What is transhumanism? What if someone needs a heart transplant? What if the heart is grown in a lab? What if it's not organic but mechanical?
How about a prosthetic limb? Is a chunk of wood strapped onto someone's leg ok? What if it's made of some kind of metal or plastic/some other kind of processed material? What if it's mechanical and is more than just a solid extension meaning it can move and flex like a regular limb? What if it's computerized? What if the person has a device that exists solely to read signals from the brain relating to the movement of that leg (as opposed to some Facebook spyware garbage that phones home everything you do, all this device does is locally transmit commands from the brain for the leg) and then sends those signals locally to the prosthetic allowing the person to do everything down to wiggling their toes like they used to be able to with their original leg and foot?
Where's the line? When does lifesaving treatment stop being ok? Is enabling someone to walk again a bad thing? If a chunk of wood is ok why isn't it ok to make it work better and improve the technology? If a heart transplant is ok why isn't it ok to make it work better and improve the technology?
In the case of improving the leg, all the improvements are working towards getting the prosthetic to be on par with the original. Whereas with the heart, improving upon a regular transplant would mean making the grown or mechanical heart better than the original. Is this the line? Is the leg only ok until you start making it better than the original? What about the heart? Is the grown heart ok if it's a direct copy of the original? Is the mechanical heart not ok as a result of it either surpassing the original, not being organic, or both? If it's due to it being non-organic what about the prosthetic leg? In that case, would the prosthetic leg be ok if it was also grown in a lab as a direct copy of the original leg? Where is the line for any of this? When does it become transhumanism? Again, is strapping a chunk of wood that's been fashioned into a leg transhumanism? If it is why is this specific case not ok? If it's not when does it become that?
You don't want anyone or anything outside of yourself to determine your thoughts by mechanical means. It's bad enough when they intrude in the mental environment.
Yes they are. If it makes you a cyborg, it's a transhuman augmentation. Smartphones make us all cyborgs. We have telepathy and immense processing capabilities. The technology is amoral.
When they start fucking with your RNA and DNA it is transhumanism. Just strapping on a mechanical prosthetic, even with some type of link to the brain, doesnt change your humanity. FUCKING WITH MY GENETIC CODE DOES. And that is exactly what they are doing.
So quit trying to rationalize evil. They have crossed the line already. Pure fucking evil.
Where did I rationalize evil? I said nothing about what "they" are doing. I simply asked a bunch of questions and you as well as others have provided several answers I absolutely agree with.
Exactly, where's the line? This is the path that leads us to being full blown animatronics.
You're going way off topic as Musk's Neuralink isn't about a chip in the brain to control an artificial limb. Even if it were, then it's opening up people to be hacked in a whole new way.
All you mentioned can be achieved with genetics/biotech, it doesn't need to be electronic, implanted, or other.
While this has virtually nothing to do with what I originally said what I'd say to that is:
From what we've seen. We don't know everything Gates (nor Musk to be fair) has done behind closed doors.
But for someone pushing the "green agenda" he himself talks about that stuff very little. And after just now skimming through the Tesla site itself there's virtually zero environmentalist bullshit on there. The car page I looked at talked about the car itself and made very little to no mention (looked quick so I could have missed something) of "muh electric car good for planet", "GREEN GREEN GREEN!!!" while the solar panel page talked exclusively about the money you could potentially save and the lack of dependence on the grid. It seems to be all product and no propaganda at least on that specific site of his.
As for "brain chips" they're simply a tool, like anything. Now I know Neuralink aims to go beyond what I'm going to say here so I want to make clear I'm talking about the idea in general, not necessarily Musk's specific company or product. But as for a brain chip in general, it doesn't need to be some cloud-based chip that connects to the internet and lets you transmit your thoughts to other people or make you a "superhuman" or whatever else. Something as simple as a device communicating locally with a prosthetic leg, arm, or some other device to allow someone to function normally again (whether it's neck-down paralysis or a missing leg). Or a device that allows blind people to see again through a direct input to some eye device (you wouldn't have to worry about your vision being hijacked if the only input is the non-internet-connecting eye implant (effectively a camera) sending the info to a non-internet-connected device which translates the info locally into something usable by your brain thus potentially allowing you to see again).
Now you do have to trust that these things do what they say but if they're developed by white hats after the purging of the satanist cabal and are all fully open source it could at least have some level of trust behind it. And it should of course be up to the individual to make their own choice. And I admit I may very well be simplifying it and it might not be as easy as I make it seem and may not be possible at all to make this kind of tech safe and secure, but my greater point is that it's simply a tool that could possibly have proper ways found to make it safe for the person using it and if that could be done it would be a massive boon to society and to certain people with select disabilities.
Personally, I would say Musk is leagues better than Bill Gates. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Musk is definitely a white hat or a good guy, I just don't think his position is as clear-cut as some on here want to make it seem (or as clear-cut as someone like Gates). I also absolutely don't think we should touch any of this kind of stuff with a 5-mile long metal rod until people like Gates and Zuckerberg (and Musk if that's how it shakes out) aren't in a position to even attempt to hijack or control it and impose their evil machinations into the tech.
What is transhumanism? What if someone needs a heart transplant? What if the heart is grown in a lab? What if it's not organic but mechanical?
How about a prosthetic limb? Is a chunk of wood strapped onto someone's leg ok? What if it's made of some kind of metal or plastic/some other kind of processed material? What if it's mechanical and is more than just a solid extension meaning it can move and flex like a regular limb? What if it's computerized? What if the person has a device that exists solely to read signals from the brain relating to the movement of that leg (as opposed to some Facebook spyware garbage that phones home everything you do, all this device does is locally transmit commands from the brain for the leg) and then sends those signals locally to the prosthetic allowing the person to do everything down to wiggling their toes like they used to be able to with their original leg and foot?
Where's the line? When does lifesaving treatment stop being ok? Is enabling someone to walk again a bad thing? If a chunk of wood is ok why isn't it ok to make it work better and improve the technology? If a heart transplant is ok why isn't it ok to make it work better and improve the technology?
In the case of improving the leg, all the improvements are working towards getting the prosthetic to be on par with the original. Whereas with the heart, improving upon a regular transplant would mean making the grown or mechanical heart better than the original. Is this the line? Is the leg only ok until you start making it better than the original? What about the heart? Is the grown heart ok if it's a direct copy of the original? Is the mechanical heart not ok as a result of it either surpassing the original, not being organic, or both? If it's due to it being non-organic what about the prosthetic leg? In that case, would the prosthetic leg be ok if it was also grown in a lab as a direct copy of the original leg? Where is the line for any of this? When does it become transhumanism? Again, is strapping a chunk of wood that's been fashioned into a leg transhumanism? If it is why is this specific case not ok? If it's not when does it become that?
You don't want anyone or anything outside of yourself to determine your thoughts by mechanical means. It's bad enough when they intrude in the mental environment.
Exactly, medical “prosthetics” are not transhuman. Improving or changing your natural involvement with reality is.
... choosing to change your dna via vax is a pretty clear cut definition of this.
The Bible warns of this. We are not meant to mess with genetics. That's why, for example, GMO food can be considered satanic.
Yes they are. If it makes you a cyborg, it's a transhuman augmentation. Smartphones make us all cyborgs. We have telepathy and immense processing capabilities. The technology is amoral.
Would a 100% mechanical body be ok if we controlled it with our brain?
It the govt builds it, the govt controls it. You are a fill in, until they need what they purchased.
And what if the government doesn't build it and doesn't control it?
When they start fucking with your RNA and DNA it is transhumanism. Just strapping on a mechanical prosthetic, even with some type of link to the brain, doesnt change your humanity. FUCKING WITH MY GENETIC CODE DOES. And that is exactly what they are doing.
So quit trying to rationalize evil. They have crossed the line already. Pure fucking evil.
Where did I rationalize evil? I said nothing about what "they" are doing. I simply asked a bunch of questions and you as well as others have provided several answers I absolutely agree with.
Exactly, where's the line? This is the path that leads us to being full blown animatronics.
You're going way off topic as Musk's Neuralink isn't about a chip in the brain to control an artificial limb. Even if it were, then it's opening up people to be hacked in a whole new way.
All you mentioned can be achieved with genetics/biotech, it doesn't need to be electronic, implanted, or other.
Transhuman. Musk talking about melding of AI with brain consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcYjXbSJBN8&t=3337s
Klaus talks about it with his concept of the 4th industrial revolution.
https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab
He's like Bill Gates, except he pushed the green agenda and the brain chips agenda even more than Bill Gates.
While this has virtually nothing to do with what I originally said what I'd say to that is:
From what we've seen. We don't know everything Gates (nor Musk to be fair) has done behind closed doors.
But for someone pushing the "green agenda" he himself talks about that stuff very little. And after just now skimming through the Tesla site itself there's virtually zero environmentalist bullshit on there. The car page I looked at talked about the car itself and made very little to no mention (looked quick so I could have missed something) of "muh electric car good for planet", "GREEN GREEN GREEN!!!" while the solar panel page talked exclusively about the money you could potentially save and the lack of dependence on the grid. It seems to be all product and no propaganda at least on that specific site of his.
As for "brain chips" they're simply a tool, like anything. Now I know Neuralink aims to go beyond what I'm going to say here so I want to make clear I'm talking about the idea in general, not necessarily Musk's specific company or product. But as for a brain chip in general, it doesn't need to be some cloud-based chip that connects to the internet and lets you transmit your thoughts to other people or make you a "superhuman" or whatever else. Something as simple as a device communicating locally with a prosthetic leg, arm, or some other device to allow someone to function normally again (whether it's neck-down paralysis or a missing leg). Or a device that allows blind people to see again through a direct input to some eye device (you wouldn't have to worry about your vision being hijacked if the only input is the non-internet-connecting eye implant (effectively a camera) sending the info to a non-internet-connected device which translates the info locally into something usable by your brain thus potentially allowing you to see again).
Now you do have to trust that these things do what they say but if they're developed by white hats after the purging of the satanist cabal and are all fully open source it could at least have some level of trust behind it. And it should of course be up to the individual to make their own choice. And I admit I may very well be simplifying it and it might not be as easy as I make it seem and may not be possible at all to make this kind of tech safe and secure, but my greater point is that it's simply a tool that could possibly have proper ways found to make it safe for the person using it and if that could be done it would be a massive boon to society and to certain people with select disabilities.
Personally, I would say Musk is leagues better than Bill Gates. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Musk is definitely a white hat or a good guy, I just don't think his position is as clear-cut as some on here want to make it seem (or as clear-cut as someone like Gates). I also absolutely don't think we should touch any of this kind of stuff with a 5-mile long metal rod until people like Gates and Zuckerberg (and Musk if that's how it shakes out) aren't in a position to even attempt to hijack or control it and impose their evil machinations into the tech.