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.