Neuroscienze

Continua la strada delle neuroscienze, un nuovo paradigma che nasce dal progresso delle tecnologie come l’imaging cerebrale per scandagliare sempre più nel dettaglio il cervello col fine di comprendere il suo funzionamento, come può essere modificato e, di conseguenza, controllato.
Sviluppi in microscopia elettronica, computer, elettronica, nell’imaging funzionale del cervello, e più recentemente nella genetica e nella genomica, sono stati fattori determinanti per il progresso delle neuroscienze.
Disciplina trasversale che si lega alla biologia, genetica, psichiatria, scienze sociali e comportamentali, all’interno del paradigma riduzionista e organicista che identifica nei circuiti neurali la causa delle nostre emozioni e comportamenti. La nostra soggettività, la nostra coscienza vengono ridotte ad un assemblaggio di funzioni ad uso e consumo dell’ingegneria sociale.

L’ideologia del tecno-mondo. Resistere alla megamacchina – Silvia Guerini e Costantino Ragusa

Pubblicato il da


Presentazione del nostro ultimo libro:
L’ideologia del tecno-mondo. Resistere alla megamacchina.
acro-pólis, 2024

Siamo nel pieno di una Grande Trasformazione, un qualcosa di così travolgente che non lascia possibilità di tornare indietro perché nel suo cammino attua un processo demolitorio e di eradicazione profonda. Il trasferimento nel digitale permette una rimozione perfetta. In questa corsa forsennata verso il baratro vi è un’erosione dell’essere umano così profonda e radicale che assume i tratti di una metamorfosi ontologica e antropologica. Restano aperte questioni fondamentali: quale sarà il significato di essere umano, di essere vivente, di natura, di libertà?

In un puzzle di inclusione cibernetica dove i tasselli si intersecano perfettamente non ci sono altri usi possibili o strade alternative e a puzzle completo si rischia di ritrovarsi con una nuova identità umana incapace di riconoscere altro se non confermare il presente all’interno del nuovo ordine di verità algoritmico.

Per arrivare a far si che si realizzi questa Grande Trasformazione serve sicuramente consenso, ma anche questo è un ambito ormai probabilmente superato, in questi anni abbiamo visto instillare paure, ricatti e terrore, non troppo da paralizzare, ma abbastanza da creare obbedienza. Si prepara un accompagnamento verso nuovi mondi virtuali dove non solo sarà desiderabile immergersi, ma bisognerà anche crederci. Per questo vi è in atto una demolizione totale delle precedenti forme di esistenza: come si viene al mondo, scuola, lavoro, relazioni, famiglia, cibo, stili di vita… per far posto al nuovo individuo fluido, incapace di esistere senza il sostegno di apparati.

Non da poco è il grande alibi per cui la Grande Trasformazione cyber-digitale del mondo anche se non desiderabile va comunque acclamata: l’emergenza in tempo di pace che si chiama “ecosostenibilità”. Questa non significa altro che continuare a sfruttare e depredare il pianeta come si è fatto fino adesso incrementando vecchi e nuovi processi distruttivi dirigendo l’accusa verso nuovi nemici come la CO2, come il singolo non allineato ai nuovi dettami green, ma il nemico di fondo è questo essere umano troppo umano: un neomaltusianesimo che prevederà da un lato una riduzione di una parte della popolazione e dall’altro lato una sua riprogettazione che in nome della transizione verde-digitale farà passare l’inaccettabile. Non è sopraggiunta una reale coscienza ecologista, in quanto nessuno ci ha mai lavorato, ma un’autorità verde che attualizza nuove realtà servendosi di inedite modalità totalitarie di ingegneria sociale. Le ricette proposte si sono fatte “ecosostenibili” ed ecoinsostituibili e quindi necessarie, ma parlano la lingua del nucleare, del 5G, del 6G, dei nuovi OGM-TEA, della Geoingegneria fino ad arrivare al “ripristino” totale della natura e dei corpi adattati al nuovo paradigma cibernetico, sintetico e transumano.

Come attori principali delle attuali trasformazioni dobbiamo comprendere il ruolo di colossi agroalimentari-farmaceutici-bionanotecnologici, compagnie del digitale, poli di ricerca di importanza internazionale, comprendendo che il loro scopo non è meramente il profitto, ma portare a termine un’ideologia transumanista che rappresenta una precisa visione di mondo e di essere umano. In questo orizzonte vanno inseriti anche i programmi per la salute ideati e portati avanti da ricchissimi filantropi come la Fondazione Gates.

L’élite tecnocratica transumanista ha i mezzi per realizzare i suoi scopi ed è a capo dei principali consessi internazionali di punta delle tecno-scienze, gestendone e indirizzandone le fasi di convergenza, siano queste di natura tecnica o politica. Cavalcando la presunta ineluttabilità di questi processi affermando che, dal momento in cui non si possono fermare, vanno allora governati, direzionati e soprattutto ottimizzati. Dal loro punto di vista governare le tecno-scienze significa implementare l’essere umano con esse, ponendo un traguardo che non arriverà mai perché ad una implementazione ne seguirà un’altra e ad una modificazione genetica dell’essere umano ne seguiranno altre ancora più ricombinanti. Il tutto ben contornato di diritti e libertà, elogiato e sostenuto dai progressisti e apparentemente contrastato da quelli che dovrebbero essere conservatori, ma questi spesso non sono altro che l’altra parte di una scenografia già predisposta.

In questa visione di mondo transumanista i corpi e gli elementi naturali, non costituiscono più un fondamento indisponibile, ma divengono disponibili, mercificabili, scomponibili e manipolabili.

Le tecno-scienze diventano sistema, diventano orizzonte di senso, diventano contesto di esistenza delle persone, diventano inevitabili. Non possono essere considerate come delle tecnologie che si inseriscono in ogni ambito della società lasciando la possibilità o meno di usarle permettendo una dimensione di autonomia rispetto ad esse. Una volta inserite diventano l’ambiente stesso fondendosi con esso, plasmandolo e trasformandolo secondo le loro caratteristiche e secondo l’ideologia transumanista di cui sono portatrici. In questo procedere diventano la nuova normalità plasmando e trasformando lo stesso essere nel mondo, percepirsi nel mondo, stare nel mondo e agire nel mondo. In ultima istanza trasformando l’essere umano.

L’infinito dibattito attorno alla loro neutralità e al loro utilizzo positivo o negativo potrebbe concludersi attorno alla semplice considerazione che le conseguenze nefaste non possono essere considerati effetti collaterali: per quanto riguarda le tecnologie di ingegneria genetica e per le nanotecnologie si tratta sempre di disastri annunciati che tra l’altro servono a velocizzare e a normalizzare altri passaggi. La questione è molto più radicale di un dibattito ridotto e appiattito a utilità, vantaggi, svantaggi, inconvenienti, rischi, pericoli, la riflessione dovrebbe essere portata un po’ più in là, fuori dal loro regno della quantità, dal loro meccanicismo, fuori da calcoli e previsioni per arrivare alla messa in discussione radicale della concezione che considera il vivente come una macchina.

Le tecno-scienze diventano istanza suprema: tutto deve essere giudicato a partire da esse e, ovviamente, senza mai uscire dal loro paradigma di progresso a tutti i costi perché il progresso non si deve arrestare e bisogna parteciparvi da responsabili co-gestori dei rischi e dei disastri annunciati.

L’Intelligenza Artificiale con i suoi algoritmi crea un nuovo ordine di verità che non ha precedenti nella storia, un nuovo ordine verso cui non si potrà dubitare. L’Intelligenza Artificiale prenderà sempre più decisioni che a noi risulteranno incomprensibili a cui dovremmo solo adattarci. Una protocollazione totale della nostra vita, dalla nascita alla morte. Dai consigli che diventeranno precetti in ogni ambito, dalle nostre abitudini e dai nostri comportamenti all’ambito sanitario in una società terapeutica a guida algoritmica con una medicina personalizzata e predittiva con terapie geniche a mRNA.

La cattura e l’analisi dei dati in tempo reale non comporta solamente un’infrastruttura tecnologica e digitale, ma un nuovo paradigma in cui l’essere umano costantemente accompagnato dagli algoritmi perderà ogni orientamento e ogni ancoramento nel mondo.

Il nuovo potere dolce che sta prendendo forma non ha un volto di coercizione o di imposizione, ma della libera scelta, creando un contesto in cui le persone saranno costantemente avvolte da algoritmi che le guideranno nella via programmata. Incasellamenti nei nuovi dettami alimentari, sanitari, educativi e sociali pronti, da consigli, a diventare prescrizioni. La vita non verrà semplificata, verrà svuotata della sua sostanza. La normalità diventerà ciò che la perenne connessione nella rete e i dispositivi nei corpi permetteranno di fare, di trasformare, di modificare, di diventare. Il transumano. Il resto, l’umano, non solamente rimarrà indietro, ma non sarà più contemplato. Diventerà sempre più difficile per noi esseri umani ritrovarci, arrivando a cercarci dove non ci troveremo mai, nel mondo degli automi e delle macchine, se non al prezzo della perdita della nostra natura umana.

La critica a questo presente disumanizzante non può partire all’interno del suo alveolo cibernetico per lo stesso motivo per cui una fabbrica di cani robot non potrà mai convertirsi a qualcosa di pacifico. L’idea e il progetto sono militari, strumenti di guerra e di morte studiati per essere offensivi o per restare nei depositi dei laboratori, ma ben conservati per essere pronti ad ogni eventualità bellica e di controllo e repressione sociale interna.

Non può esistere un’Intelligenza Artificiale etica. Quando una parola è così tanto usata e abusata significa che ormai ha perso il suo significato. L’etica pone dei limiti, ma questi limiti sono proprio quelli che verranno continuamente superati dall’ideologia transumanista. Nei loro laboratori di ingegneria genetica e sociale non c’è spazio per l’etica.

Regolamentare uno sviluppo tecno-scientifico equivale a evidenziare un problema da risolvere con una soluzione tecnica, non significa certo fermare quello sviluppo nocivo, ma piuttosto diffonderlo e universalizzarlo. Per questo non è possibile regolamentare l’ingegneria genetica, la biologia sintetica, la riproduzione artificiale, la geoingegneria, l’Intelligenza Artificiale. La nostra critica deve essere a monte, nel respingere la riprogettazione del vivente.

Siamo circondati e schiacciati dalla convergenza di tecnocrati, falsi critici e falsi ecologisti. Si può per esempio criticare i progetti di smart city, ma senza mai nemmeno nominare le rete 5G oppure criticare la rete 5G per motivi di salute e dopo accettare le smart city come modello di esistenza, quando queste rappresentano la massima rappresentazione dello sviluppo di queste reti e, detto ancora più chiaramente, senza rete 5G non possono esistere smart city. E la rete 5G è il nodo fondamentale per l’implementazione del tecno-mondo a guida algoritmica che prepara alla rete 6G, a quel passaggio in cui sfumerà totalmente il confine tra il mondo esterno, i dispositivi digitali e i corpi che diventeranno dei nodi di un’immensa rete informatica.

L’onestà nel rivendicare la vera alternativa è in coloro che hanno il coraggio di ammettere che l’alternativa vera non esiste. Questo non significa non avere speranza, ma rendersi conto che lo spazio vitale nostro e naturale quasi nella sua interezza è stato occupato da forze manipolatorie che hanno un potere immenso, non solo nell’imporre il proprio dogma tecno-scientifico come indiscutibile, ma anche nel trasformare in menzogna la realtà materiale delle cose, menzogna che diventa la loro verità assoluta.

Dalla guerra in Ucraina con il massiccio uso di droni “kamikaze” guidati dall’Intelligenza Artificiale al laboratorio Gaza per lo sviluppo e l’addestramento di nuovi sistemi di sterminio basati sull’Intelligenza artificiale. L’implementazione dell’Intelligenza Artificiale da parte di Israele a Gaza segna un cambiamento significativo nello scenario della guerra moderna. Una “fabbrica di assassini di massa”. Palantir Technologies – fondata nel 2004, tra i fondatori Peter Thiel co-fondatore di PayPal – non è un semplice fornitore dell’apparato militare è una vera e propria piattaforma di intelligence per la guerra globale al terrorismo e per la totale sorveglianza interna. Gestisce anche il database HHS Protect che continua a raccogliere informazioni relative alla diffusione del Covid-19 con un sistema di algortimi predittivi atti a prevenire la diffusione di possibili focolai al fine di lanciare allerte e attuare misure tempestive: un nuovo sistema di biosorveglianza preventiva.

Sul campo di battaglia i militari da un lato non controllano le valutazioni e le decisioni dei sistemi di Intelligenza Artificiale per risparmiare tempo e per consentire la produzione in serie di obiettivi senza ostacoli, ma dall’altro lato non sarebbero neanche più in grado di farlo. L’operare dell’Intelligenza Artificiale avanza veloce in un universo di mere correlazioni statistiche e i suoi calcoli opachi non permettono all’essere umano di comprendere le sue decisioni. Questo modus operandis che ora vediamo diventare la normalità della guerra 4.0 sarà lo stesso in ogni ambito che sarà sottoposto agli imperativi degli algoritmi dell’Intelligenza Artificiale. Gaza rappresenta così non una singolarità storica e geopolitica, ma un possibile destino di disumanizzazione per tutti.

Per gli sviluppi delle tecno-scienze il principio di precauzione come i diritti dell’uomo o il diritto alla privacy è tanto invocato perché è diventato perfettamente inapplicabile: una formula magica per non arrestare niente. Quale società moderna potrebbe esistere rispettando i diritti dell’uomo? Quale società digitale potrebbe funzionare con una tutela della privacy? Quale tecnologia potrebbe continuare a svilupparsi rispettando un principio di precauzione?

Dietro questa caccia sempre più pervasiva alla cosiddetta disinformazione si nasconde la macchina della censura totale con una a differenza rispetto al passato: non sarà più possibile una critica, chi metterà in discussione ciò che verrà messo in campo dal sistema con la retorica del salvare l’umanità da malattie, povertà, catastrofi sarà semplicemente considerato folle.

Spesso ci si chiede cosa si lascerà alle future generazioni, ma forse la domanda da porci sarebbe a quali future generazioni ci si riferisce e soprattutto se ancora avremo non tanto memorie da lasciare, ma soprattutto memorie che siano comprese considerando che anche la scuola entra a pieno regime in un contesto di emergenza permanente-guerra-nuove pandemie all’orizzonte-nuovi sieri genici a mRNA-digitalizzazione-Intelligenza Artificiale. L’anno scorso Pfizer Italia era entrata nelle scuole con un progetto contro la disinformazione e di alfabetizzazione medico-scientifica destinato a insegnanti e studenti, dichiarando che durante la pandemia i social fossero diventati veicolo di fake news, da qui la necessità di controllarli assiduamente. Negli USA, per ora, il laboratorio mobile di scienza per studenti della Pfizer, non è un caso che in un video propagandistico del progetto si veda un cane robot della Boston Dynamics con il simbolo della multinazionale, ma che avrebbe potuto essere anche quello dei veri padroni di quel cane: il DARPA.

Noi non abbiamo ricette da prescrivere, facili soluzioni ed escamotage per scomparire dalla rete, come in tanti vendono e in tanti chiedono. Non vendiamo prodotti, non vendiamo illusioni e non vendiamo false coscienze per avere sonni tranquilli. Non abbiamo interessi da difendere e non vogliamo isole felici in cui ritenersi al sicuro dall’avanzata transumana incuranti delle macerie. Non pensiamo che ci siano delle derive e delle storture da raddrizzare. Non siamo preoccupati. Siamo in lotta. Contestiamo la totalità del mondo cibernetico e transumanista in ogni sua estensione, anche quelle non di moda nei salotti della critica. Per resistere. Per non arrendersi alla vita insensata e invivibile. Per non arrendersi all’obsolescenza programmata. Per non arrendersi alla dissoluzione. Pronti per lottare, non possiamo accontentarci di limitare i danni e di salvare il salvabile, nei tempi di oggi non è abbastanza. Si rende necessario creare momenti di resistenza che non solo possano essere bastioni di dignità umana, ma luoghi e comunità dove vivere relazioni a prova di erosione.

Opporsi all’avanzata del tecno-mondo e all’avanzata del transumano non è più rimandabile.
Restare umani significa resistere.

Silvia Guerini e Costantino Ragusa, www.resistenzealnanomondo.org

Indice del libro:

Introduzione alla presente edizione, 9

Introduzione dell’edizione con il titolo: 5G. Rete della società cibernetica, 16

1.Transumanesimo: l’ideologia del tecno-mondo, 21

2. Dalla macchina di Hollerith alla realizzazione della società cibernetica, 33

3. L’Intelligenza Artificiale e la sua etica, 39

4. 5G: la rete dell’Intelligenza Artificiale, 47

5. L’eredità mortifera della società cibernetica, 51

6. Smart city: ambienti cyborg per un’umanità cyborg, 57

7. Dalla smart city alla smart campagna, 61

8. L’accompagnamento algoritmico dell’esistenza, 69

9. Un nuovo ordine di verità, 75

10. La vita sottoposta a continua misurazione, 77

11. L’Intelligenza Artificiale delle emozioni, 79

12. Circondati dalle parole dei sistemi, 81

13. L’essere umano espropriato da sè stesso, 83

14. Addestrare bambini e ragazzi al prossimo Metaverso, 85

15. Un potere dolce, 95

16. La metamorfosi dello Stato, 99

17. Nuovo colonialismo fin nel ventre della Terra, 103

18. Dalla Guerra cibernetica alla Guerra Biologica

18.1 L’Intelligenza Artificiale va alla guerra, 107

18.2 Pianeta Terra come arma di guerra, 111

18.3 Laboratori di guerra biologica, 117

19. Perché la Transizione è verde, 121

20. Il Metaverso come il migliore dei mondi possibili, 133

21. Dall’Internet delle cose all’Internet dei corpi, 143

22. Un allarme dal mondo transumanista, 149

23. Verso il controllo totale delle nostre menti, 157

24. Quale alternativa al mondo digitale?, 161

25. Resistere alla megamacchina, 171

Biografie degli autori, 175

SCRIVICI PER RICEVERLO O ORDINALO ALLA TUA LIBRERIA DI FIDUCIA E SCRIVICI PER ORGANIZZARE PRESENTAZIONI E DISCUSSIONI

È uscito il nuovo numero del giornale L’Urlo della Terra

Pubblicato il da

È uscito il numero 13 del giornale L’Urlo della Terra

Care lettrici e cari lettori,
è uscito il nuovo numero dell’Urlo della Terra. Richiedeteci una o più copie, mandateci il vostro indirizzo e faremo partire immediatamente la spedizione. Contattateci inoltre per una diffusione del giornale più ampia e capillare nelle vostre zone: biblioteche, circoli, centri di documentazione… e per iniziative benefit.
Siamo disponibili per presentazioni e discussioni sui contenuti del giornale, in luoghi pubblici e aperti dove il pensiero libero si alimenta.
Se avete possibilità pubblicate e fate girare in blog, telegram, siti internet, canali…

Vi ricordiamo le Tre giornate contro le tecno-scienze il 18–19–20 Luglio, momento in cui diffonderemo anche questo nuovo numero del giornale:

Programma 18-19-20 Luglio

Un caro saluto e grazie a tutte e tutti voi
La redazione

In questo numero:

– Editoriale

– Dalla tecnoscienza alla nescienza – Stefano Isola

– Il Sistema Asilomar – Costantino Ragusa

– Alexandre Grothendieck – Renaud Garcia

– La resistenza radicale alle biotecnologie – Costantino Ragusa

– Frammenti di pensieri, speranza e lotta – Silvia Guerini

– John delle montagne – Silvia Guerini

– Massmedioevo. Luci d’antiche e future ere “oscure” – Dario Stefanoni

– Profanare il nanomondo secondo la lezione di Ellul e Charbonneau – Leonardo Zocca

– Rien ne va plus. Discorso sull’attuale momento del mondo – Jacques Luzi

– Ragione e sentimento nel pensiero ecologico – Jacques Luzi

– Il nostro mondo sacro: vissuto, negato e ritrovato – Paul Cudenec

– L’ideologia del tecno-mondo. Resistere alla megamacchina – Silvia Guerini e Costantino Ragusa


40 pagine
5 euro a copia, più spese di spedizione 1,30 euro
Per i distributori minimo 5 copie: 3 euro a copia, più spese di spedizione 1,30 euro

Postepay Evolution
IBAN: IT73L3608105138236370036378
Intestata a Silvia Guerini, Specificare la causale L’Urlo della Terra

Per contatti e richieste: urlodellaterra@inventati.org, www.resistenzealnanomondo.org

Programma 18-19-20 Luglio

Pubblicato il da

Programma, indicazioni per prenotare e per arrivare

Settimo incontro internazionale
18-19-20 Luglio 2025
TRE GIORNATE CONTRO LE TECNO-SCIENZE
presso Altradimora, strada Caranzano 72, Acqui Terme (AL)

VENERDI’

13.00 pranzo

15.30

Presentazione dell’incontro a cura di Costantino Ragusa – Resistenze al nanomondo – Bergamo

16.00 Interventie a seguire dibattito

Sul caos che verrà
I media francesi (europei) amano presentare le politiche di Trump come l’improvviso emergere dell’autoritarismo, dell’imperialismo e dell’oscurantismo antiscientifico negli Stati Uniti. Ma non è molto difficile dimostrare che Trump sta semplicemente portando avanti tendenze che erano già all’opera e che la crisi ecologica si sta solo aggravando. Già nel 2007 Immanuel Wallerstein osservava: “Nella società americana si stanno creando le condizioni per una profonda spaccatura, se non per una guerra civile”. Il rischio di un tale collasso interno sta portando a un’intensificazione dell’imperialismo esterno, compresa l’appropriazione violenta di minerali strategici. E a mantenere la scienza solo come strumento di potere militare.
Jacques Luzi, membro della rivista Ecologie & politique, Francia

I tanti volti del transumanesimo
L’ideologia transumanista non è sempre immediatamente riconoscibile, ha la caratteristica di essere fluida adattandosi a molteplici contesti anche in apparenza in contrasto tra loro: un transumanesimo progressista dei diritti LGBTQ+ e un transumanesimo che emerge da ambienti conservatori. Sinistra progressista e destra prometeica: due facce della medesima medaglia, varianti del medesimo sistema tecno-scientifico che avanza con Intelligenza Artificiale, biotecnologie, CRISPR/Cas 9, tecnologie a mRNA. O la nostra visione di mondo o la loro, la contrapposizione è antropologica, ontologica, metafisica. Oggi la linea va tracciata tra chi vuole restare umano e tra progressisti prometeici transumani, avendo ben in mente quei confini inviolabili e non negoziabili.
I BRICS non rappresentano un ostacolo all’attuazione pressoché ubiquitaria delle agende della megamacchina che sta guidando la colonizzazione tecnologica di ogni aspetto della vita. Eppure, nonostante le molte evidenze, tra cui gli sviluppi dell’Intelligenza Artificiale e quella che è stata la gestione della cosiddetta emergenza pandemica, questo secondo livello viene relativizzato portando avanti, di fatto, il mito della “neutralità della tecnica” anche da chi possiede strumenti di critica del presente.
Silvia Guerini – Resistenze al nanomondo

20.00 cena

SABATO

8.00 colazione

9.00 – 12.30 Interventi e a seguire dibattito

Dalla tecnoscienza alla nescienza
Le forme del dominio neoliberale si configurano non solo come controllo cibernetico e tecnocratico della realtà, ma anche, e in misura crescente, sulla sua incontrollabilità, sulla conseguente necessità di attivare sperimentalismi “generativi” atti a cavalcare la contingenza, che a loro volta inducono forme di rovesciamento anti-dualistico delle dicotomie soggetto-oggetto, realtà-pensiero, agente-mondo agito, sebbene, evidentemente, non nella direzione di un recupero di una dimensione culturale unitaria e di una nuova conciliazione tra società e natura, ma al contrario nella direzione di un’amplificazione ulteriore della volontà di potenza attraverso una crescente fluidificazione della realtà.
Stefano Isola

Pace e Guerra. La NATO difensore della pace?
Negli ultimi decenni, il ruolo della NATO è cambiato radicalmente rispetto al 1949, anno della sua fondazione. Oggi la NATO è un attore di primo piano nell’anticipare e plasmare il futuro della guerra (e non solo) attraverso una ricerca scientifica e tecnologica avanzata in stretta collaborazione con le organizzazioni di ricerca, l’industria e le università di tutti i Paesi membri e partner. La direzione della ricerca, in particolare in aree come l’“uomo aumentato”, che si estende al concetto di “natura aumentata”, riflette la sua visione. La NATO ha un ruolo decisamente diverso da quello di “saldo difensore della pace”.
Maria Heibel, curatrice del sito internet www.nogeoingegneria.com

Alexander Grothendieck, un matematico contro la “Chiesa scientista”
Alexander Grothendieck, uno dei più influenti matematici del secondo Novecento, nei primi anni Settanta interrompe la propria carriera accademica per farsi convinto oppositore delle comunità scientifica, che ritiene il principale sostegno della civiltà tecnologica e industriale e che, con la sua irresponsabilità, stava conducendo al collasso l’umanità e l’intero Pianeta.
Luigi Balsamini

13.00 pranzo

15.00 – 19.30 Interventi e a seguire dibattito

Profanare il nanomondo
La lezione di Jacques Ellul e Bernard Charbonneau – due amici critici della società industriale e precursori dell’ecologia politica
Due amici di Bordeaux, attingendo dalla tradizione religiosa francese, hanno sviluppato una riflessione basata sull’intuizione che la dimensione del sacro non si è spenta a seguito della secolarizzazione, ma si è soltanto trasferita alla tecnoscienza. La crisi della nostra società industriale potrebbe non essere causata solo dalla tecnoscienza in sé, ma anche dal trasferimento della dimensione sacra alla tecnoscienza. La soluzione potrebbe non essere un rifiuto integrale della nostra civiltà antropocentrica quanto piuttosto l’accettazione della sua eredità, per poter profanare il nanomondo, coltivare correttamente il sacro e dirigere l’evoluzione umana verso il Bene.
Leonardo Zocca

Il nostro mondo sacro: vissuto, negato e ritrovato di nuovo
La sacralità del nostro mondo vivente è sempre stata riconosciuta e celebrata nelle culture umane tradizionali, ma è stata marginalizzata nell’era moderna industriale. Perché e come è avvenuto tutto ciò? Come possiamo riportare la consapevolezza della natura divina al centro del nostro pensiero?
Paul Cudenec, www.paulcudenec.substack.com, www.winteroak.org.uk

20.00 cena

DOMENICA

8.00 colazione

9.00 – 12.30

Quali possibilità per continuare la Resistenza?
Come ogni anno in conclusione di queste tre giornate ci prenderemo del tempo per riflettere insieme sui percorsi di opposizione attualmente in atto e dove invece questi tardano a svilupparsi. Faremo queste riflessioni a partire dalle esperienze dei partecipanti andando anche verso le proposte che provino a dare concretezza alle riflessioni fatte nel corso di questo ultimo anno.
Ridiamo profondità, impegno, continuità, mettendoci in gioco in prima persona. Se non siamo disposti a questo come possiamo pensare di costruire una Resistenza?

13.00 pranzo

Il luogo dove si svolgerà l’incontro, Altradimora, (https://altradimora.eu/), strada Caranzano 72, Acqui Terme (AL), è una casa con dei posti letto e la possibilità di mettere delle tende nel prato davanti casa.
Il costo per partecipare alle tre giornate – venerdì, sabato e domenica – è 100 euro, per venerdì e sabato 80 euro, per sabato e domenica 60 euro, per domenica 20 euro.
È necessario PRENOTARE con anticipo la propria presenza per la partecipazione alle giornate. I posti letto sono limitati.
Se possibile è gradito un pagamento anticipato per aiutarci a far fronte alle spese organizzative.

Postepay Evolution
IBAN: IT73L3608105138236370036378
Intestata a Silvia Guerini Specificare la causale.

Porta sacco lenzuolo e asciugamani.
Daremo colazioni, pranzi e cene per tutte le giornate con alimenti biologici, vegani e da produttori locali. Prevista opzione senza glutine. Comunicateci eventuali intolleranze o altre necessità.

Lo spazio sarà libero da wi-fi (ad eccezione dei momenti con gli interventi da remoto) e chiederemo di spegnere i telefoni durante i dibattiti per tutelare le persone elettrosensibili (e tutte/i noi).
Per tutte le tre giornate banchetti con giornali, libri e materiale informativo. Porta il tuo materiale.

Aiutaci ad organizzare l’incontro al meglio, diffondendo il più possibile il programma, promuovendolo con interviste e presentazioni.


Come arrivare:
In auto: Da Genova con l’autostrada per Alessandria si esce a Ovada, si procede verso Acqui Terme e poi si prende per Rivalta Bormida. Passati i paesi di Trisobbio e Rivalta Bormida al bivio per Cassine si prosegue per due chilometri e poi si trova l’indicazione per Caranzano. Da Milano si esce ad Alessandria sud e si seguono le indicazioni per Acqui e Cassine, dopo Cassine c’è il bivio per Caranzano. Da Torino stessa strada.
In treno: Treno per Acqui Terme, vi veniamo a prendere alla stazione, si prega di contattarci sulla email per accordarci con largo anticipo e di arrivare, se possibile, non durante gli orari degli interventi.

Organizza: Resistenze al nanomondo

Per informazioni, prenotazioni e contatti:
www.resistenzealnanomondo.org, info@resistenzealnanomondo.org
www.facebook.com/3giornatecontroletecnoscienze/

The Asilomar system – Costantino Ragusa

Pubblicato il da

The Asilomar system
The precautionary method according to science: highlight the limit in order to exceed it immediately afterwards

Almost fifty years have passed since the first and undoubtedly most famous Asilomar conference in California. It was 1975, less than forty years after the scientific atrocities committed by the Nazis, but also by the Bolsheviks, the Japanese and the Americans, the latter subsequently snatching up the worst and therefore the best scientists to transfer them to their homeland to continue their research using new methods. The purpose of the famous conference was to organise a scientific meeting, the first of its kind, to assess ways of minimising the potential biological risks arising from new genetic engineering techniques, particularly recombinant DNA. The focus was mainly on the personnel directly involved in the experiments, but later shifted to the outside world: what would happen if the fruits of genetic engineering were to leave the laboratory?

It was at this meeting that possible solutions were proposed, adopting new laboratory safety mechanisms that also included physical containment elements with a biosafety level (BSL) design that provided for biological containment through the use of ‘unarmed’ host strains. Ultimately, these solutions led to the adoption of new federal guidelines for laboratories conducting research with recombinant DNA.

The meeting ended a previous voluntary moratorium proposed by a committee of the National Academies of Sciences that restricted certain types of experiments, thus acting as a buffer between scientific research considered acceptable and research considered more controversial due to its unexpected results for some and perhaps all too clear for others.

Today, Asilomar is often remembered and invoked as a virtuous example in the scientific field for careful risk assessment before implementing new technology, as an important reference point for contemporary discussion on scientific self-regulation and what it means to conduct research in a socially responsible manner. It was a kind of original precautionary method established by the researchers themselves, who would always and in any case have taken into account the consequences of their research, also endorsing that of other researchers in a kind of mutual support within the laboratory. While Asilomar focused on biotechnology, we must not forget other fields such as nuclear physics, which began the actual production of bombs after the war ended at the dismantled Los Alamos facility, or chemistry, which, once its use on the battlefields of the Second World War had been exhausted, began a new era by silencing the countryside of all forms of life, as Rachel Carson told us in Silent Spring.

Criticism of the Asilomar meeting, when it did arise, focused on details or obvious points, such as the discovery that even in the field of scientific research there were specific elites and corporations that imposed their will above all else, disregarding any public debate, as if there had ever been principles and neutrality on the part of the ruling power, particularly the military. When had scientific research ever felt the need for public debate? For scientists, this meant having to deal with people who knew nothing about science and, above all, with those who were not funding their projects. This ‘debate’ only took place when they were forced to do so by particular public attention or when a laboratory product became a collective disaster, placing the scientific consequences on a collective form of responsibility that meant nothing more than socialising and offloading the harmful consequences of the disaster they themselves had caused.

The Asilomar conference, even if the images of the time show us scientists with long hair and bell-bottoms, children of ‘68 and the great changes underway, was nothing more than a moment of discussion, but certainly not public, rather for those involved in the most controversial sectors, particularly biotechnology, on how to move forward, deciding on rules and making themselves the arbiters of compliance with or eventual overcoming of those rules.

Post-war atomic energy had invented ‘atoms for peace’ despite denials of nuclear proliferation by most of the states that were preparing for the worst ‘for the greater good’, not to mention the eternal legacy of waste and serious accidents in plants and, of course, the production of increasingly deadly weapons. With recombinant biotechnologies, it was still difficult to create a narrative to justify the ugliness of their laboratories, largely at the expense of poor people and other animals and all those non-persons in the colonies of the countries of the Global South. The experimental fields that were opening up were becoming increasingly impressive for some, while for others they were nothing more than challenges that science could not give up.

That is why, even at that time, researchers began to talk about safety, transparency, responsibility, control and risk management, all rhetoric that has continued to the present day, becoming inseparable from techno-sciences and embracing every other controversial field such as nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.

The Asilomar meeting was much talked about, becoming a kind of international icon, especially in the years that followed, as a fundamental moment in which science questioned its own direction, considering the great possibilities and therefore the risks that were opening up with the development of genetic engineering technologies. There was talk of small moratoriums for reflection and the creation of guidelines: the laboratory questioned itself and the laboratory operators responded with solutions, never binding, but on a voluntary basis, because scientists would in any case distinguish between what was good and what was bad in their work. All this was aimed at achieving self-regulation by scientists themselves, which would then set a precedent in the years to follow.

That Asilomar was not just any meeting, but that it was intended to mark the beginning of a new method, was demonstrated by the promptness with which the US government intervened after the conference to initiate regulation entrusted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an organisation composed of other scientists, the only ones who would understand the researchers’ perspectives. This new ‘regulation’ between scientists and the increasingly advanced new genetic engineering laboratories that were emerging at the time was possible because, as is always the case when science questions itself, only technical aspects were debated, without ever questioning the very meaning of their work and their research, because that would have meant closing those laboratories and stopping genetic engineering.

At Asilomar, scientists sent out an international message: there were no fundamental ethical and philosophical questions about what genetic manipulation of living organisms had meant up to that point and what it would mean in the near future. Behind the reassuring words of the guidelines, the foundations were laid for a system in which only scientists themselves would monitor their own work, setting limits, where necessary, on a purely voluntary basis, in what would become the new ethics of techno-science and transhumanism.

Why assemble DNA from different organisms? Why intervene in the germ line of a living being? Such issues could not be addressed by those who were trying to make biotechnology safe, to protect it from external influences and to ensure its future development. These may seem like contradictions on the part of the scientists of the time, but this was not the case, because by being the first to denounce the imminent threat, which was clearly already underway, they took responsibility and became champions of the present and, above all, future threats, while at the same time confirming all that cutting-edge research. In that challenge, as transhumanists call this research, their glory and recognition were at stake: to be the creators of such technologies, but also the only ones capable of governing and directing them, making them inevitable for the world1.

In the years since the Asilomar meeting, no barriers have been placed on the advance of genetic engineering. On the contrary, over time it has occupied every possible field, even engineering food and thus plants and other animals reduced to zootechnical guinea pigs. The latter, as we have seen over time, have proved to be an excellent model for new biotechnologists who, within ‘experimental farms’, have been able to think and act undisturbed towards the realisation of a human zootechnical existence. The enormous possibilities offered by eugenics policies and Nazi and military experiments in various countries had lasted too short a time. It was necessary to divide the fields and start talking about the salvation of humanity in order to continue, ensuring the containment of transgenic chimeras, which was obviously never maintained, contrary to the ever-stronger commitment to the development of genetic engineering in every field. Thus, in 2015, at an important meeting on CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we find two leading figures from the Asilomar conference: Paul Berg and Davide Baltimore, the former the creator of recombinant DNA technology and the latter the discoverer of reverse transcriptase, which uses RNA to create DNA. They were joined by another celebrity from the scientific world, Jennifer Doudna, co-inventor of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology itself.

The topics of the international meeting covered somatic gene therapy, in vitro research and germline genome editing, demonstrating how many barriers had been erected over the years and then quickly overcome thanks to self-regulation among scientists. In fact, once again, CRISPR/Cas9 genetic engineering technology was promoted as a fundamental tool for in vitro research on humans and, of course, for tackling the usual rare genetic diseases. The barrier that was put in place in this case related to germline research, knowing full well that they and they alone were the supreme guardians of the experimental field and that when the situation allowed, they would move forward with a method that had been tested for decades. Since the first Asilomar meeting in the 1970s, researchers had not limited themselves to mere promises, and in fact, at the first International Summit on the Human Genome in 2015, the conclusions were even clearer than usual, stating that ethical guidelines (albeit imaginary) needed to be continually reviewed in light of the rapid pace of progress. To what end? What urgency or emergency was at stake? We would find out in the following years, but the immediacy of the discourse created the conditions for the removal of any barriers, however useless they had always been in reality, to the point that the inevitable Baltimore declared that it was even inadmissible to place limits on techno-sciences based on ethical considerations. The latter could no longer be considered the yardstick or the means to stop the assault on life with biotechnology. They never had been, but a new paradigm was emerging, still in the making, which as early as 2017 was seeking to take shape in global regulation of genetic editing, starting, as always, with rare cases. If the Asilomar clan, in the guise of Baltimore, neutralised ethics immediately afterwards, it then devised a techno-scientific basis for it, which not only was self-regulating but, with its own new propaganda and new ideologies fresh from the inclusive academies of sociology, pushed for the creation of a new universe of biotechnological meaning guided by technocrats, not so much to make science credible. In the forge of technocracy, with a furnace fuelled by the stakes of the former ethics, the fabrication of the new social science fits perfectly with the other engineering, this time of all bodies.

One of the best heirs of the Asilomar clan is the scientist Jennifer Doudna, who has also mastered the art of propaganda, making statements of repentance and relaunching her field of research, but underneath there is always something that drives her to pick up the scissors and devote herself to genetic decoupage. In fact, in 2018, together with the inevitable Baltimore, she will be on the organising committee of the second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, where the birth of the first two genetically edited babies will be publicly announced. After initial criticism of the Chinese scientist, who was apparently conducting research not supported by the rest of the international scientific community, the tone shifted to a reaffirmation that such research must be conducted responsibly. Criticism was levelled at the experiment and the way in which the results were communicated, even though some of those responsible for the ongoing research were involved, but nothing concerning the direction of the research itself and therefore genetic editing on human beings. Once again, self-regulation by scientists worked, enriched by unprecedented and accurate international information.

Obviously, the never outdated instrument of a moratorium was subsequently proposed again, by scientists such as Berg, Baltimore and Doudna, who made fundamental contributions to reaching this situation, with the precise strategy of highlighting the limits in order to do everything possible to overcome them immediately afterwards, while ensuring the greatest possible consensus or social acceptance2.

After the birth of the edited babies in China, at the third International Summit on Human Genome Editing, news broke of a new experiment: the birth of a pair of male mice using in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), a technique whereby embryos are developed by reprogramming cells extracted from two adults of the same sex. The research was carried out at Osaka University, following on from a previous study in 2018, which had led to the development of offspring from pairs of female mice. Here are the results of their ‘precautions’ and, as they wrote in the guidelines, all research is justified if one of the motivations is non-discrimination. In genomics publications, the results of this research are already being promoted as potentially useful for LGBTQ+ pregnancies, once again highlighting the alibi used, cloaked in progressivism, to break down the last barriers3.

In times of techno-scientific convergence, if the Asilomar meeting was considered so important for biotechnology, especially for the benefits to biotechnologists themselves, techno-scientists have also sounded a controlled alarm for artificial intelligence and called for caution, referring to the ‘Asilomar Principles’ with the inevitable proposal for a very short moratorium with appeals signed by transhumanists ready to dose terrifying alarms and reasonable rules4.

Fifty years after the first meeting in Asilomar, the meeting ‘The Spirit of Asilomar and the Future of Biotechnology’ was held in the same place from 23 to 26 February this year. Once again, the topics of discussion were the threats of biotechnology, with the obvious updates to current research, focusing on so-called artificial life, artificial intelligence and the creation of synthetic cells.

Since the first meeting, we have seen many chimeras created between species with different DNA, not all of which have remained confined to laboratories, and what was once recombinant technology has been surpassed, or at least perfected, for an infinite number of recombinations for industrial and, of course, military purposes.

While the first meeting focused on genetics and was dominated by biologists from a small sector, this one had a much broader programme and an audience that included scientists from many disciplines, as well as environmentalists, bioethicists, lawyers, former government officials, national security experts, journalists and a dance company. Participants were given notebooks made from apple peel and badges with their names engraved in wood.

Once again, meetings such as this, and especially ones of this magnitude, attempt to draw boundaries and limits. They delimit areas of research and propose restrictions, in this case unanimously, on issues such as biological weapons and ‘mirror life’ created by the new possibilities of synthetic biology, which can create mirror versions of certain natural molecules by introducing ‘mirror’ bacteria unknown to nature into the environment, with unpredictable consequences for the body and the planet.

The CRISPR issue remained only in the choreography of the small show organised for guests around the fire, and other fundamental issues, such as artificial intelligence, dangerous pathogens, synthetic cells and genetically modified bacteria, did not find common ground. Fences are being drawn on issues that have long since become concrete and are no longer just theoretical questions. Suffice it to recall the extensive research into gain-of-function in biolaboratories – including in Italy with various projects to increase5 – where work is being done to engineer viruses and bacteria into unknown forms and to develop recombinant DNA and mRNA genetic engineering techniques for new, possibly more harmful mutant versions that are, to all intents and purposes, new biological weapons. We have GMOs that were first approved at European level for biotechnological serums for the so-called pandemic and then, as we know, imposed everywhere. Then there are the new GMOs obtained with new genomic technologies (NGTs), which are treated at European level as traditional plants, renamed TEA (Assisted Evolution Techniques) in Italy, and tested in open fields – and therefore disseminated – by virtuous public research centres6. Then there is military research, which is not, as one might imagine, confined to secret laboratories, but is carried out in respectable public universities and simply finances whatever it finds most interesting, wherever it may be, directing the results of entire sectors, and we do not have crowds of scientists protesting about this or fleeing.

The new Asilomar meeting is like a gathering of physicists who have come together to denounce the dangers of atomic research and the proliferation of nuclear weapons because of their compatibility with civilian use. This is so obvious, one would think, that physicists are careful not to say anything. The new techno-scientists have realised that they must defend themselves as a whole category: techno-science. From here, there is a continuous succession of alarms and remedial solutions, such as denouncing the gain in function in order to then build super laboratories, such as the one in Trieste, which is not even accountable to Italy for what it does. For decades, they have seen that the system of self-regulation by scientists themselves works perfectly, a real technical system that responds not only to money. Since the distant 1975 of the first Asilomar, things have changed, and the biotech empire launched by Gentech and Biogen has been well established for some time. Now there is not only the takeover of life, but its complete management.

At the recent meeting in California, their investigation into the possibilities offered by the enormous developments in artificial intelligence and biotechnology may be limited to partial aspects, such as drugs or some innovative treatments that are yet to be tested, but once again they will never get to the heart of the matter: the social issue of laying the foundations for the creation of a patient who is medically treated from birth with predictive medicine based on genetics and algorithms, and the issue of genetic modification of living beings. Artificial reproduction as the best way to come into the world and euthanasia increasingly available as the best way to leave it. Biotechnology in the fields and in the bodies of everyone, not just those who can afford it, as some naive militants still clinging to dusty theories maintain, but for everyone.

Change is wanted to be clear and radical, certainly slow, inconsistent and full of contradictions, but unfortunately not due to a lack of collaboration, but rather to getting caught up in its own bureaucracy: machines ready before anyone is able to operate them, or vice versa, people trained for non-existent technological infrastructures. In a context of almost total anaesthesia and emotional paralysis between emergencies that call for other emergencies, in a continuous leap into the abyss between wars, pandemics and climate catastrophes, in this destruction of bodies and meaning, it still makes sense for us to recall the human element with its potential to produce radical critical thinking that does not see in the various controlled alarm bells, as the Asilomar demonstrate, the friendly shore where we can dock. In those GMO reeds lie the worst pitfalls of lies, manipulation and the recovery of every genuine form of resistance to this biocidal and ecocidal world: the killer of a free and healthy life and of our home, which, as ecology teaches us, is our planet.

If GMOs are spreading in Italy through those virtuous universities and public research centres that should have put a stop to the predatory economy of the agrochemical multinationals that were once American, it means not so much that things have changed, but simply that it was not understood that there was an underlying sharing of the same techno-world paradigm, albeit with different means. So, after the new Asilomar and the sowing of new GMOs in the field, the only words from researchers that can still give us hope are those spoken after the umpteenth sabotage of a GMO-TEA crop in the open field, in this case vines. A researcher questioned about the incident declared that several years of laboratory research on GMOs-TEA had been ruined: this was a real natural disaster, a true precautionary method that showed that it is still possible to defend oneself.

Costantino Ragusa, April 2025, www.resistenzealnanomondo.org

1 Silvia Guerini, Costantino Ragusa, The ideology of the techno-world. Resisting the megamachine, Acro-polis, 2024.

2 Silvia Guerini, Costantino Ragusa (Eds.), AA.VV., The children of the machine. Biotechnology, artificial reproduction and eugenics, Asterios, 2023.

3 Silvia Guerini, Costantino Ragusa, op. cit.; Silvia Guerini, From the neutral body to the posthuman cyborg. Critical reflections on gender ideology, Asterios, 2022.

4 Resistenze al nanomondo, I transumanisti lanciano l’allarme sui rischi dell’intelligenza artificiale: nuove regole da sostituire alle vecchie per far si che continui a non cambiare nulla, 13 April 2023, https: //www.resistenzealnanomondo. org/necrotecnologie/i-transumanisti-lanciano-lallarme-sui-rischi-dellintelligenza-artificiale-nuove-regole-da-sostituire-alle-vecchie-per-far-si-che-continui-a-non-cambiare-nulla/

5 Costantino Ragusa, Il biolaboratorio mondo (The world biolaboratory), in L’Urlo della Terra, no. 11, July 2023, https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/il-biolaboratorio-mondo-costantino-ragusa/

6 Costantino Ragusa, OGM – TEA: The attack on life continues, in L’Urlo della Terra, no. 12, July 2024, https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/ogm-tea-lattacco-al-vivente-continua/; Costantino Ragusa, The new GLOBAL GENETIC ORDER also passes through the earth. The ‘new’ GMOs are coming, in L’Urlo della Terra, no. 10, July 2020, https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/il-nuovo-ordine-genetico-mondiale-passa-anche-dalla-terra-in-arrivo-i-nuovi-ogm/

L’ideologia del tecno-mondo, un libro su come resistere alla società cibernetica della megamacchina transumanista – Maurizio Martucci

Pubblicato il da

Leggi qui: https://oasisana.com/2025/03/04/lideologia-del-tecno-mondo-un-libro-su-come-resistere-alla-societa-cibernetica-della-megamacchina-transumanista/

Silvia Guerini: Verità, realtà, tradizione e libertà: la nostra resistenza al grande sradicamento di Paul Cudenec

Pubblicato il da

Paul Cudenec in Winter Oak

Leggi qui: https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/07/22/truth-reality-tradition-and-freedom-our-resistance-to-the-great-uprooting/

Truth, reality, tradition and freedom: our resistance to the great uprooting

Posted on  by winter oak

“Se non c’è realtà e se non c’è verità, non può esserci nemmeno libertà”.

Silvia Guerini è una potente critica contemporanea del sistema tecno-scientifico e della minaccia multiforme rappresentata dalla sua agenda globale.

Ha un background nell’ecologia radicale e invoca una nuova resistenza del XXI secolo che vada oltre le “categorie stantie e polverose” della “destra” e della “sinistra”. [1]

La posta in gioco oggi, afferma, è il futuro stesso dell’umanità, con uno scontro storico tra “due visioni opposte del mondo, della vita, della natura, degli esseri umani”. [2]

“Non ci sono più scuse. Non possiamo più aspettare chi non vuole capire, chi persegue progetti marginali, chi non ha una critica totale e netta di ogni aspetto e di ogni elemento fondamentale del progetto transumanista“. [3]

”Dobbiamo trovare una sponda sicura: quella linea di resistenza per chi è determinato a rimanere ancorato alla realtà, in difesa dell’umanità e in difesa di tutto ciò che è vivo”. [4]

“Formiamo alleanze per respingere l’avanguardia transumanista”. [5]

Una di queste alleanze è emersa quando due gruppi in cui Guerini è coinvolto in Italia – Resistenze al nanomondo [6] e FINAARGIT (Rete internazionale femminista contro tutte le riproduzioni artificiali, l’ideologia di genere e il transumanesimo) [7] – hanno protestato davanti alla Fiera del Bambino di Milano nel 2023. [8]

La loro azione è stata sostenuta da femministe di Genova e Milano, da una rete cattolica che raccoglie sostegno da varie città italiane e da gruppi che si oppongono al “Green Pass” (passaporto vaccinale) e ai sieri genici a mRNA.

Guerini ha avvertito che la crescita dell’industria della riproduzione artificiale rischia di portare a quello che lei definisce “un mondo senza madri”.

In un articolo pubblicato nel 2022 sulla rivista francese Ecologie & Politique, ha spiegato che gli eugenetisti dietro i bambini in provetta e la maternità surrogata hanno ora messo gli occhi sull’ingegneria genetica e sugli uteri artificiali, che escluderebbero le donne dal processo riproduttivo. [9]

Sebbene l’attuale giustificazione di questa tecnologia fosse di natura medica, ovvero aiutare le persone che non potevano avere figli in modo naturale, l’obiettivo a lungo termine dell’industria era senza dubbio quello di rendere la riproduzione artificiale la norma e trasformare i bambini in ulteriori “prodotti” industriali.

Guerini ha scritto: “L’uso del proprio corpo sarebbe considerato un segno di inferiorità sociale e povertà.

Una madre naturale sarebbe considerata potenzialmente irresponsabile, come le madri che attualmente optano per il parto in casa, rifiutando l’ospedalizzazione e la medicalizzazione del processo… Il parto naturale sarebbe prima considerato irresponsabile, poi criminale”.

Alla fine, gli uteri artificiali sarebbero stati richiesti, o meglio commercializzati, come un “diritto” per tutti, comprese le persone ‘transgender’, aveva previsto.

Infatti, aveva osservato che “gli interessi e le richieste del movimento LGBTQ+ e del transfemminismo in materia di riproduzione convergono con quelli del sistema tecno-scientifico e transumanista”.

Ciò che era in gioco, ha spiegato nel suo libro del 2023 From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology, era «una nuova identità sintetica, una dissociazione dal proprio corpo sessuato e la rivendicazione di nuovi diritti concessi da una sinistra progressista, arcobaleno e transgenica insieme alle organizzazioni LGBTQ+ e all’apparato farmaceutico e bionanotecnologico». [10]

«Questo non è un movimento di base, è un progetto d’élite, si stanno investendo molti soldi per promuovere una condizione corporea dissociativa che ci slega dai nostri corpi sessuati.

«La causa LGBTQ+ è ora in cima all’agenda dei potenti, e i suoi sostenitori sono ai vertici dei media, del mondo accademico e soprattutto delle grandi imprese, della grande filantropia e della grande tecnologia».

Guerini ha scritto in Dal corpo “neutro” al cyborg postmoderno: “L’industria trans, con tutto il suo splendore, sta ora attaccando ragazze, ragazzi e adolescenti.

”La pressione esercitata attraverso i social media, la stampa e la televisione e in ogni ambito culturale, specialmente in una cultura progressista, sta diventando sempre più forte”.

Un ulteriore elemento preoccupante è stata la parallela sessualizzazione dei bambini, approvata ufficialmente, che “servirà anche a sdoganare la pedofilia come nuovo ‘orientamento sessuale’”.

Guerini ha contestato il modo in cui la fluidità e la decostruzione del significato ci vengono oggi presentate come ‘progressiste’.

Ha osservato: “La fluidità è l’antitesi della densità, di ciò che persiste, che non cambia, che resiste e fornisce un punto d’appoggio sulla terra.

“L’essere umano, concepito come un fluido qualsiasi, sarà in grado di assumere qualsiasi forma desideri”.

“Nessuna ragazza e nessun ragazzo nasce nel corpo sbagliato… Noi non abbiamo un corpo, noi siamo il nostro corpo e molte delle nostre esperienze hanno origine proprio da quel corpo”.

Quello a cui stavamo assistendo, ha detto, era un attacco alla vita, alla natura, a «ciò che nasce, in contrapposizione a ciò che è artificiale».

«Tutti i legami con il mondo reale, naturale, devono essere recisi. Tutto deve essere artificiale, sintetico e virtuale».

E, ha avvertito, il prezzo della cosiddetta «emancipazione» dal mondo vivente e dai suoi vincoli naturali era «la sottomissione ai vincoli tecnologici del mondo delle macchine».

L’ideologia transumanista, incarnata nei progetti e negli obiettivi della Silicon Valley, dei principali centri di ricerca, di varie fondazioni e gruppi internazionali, cercava di eliminare i processi vitali e i corpi.

L’obiettivo finale era quello di «trasformare l’essere umano e tutto ciò che è vivo in un mondo artificiale, cibernetico e ingegnerizzato», che sarebbe poi stato dichiarato l’unico mondo possibile e immaginabile.

Ciò comporterebbe, come ha scritto Guerini altrove, la completa eradicazione del nostro senso di identità, «lo strappo e la sottomissione dello spirito più profondo dell’essere umano» e, in ultima analisi, la cancellazione del «senso stesso dell’umanità». [11]

«È in atto una demolizione totale delle precedenti forme di esistenza: il modo in cui si viene al mondo, il sesso biologico, l’educazione, le relazioni, la famiglia, persino l’alimentazione, che sta per diventare sintetica.

«Non deve esserci spazio per ciò che sarà considerato obsoleto e un ostacolo agli imperativi del sistema tecno-scientifico». [12]

Con i bambini assediati dalla propaganda, i libri riscritti per allinearsi all’agenda globale e i contenuti banalizzati, la capacità di pensare delle generazioni future veniva deliberatamente ostacolata, ha sottolineato.

«Meno parole, parole meno difficili, frasi e espressioni meno numerose e più povere, senso e significato meno ricchi ma più orientati ideologicamente, minore varietà narrativa e narrazioni sempre più povere sul mondo. Tutto è addolcito e abbellito».

Questo targeting dei bambini, in particolare quando sono a scuola e al di fuori della protezione delle loro famiglie, equivale a un programma deliberato di ingegneria sociale.

“Non c’è bisogno di bruciare i libri, basta riscriverli. È un attacco alla capacità di sviluppare il pensiero critico e quindi alla possibilità stessa di sviluppare una coscienza critica; un attacco che inizia a plasmare ragazze e ragazzi fin dalla tenera età, costruendo individui vuoti, superficiali, privi di profondità, sterili, neutri, fluidi, per una servitù volontaria necessaria al progetto transumano e postumano”.

«Le nuove generazioni sono il banco di prova del nuovo ordine mondiale, ecco perché è così importante strappare i bambini alle famiglie, consegnarli a tecnici in camice bianco che li plasmeranno secondo i nuovi dettami transumani». [13]

In una conferenza del dicembre 2023 dal titolo “La verità nella scienza” tenuta per la Scuola Monastica Sinclètica, [14] Guerini ha sottolineato l’inimmaginabile gravità e portata della separazione che ci viene preparata.

“Ci stiamo muovendo verso una completa dissociazione da noi stessi, dalla procreazione, dalla vita, dalla morte, dalla realtà, dalla verità”.

«Oggi tutto ciò che apparteneva al passato deve essere considerato obsoleto, un errore, qualcosa da superare continuamente, in un superamento che non avrà mai fine.

Il passato diventa qualcosa da cancellare per spezzare il filo che ci lega a una storia, a una tradizione, a un’appartenenza, per la transizione verso una nuova umanità sradicata, senza passato, senza memoria, senza un presente e un futuro che possano reggersi proprio sul passato, una nuova umanità disumanizzata nella sua essenza, totalmente nelle mani dei manipolatori della realtà e della verità». [15]

Come ha scritto, la rimozione delle identità culturali e la perdita dei rituali e delle tradizioni «significa rendere un popolo vuoto e fragile», bersaglio perfetto per la manipolazione da parte dei «plastificatori dell’uomo» che hanno privato le loro vite di ogni significato reale. [16]

Riferendosi all’opera di Ernst Jünger, ha scritto: «L’essere umano, ridotto a uno spettro, non può che vagare tra le rovine, le macerie e i deserti». [17]

Per Guerini, di fronte a questo grande sradicamento dal terreno sano e naturale della vita «selvaggia e libera», [18] abbiamo urgente bisogno di riaffermare la realtà e la verità: «Se non c’è realtà e se non c’è verità, non può esserci nemmeno la libertà». [19]

L’impulso alla verità è una condizione necessaria per la coesione all’interno di una comunità, secondo lei.

«La verità è il fondamento esistenziale dell’uomo, la sua disintegrazione va di pari passo con la disintegrazione della società e di qualsiasi comunità». [20]

Per contrastare questa disintegrazione e la conseguente «desacralizzazione dell’esistenza», [21] dovremmo ricordare che esiste «una Verità che viene da altrove, che possiamo cogliere, sentire, che è lì, che viene da lontano, che viene tramandata: è la Verità della Tradizione e dello Spirito». [22]

«Dobbiamo tornare a scandire il ritmo della nostra vita con i rituali, con il ciclo delle stagioni, con il culto dei morti, con il recupero delle tradizioni». [23]

«Ogni comunità ha una dimensione corporea e una dimensione spirituale e tesse un legame corporeo e spirituale con il luogo in cui vive. Attraverso i rituali, la comunità riconosce se stessa e il proprio posto nel mondo al di là del momento contingente.

“I riti contribuiscono a radicare e a far durare un’esistenza singola in un tempo, in un territorio, in una comunità. Creano lo spirito di una comunità radicata.

“Creano un legame al di là della contingenza, un riconoscimento di ciò che rimane al di là del nostro tempo. Creano un ritmo comune in relazione alle cose, al tempo, al mondo naturale, agli altri esseri viventi, permettono una risonanza”. [24]

In tutto il suo lavoro, Guerini non rifugge mai dalla gravità della situazione che l’umanità sta affrontando né dalla difficoltà di superare la minaccia.

Ma allo stesso tempo insiste sulla necessità vitale di mettere da parte le nostre paure e impegnarci nella grande battaglia [25] per il futuro.

«La tempesta sta arrivando, che gli spiriti liberi si alzino per combattere senza aspettative, senza calcoli, senza giustificazioni». [26]

«Dobbiamo essere disposti a combattere anche una battaglia persa per mantenere il senso dell’umanità libero dal mondo delle macchine, per trasmettere a chi verrà dopo di noi un altro senso della vita.

«Sotto le macerie arderanno fuochi che, proprio come stiamo già facendo noi, manterranno acceso il sentiero della resistenza». [27]

[Versione audio]

Link al video: Silvia Guerini, «Verso l’abolizione della maternità surrogata». (3 min)

Versione originale:

“If there is no reality and if there is no truth, there can be no freedom either”

Silvia Guerini is a powerful contemporary critic of the techno-scientific system and the multi-pronged threat of its global agenda.

She has a background in radical ecology and calls for a new 21st century resistance that goes beyond the “stale and dusty categories” of “right” and “left”. [1]

What is at stake today, she says, is the very future of humanity, with a historic clash taking place between “two opposing visions of the world, of the living, of nature, of human beings”. [2]

“There are no more excuses. We can no longer wait for those who do not want to understand, those who pursue marginal projects, those who do not have a total and clear-cut critique of every aspect and every fundamental element in the transhumanist project”. [3]

“We need to find a firm shore: that line of resistance for those of us who are determined to remain anchored to reality, in defence of humanity and in defence of all that is living”. [4]

“Let’s form alliances to repel the transhumanist vanguard”. [5]

One such alliance was in evidence when two groups in which Guerini is involved in Italy – Resistenze al nanomondo [6] and FINAARGIT (International Feminist Network Against All Artificial Reproduction, Gender Ideology and Transhumanism) [7] – protested outside the Milan Baby Fair in 2023. [8]

Their action was supported by feminists from Genoa and Milan, by a Catholic network drawing support from various cities in Italy and groups who opposed the “Green Pass” (vaccine passport) and mRNA gene sera.

Guerini has warned that the growth of the artificial reproduction industry threatens to lead to what she calls “a world without mothers”.

In an article for the French journal Ecologie & Politique in 2022, she explained that the eugenicists behind test-tube babies and surrogate motherhood now had their sights on genetic engineering and artificial wombs which would cut women out of the reproductive process. [9]

While the current justification for the technology was on medical grounds, helping people who could not have babies naturally, the long-term goal for the industry was no doubt to make artificial reproduction the norm and turn babies into yet more industrial “products”.

Guerini wrote: “The use of your own body would be considered a sign of social inferiority and poverty.

“A natural mother would be considered potentially irresponsible, like mothers who currently opt for home birth, refusing the hospitalisation and medicalisation of the process… Natural childbirth would first be treated as irresponsible, then criminal”.

Artificial wombs would eventually be demanded, or rather marketed, as a “right” for everyone, including “transgender” people, she predicted.

Indeed, she noted that “the interests and the demands of the LGBTQ+ movement and of transfeminism on the subject of reproduction converge with those of the techno-scientific and transhumanist system”.

What was involved, she set out in her 2023 book From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology, was “a new synthetic identity, a dissociation from one’s sexed body and a claim to new rights bestowed by a progressive, rainbow and transgenic left together with LGBTQ+ organisations and the pharmaceutical and bionanotechnological apparatus”. [10]

“This is not a grassroots movement, it is an elite project, a lot of money is being invested to promote a dissociative body condition that unties us from our sexed bodies.

“The LGBTQ+ cause is now high on the agenda of the powerful, and its advocates are at the top of the media, in academia, and especially in Big Business, Big Philanthropy, and Big Tech”.

Guerini wrote in From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg: “The glittery trans industry is now attacking girls, boys and adolescents.

“The pressure exerted through social media, print and television and in every cultural sphere, especially in a progressive culture, is becoming stronger and stronger”.

A further worrying element was the parallel officially-approved sexualisation of children which “will also serve to clear paedophilia as a new ‘sexual orientation’”.

Guerini took issue with the way that fluidity and deconstruction of meaning were today being presented to us as “progressive”.

She observed: “Fluidity is the antithesis of density, of that which persists, which does not change, which endures and provides a foothold in the earth.

“The human being, conceived like any fluid, is supposed to be able to take on any form someone may want it to take”.

“No girl and no boy is born in the wrong body… We do not have a body, we are our body and many of our experiences originate from that very body”.

What we were witnessing, she said, was an attack on life, on nature, on “what is born, as opposed to artificial”.

“All ties to the real, natural world must be severed. Everything must be artificial, synthetic and virtual”.

And, she warned, the price for so-called “emancipation” from the living and its natural constraints was “submission to the technological constraints of the machine world”.

Transhumanist ideology, embodied in the projects and aims of Silicon Valley, major research hubs, various foundations and international groups, sought to dispose of living processes and bodies.

The end goal was to “transform the human being and everything living into the artificial, cybernetic and engineered world” which would then be declared to be the only possible and imaginable world.

This would involve, Guerini has written elsewhere, the complete eradication of our sense of identity, “the tearing and subjugation of the deepest spirit of the human being”, and ultimately the cancellation of the “very sense of humanity”. [11]

“A total demolition of the previous forms of existence is underway: how one comes into the world, biological sex, education, relationships, the family, even the diet that is about to become synthetic.

“There must be no room for what will be deemed obsolete and a hindrance to the imperatives of the techno-scientific system”. [12]

With children besieged with propaganda, books re-written to align with the global agenda and the content dumbed down, future generations’ ability to think was being deliberately stunted, she pointed out.

“Fewer words, less difficult words, fewer and poorer sentences and phrases, less but more ideologically oriented sense and meaning, less narrative variety, and poorer and poorer narratives about the world. Everything is sweetened and glittered”.

This targeting of children, notably when they were at school and beyond the protection of their families, amounted to a deliberate programme of social engineering.

“There is no need to burn books, just rewrite them. It is an attack on the capacity to develop critical thinking and thus on the very possibility of developing critical awareness; an attack that begins to mould girls and boys from an early age, building empty, superficial, depthless, sterile, neutral, fluid individuals, for a voluntary servitude necessary for the transhuman and posthuman project”.

“New generations are the testing ground for the new world order, which is why it is so central to tear children away from families, to hand them over to technicians in white coats who will mould them according to the new transhuman dictates”. [13]

In a December 2023 ‘Truth in Science’ lecture for the Sinclètica Monastic School, [14] Guerini stressed the unimaginable severity and scope of the separation being planned for us.

“We are moving towards a complete dissociation from ourselves, from procreation, from life, from death, from reality, from truth”.

“Today, everything that belonged to the past must be regarded as obsolete, as an error, as something continually to be overcome, in an overcoming that will never end.

“The past becomes something to be erased in order to break the thread that binds us to a history, to a tradition, to a belonging, for the transition towards a new uprooted humanity, without past, without memory, without a present and a future that can be held up precisely on the past, a new humanity dehumanised in its essence, totally in the hands of the manipulators of reality and truth”. [15]

As she has written, the removal of cultural identities and the loss of rituals and traditions “means making a people empty and fragile”, the perfect targets for manipulation by the “shapers of men” who have dispossessed their lives of real meaning. [16]

Referencing the work of Ernst Jünger, she wrote: “The human being, reduced to a spectre, can only wander among the ruins, the rubble and the deserts”. [17]

For Guerini, in the face of this great uprooting from the healthy and natural soil of “wild and free” living, [18] we urgently need to reaffirm reality and truth: “If there is no reality and if there is no truth, there can be no freedom either”. [19]

The impulse for truth is a necessary condition for there to be cohesion within a community, in her view.

“Truth is the existential foundation of the human, its disintegration runs parallel with the disintegration of society and any community”. [20]

To counter this disintegration and the associated “desacralisation of existence”, [21] we should remember that there is “a Truth that comes from elsewhere, that we can grasp, feel, that is there, that comes from afar, that is handed down – it is the Truth of Tradition and Spirit”. [22]

“We must return to the setting of the rhythm of our lives by ritual, by the cycle of the seasons, by the cult of the dead, by the recovery of traditions”. [23]

“Each community has a bodily and a spiritual dimension and weaves a bodily and spiritual bond with the place where it lives. Through rituals, the community recognises itself and its place in the world beyond the contingent moment.

“Rites contribute to rooting and making a single existence endure in a time, in a territory, in a community. They create the spirit of a rooted community.

“They create a link beyond contingency, a recognition of what remains beyond our time. They create a common rhythm in relation to things, to time, to the natural world, to other living beings, they allow a resonance”. [24]

Throughout her work, Guerini never shies away from the seriousness of the situation humankind is facing or the difficulty of overcoming the threat.

But at the same time she insists on the vital need to push aside our fears and engage in the great battle [25] for the future.

“The storm is coming, let the free spirits rise to fight without expectations, without calculations, without justifications”. [26]

“We must be willing to fight even a losing battle to keep the sense of humanity free from the machine-world, to transmit to those who will come another sense of life.

“Under the rubble, fires will burn which will, just as we are already doing, keep alight a path of resistance”. [27]

[Audio version]

Video link: Silvia Guerini, ‘Towards the Abolition of Surrogate Motherhood‘. (3 mins)

This article also serves as the newly-added profile of Silvia on the organic radicals website.

[1] Silvia Guerini, ‘Reality held hostage by artificial dismantling and reconstruction’ July 2023.
https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/documenti/la-realta-ostaggio-da-smontaggi-e-ricostruzioni-artificiali-silvia-guerini/
[2] Guerini, July 2023.
[3] Silvia Guerini, ‘The inevitable siege of the human being has been ready for some time. From the taking of bodies to the taking of the spirit. Reading Ernst Jünger’. Resistenze al nanomondo, March 2022. https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/linevitabile-assedio-dellessere-umano-e-pronto-da-tempo-dalla-presa-dei-corpi-alla-presa-dello-spirito-leggendo-ernest-junger/
[4] Silvia Guerini, From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology, (Little River/Mission Beach, Australia: Spinifex Press, 2023). Pdf version, no page numbers. 
[5] Silvia Guerini, ‘Towards the Abolition of Surrogate Motherhood’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijsdgIZjORk
[6] https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/
[7] http://finaargit.org/
[8] https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/05/24/anti-transhumanists-target-milan-baby-fair/
[9]
https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/01/01/the-acorn-79/
[10] Guerini, From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg.
[11] Guerini, March 2022.
[12] Guerini, From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg.
[13] Guerini, From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg.
[14] Silvia Guerini, ‘Truth in Science’ lecture for Sinclètica Monastic School, December 16, 2023, https://sincletica.cat/guerini/
[15] Guerini, lecture.
[16] Guerini, July 2023.
[17] Guerini, March 2022.
[18] Guerini, From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Postmodern Cyborg.
[19] Guerini, lecture.
[20] Guerini, lecture.
[21] Guerini, March 2022.
[22] Guerini, lecture.
[23] Guerini, lecture.
[24] Guerini, March 2022.
[25] Guerini, July 2023.
[26] Guerini, March 2022.
[27] Guerini, July 2023.

Transhumanism: the ideology of the techno-world

Pubblicato il da

Transhumanism: the ideology of the techno-world
Silvia Guerini and Costantino Ragusa – Resistenze al nanomondo


A chapter from the book: Silvia Guerini and Costantino Ragusa, The ideology of the techno-world. Resisting the megamachine, acro-pólis, 2024.
We will soon publish an English translation of the entire book on our website: Resistenze al nanomondo, www.resistenzealnanomondo.org

“The goal of transhumanism is precisely to replace the natural with the planned”1.
James Hughes

From the First Industrial Revolution, we have come to define technological developments since the 21st century as the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Developments made possible by information technology that characterised the Third Industrial Revolution. In our view, defining the developments of the converging techno-sciences as a Fourth Industrial Revolution is somewhat reductive. First of all, this definition refers to a purely industrial process when the current transformations concern life itself. We do not have a transformation of a factory system that then has consequences for society as a whole, but we have from the very beginning a process that insinuates itself into society and into people’s existence. We are not confronted with developments that simply result from previous technical innovations, but we are confronted with a precise idea of the human being that can be realised thanks to the techno-sciences that can now extend into every dimension, penetrating right into bodies and life processes. Even advances in Artificial Intelligence, for example, do not stem from some new technological innovation, but from more powerful computers, more efficient algorithms and above all more available data.

Techno-sciences become a system, they become a horizon of meaning, they become the context of people’s existence, they become inevitable. They cannot be considered as technologies that fit into every sphere of society, leaving the possibility of using them or not, allowing a dimension of autonomy with respect to them. Once inserted, they become the environment itself, merging with it, shaping and transforming it according to their characteristics and according to the transhumanist ideology they carry. In doing so they become the new normal by shaping and transforming being-in-the-world, perceiving themselves in the world, being in the world and acting in the world. Ultimately transforming the human being.

It can be understood how in itself techno-sciences are not neutral: ‘what we consider the neutrality of technology is only our neutrality with respect to it’2.

The endless debate around their neutrality and their positive or negative use could end around the simple consideration that the harmful consequences cannot be considered as side effects: as far as genetic engineering technologies and nanotechnology are concerned, these are always announced disasters that among other things serve to speed up and normalise other steps.

Just as the atomic scientists observing the results of their tests on the inhabitants of the Bikini atolls did not have before their eyes side effects, but the very manifestation of nuclear research, the researchers developing gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 do not have before their eyes the disappearance of DNA fragments and transmissible genetic modifications as undesirable effects, but the very possibility of intervening in the evolution of living beings.

Just as a tunnel effect microscope is not a simple instrument, but presupposes a world in which matter is manipulated at the nanoscale, techno-sciences presuppose a world in which the living becomes mere matter to be engineered and redesigned, in which every phenomenon is controlled in order to direct its direction and evolution. Human beings included.

The issue is much more radical than a debate reduced and flattened to utilities, advantages, disadvantages, risks, dangers, the reflection should be taken a little further, out of their realm of quantity, out of their mechanism, out of calculations and predictions to arrive at the radical questioning of the conception that sees the living as a machine. In this conception, only what can be measured and analysed has value, and it is this that becomes the real. But what will come out of tables, diagrams, models, enclosures, laboratories, test tubes and slides will be a minced, simplified, impoverished, degraded real. Nothing compared to the love with which Alfred Russel Wallace observed the bird of paradise in the forest of New Guinea or with which Jean-Henry Fabre spied the comings and goings of a beetle in Provence. That kind of science has disappeared, precisely because a Fabre behind the flattery of the academic world and the great scientific institutions made Victor Hugo’s words his own: ”I hate the stench of death from laboratories”, referring to vivisection on animals practised as profusely in his time as still today.

If a living being is conceived as a machine, one cannot get to know it through simple observation in its environment, it becomes necessary to break it down into its parts. ”It is in this light that one can understand why scientists think it is possible to learn more about life by cutting a frog open in a laboratory than by sitting by a pond observing frogs and fish, mosquitoes and water lilies living together”3. Modern science with its quantitative and utilitarian approach already had in its assumptions the dissection and manipulation laboratory.

Ernst Jünger, with extreme lucidity, glimpsed the paradigm of the laboratory: ”the dead element implicit in our science is demonstrated in the museic impulse, that is, to arrange what is alive in the sphere of the immobile and invulnerable, and perhaps even to form an enormous material catalogue, painfully ordered, that faithfully mirrors our life”4 and continuing with his reflections: ”many more things become visible to the poet than to the scientist, […] he can grasp connections of a different order. It is he who points out to us the essential tasks” and continues: ”He who sets out to describe a forest as an artist cannot argue with those who have specialised knowledge of parasitic plants, mole nests, cockchafer fighting and so on. He would do well to recognise from the outset that they are all right in front of him. But that has nothing to do with the forest”5.

Already in this first mechanistic conception of the living, which later became genetic and computerised, a social mechanics, a genetic and social engineering, a social algorithmisation is presupposed, whose rationality is intended to be total for a systematic manipulation and redesign of every dimension. Right down to life in vitro, sterilised by itself. To scientifically organise humanity is the legitimate claim of modern science that has become techno-science, of the eugenicist and transhumanist ideology that from its beginnings sets out to generate and guide the evolution of a new humanity and the smooth running of everything.
The techno-sciences thus become the supreme instance: everything must be judged from them and, of course, without ever departing from their paradigm of progress at all costs because progress must not be halted and we must participate in it as responsible co-managers of the risks and disasters announced. The technological universe becomes the only horizon of meaning, nothing else can be conceived and the only truth is the technical one.

Already in the 1950s, Jacques Ellul and Bernard Charbonneau, having well understood the direction of the techno-scientific system, were trying to open the eyes of most people with a strong and lucid critique against the ”genetic bomb, scientific eugenics, the fabrication of man by man”, the ”man-machine: ‘a man of flesh who must be integrated into this iron mechanism”, to use Charbonneau’s words.

Ellul identified five paradigms of the advance of the technical system: ”[…] it seems to me that I detect five lines of force in this race of the technical universe towards absurdity. The first paradigm is the desire to standardise everything, an ancient tendency but one that was only a tendency […] the second is the obsession with change at all costs, it is the popular form taken by the myth of progress […] the third is growth at all costs […] the fourth is doing things faster and faster […] and finally the fifth is the rejection of any judgement on what is done by techniques”6.
”Is it necessary to consider the totality of the human being? Or should we conceive of him as a collection of separate parts, a mechanical machine composed of multiple cogs that can be detached, transferred, reassembled in another way…?’ Ellul asked himself, answering: ‘Because that is precisely what all these genetic engineering operations are about: the implicit denial of man as a person, to consider him as an automaton, a robot from which a part is taken, grafted, replaced’7.

The transhumanist movement emerged in the United States, in Silicon Valley, in the late 1980s, but let us take a few steps back in history to understand this ideology and to trace its origins. Let us go back to 1883, when Francis Galton first used the term eugenics, recommending a ”gentle form of eugenics”. Transhumanism is eugenics, the selection of the human. Eugenics over time has taken different forms and languages, but remained unchanged in its principles of selection of the human.

In the 1920s, the term ectogenesis was coined by the geneticist and biologist J.B.S. Haldane to denote the development of a new being outside the maternal body. Haldane considered ectogenesis ”an important opportunity for social engineering” inscribed in a eugenic society where a complete separation of procreation from sex would lead to a ”liberation of humanity in a whole new sense”8. Haldane was interested in understanding the origin of life in order to direct its development. His aim, and that of the coterie of scientists he represented, was to synthesise living creatures in biochemistry laboratories, an aspiration that would take shape in synthetic biology and genetic engineering laboratories in the years to follow.

The obsession with the creation of life shines through from the very beginning of this research, in the words of the research biologist Jacques Loeb: ”I wanted to take life into my own hands and play with it. I wanted to manipulate it in my laboratory like any other chemical reaction, to initiate it, to stop it, to study it under any conditions, to direct it at will9and in his book The Mechanics of Life, whose title already represents the mechanistic conception of the living, we read: ”Our social and ethical life will have to receive a scientific basis and our rules of conduct will have to be harmonised with the results of scientific biology”.

Haldane together Julian Huxley forcefully promoted ‘positive eugenics’. The control of human reproduction, depopulation, and the control and management of peoples have always been the obsessions and aims that have united the powerful. If we think of the Fabian Society’s Webbs’ club in England, it brought together eugenicists, technocrats and transhumanists, both reform-minded socialists and right-wing conservatives, who disagreed on many political issues, but were in perfect agreement on the fundamentals.

We come to 1957 when Julian Huxley and Theilard de Chardin coined the term transhumanism to describe the belief in the possibility of transcendence of humankind. A new term to be used in place of eugenics, a term that by then had a bad reputation, but it is sufficient to read the 1946 document ”UNESCO: Purposes and Philosophy of the Organisation” drafted by Julian Huxley, the organisation’s first director-general, to realise that eugenics had never disappeared: ”With its philosophy and broad cultural and ideological baggage, the organisation wishes to assist the emergence of a general and unique world culture. […] For the time being, the indirect effects of civilisation are likely to be dysgenic rather than eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the deadweight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and inclinations to disease, which are already present in the human species, will prove to be additional burdens to the real progress that is to be achieved. Therefore, even if it is entirely true that any radically eugenic policy will be politically and psychologically impossible for many years to come, it will become important for Unesco to see that the eugenics problem is considered with the greatest care, and that the thinking of the public is informed of the issues involved, so that what may now be unthinkable may at least become thinkable Eugenics is yet another and quite different kind of borderline subject, on the borderline between the scientific and the unscientific, constantly in danger of being regarded as a pseudo-science based on preconceived political ideas or assumptions of racial or class superiority and inferiority. However, it is essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the confines of science because, as already indicated, in the not too distant future the problem of securing an average social position for human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be achieved by applying the findings of a certainly scientific eugenics. […] the applications of genetics in the field of eugenics immediately raise the question of values – what characteristics and qualities should we wish to foster in the human beings of the future? […] in order to carry out its work, an organisation such as Unesco needs not only a set of aims and objectives for itself, but also a working philosophy, a working hypothesis with reference to the existence of man and his aims and objectives, a hypothesis that will dictate, or at least indicate, a well-defined line to deal with these problems”.

Well before Nazi Germany, between 1905 and 1972, the USA carried out an immense programme of forced sterilisation for the disabled, psychiatric patients, the blind, the deaf, prisoners, the homeless, lepers, syphilitics, tuberculosis. Eugenics researchers, with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and other American philanthropists, promoted eugenic legislation in more than twenty-seven US states, with forced sterilisations for ”mentally deficient inferiors”, so that by the 1960s, when most of these laws were beginning to be repealed, more than 60,000 people had been sterilised for eugenic purposes.

Hitler was inspired by a famous American biologist, one of the advocates of the sterilisation campaign, for his racial extermination programmes and it was a Nazi physiologist who first came up with the idea that one could remove the nucleus from an ovum and then introduce the nucleus of another ovum into it, thus inventing the concept of the ‘mother-carrier’.

The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heritage and Eugenics – later renamed the Max Planck Institutes – was founded in Berlin in 1927 thanks in part to funding from the Rockefeller Foundation interested in the research on twins conducted by Von Verschuer, director of the Institute, eugenicist, pioneer in genetic research for the study of heredity, supporter of forced sterilisation programmes. At his side as assistant was Josef Mengele. After the war Von Verschuer taught human genetics at the University of Münster and became a member of the American Eugenetics Society. While the atrocious experiments during the Nazi period in the concentration camps are today recognised and remembered, there is a tendency to forget the role played by renowned clinics and research centres that continued to carry out the same eugenic principles even after the end of the war, often with the same scientists, the latter apparently enjoying a strange immunity that differentiated them from other war criminals. Evidently in the eyes of the scientific research world they were not so criminal.

The American Eugenics Society in the 1960s began to take an interest in developments in genetics and thus became the Society for the Study of Social Biology, stating that the change of name did not represent a change of policy, but rather a desire to place emphasis on studies of the biological, social and medical aspects that shape human evolution, conducted with a view to intervening in it.

By arriving at the cybernetic paradigm and the development of genetic engineering and synthetic biology, we can understand that transhumanism is both the culmination of techno-scientific development and the convergence of biotechnology, nanotechnology, computer science, neuroscience and the ideology behind it.

Nanotechnology that reaches the deepest levels of the world’s structure and biotechnology that reaches the deepest levels of the living bring about a substantial transformation. Whereas previously artefacts were constructed from natural elements without being able to disregard their limits, with the modification at the atomic level of matter the same natural elements are reconstructed to overcome these limits or to make them take on new characteristics. The natural world thus becomes an artificial category, and molecular fabrication brings a completely different idea of what is to be considered a material limit, and nanotechnology makes it possible to enter into the very nature of matter. At the same time, biotechnology opens up the possibility of intervening in life processes with genetic modification and genetic bricolage.

Transhumanists are proponents of what they call ‘conscious self-directed evolution’: taking the destiny of species into their own hands with the development of biotechnology, nanotechnology, cognitive science and artificial intelligence, giving a precise direction to the path of evolution of the human species and the entire living being.

“The idea of a fixed species becomes problematic and the criterion of reproduction loses its meaning. […] The more powerful and accessible our technologies become, the more our purpose will be to define ourselves. Consequently, human groups will distinguish themselves according to the values that will guide their choices in how to use these new powers to determine their morphology and destiny’10 states Nick Bostrom. The idea is that physical and cognitive characteristics and the genome itself can and should be questioned, both in philosophical and operational terms, and not just to make a few changes, but to completely and radically redefine the design of the human and the very concept of being human. An essentially anthropotechnical conception in which the human being is indeterminate and is co-constructed with technology, an indetermination that is technical hybridity, in which the very nature of man, his biological existence, is technological.

In this ideology, the body becomes a hindrance, a limitation to be overcome, optimised, implemented in a process that will never end. The body becomes a hacherable platform and the techno-sciences, which can offer multiple and recombinable possibilities, are seen as liberating, interestingly enough, we find this conception both in the world of biotechnological research and in the academic world of transfeminist cyborg theorists. A supposed liberation from natural constraints for a voluntary submission to technological constraints.

Directly from the transhumanist world comes ”morphological freedom”: the right to modify oneself in accordance with one’s wishes. Nick Bostrom defines it as ”the civil right of a person to maintain or modify one’s body according to one’s will, through informed and consensual recourse to, or rejection of, available therapeutic or enhancing medical technologies”11.

Gender ideology in its meaning-demolishing work paves the way for the normalisation of the alteration of human biology and genetic engineering12. From Martine Rothblatt we read: ”Ensuring the ethical use of biotechnology will be as great a concern for transhumanists as it is for defenders of gender freedom”. The human being is thus ready to become a permanent construction site, an endless disassembly and reassembly, a neutral human being made sterile ready for the laboratories of artificial reproduction. A permanent mutation in which everything must be interchangeable and mutable in order to become artificial.

Transhumanism is a profound attack on the sexed roots, on the dimension of procreation and on reality itself. We are born with a sex, sex is not assigned at birth, which is why it is essential to erase this link with life and reality, this our first recognition in the world, of ourselves and others. The meaning of male and female vanishes, they become mere subjective sensations, no longer the reality of bodies, and subjective desire becomes truer than objective reality. The dissociation with one’s own sexual body leads to a dissociation with reality and accustoms the mind to all kinds of lies13.

Medically assisted procreation (MAP) is one of the Trojan horses of transhumanism because it creates the context in which artificial reproduction will become the normal way of coming into the world.

It is a process that will have no limits from the moment that when the logic of artificial reproduction is accepted, the direct consequence is the continuous optimisation and implementation of the whole process: the embryo becomes a product and what is a product can be subjected to any selection, modification, experimentation. The laboratory environment transforms the process of birth into a technical operation and with artificial reproduction we are transformed as we come into the world.

Eugenics, the driving force and direction of genetic research, has also been present ever since the origin of artificial reproduction technologies, in their zootechnical development and in the transition to humans. Richard Edward, creator of the birth of Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby, stated as early as the 1980s that when it is technically possible it will be legitimate to genetically modify the human species. At the moment we still do not have genetically modified babies, but in 2018 the British Bioethics Committee stated that ”Modifying the DNA of an embryo to influence the characteristics of a future person [hereditary genetic modification, Ed. note] could be morally permissible and the threshold of the baby girls edited in China has been crossed, and it is a threshold from which no one can think of going back. Meanwhile, the thought is being instilled that it is preferable and safer to hand procreation over to technicians. Natural procreation will at first become something irresponsible, unsafe, unhygienic, not sufficiently submissible to algorithmic techno-medical controls, at a later stage it will become criminal to continue to want to procreate without selecting gametes and embryos. Artificial reproduction will become a ‘moral duty’14.

The so-called right to have a child of people with sterility or infertility from organic or mostly environmental causes, the so-called right to have a child of same-sex couples and single women, and the problem of denatality serve as a pretext for the normalisation of assisted fertilisation techniques15.
The human being of transhumanism will be a biomedicinalised human being who will have to correspond to continually updated perfectibility criteria for continuous adaptation to a machine world. A techno-scientific adaptability that will become the only possibility. The principle of the cybernetic paradigm whereby ”we have always modified our environment so radically that we are now forced to modify ourselves’16takes concrete and dramatic form.

An analysis that is the child of the myopia that generated it continues to think of the forthcoming technological developments as accessible only to the rich, where they would create a division of society between the super-rich implemented and the super-poor. Certainly, a divide will be created, indeed, it will be consolidated, but it will not be a question of class, but between those who will accept to inoculate themselves, to undergo preventive gene therapies, to use assisted reproduction clinics, to implant a microchip under the skin, and those who will not accept this. Only at first will certain technological developments come at a high cost, the aim is for everyone to have access to them and to want to have access to them, the aim is to spread these technologies that will have to universalise and become the norm. The progressive and leftist world is already ready to fight for equality in submission to techno-scientific domination and for poverty the yoke of universal income will take care of it.

It is crucial to realise that transhumanists are not a few fringe technology freaks influenced by science fiction, but are founders, funders, and executives of numerous foundations, institutes, start-ups, research projects, and companies of international importance. They advise the defence, security and biomedical sectors, they have the power to direct the cutting-edge research taking place within technopoles, the policies of governments, international bodies and organisations. They are able to bring into play very strong political pressures and considerable means to shift balances and cutting-edge research, even to the point of promoting certain paradigms, supported by themselves, reinventing even bioethics to their benefit.

Natascha and Max Moore, Nick Bostrom, David Pearce, James J. Hughes, Hans Moravec, Ray Kurzweill, to mention only the best known names, are the founders of the worldwide transhumanist association, now known as Humanity+. This ideology is not always immediately recognisable, it has the characteristic of being fluid, adapting itself to multiple contexts even apparently at odds with each other, thus we have a transhumanism with the glittering progressive face of LGBTQ+ rights and a transhumanism that penetrates conservative circles championing, for example, the fight against denatality, but obviously offering artificial reproduction techniques as a (false) solution.

In order to avoid the risk of transhumanism being reduced to a tendency of a few eccentric researchers, of philosophers confusing reality with their dreams, one must not focus on what is not yet there. If we are talking about nanotechnology, we should not focus on the risk of the ‘Gray goo’ catastrophe – the uncontrolled replication of nanorobots – and similarly, if we are talking about transhumanism, we should not focus on the projects of cryopreservation of the brain or the transposition of the brain into a computer, but on what is already there. Transhumanist ideology – the overcoming of limits, the implementation of the human being, the redesigning and artificialisation of the living – is not merely abstract speculation, but has already materialised in transgenic chimeras, medically assisted procreation, genetic editing, genetically modified organisms, medical genetic engineering technologies, brain implants, new smart city devices… The mass testing and dissemination of nanotechnological mRNA gene sera for Covid and the development of new self-replicating mRNA sera have exceeded all our expectations. What was needed was a network capable of marking out the new time, of connecting what was previously isolated, of bringing together and simultaneous what was not yet communicating, of putting bodies and machines in constant relation: the 5G network and the forthcoming 6G network.

1 James Hughes, Democratic transhumanism 2.0, 2002.

2 Jean Bernard-Maugiron, Bernard Charbonneau & Jacques Ellul, Deux libertaires gascons unis par une pensée commune, LesAmis de Barteby, 2017.

3 Wolfi Landstreicher, A Balanced Account of the World: A Critical Look at the Scientific World View, transl.it., A Balanced Account of the World: A Critical Look at the Scientific World View, in The Scream of the Earth, no.7, July 2019.

4 Ernst Jünger, Auf den Marmorklippen, 1939, translated in Italian, Sulle scogliere di marmo, Mondadori, 1945.

5 Ernst Jünger, An der Zeitmauer, 1959 translated in Italian, Al muro del tempo, Volpe, 1969.

6Jacques Ellul, Le Bluff technologique, Hachette, 1988.

7 Jacques Ellu, op. cit.

8 J.B.S. Haldane, Daedalus, or Science and the Future, Cambridge, 1923.

9 Jenny Kleeman, Sex Robots & Vegan Meat, 2020, translated in Italian, Sex Robots and Vegan Meat, Il Saggiatore, 2021.

10 Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence, Bollati and Boringhieri, 2018.

11 Nick Bostrom, In Defense of Posthuman Dignity, in Bioethics, XIX, 2005

12 For further study: Silvia Guerini, Dal corpo neutro al cyborg postumano. Riflessioni critiche all‘ideologia gender, Asterios Editore, second edition 2023; Il Mondo Nuovo 2.0, Elisa Boscarol’s youtube channel.

13 Silvia Guerini, Dalla negazione del trascendente all‘umanità cibernetica e transumana, in L’Urlo della Terra, no. 12, July 2024, https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/dalla-negazione-del-trascendente-allumanita-cibernetica-e-transumana-silvia-guerini/, accessed 24/10/2024, h. 19.47

14 For further study: A.A. V.V., Silvia Guerini, Costantino Ragusa (eds.), I figli della macchina. Biotechnology, artificial reproduction and eugenics, Asterios Editore, 2023.

15 Silvia Guerini, Verso la riproduzione artificiale per tutti. New guidelines for access to assisted reproduction techniques in Italy, in https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/verso-la-riproduzione-artificiale-per-tutti-nuove-linee-guida-per-laccesso-alle-tecniche-di-fecondazione-assistita-in-italia/, consulted on 24/10/2024, h. 19.23

16 Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics: O Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, MIT Press, 1948.

From the denial of the transcendent to cybernetic and transhuman humanity

Pubblicato il da

From the denial of the transcendent to cybernetic and transhuman humanity
Silvia Guerini – Resistenze al nanomondo (www.resistenzealnanomondo.org)

Today we are faced with an unprecedented total war on bodies, on life, on nature, on humanity.
A war on all fronts with techno-scientific developments that open up unprecedented scenarios.
Key concepts such as freedom, truth, justice, ethics, reality crumble, or are distorted to be reformulated in a way that denies their very meaning.
We are faced with the metamorphosis of the human and of his existence, in which everything will change irreversibly and, with the advent of the transhuman, not even a trace of the human will remain.
Techno-scientific developments are embedded much deeper than we could imagine, the technocratic and transhumanist elites, thanks to the various thresholds broken down from time to time by these developments, aim to radically transform the way of thinking, of interpreting reality, to relate, they also aim to transform the so-called common feeling of people to create a precise mindset, a precise mentality that will generalize and take root, becoming the one that one will think they have always had or, in any case, the right, good, improve.
We will lose adherence to things, adherence to the real world due to a dissociation from our bodies, from reality, from nature. We will lose the sense that something clashes with the emergency narratives that we will see follow one after the other. You will lose the self-defense of your health, integrity, dignity, the self-defense of your body and your loved ones. That self-defense that was perhaps a little confused at times, without adequate tools to understand a broader plan, but which was necessary due to the opposition to the genetic serums. That deep no to experimental drugs in one’s own bodies and in the bodies of one’s children. Today, what seemed to most to be irrational fear and risky predictions unfortunately takes shape in the consequences of these serums: deaths, early cancers, infertility, new predictive model with mRNA gene therapies, changes to international health agreements, new serums and new pandemics horizon.
The great work of dissolution will have rainbow and bright colours, it will wave the banner of freedom, self-determination, equality, comfort and the saving power of techno-science. The best of all possible worlds.
Freedom is one of the most abused words today. A freedom that has become rubbish, a substitute, a fetish. A freedom for sale and object of negotiation. A freedom that has lost its meaning. A supposed freedom that killed all true freedom.
In the name of freedom today we have a perversion of freedom, the human must free himself from his identity, his biological sex, his family, his culture, ultimately he must free himself as a human being. But we cannot choose our sex, we are born with a sex, we cannot choose our family, we are born from a mother and a father – yet for now – and we cannot choose our place of origin. This supposed freedom of choice leads to the dissolution of humanity. It leads to a broken man.
Being free does not mean being without ties, constraints, roots. It is not the absence of these bonds that makes one free, but their presence.
In the progressive transhuman ideology, the rejection of reality is claimed and motivated by the fact that it was not possible to choose. A supermarket logic in which you can select, order and buy a child from a catalog and send him back if you are not satisfied, in which you can select and order gametes for infinite combinations and genetic bricolage, in which even your own sex can be choose and change as if you were wearing a dress. A metastatic logic that has already disseminated metastases in all possible dimensions.
There flows an aversion and hatred towards everything that is life, viscera, body, blood, nature that cuts off everything that preceded us and from which we come. A culture of non-life.
A permanent mutation. Changing incessantly, this is the new mantra, changing sex, body, family, relationships, places. Eternally dissatisfied, unstable, insecure, anxious. Everything must be transitory, interchangeable, mutable, protean. Everything must become artificial.
The new generations will be eternal bored young people, compulsive consumers of disposable goods and relationships who hate their father and mother, who reject everything from which they derive, everything they did not choose, everything they did not desire. Rejecting everything that life puts before them, incapable of living, of facing hardships, sacrifices, abandonments, suffering, pain. Children of the I want everything immediately, of the forbidden to forbid, of the absolute desire from which tragedies are then produced. An anesthetized and sterile existence. An empty existence. No longer believing in anything, but only in themselves, they will be ready to believe anything. This is the new humanity that can be shaped by the technocratic and transhumanist elite, adaptable to life in a test tube and to the laboratory world.
An ideological hood permeates and permeates every area, rewrites history and makes us believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. Immersed in a great deception we have grown up believing that the transhuman progressive left that claims what are considered the right ideals of freedom, justice, equality is on the right side of history against absolute evil. But this is a great deception and a great reversal. Even words are distorted from their meaning. We have seen how that freedom has become freedom of consumption, freedom without limits, surrogate freedom. We have seen how that equality has brought homologation and cancellation of differences, both those between men and women, and those between cultures and peoples. We have seen how that justice has become a victimistic whining and a creation of new pseudo rights. All of this is the advancement of that transhuman power of absolute dominion over life.
And the assumptions were very clear: “Our destiny is linked to technoscience, where nothing is so sacred that it cannot be redesigned and transformed in such a way as to broaden our perspective of freedom, extending it to gender and the human. […] There is nothing, we maintain, that cannot be studied scientifically and manipulated technologically”, we read from a trans-cyborg-feminist manifesto1. From this spoiled trans-cyborg-feminist compost and toxic queerness – as, not by chance, they like to define it – comes word that we should adapt to survive on an infected planet, become mutants in a world of infinite contamination, among hybrids, surrogates, instruments living, posthuman relatives, transspecies ectogenetic CRISP neutr* children. After all, what else to expect from a cultural and political humus that considers the body as “an invention, a hackable platform, a malleable and modifiable entity” to be reinvented and redesigned thanks to the “subversive” possibilities of techno-sciences.
“We need to put an end to this idea of family”, better comrades* alien* cyborg multispecies xenotoxic mutants, to be in tune with the latest trends. We really need to put an end to the idea that we have an origin, a history, a memory, a sexual body, with the idea that the human being is a spiritual subject, with the idea that bonds and constraints exist. With the idea that around us there is a natural world which in turn has constraints, relationships, balances, limits. With the idea that a reality exists around us that is independent of subjective desire. Ultimately we must do away with the idea of being human2.
While we denounce the contamination between GMO plants and traditional plants for the impossibility of coexistence and we are firmly in the reality of the erosion and degradation of living things, there are those who amuse themselves and play with flights of fancy hoping that “the recognition of the transfer “horizontal genetics as a widespread phenomenon overturns the traditional certainty that genes are transmitted only in a vertical line, from parents to offspring, and cannot be exchanged laterally, crossing species boundaries” is the key to dismantling the hetero-cis-normative-repressive society3. We are no longer surprised. Everything is prepared – on the part of power and on the part of its followers – for the advent of the trans man and trans existence. Trans-gender, trans-race, trans-age, trans-able, trans-place, trans-species, trans-genic.
A profound anthropological transformation is taking place in the name of freedom and self-determination. Birth and death are always linked in the multiple transformations underway.
There cannot be a free society that can admit that one can be free not to be free, it is not freedom to be able to deprive oneself of freedom. Just as it is not freedom, but the death of the State, to create the conditions that lead a depressed teenager and an elderly person tired of living to the so-called “sweet death”. Just as an existence intoxicated by poisons that can only negotiate the thresholds of its own contamination by having to accept the logic of damage reduction, the logic of compensation, the logic of compensation, the logic of the further pseudo technical solution is not freedom. Stating that a life can be killed or euthanized means that this life is worth much less if it is instead stated that it is unavailable, criteria are established by which that life can be eliminated and this actually leads to a theft of freedom and exposes everyone to risk of falling into those criteria. Criteria by their nature changeable and not based on the principle of unavailability of life. In a society that promotes the culture of non-life, waste, transhumanist performativity and the inadequacy of bodies with respect to technology, the rhetoric of being free to choose whether to resort to certain practices is a dangerous slippery slope: from law you can get to the duty to cause death and to die if one does not fall within the established criteria, in the same way from the right to the duty to be born in an assisted reproduction clinic. The aim is a rewriting of ethics and ultimately its cancellation. Today ethics is provisional and changeable, in fact, there is no longer any ethics, but only ethical pretexts in which even suffering and illness become objects of negotiation which can be leveraged not only to profit, but to redesign the human and the living.
The human being will have to be born after the Artificial Intelligence algorithms have selected the most suitable embryo4. The human being will have to die inside a spacecraft whose shape refers to the artificial womb, a return to the technical grip. The euthanasia machine introduced in Switzerland promotes self-determination with accompaniment and algorithmic evaluation. The cancellation of death, denied, dehumanized, digitalized that follows the cancellation of procreation.
Save the populations of the southern hemisphere from hunger with GMO rice enriched in vitamin A, save from malaria with the release into the environment of mosquitoes genetically modified with CRISPR/Cas9, save agriculture from climate change with plants genetically modified to be more resistant, saving us from the birth rate using assisted reproduction technologies, saving us from cancer with a new mRNA “vaccine” – to give a few examples – serve as ethical pretexts and justifications for transforming the entire world into a living laboratory. Just as the new pseudo rights serve to shape humanity according to the dictates of the masters of discourse and imagination.
Tyranny presents itself with a sweet face and a rhetoric “for good, for health, for new rights”. Under the icing a factory of unlimited desires and synthetic identities that deny reality. But freedom is not an unlimited desire that is transformed into a right. The marketing of illusions opens the doors to new consumers made patients for life, the techno-medical trans-industry mutilates bodies and sterilizes adolescents, artificial reproduction laboratories work to make test-tube babies the normal way of coming into the world.
Is it right to insert a brain implant into the skull of a Parkinson’s patient? Is it right to test the artificial womb on premature babies? Deceptive questions, functional to the “for good” rhetoric. But ethics cannot be founded on a transhuman conception of the human being as a functioning machine.
As for the first question, we are already there, developments are running faster than their understanding and we are already wondering whether a brain implant in a healthy person is right in order to improve their performance. Many will say that these devices will never be safe enough to be tested on healthy people, but the point is that by the time they are desired by healthy people the transhumanist elites will have already achieved what they wanted to achieve.
As regards the second question, the research field is already laying the foundations to create social acceptance for the first human test which will not be long in coming.
It would be enough to read the debates within the world of biotechnological research, these areas know perfectly well that society and people’s mentality must be transformed before certain techno-scientific developments can penetrate and take root.
Be careful when transhumanist technocrats show themselves worried about the risks of developments in techno-sciences and worried about the fate of humanity, the same humanity that they would like destroyed in its most intimate essence by making it cybernetic. Their cries of alarm – like the appeal of Elon Musk and other transhumanists about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence – are nothing more than cries of distraction and their pseudo technical solutions will only produce further disasters. And above all they will never be able to reject the world from which they come. For our part, we must get out of the laboratory paradigm and reject their world. It is necessary and vital to regain orientation, a horizon of spirit and life is necessary, it is necessary to give meaning back to those values and principles for which one should fight and for which one should be willing to die.
Artificial Intelligence with its algorithms creates a new order of truth that has no precedent in history, a new order that cannot be doubted. Our existences will be locked in the single algorithmically driven cyber dimension. Artificial Intelligence will make more and more decisions that will be incomprehensible and to which people will just have to adapt. Advice that will become precepts in every area: habits, behaviors, nutrition, education, health. A technique that depends only on other techniques in which the human element is superfluous and a technical imperative that has its own purpose in itself.
To function, Artificial Intelligence requires a synchronized world, real-time communication, technicalization and synchronization of the human, of life and of every phenomenon. Even our bodies will be caught in the cybernetic grip. From the iatrogenic body – which became a reflection of the fragmentation of medicine and the statistical probability of being potentially at risk of developing a pathology with early diagnosis – we arrive at the algorithmic body which becomes a reflection of algorithmic prediction.
Even reality itself will have to be adherent and aligned with what the algorithms will predict. As Bernard Charbonneau had well predicted, the technical fact will become our universe, “the very flesh of the real and the present” and “When the entire body mechanizes itself, the spirit is not far from doing so. The individual and society evolve towards the automaton”5.
Today even the reality of bodies vanishes. The meaning of man and woman evaporates, they become abstract, fluid, changing concepts, mere individual perceptions. But we don’t have a body, we are a body and many of our experiences originate precisely from that body. No one is born with a “gender identity”. We are born male or female and no one is “born in the wrong body”6. We find the concept of “gender identity” in all the various guidelines, reports of the various panels at the European Parliament, programs of the WHO, the UN and the 2030 Agenda, with strong pushes from the various power elites in this direction and also to promote “gender self-certification”. This concept allows the opening of identity markets by violating the physical boundary between male and female with immense propaganda and immense ideological indoctrination towards the youngest. Synthetic identities are multiplying and we have new trends: trans-age, trans-species, trans-race, trans-able. Those who feel of a different age, of another race, of another species or disabled. Marginal but representative cases. In Canada, a man who felt not only female, but younger, was allowed to participate in a swimming competition with teenage girls. There is also an increase in cases of pedophiles who defend themselves in court by claiming that they feel like children, obviously instrumentally, but if the law allows it we can well foresee the consequences.
It is also discussed in the medical field, for example trans-able is the identity disorder of bodily integrity. And just as from the so-called “gender identity disorder” we have arrived at “gender identity” by removing the term disorder, in the same way, from the identity disorder of bodily integrity in the name of inclusion, self-determination, of freedom and rights we will arrive at the identity of different bodily integrity, age, race, species. The principle is the same: what the individual perceives surpasses reality itself and must be recognized by the entire society. If we recognize that a man feels like a woman and that he becomes even more real than a woman born biologically a woman because he feels it and because he wants it, why shouldn’t we recognize that an adult man can feel like a child and can become one?

The little ones are pushed towards bodily dissociation which leads to dissociation with reality, ready for the Metaverse generations. Adolescents are pushed into the cult of castration. The image of a bare-chested girl with scars on her breasts after having undergone a mastectomy is symbolic of these times. Gender butcher’s shop. The human being will be ready to become decomposable, reassembled and redesignable into infinite fluid universes.
The first case in Italy. A woman, after having started the transition process with hormone therapy and breast exportation, during some medical checks necessary for the uterus exportation surgery discovers that she is five months pregnant following intercourse had before starting to take testosterone. Well, we said to ourselves, certain that this would crack the ideological narrative, but it didn’t crack even when faced with the reality of a woman’s body. The masters of speech, thought and imagination have declared: a “pregnant man”. Seahorses, as they are called abroad, in the new language which also includes “person who gives birth”, “breast-feeding” and so on, going to re-signify the dimension of procreation and the dimension of sexuality of the female body. But a man cannot give birth. Yet what was once obvious has already turned into something questionable, subjective, changeable.
In the name of freedom the worst horrors are being cleared, step by step they are being normalized. In Spain in some posters of a campaign apparently against sexual violence we find the face of a child above the phrase “if he says no, it means aggression”. We pass quickly, read and share the sentence without dwelling on the face which is that of a child and on the underlying meaning: “if he says yes, it’s not aggression”. The “sexual freedom of children and adolescents” is the new progressive conquest that opens up pedophilia. Let us ask ourselves the reason for this push to normalize pedophilia as a new sexual orientation and the push to recognize what are defined as the rights, freedom and self-determination of the little ones.
We have long stated that the dimension of procreation and our sexual roots are the last frontier of transhumanism. Today we are already beyond and have reached the closing of the circle in which they are trying to erase every value and every barrier that can resist dissolution.
But where does this rationality come from, so indisputable, which leads to the manipulation of nature, not only that understood as something that is external to us, but also to ourselves, as human beings as part of this nature?

“The inevitable siege of the human being has been ready for some time, and it is arranged by theories that tend towards a logical and complete explanation of the world, and advance hand in hand with the progress of technology”7 wrote Ernst Jünger with extreme lucidity, sensing the paradigm of the laboratory that reduces and harnesses life in the realm of quantity. He wondered the meaning of curves and tables in relation to the love with which Wallace observed the bird of paradise in the forest of New Guinea and with which Fabre spied on the comings and goings of a beetle in Provence concluding that all this cannot be replaced with a machine: “Detailed, meticulous knowledge can be harmful. A lover, a poet, a true sage must be able to see less and more at the same time, they must look with different eyes. […] There is always a difference between spiritualization and mechanization. If I slide a wooden chick under the hen and observe its behavior, I can learn much less about the mother than if I watch a child play with his doll”8.
“No harm or disappointment can come to anyone who contemplates a stretch of natural beauty. The doctrines of desperation, of tyranny, or of spiritual or political servitude, were never taught by those who shared the serenity of nature”9 we read in Henry David Thoreau.
It was the materialist vision of the world that took the first steps towards the reification of the living by making it available. The desacralization of the living, the cancellation of its inviolable dimension has made it in its entirety not only predatory, commodifiable, crushable, exploitable, but has made it at the mercy of the techno-scientific logics of optimization and implementation. He broke down every ethical limit by erasing the very meaning of the limit. The conception of limits is not foreseen in techno-scientific development, every limit will be overcome based on what developments make possible and what they make imaginable and desirable even before its full realization.
From the dissection of bodies to the dissection of the world as a paradigm of modernity: decomposition and fragmentation of the body and natural processes into measurable, quantifiable and disconnectable parts from the whole. From disassembly to reassembly and infinite remodeling as a laboratory paradigm.
And what is transhumanism if not the maximum realization of rationalization, of the cancellation of the sacred, of the limit, of the spirit? And ultimately the absolute dominion of technology. Existence itself must conform to certain standards, must follow the criterion of utility and the transhuman principle of optimization and implementation, of cancellation of suffering, pain, illness, limits. The human being, as we know them, will become an obstacle, an error, an unexpected event. And there can be no errors, unexpected events, slowdowns in the transhuman advance. “Whether he is a piece of material on the battlefield or a cog in the machine of the war economy, the modern age has a habit of reducing the human being to a functional object. Everything that is “non-essential” – everything that makes us human – is cheerfully discarded,” Jünger wrote. Life as waste and the human being, in order not to be discarded, will have to adapt to the new techno-dictates.
A common sense about the past, present and future vanishes. A different relationship with time, with the phases of life and death and also a different relationship with the truth disappears. Already today we wander among remains and ruins, tomorrow there will be no more memory, memory, trace. Once upon a time it didn’t matter if the source of a custom had been extinct for centuries, because its meaning was passed down and woven into the fabric of people’s lives and thus continued to live on. Everything that belonged to the past must be considered obsolete, as an error, as something continually to be overcome, in an overcoming that will never end.
The cancellation of the truth and of reality itself makes the brain get used to accepting any lie and, recalling the words of Hannah Arendt: “the ideal subject of the totalitarian regime is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but the individual for whom the distinction between reality and fiction, between true and false no longer exists”10. It will become impossible to grasp those ancient correspondences that emerge from the microcosm and the macrocosm. Reading Ernst Jünger: “We push forward through the visible order of things to get closer to their invisible harmony, to proceed from the incompleteness of knowledge towards that of which we can only perceive a premonition. When you manage to put the speck of dust on a butterfly wing in harmony with the universe, the goal achieved is worthless, but not the signal, the milestone that I know is placed along the path traveled. The wings themselves allude to something else” and observing the Cicindele, beetles, he writes: “We can also consider them as an example of the quantity of forces that cross our path, that cross it without us being able to perceive them”11.
An uprooted human being. “Uprootedness is by far the most dangerous disease of human societies, because it multiplies itself” states Simone Weil who continues: “It is vain to turn away from the past to think only about the future. It is a dangerous illusion to even believe that it is possible. The opposition between the future and the past is absurd. The future brings us nothing, gives us nothing; it is we who, to build it, must give it everything, even give it our life. But to give, one must possess, and we possess no other life, no other lifeblood than the treasures inherited from the past and digested, assimilated, recreated by us”12.
From Boni Castellane who takes us to the hostile land in which we find ourselves today we read: “The uprooting of everything from its transcendent perspective is configured, therefore, not only as a theoretical presupposition of all materialism but also as an objective to be imposed on those aspects of reality still spiritually and ideally linked to transcendence. This is very simply because the spiritual world, […], represents an objective obstacle to the achievement of absolute power and the definitive establishment of the materialist order”13.
In a materialist conception for which nothing exists beyond the world in its material, contingent and deterministic aspects “every ethical or religious limit is nothing more than an impediment to the achievement of the maximum possible power, here and now, without limit, without norm. Subjective desire therefore becomes the only moral norm and limit” we read from Boni Castellane who highlights how the “logic of desperate nihilism does not provide for any compassion, any limit, any harmony other than the intrinsic criterion of strategic utilitarianism”14.
One of the many deceptions of modern times is that which identifies the Enlightenment Revolution and the Industrial Revolution as an improvement in people’s lives. Very short life, death from hunger, illiteracy, these are some of the clichés about the Middle Ages. All rigorously and detailedly dismantled in Was Reason Wrong? by Massimo Fini. Here it is not a question of idealizing a phantom golden age, but of realizing that that world, despite its harshness and harshness, was much closer to the human, to nature, to life, to death, unlike the modern world .
Modernity was born under the sign of the denial of the transcendent, of the denial of the intrinsic value of life. With the awareness that “The words of all men who speak of life must sound vain to those who are not in the same order of thoughts”15 as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote.
Continuing reading Boni Castellane: “Only a life devoid of intrinsic meaning could accept the unsustainability of modernity”, “Having created the unlivable life as a prerequisite for the new modern existence, everything could be sold to those who no longer had anything beautiful in their own existence. You couldn’t sell the morning air to the farmer, you couldn’t sell the Sunday Mass to the farmer, you couldn’t sell the first ripe peach to the farmer, you couldn’t sell your child, […], to the worker yes he could sell anything”16.
It was precisely the existence and essence of the peasant world, bearer of another time linked to the cycles of nature, rites and the sacred that represented what had to be swept away both by the Industrial Revolution and by the ideologies it produced.
The child ideologies of the Enlightenment Revolution and the Industrial Revolution – capitalism and communism/Marxism – beyond an apparent superficial contrast are expressions of the same materialism, they originate from the same materialist root.
The “radical break with the cosmos” – to use Charbonneau’s words – of the worker and the citizen would become the characteristic of humanity.

In our West, farmers are increasingly rare, over the years they have been replaced by agro-industrials who have impoverished and poisoned the land with intensive monocultures and pesticides. Agriculture 4.0 with drones, sensors and digital applications is far from putting our hands in the land, from seasonal times and cycles. Nature and the peasant struggle, symbol of the fight against the artificial, have long since been replaced by artificial rhythms and poisons and GMOs from Bayer and Monsanto. From the smart city to the smart countryside with fields dotted with sensors and flown over by drones and crops managed remotely. Plants grown high up without soil and without natural light, meat grown in vitro, new genetic manipulation techniques: nourishing humans in this way underlies a precise idea of the human being that prepares us for the laboratories where this human will be selected and reproduced in the same way that the immense zootechnical laboratory prepared him for a zootechnical existence.
Distant is the memory of the Indian farmers who revolted against biotechnological multinationals such as Monsanto who wanted to impose monocultures, pesticides, GMO Terminator seeds and erase ancient local varieties and ancient knowledge, contaminating and poisoning natural ecosystems and local populations. What context will be able to understand the meaning of those and other struggles against biotechnology? The new eco-anxious pseudo-rebels will not be able to reconnect with those struggles, they are not their children, they are the artificial fruit of a fake ecologism of the technocratic elite and only sterile fruits can come from a cybernetic tree, incapable of taking the meaning of past ecological struggles and generate new struggles. They will only be able to follow the script written by others. They are the new generations that are confused and live in real time and are perpetually interconnected, the new generations of “hurry up” with a perennial state of emergency.
In today’s times, in a world where everything is overturned, even the meaning of ecology has been overturned. An ecology promoted by various companies, by states, by large corporations, by philanthropic foundations, by the new groups of eco-anxious people produced by Davos. Underlying a neo-Malthusianism that considers us as a cancer for this planet, there are too many of us, we should go and sterilize ourselves they tell us. This is functional to shift the level of the problem, no longer an entire energy-intensive, predatory and destructive techno-industrial economic system, but the individual with his habits who is blamed and who must align with the new green dictates.
This is how we intervene on the Earth, on the sky, on the seas, on living beings and on all the processes that regulate them: a continuous manipulation.

“Nature is inhabited by an underground, dormant fire that never comes out into the open and that no frost can cool. […] This subterranean fire has its altar in the breast of every man”17, wrote Henry David Thoreau. Today we are witnessing a war against nature, against what is born and what dies. Nature is limits, it is constraints and represents everything that progressive and transhumanist ideology wants to erase. Today we must despise everything that refers to life, birth, the body, blood, viscera, flesh, procreation, childhood, old age, illness, death. The only variations allowed are artificial ones. It is no coincidence that the term nature has been replaced with the aseptic term environment which refers to something that can be built by human beings. The ideology of modernity is based on an aversion and visceral hatred towards nature, today we find the heirs of this ideology in the world of biotechnological research and in the progressive left-wing transfeminist academic world which considers nature as a cage from which to free oneself . A liberation and emancipation from the living itself – spontaneous, autonomous and unpredictable – and from the constraints of nature for a submission to the technological constraints of the machine-world.
What is at stake around nature is the sense of human finitude, the difference between human beings and living beings and functioning machines. For our part, not only do we bring a different conception of living things, but a radically different feeling, like the one that refers us to John Muir who during a windstorm in a forest wrote: “After having observed the Sierra waterways from springs to the plains, contemplating them blossoming into white waterfalls, sliding into crystalline slopes, gushing out in a gray fan of foam among the ravines full of boulders and finally crossing the woods in extensive and peaceful bends – when we have thoroughly learned their language and their shapes, then we could distinctly hear their song rising in unison in a majestic hymn that envelops the mountains like lace”18. For our part, we will always be against Promethean omnipotence and the desire for absolute manipulation of the world.
Christopher Lasch is clear about the French Revolution, highlighting how this “demonstrated that the attempt to reshape society on the basis of abstract principles of justice, eradicating now stabilized ways of life and overthrowing ancient conceptions, led more to the reign of terror than to that of brotherhood and universal love”19. The Enlightenment condemned so-called prejudice as the enemy of reason, but in doing so it sought to eradicate a source of moral control, a hidden wisdom that guided the conduct of men and women, an underground common sense that bound the Community, an antibody to everything that the Industrial Revolution and following the advance of the techno-scientific system would have produced.
After all, if we think about it, what was the Enlightenment, that blind faith in progress, in overcoming at all costs everything that was considered as past, as obsolete – and what is transhumanism today – if not a revolt against nature, life, death, a mechanization of the world which with the advance of techniques became manipulation and artificialisation, a will to direct and redesign the eternal cycle of events, including human beings, a will to absolute power which we can see taking shape in the development of genetic, climatic and reproductive engineering hand in hand with social engineering.
But as Massimo Fini intuited: “This rationality, so indisputable, so comforting, contains within itself a deadly trap. Because it inevitably and progressively touches nature, modifies it, manipulates it, violates it, concentrates in very short times and spaces what biology has regulated with slow and broad cadences. […] but technology not only breaks the balance of nature understood as something external to us, it also attacks man as an element that is part of this nature”20. Words that are well connected to the thoughts of Bernard Charbonneau: “The crisis of the traditional order favored technical progress, and technical progress ended up destroying it. This evolution became irreversible starting from the middle of the Middle Ages. […] Once dispersed techniques are starting to converge. […] After having covered the entire visible surface, the technique prepares to flow invisibly back to the depths of man”21.
Without the reduction of the living and the human to a mere material substrate, the attack of materialist ideologies, techno-science and transhumanism would not have been possible. Only an uprooted existence – consumed and consumable – devoid of meaning can accept the unliveability and inevitability of the machine world.

July 2024, Bergamo, published in the newspaper L’Urlo della Terra, n. 12, July 2024, https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/dalla-negazione-del-trascendente-allumanita-cibernetica-e-transumana-silvia-guerini/

1AA.VV. Smagliature digitali. Corpi, generi, tecnologie, Agenzia X, 2018.

2Silvia Guerini, Verso la riproduzione artificiale per tutti. Nuove linee guida per l’accesso alle tecniche di fecondazione assistita in Italia, Giugno 2024, https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/verso-la-riproduzione-artificiale-per-tutti-nuove-linee-guida-per-laccesso-alle-tecniche-di-fecondazione-assistita-in-italia/

3AA.VV, Pinguini, conchiglie e staminali. Verso futuri transpecie, Derive e Approdi, 2022.

4AA. VV. (a cura di ) Silvia Guerini e Costantino Ragusa, I figli della macchina, biotecnologie, riproduzione artificiale, eugenetica, Asterios editore, 2024.

5 Bernard Charbonneau, Il sistema e il caos, Arianna editrice, 2000.

6 Silvia Guerini, Dal corpo neutro al cyborg postumano. Riflessioni critiche all’ideologia gender, Asterios editore, 2022.

7 Ernst Jünger, Trattato del ribelle, Adelphi, 1990.

8 Ernst Jünger, Cacce sottili, Guanda, 2022.

9Henry David Thoreau, Storia naturale del Massachusetts, The Portable Thoreau.

10Hannah Arendt, Le origini del totalitarismo, Edizioni di comunità, 1967.

11Ernst Jünger, op, cit.

12Simone Weil, La prima radice, SE, 2013.

13Boni Castellane, In terra ostile, Signs Books, 2023.

14Boni Castellane, op. cit.

15Ralph Waldo Emerson, L’anima suprema, l’amore, l’amicizia, la politica, Ortica editrice, 2012.

16Boni Castellane, op.cit.

17Henry David Thoreau, Il mattino interiore, Ortica editrice, 2018.

18 John Muir, Una tempesta di vento nella foresta, La vita felice, 2019.

19 Christopher Lasch, Il paradiso in terra. Il progresso e la sua critica, Neri Pozza, 2016.

20 Massimo Fini, La Ragione aveva Torto?, Camunia, 1985.

21 Bernard Charbonneau, op.cit.

Transumanesimo: L’ideologia del tecno-mondo – S. Guerini e C. Ragusa

Pubblicato il da

Transumanesimo: l’ideologia del tecno-mondo,
Silvia Guerini e Costantino Ragusa, in ACrO-Pólis

Leggi qui:

Transumanesimo: l’ideologia del tecno-mondo

Il testo è un capitolo del libro:
L’ideologia del tecno-mondo. Resistere alla megamacchina,
Silvia Guerini e Costantino Ragusa, acro-pólis, 2024
https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/documenti/lideologia-del-tecno-mondo-resistere-alla-megamacchina-2/

Le religioni industriali contro la natura e la libertà. Cosmismo e Transumanesimo – Jacques Luzi

Pubblicato il da

LE RELIGIONI INDUSTRIALI CONTRO LA NATURA E LA LIBERTA’.
COSMISMO E TRANSUMANESIMO.

A partire dal XVII secolo, la tecnoscienza si è instaurata distinguendo l’oggettivo e il soggettivo, il fisico e il metafisico, i giudizi di fatto e i giudizi di valore. Denigrando il “soggettivo”, il “metafisico” e i “giudizi di valore” come altrettanti fonti di confusione e di errore, si è inibito di porre essa stessa il proprio valore.

In altri termini, la tecnoscienza, restando fedele ai suoi princìpi, non può intervenire nella discussione intorno al suo significato e sull’uso dei suoi prodotti. Pur avendo permesso di dissipare certe superstizioni ataviche, il rischio è allora di sprofondare nell’autoaccrescimento insensato e suicidario dei suoi perfezionamenti, vale a dire nel nihilismo. Perché, dopo l’antica mutilazione della vita da parte di vincoli morali asfissianti, la tecnoscienza aprirebbe la via verso l’onnipotenza che permetta di correggerla e liberarsene. Quale che sia la sua forma, il nihilismo si riconosce dalla sua svalutazione della vita umana sulla Terra e dalla valorizzazione di un al di là inesistente.

Una combinazione di questi due tipi di nihilismo è del tutto concepibile, se si aureola il nihilismo tecnoscientifico con una giustificazione che attiene al nihilismo religioso. E’il caso, esplicitamente, del cosmismo russo. Ed è pure il caso, anche quando i suoi propagandisti si presentano come atei, del transumanesimo californiano. Malgrado le loro differenze, e talvolta i loro contrasti, queste due religioni cyborg si trovano d’accordo nel considerare lo scatenamento tecnologico contemporaneo, fondato sulla convergenza delle nanotecnologie, delle biotecnologie e dell’intelligenza artificiale, come un’ascensione verso la sovrumanità divina.

IL COSMISMO RUSSO: UN “TRADIZIONALISMO TECNOCRATICO”.

E’nel XIX secolo che Nikolaj Fëdorov (1829-1903) ha sviluppato il cosmismo, realizzando la sintesi del cristianesimo ortodosso e del futurismo tecnoscientifico. Persuaso dell’interazione spirituale tra umanità e cosmo, egli aspirava a dare un senso ai progressi tecnologici: dominio della natura in vista di superare i limiti umani, di raggiungere l’immortalità, di risuscitare i morti e conquistare lo spazio (dato che diventa insufficiente la dimensione della Terra). Salvezza universale da parte della tecnologia, che fa dell’umano l’eguale di Dio per realizzare la sua volontà.

Questo intento di fondere religione e razionalità calcolatrice ha ugualmente influenzato, al fine di compattare le masse, il regime sovietico. Come anticipava l’ideologo Anatolij Lunačarskij  (1875-1933):

            Il socialismo è una lotta organizzata dall’umanità contro la natura per la sottomissione totale di essa alla ragione.  La speranza nella vittoria, lo sforzo, la mobilitazione delle forze creano una nuova religione. Con l’apostolo Paolo, possiamo dire: “Siamo salvi nella speranza”.[1]

Non è dunque sorprendente trovare tracce del cosmismo di Fëdorov negli scienziati bolscevici, per esempio in Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935), fisico precursore dell’era spaziale, e Vladimir Vernadskij (1963-1945), biochimico inventore del termine biosfera.

Nella Russia postsovietica, il cosmismo è ripreso e modernizzato, al fine di piazzare l’industrialismo sotto una bandiera nazionalista, imperialista ed antioccidentale. Per esempio, il Club d’Izborsk, un think tank vicino a Vladimir Putin, raggruppa universitari, giornalisti, uomini politici, religiosi o anche militari. Per questi propagandisti di professione, solo lo “spirito russo” può permettere di fare un impiego benefico delle nuove tecnologie, all’inverso dell’edonismo volgare che imperversa in Occidente.

Al “destino manifesto” degli USA, essi contrappongono la “missione storica” del “popolo russo”.[2] Come scrive il filosofo Vitaly Vladimirovich Averyanov (1973-), direttore dell’Istituto del Conservatorismo Dinamico e membro del Club d’Izborsk:

               La riscoperta di Fëdorov è all’opposto della ricerca “atlantica” moderna dell’”elisir d’immortalità” egoista. L’immortalità arbitraria dei transumanisti, anche se potesse essere realizzata, non potrebbe essere apprezzata da coloro di cui essa perpetuerebbe l’attuale decadenza: la loro vittoria sulla morte sarebbe solo un nuovo atto di consumo insignificante. Il sogno di Fëdorov è l’avvento di una persona fondamentalmente diversa, un essere superiore, capace di creare organi e tessuti, di spostarsi all’istante su qualunque distanza. Immortale, ma nello stesso tempo modesto e gioioso. In lui, il potere dell’essere centrale dell’universo (il Cristo-Dio-uomo, la cui opera è la nostra più alta “causa comune”) si combina con una mancanza totale di esaltazione di se stesso in quanto individuo. La gioia della Nuova Terra e del Nuovo Cielo compensa per lui le gioie della “vecchia umanità”, che vengono dall’assurdità della competizione, della cupidigia, dell’invidia e della bestialità.[3] 

In queste condizioni, la tecnologia, l’aumento dell’umano e l’esplorazione dello spazio, potrebbero essere messi al servizio della gestione ragionata della natura, della fraternità universale e del trionfo pasquale dell’umanità sulla morte. E’ la ragione per la quale il cosmismo russo si presenta come un “tradizionalismo tecnocratico” di portata planetaria, il solo capace di condurre l’umanità della “biosfera” verso una “neosfera” d’ispirazione cristica.

Nel 2010, Kirill, il patriarca della Chiesa ortodossa, si è naturalmente alleato a questa unione reazionaria di scienza e di fede:

                Il Signore ci ha invitato ad abitare e a conquistare il nostro pianeta e l’universo intero. E’per questo che l’aspirazione dell’uomo ad elevarsi verso le stelle non è un capriccio, un fantasma o una moda, ma un programma impresso da Dio nella natura umana.[4]

Dio ha dunque creato l’uomo perché possa fondersi con le sue macchine programmabili, al fine di portare la buona novella nelle galassie più lontane.

I LEGAMI COL TRANSUMANESIMO CALIFORNIANO: UNO STESSO “FUTURISMO TECNOCRATICO”.

Il cosmismo condivide col transumanesimo la volontà di potenza tecnologica, volendo altresì distinguersene per le finalità perseguite: il materialismo di mercato e individualista in Occidente, lo spiritualismo pianificato e altruistico in Russia. Ma le due sette si compenetrano, principalmente perché entrambe mescolano il pessimismo contemporaneo e il messianismo degli strumenti, la “caduta” e la “parusia”.

Nick Bostrom, che professa il transumanesimo all’università di Oxford, non cessa  di indicare i “rischi esistenziali” provocati dalla tecnologia: l’utilizzazione abusiva deliberata di nanotecnologie (nanobot nocivi), l’olocausto nucleare, la diffusione apocalittica di un agente biologicamente modificato, la programmazione  malauguratamente fallita di una macchina superintelligente, ecc…Ma queste prospettive allarmanti sono per lui l’occasione, non di richiamare ad una decrescita tecnologica ragionata, bensì di presentare l’accelerazione tecnologica come unica via di salvezza:

                 Non dovremmo incolpare la civiltà o la tecnologia d’imporre grandi rischi esistenziali. In ragione del modo in cui abbiamo definito i rischi esistenziali, un fallimento nello sviluppo della civiltà tecnologica implicherebbe essere vittime di un disastro esistenziale. Senza tecnologia, le nostre probabilità di evitare i rischi esistenziali sarebbero dunque nulle. Con la tecnologia, abbiamo una certa possibilità, anche se i rischi più gravi si rivelano ormai essere quelli generati dalla tecnologia stessa.[5]

Si trova la stessa struttura illogica nel filosofo cosmista russo Arseny Gulyga (1921-1996), per il quale la “premonizione di una catastrofe comune” provocata dalla tecnologia, accompagna “il pensiero della salvezza universale” grazie alla tecnologia.[6]

La compenetrazione del cosmismo e del transumanesimo è talvolta esplicita: per esempio, per Hugo de Garis, ricercatore australiano e discepolo del papa del transumanesimo, Ray Kurzweil, l’intelligenza artificiale è la nuova prova dell’esistenza di Dio:

                L’ascesa degli artiletti (intelletti artificiali, cioè macchine divine supremamente intelligenti dotate di capacità intellettuali miliardi di miliardi superiori al livello umano) nel corso di questo secolo dà l’impressione che l’esistenza di una divinità (un’entità supremamente intelligente capace di creare un universo) appaia essere una realtà molto più plausibile (…). Penso che l’ascesa del cosmismo -l’ideologia in favore di un’umanità che costruisca artiletti in questo secolo- rende l’idea di una divinità più plausibile, se non inevitabile.[7]

Se cosmismo e transumanesimo restano malgrado tutto fratelli nemici, ciò dipende, al di là delle polemiche religiose, dalle sfide geopolitiche della lotta per l’egemonia, quali sopravvengono continuamente nel quadro competitivo dell’industrialismo mondiale.

LE RELIGIONI CYBORG AL SERVIZIO DEL “SUPERINDUSTRIALISMO”.

Le glorificazioni cosmiste e transumaniste della tecnologia hanno a che fare con la stessa religione cyborg. Col medesimo rituale di purificazione dal dato naturale

-giudicato e condannato per la sua imperfezione-, grazie alla sua trasmutazione in artefatto perfetto. Vale a dire con la costrizione mortale del vivente concreto nel suo modello astratto.

I famosi “rischi esistenziali” di Bostrom sono in realtà l’esito inevitabile di questa guerra contro la natura (non umana e umana), che le società industriali portano avanti senza tregua nella loro corsa alla potenza.

La guerra alla natura. Prendiamo la digitalizzazione del mondo. Intronizzando l’intelligenza artificiale come monarca “oggettivo”, essa necessita di un’infrastruttura planetaria che è già la più enorme macchina mai costruita dagli umani. Nel 2018, l’industria poneva cavi a fibre ottiche alla velocità della luce. Ogni secondo, centotrenta nuovi apparecchi si connettono a Internet, comportando la crescita esponenziale del consumo di acqua, di gas, di prodotti chimici tossici e di energia. Aggiungendo gli impatti sulla biodiversità della deforestazione indispensabile all’estrazione dei metalli e delle terre rare per costruire i componenti elettronici, la prospettiva di transitare dalla biosfera ad una neosfera “benefica” parrebbe, a dir poco, risibile.

Qual è, allora, la vera finalità del misticismo tecnocratico?

La si trova nei preparativi alla guerra robotica che gli USA, la Russia e la Cina, coi loro rispettivi alleati, hanno già iniziato a portare avanti in modo indiretto, al fine di arrogarsi i resti della natura indispensabili per alimentare la potenza. Per esempio, la guerra russo-ucraina, considerata dagli stati maggiori e dall’industria delle armi come la sperimentazione delle guerre future tra nazioni industrializzate, è rapidamente divenuta una guerra di droni.[8]

La si trova pure nelle guerre generalizzate che l’industrialismo porta avanti contro gli umani. Non solo nel desiderio d’”aumento”, vale a dire di soppressione dell’umano mediante la sua fusione con la macchina, non solo in quello di riprodurre questo cyborg in uteri-macchina, ma anche nella sostituzione della riflessione umana con la retroazione automatica, al fine d’imporre dappertutto l’organizzazione disciplinare cibernetica. Che sia nella fabbrica automatizzata, sul campo di battaglia automatizzato o nell’ufficio automatizzato, l’obiettivo è porre il corpo sociale sotto il dominio incontestabile della Machina sapiens, la creatura “superintelligente” dei tecnocrati-dei.   

Dato che sono basate sulla loro svalorizzazione a priori, e rappresentano ciò da cui si tratta di salvarsi, i progressi tecnologici conducono ineluttabilmente verso la distruzione della natura e della libertà.

                                                 *

Certo, l’essere umano è uno strano animale prematuro, che la tensione tra la sua vitalità e la sua impotenza fisica porta ad essere ossessionato, sin dalla prima età, dal fantasma dell’onnipotenza. Ma la sua prematurità ne fa pure un essere culturale, capace di essere educato da valori collettivi che permettano di tenere a bada questo fantasma. O di trascenderlo con produzioni simboliche che non ne facciano l’apologia.

Il nihilismo è intrinseco alla volontà di potenza sfrenata inscritta nei perfezionamenti della tecnologia. Essa fa della natura (non umana e umana) un oggetto morto, che essa smonta nei suoi meccanismi più delicati, per ricattarla, modificarla e corromperla a suo piacimento. E’ vano voler dare un senso a ciò che così si dispiega in modo insensato, nella negazione sistematica della vita sulla Terra.

Qualunque cosa ne dicano i cosmisti e i transumanisti, il superuomo non è colui che condanna la condizione umana innestandosi, fino ad autodistruggersi, protesi tecnologiche, ma colui che l’accetta integralmente, in tutta la sua tragica ambivalenza. Oltre a riappropriarsi dei loro mezzi di esistenza, tale è allora il compito di coloro che, contro l’eccesso industriale, non disperano di vivere da umani nella natura: umanizzare, spiritualizzare e abbellire la condizione umana senza rinnegarla.

Jacques Luzi

[1] Citato da M.Eltchaninoff, Lénine a marché sur la Lune. La folle histoire des cosmistes et transhumanistes russes, Arles, Actes Sud, 2022, p. 65.

[2] J. Faure, «Le cosmisme , une mythologie nationale russe contre le transhumanisme», 6 gennaio 2021, theconversation.com.

[3] A.V.Vladimirovich, «Heвидимая ось мира. Нам нужен орден мечтаносцев» (L’asse invisibile del mondo. Abbiamo bisogno dell’Orcine dei Sognatori), 3 gennaio 2020, izborsk-club.ru.

[4] Citato da J.Faure, «Le cosmisme: une vieille idée russe pour xxie siècle», Le Monde diplomatique, dicembre 2018.

[5]  N.Bostrom, «Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority», Global Policy, Vol. 4, n°1, 2013, p.15-31, nickbostrom.com.

[6] Citato da A.V.Vladimirovich, op.cit.

[7] H. de Garis, «From cosmism to deism», 18 gennaio 2011, thekurzweillibrary.com.

[8] Su questo soggetto, vari articoli dell’Atlantic Council, think tank americano specializzato nelle relazioni internazionali e vicino all’OTAN, sono disponibili su atlanticcouncil.org.

Pubblicato sul giornale L’Urlo della Terra, num. 12, Luglio 2024

Scrivici per chiederci il giornale, le nostre pubblicazioni e per sapere delle iniziative che organizziamo e a cui partecipiamo
www.resistenzealnanomondo.org