THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE DODO BIRD AND THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH
With all the chaos going on in the world - most of it brought about by the plutocrats and oligarchs running "the West" - it may seem terribly insensitive, impertinent, or even irrelevant to be talking about woolly mammoths, the dodo bird, and their "de-extinction," a fancy and "scientific" sounding euphemism for avoiding the term that the technocrats most want to avoid; we'll get back to that word in a moment. The problem, however, is that the technocrats really do want to "de-extinct" dodo birds and woolly mammoths. It's the same scenario that was the central theme of the Jurassic Park movies, where The Scientism in the form of a well-meaning but sincerely mad (and ultimately stupid) scientist through processes of cloning and so on, brought back several extinct species of dinosaurs, populated a remote island with them (so they could not get off the island) and then turned the island into a sort of drive-through safari park and zoo where one could see dinosaurs live and up close.
Tyrannosaurus Rex? No thank you. Raptors? Nope. Thanks much, but I'll look at the pictures in the encyclopedia. I'm not an ala carte menu item for some pre-historic reptile, thank you very much.
The scheme of The Scientism goes horribly wrong, the dinosaurs refuse to cooperate and go on a rampage, enabling Hollyweird to collect a goodly amount on money on the movie, its sequels, and their royalties and licenses. But according to this article from S.D., the movie screeplay is not just a screenplay. It's a plan, an agenda, and a bit of forewarning:
De-Extinction and the Resurrection of the Woolly Mammoth
I have blogged about this subject and its disturbing possibilities before, but this particular article gets many of my major concerns correct by beginning the article by asking the pertinent question: "...is it wise for humanity to try to bring species back that have been lost to history?"
Or to put that question differently, do we have sufficient knowledge and experience in how to manipulate complex open systems such as a complex organism like a woolly mammoth or a dodo bird and their normal environments? With all the recent suggestions of weather modification and manipulation in the news lately, in connection to the hurricanes, my personal leanings would be to a resounding "No!" But of course, this is not the motivation that impels the scientismist, who pursues such projects simply because he can.
But is there perhaps a more sinister goal here?
I strongly suspect there is, and this goal is revealed by the diction of a crucial paragraph in this article. Noting that biologist Beth Shapiro went searching for, and discovered, well-preserved bones (and therefore, DNA samples) of a woolly mammoth frozen in the Canadian permafrost, the article states this:
Instead, as one of the world’s leading experts on ancient DNA, Shapiro was searching for specimens of those little snippets of A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s that can let scientists like her glimpse biological history that had previously been beyond the realm of what we could know about the distant past.
A few years later, in 2015, Shapiro wrote How to Clone a Mammoth, a tantalizing examination of how modern scientific breakthroughs are taking the fiction out of science fiction. She chronicled how researchers were bringing human ingenuity to the cusp of a task previously imagined only for gods: resurrection.
And there we are: no more talk about "de-extinction," but rather open use of the word "they" want to avoid: "resurrection", and its reservation for "the gods." The article goes on in the usual "scientismistic" fashion to outline all sorts of reasons why "de-extinction" would be a good thing, including arguing that it would be a way to combat the growing (and in many instances alarming) loss of species on the planet.
But my concern here is the temptation that will inevitably occur to these technocrats. Indeed, it has already occurred, if you've been following the Transhumanists (or, if you read Dr. DeHart's and my book Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas). The transhumanists have been proposing all sorts of crazy schemes: virtual immortality through cloning of oneself, downloading or uploading memories into computers, robots, human-machine interfaces, and all sorts of "as-in-the-days-of-Noah" sorts of things.
I suspect, however, that these people will not stop there, and the reason why is the presence of that non-euphemistic word for what they're up to: resurrection. Think of all the recent discoveries that would make such a thing a growing temptation: King Tut's mummy, the body and tomb of Gilgamesh, not to mention the bones in ossuaries of the monasteries of the world. Of course there are technical obstacles, "impossibilities" to be overcome. But imagine the temptation that "archaeological interrogation" would provide: "Can you tell us, Your Majesty," speaking to a "resurrected" King Tut, "what life was like in your kingdom during your reign?" The temptation to "resurrect" the sages and prophets of old would be too much to be denied, particularly in times of great peril, and particularly if undeniably authentic DNA samples from those people could be found and used for the purpose. Lots of currently existing hurdles to overcome. But you know "they" will try.
"They" won't stop there, however. Indeed, "the eschatological template" of their plans and agendas would almost dictate that they have to go for the grand prize, someone Whom everyone would listen to if "de-extincted" via technological means, like a donkey in a lion costume, an interior reality standing in the place of the actual reality, a bodily temple - an "exact copy" - indwelt not by the original, but a grotesque caricature. Remember: personhood and soul are not the same thing, and this is why.
I do not put it past them. These people are, after all, power-mad, and very "Shifty."
See you on the flip side...
(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share with your friends.)
No comments:
Post a Comment