system can and will turn upon itself; take way these infectious challenges and lasting immunity against tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pathogens we are exposed to throughout our lives, would not be possible.

Can vaccines really co-opt, improve upon, and replace natural immunity with synthetic immunity?

How many will this require?

Are we not already at the critical threshold of vaccine overload?

By "improving" on our humanness in this way, are we not also at the same moment departing dramatically from it?

Presently, compliance with the CDC's immunization schedule for children from birth through 6 years of age requires 60+ vaccines* be administered, purportedly to make them healthier than non-vaccinated or naturally immunized ones.** Sixty vaccines, while a disturbingly high amount (for those who retain the complementary human faculties of reason and intuition), does not, however, correctly convey just how many antigenic challenges these children face in total...

A new paper published in the journal Lupus entitled, "Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations," points out that as many as 125 antigenic compounds, along with high amounts of aluminum (AI) adjuvants are given to children by the time they are 4 and 6 years old, in some "developed" countries.

The authors also state: "Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity."

Vaccine adjuvants are agents that accelerate, enhance or prolong the antigen-specific immune responses vaccines intend to elicit. In essence, they enhance vaccine "efficacy," which is defined by the ability to raise antibody titers. A vaccine's "effectiveness," on the other hand -- and which is the real-world measure of whether a vaccine works or not -- is not ascertainable through the number of antibodies produced. Whether or not a vaccine or vaccine adjuvant boosts antibodies that have actual affinity with the intended pathogen is what counts in the real world, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity, (and not the sheer volume of antibodies produced) determines whether a vaccine will be effective or not.

The semantic confusion between "vaccine efficacy" and "vaccine effectiveness" ensures that vaccines which disrupt/harm/hypersensitize the immune system by stimulating unnaturally elevated antibody titers may obtain FDA approval, despite the fact that they have never been shown to confer real-world protection. *** Some vaccine researchers have even suggested that breastfeeding, which may reduce vaccine-induced elevations in antibody titers in infants, i.e. its iatrogenic disease-promoting effects, should temporarily be delayed in order not to interfere with the vaccine's so-called "efficacy."

Common adjuvants include: aluminum, mineral oil, detergent stabilized squalene-in-water, pertactin, formaldehyde, viral DNA, phosphate, all of which are inherently toxic, no matter what the route of exposure.

Many parents today do not consider how dangerous injecting adjuvants directly into the muscle (and sometimes blood, due to incorrect and/or non-existent aspiration techniques), especially in non-infected, healthy offspring whose immune systems are only just learning to launch effective responses to the innumerable pathogens already blanketing their environment.

Adequate breastfeeding, in fact, is the most successful strategy in the prevention of morbidity and mortality associated with infectious challenges, and is so distinctively mammalian (i.e. obtaining nourishment and immunity through the mammary glands), that without adequate levels (only 11.3% of infants in the US were exclusively breastfed through the first six months of life (Source: CDC, 2004)) infants become much more readily susceptible to illness.

Not only have humans strayed from their mammalian roots, by creating and promoting infant formula over breast milk, and then promoting synthetic immunity via vaccines over the natural immunity conferred through breastfeeding and sunlight exposure, for instance, but implicit within the dominant medical model to replace natural immunity with a synthetic one, is a philosophy of transhumanism, a movement which intends to improve upon and transcend our humanity, and has close affiliation with some aspects of eugenics.***

The CDC's immunization schedule reflects a callous lack of regard for the 3 billion years of evolution that brought us to our present, intact form, without elaborate technologies like vaccination -- and likely only because we never had them at our disposal to inflict potentially catastrophic harm to ourselves.

The CDC is largely responsible for generating the mass public perception that there is greater harm in not "prophylactically" injecting well over 100 distinct disease-promoting and immune-disruptive substances into the bodies of healthy children. They have been successful in instilling the concept into the masses that Nature failed in her design, and that medical and genetic technologies and interventions can be used to create a superior human being.

Continue to Page 2

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

More:

Vaccination Agenda: An Implicit Transhumanism / Dehumanism

This is what we should live for, Danlo: the heightening of our sensibilities, the rarefying of our desire, the deepening of our purpose, the vastening of our selves. The power to overcome ourselves. To be more. Or rather, to become more. Who hasn't dreamed of such becoming? - David Zindell: "The Broken God".

Lord Martin Rees, member of the Oxford Martin School Advisory Council, Fellow of Trinity College and Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, giving the 10 year anniversary lecture for the Oxford Martin School.

Transhumanisme is mainstream geworden.

In den beginne had je het Extropy-Institute. Toen ik mij aansloot bij dit instituut, ca 1997/98, was het een gezelschap met een zeer hoogwaardige mailinglist. In Nederland was toen Transcedo in oprichting, transhumanisme met een Nederlandse couleur locale. Een klein groepje van zes leden, die eens per maand op het centraal station in Utrecht bij elkaar kwamen om te discussiren over zaken waarvan iedereen indertijd dacht dat het sciencefiction was, maar waarvan sommige inmiddels gerealiseerd zijn en de meeste andere zodanig binnen bereik liggen dat vrijwel niemand meer twijfelt aan de toekomstige mogelijkheid ervan.

Grootste wapenfeit van Transcedo: het organiseren in 1998 van de eerste Transvision: de bijeenkomst van Europese Transhumanisten, in Weesp. Een initiatief dat daarna jaarlijks herhaald werd in repectievelijk Stockholm (1999), Londen (2000) en Berlijn (2001), waarna in 2002 Nederland weer aan de beurt had moeten zijn. We kregen het in dat jaar echter niet meer voor elkaar. Waarom niet? Iedereen gaf inmiddels zijn eigen invulling aan het begrip transhumanisme en daarmee aan hoe zo'n symposium ingevuld zou moeten worden. Transcedo bestaat inmiddels eigenlijk alleen nog in naam; de leden die cryogene suspensie als de belangrijkste activiteit van Transcedo zagen, hebben een nieuwe vereniging opgericht, de DCO (Dutch Cryonics Organisation).

Inmiddels zijn er meerdere verenigingen en organisaties opgericht met een min of meer transhumanistische doelstelling en, door het veranderen van het karakter van het internet, vinden de meeste activiteiten plaats via Facebook en Google+, al zijn er natuurlijk nog steeds websites. Zoals bijvoorbeeld deze :-), al wordt hij dan ook onregelmatig bijgehouden 🙁 want, zoals gezegd, het meeste nieuws - als dat er al is - wordt gebracht via de social media.

Bij gebrek aan nieuws worden er dan wel eens stukjes geschreven (en gerecycled!) die misschien wat meer navelstaarderig zijn, zoals deze: "Transhumanism: there are [at least] ten different philosophical categories; which one(s) are you?" door Hank Pellissier op het forum van het Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Pellissier onderscheidt tien soorten transhumanisme en wel:

Extropianism

Singularitarianism

The Hedonistic Imperative

Democratic Transhumanism

Survivalist Transhumanism

Libertarian Transhumanism

Religious Transhumanism

Cosmopolitan Transhumanism

Cosmism

en

Anarcho-Transhumanism

Uiteraard wordt in het artikel uitgelegd welk label voor welk type transhumanist staat, maar om de zaak overzichtelijk te houden zijn er mengvormen. Pellissier daagt de lezer dan ook uit kleur te bekennen en op het forum aan te geven welk type transhumanist hij of zij is en, interessant dit te doen aan de hand van een Pie-Chart, die je hier kunt maken.

In 2004 heb ik mijn positie binnen het transhumanisme al eens bepaald; voor het grootste gedeelte gebaseerd op de toen al verouderde principes van het Extropy-Institute. Maar goed, ik heb ook zo'n pie-chart gemaakt en ik kwam er, niet geheel tot mijn verbazing achter, dat mijn ideen de laatste jaren wat zijn gaan verschuiven, je ontwikkelt je natuurlijk, en het zou zomaar kunnen dat deze chart over vijf jaar, vijf maanden of zelfs over vijf dagen al niet meer klopt.

Goed, op het gevaar af dat ik erop vastgepind ga worden, is hier mijn pie-chart.

Allemaal angst. Doom and Gloom. Zelf kan ik niet wachten....

Via Singularity Weblog.

Mooie film van Richard Mans.

In this breathtaking science fiction spectacle, a strange mechanical device lands on a desolate world and uses the planet to undergo a startling transformation, that has profound implications for an entire galaxy.

abiogenesisfilm.com facebook.com/abiogenesisfilm

Abiogenese is het ontstaan van leven uit niet-levende materie.

An Oxford philosophy professor who has studied existential threats ranging from nuclear war to superbugs says the biggest danger of all may be superintelligence.

Superintelligence is any intellect that outperforms human intellect in every field, and Nick Bostrom thinks its most likely form will be a machine -- artificial intelligence.

There are two ways artificial intelligence could go, Bostrom argues. It could greatly improve our lives and solve the world's problems, such as disease, hunger and even pain. Or, it could take over and possibly kill all or many humans. As it stands, the catastrophic scenario is more likely, according to Bostrom, who has a background in physics, computational neuroscience and mathematical logic.

"Superintelligence could become extremely powerful and be able to shape the future according to its preferences," Bostrom told me. "If humanity was sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of superintelligence until we figure out how to do so safely."

Bostrom, the founding director of Oxford's Future
of Humanity Institute, lays out his concerns in his new book, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. His book makes a harrowing comparison between the fate of horses and humans:

Horses were initially complemented by carriages and ploughs, which greatly increased the horse's productivity. Later, horses were substituted for by automobiles and tractors. When horses became obsolete as a source of labor, many were sold off to meatpackers to be processed into dog food, bone meal, leather, and glue. In the United States, there were about 26 million horses in 1915. By the early 1950s, 2 million remained.

The same dark outcome, Bostrom said, could happen to humans once AI makes our labor and intelligence obsolete.

Lees meer.

Een nieuw boek over transhumanisme komt binnenkort uit: "Religion and Transhumanism. The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement". Een fraaie cover van een biddende post-human:

die gelijk ook een ernstige vraag opwerpt: religie en transhumanisme, is dat niet in tegenspraak met elkaar?

Sebastian Seung, schreef in 2013 het boek "Connectome: how the brains wiring makes us who we are". Zo'n beetje de Amerikaanse tegenhanger van Dick Swaab's "Wij zijn ons brein". In tegenstelling tot Swaab staat Seung niet helemaal afwijzend tegenover cryonics en bespreekt in hoofdstuk 14 van zijn boek de kansen voor het slagen van cryogene suspensie als zijn model van het brein klopt. Dat is de reden dat het boek door veel transhumanisten gelezen is. Het boek eindigt min of meer (er volgt nog een epiloog) met de volgende bijzondere uitspraak:

The bible said that God made man in his own image. The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said that man made God in his own image. The transhumanists say that humanity will make itself into God.

Zoals uit de tagline van deze website (een citaat uit "Don Juan und Faust" van Christian Dietrich Grabbe) blijkt, is dat ook hoe ik het transhumanisme interpreteer.

De uitgever rechtvaardigt het boek als volgt:

"Transhumanism" or "human enhancement" is an intellectual and cultural movement that advocates the use of emerging technologies to change human traits. Although they may sound like science fiction, the possibilities suggested by transhumanism are very real, and the questions they raise have no easy answers. If these enhancementsespecially major ones like the indefinite extension of healthy human lifebecome widely available, they would arguably have a more radical impact on humankind than any other development in history.

This book comprises essays that explore transhumanism and the issues that surround it, addressing numerous fascinating questions posed by scholars of religion from various traditions. How will "immortality" or extreme longevity change our religious beliefs and practices? How might phamaceuticals enhance spiritual experiences? Will "post-human" technologies be available to all persons, or will a superior "post-human race" arise to dominate the human species? The discussions are as intriguing as the future they suggest.

De redacteurs van "Religion and Transhumanism", Calvin Mercer, "professor of religion" en Tracy J. Trothen, "associate professor of ethics and theology" hebben duidelijk het accent gelegd op de ethische kant van het transhumanisme:

Gaap. Die discussies zijn inmiddels al heel vaak gevoerd en op zijn minst doet het boek ongeveer hetzelfde als het op deze website eerder besproken boek Human Being @ Risk van Mark Coeckelbergh, behalve dat "Religion and Transhumanism" door meerdere auteurs bij elkaar is geschreven, waaronder Anders Sandberg, dus mijn hoop is dat dit boek daar iets nieuws aan gaat toevoegen, mogelijk - maar het boek moet nog uitkomen, dus ik moet het nog lezen - in ieder geval meer een "dialogue" gaat opleveren. Het boek is ook iets aangenamer geprijsd: 46 voor 472 pagina's, en verschijnt in november 2014.

Via The British Institute of Posthuman Studies - A Critical Forum for Transhumanist Thought. Written by: Peter Brietbart and Marco Vega

We investigate three dominant areas of transhumanism: super longevity, super intelligence and super wellbeing, and briefly cover the ideas of thinkers Aubrey de Grey, Ray Kurzweil and David Pearce.

PostHuman: An Introduction to Transhumanism is the first of our planned video series on transhumanism, titled PostHuman.

Interessant artikel in Wired.co.uk in de afdeling Transhumanism: Sleep replacement and 3D-printed shapeshifting: a bodyhacker's wish list. Daaruit de volgende WishList:

2013 to 2014 Wireless file storage Subdermal navigation system Brain-only control of temperature of my house

Five to ten years Replacement of heart Sensors on remaining major organs Proximity sensors Internal alarms Enriched blood (enriched with oxygen)

10 to 20 years Replacement of most major organs Maths coprocessor (OMG I want this so bad) Replacement and entire brain system (audio cortex maybe?) Toxin filtration Replacement of hands B2C (brain to computer) wireless interface with internet Emotional "volume" B2B (brain to brain) wireless interface

20 to 40 years Majority of body replaced 50 percent plus of brain replaced Back up "brain" Levitation tech Self-repair No need for food or oxygen Temporal tuning (slow the perception of time)

More:

Transhumanisme | Don Juan: Wozu bermenschlich, wenn du ...

by Eric Steinhart Department of Philosophy William Paterson University Journal of Evolution and Technology

Vol. 20 Issue 1 - pgs 1-22

December 2008

from JournalOfEvolutionAndTechnology Website

Omega Point Theology Being Used As Framework For 'Christian' Transhumanism

Tomorrow's Nephilim As Spiritual Leaders Of New Global Order

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was among the first to give serious consideration to the future of human evolution. His work advocates both biotechnologies (e.g., genetic engineering) and intelligence technologies. He discusses the emergence of a global computation-communication system (and is said by some to have been the first to have envisioned the Internet).

He advocates the development of a global society.

Teilhard is almost surely the first to discuss the acceleration of technological progress to a Singularity in which human intelligence will become super-intelligence. He discusses the spread of human intelligence into the universe and its amplification into a cosmic intelligence. More recently, his work has been taken up by Barrow and Tipler; Tipler; Moravec; and Kurzweil.

Of course, Teilhards Omega Point Theory is deeply Christian, which may be difficult for secular transhumanists.

But transhumanism cannot avoid a fateful engagement with Christianity. Christian institutions may support or oppose transhumanism. Since Christianity is an extremely powerful cultural force in the West, it is imperative for transhumanism to engage it carefully.

A serious study of Teilhard can help that engagement and will thus be rewarding to both communities.

1. Introduction Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a Jesuit paleontologist.[1] He combined his scientific study of the fossil record with his Christian faith to produce a general theory of evolution. Teilhards body of work has much to offer transhumanists, who advocate the use of technology to enhance human capacities and see current human beings as in transition to posthuman forms.

There are several specific reasons for transhumanists to study Teilhards work.

The first reason is that Teilhard was one of the first to articulate transhumanist themes. Transhumanists advocate the ethical use of technology for human enhancement. Teilhard's writing likewise argues for the ethical application of technology in order to advance humanity beyond the limitations of natural biology. Teilhard explicitly argues for the use of both bio-technologies (e.g., genetic engineering) and intelligence technologies, and develops several other themes often found in transhumanist writings.

He discusses the emergence of a global computation-communication system, and is said by some to have been the first to have envisioned the Internet (Kreisberg, 1995). He advocates the development of an egalitarian global society. He was almost certainly the first to discuss the acceleration of technological progress to a kind of Singularity in which human intelligence will become super-intelligence.

He discusses the spread of human intelligence into the universe and its amplification into a cosmic-intelligence.

The second reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that his thought has influenced transhumanism itself. In particular, Teilhard develops an Omega Point Theory.

An Omega Point Theory (OPT) claims that the universe is evolving towards a godlike final state.

Teilhards OPT was later refined and developed by Barrow and Tipler (1986) and by Tipler alone (1988; 1995).

Ideas from the Barrow-Tipler OPT were, in turn, taken up by many transhumanists (see, for example, Moravec (1988; 2000) and Dewdney (1998)). Kurzweil also articulates a somewhat weaker OPT.

He says:

evolution moves inexorably toward our conception of God, albeit never reaching this ideal

(2005: 476; see also 375, 389-390)

Many transhumanists work within the conceptual architecture of Teilhards OPT without being aware of its origins. Indeed, Teilhard is mostly ignored in the histories of transhumanism; e.g., he is mentioned once and only in passing in Bostroms (2005) detailed history of the transhumanist movement.

The third reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that he develops his transhumanist ideas within a Christian context. Teilhard shows how one might develop a Christian transhumanism. Although some secular transhumanists may be inclined to react negatively to any mention of Christianity, such hostility may prove politically costly.

Transhumanism and Christianity are not essentially enemies.

They share some common themes (Hopkins, 2005). Of course, it is understandable that many transhumanists reject the superstitious aspects of Christian doctrine and the authoritarian aspects of Christian institutions. Likewise, Teilhard wants to abandon those aspects of Christianity. He argues that Christ is at work in evolution, that Christ is at work in technology, and that the work of Christ ultimately aims at the perfection of human biology. Christianity is a complex network of doctrines and institutions.

A study of Teilhard can help transhumanists to locate and carefully cultivate friends in that network and to locate, and carefully defend against, opponents.

The fourth reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that they are likely to need to defend themselves against conservative forms of Christianity. The dominant forms of Christianity today (at least in the USA) are conservative. As the cultural visibility of transhumanism grows, conservative Christians will increasingly pay it their attention.

They may feel increasingly threatened by transhumanism and come to see it as a heresy (Bainbridge, 2005). Various conservative Christians have already opposed transhumanism (Wiker, 2003; Hook, 2004; Daly, 2004; Hart, 2005). Since Christianity is an extremely powerful cultural force in the West, it is imperative for transhumanism to engage it carefully.

Conservative Christian forces have already opposed various biotechnologies (such as embryonic stem cell research and cloning) and may oppose all the enhancement techniques that transhumanists advocate. Conservative Christianity currently has the political power to effectively shut transhumanism down in the West.

Teilhard was attacked by conservative Catholics, and transhumanists may have to fight similar battles over similar issues. And yet Teilhard gained a surprisingly large following both within and beyond the church.[2]

A study of his work can help transhumanists develop nuanced strategies for defending against attacks from conservative Christians.

The fifth reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that they may want to build bridges to liberal and progressive forms of Christianity. Teilhard believed that science and technology have positive roles to play in building the City of God in this world.

A study of Teilhards work may help transhumanists to explore the ways that transhumanism can obtain support:

from Christian millenarianism (see Bozeman, 1997; Noble, 1999)

from Irenaea
n and neo-Irenaean theodicies (see Hick, 1977; Walker, Undated)[3]

from liberal Protestantism (see Arnow, 1950)

from process theology (see Cobb and Griffin, 1976)

Teilhard believed that everyone has a right to enter the kingdom of heaven it isnt reserved for any special sexual, racial, or economic elite.

A study of Teilhards writings can help transhumanism embrace a deep conception of social justice and expand its conception of social concern (see Garner, 2005). A study of Teilhard can help transhumanists make beneficial conceptual, and even political, connections to progressive Christian institutions.

My goal in this paper is to present the thought of Teilhard de Chardin in a way that is defensible and accessible to transhumanists.

Teilhard was working in the early twentieth century, at a time when biology was primitive and computer science non-existent. Many of his ideas are presented in a nineteenth-century vocabulary that is now conceptually obsolete.

My method is to present these ideas in a charitable way using a contemporary conceptual vocabulary, and to show how they have been refined by transhumanists such as Tipler, Moravec, and Kurzweil. One might say this paper offers a transhumanist reading of Teilhard or even a Teilhardian transhumanism. Since I make extensive use of computational ideas, I am offering a computational model of Teilhards thought.

I thereby hope to make his ideas accessible and to encourage further study of Teilhard among transhumanists.

Teilhard produced an extensive body of work that may be of interest to them;[4] there is also an enormous secondary literature on Teilhard, much of which may be of great interest to transhumanists.[5]

2. Teilhard and computation

2.1 Complexity and logical depth Physical things can be compared in terms of their size, mass, and so on. But they can also be compared in terms of their complexity. Complexity is an objective physical property and the scale of complexities is an objective physical scale.

Teilhard says:

the complexity of a thing... [is] the quality the thing possesses of being composed (a) of a larger number of elements, which are (b) more tightly organized among themselves.... [Complexity depends] not only on the number and diversity of the elements included in each case, but at least as much on the number and correlative variety of the links formed between these elements.

(Teilhard, 1959, The Future of Man, page 98; henceforth abbreviated FUT.)

A first refinement of Teilhards thought requires that we update his definition of complexity.

We can define the complexity of an object as the amount of computational work it takes to simulate the object. It takes a more powerful computer to simulate a more complex object. Bennett (1990) makes this idea more precise by defining complexity as logical depth.

He says:

Logical depth = Execution time required to generate the object in question by a near-incompressible universal computer program, i.e., one not itself computable as output of a significantly more concise program.... Logically deep objects... contain internal evidence of having been the result of a long computation or slow-to-simulate dynamical process.

(Bennett, 1990: 142.)

Teilhard observes that increasingly complex systems are emerging in our universe over time.

We can plot this emergence on a graph with two axes: a time axis and a complexity axis (Teilhard, 1973, My fundamental vision in Towards the Future, page 166; henceforth abbreviated MFV). Teilhard refers to the emergence of increasingly complex systems as complexification. Today we are more likely to talk about self-organization. But the idea is the same.

According to Bennett, we should expect more complex objects to appear later in any evolutionary process.

Teilhard would agree.

Go here to read the rest:

Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism