To me, this is a huge discussion, which I know I won't do justice in this comment, but here's what I'm thinking. Apologies in advance for the long reply.
I think you're striking at the root of a crucially important idea.
Personally, I'd want to set Gates & Musk aside to flesh out this idea better. While their stated motivations are diametrically opposed, I'm not convinced that their methods will differ much in the long run.
What nobody in power wants is an engaged self-governing citizenry. This includes both Gates & Musk. Musk seems to me like a transhumanist eugenicist wearing a paper-thin "pro-humanity" persona designed for a particular culture war participant. Instead of merely culling humanity, he would prefer people become cogs in his "Human Colossus" (https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html#part1)
As somebody watching his platform X from a distance, I feel I know everything I need to know about his plans to "uplift" humanity.
Alright. Musk Bad, but that's not really a salient point or even the point of your piece here. There are two major questions to address:
1) To what degree MAHA is being permitted to be part of the discussion for military purposes?
2) What does Musk offer this coalition?
To zoom out a bit, in hindsight, what did Covid-19 accomplish? As a whole, I would say it reasonably effectively normalized injection mandates, expansive public health powers, and totalitarian suppression of dissent. I don't think I'm alone in that assessment, but many people underestimate the lasting effects.
Back in 2022 Denis Rancourt did an excellent interview on Geopolitics & Empire discussing the concept of the Covid Crisis being leveraged as a way to "totalitarianify" society. Speaking as a Canadian, I think it has been wildly successful at this, despite push back on particular points.
"So you never have democracy during war time and you always have this absolute totalitarian system, and that's what they're installing. And that's what they're putting into place in making sure that real democratic governance never returns, not for the near future anyway."
So if war (on Earth, or conquest in space) is coming, presumably soldiers (or just bodies) are needed at some point or another. I didn't consider cyborgs when I started thinking about this, but I think you're absolutely on to something here. Why can't "enhancements" be "medical countermeasures"? Regardless, if the war machine needs meat for testing or the grinder, why does the health of the citizenry *really* matter? We've seen increasing amounts of immigration deployed for other issues, why would this be any different?
Technocrats like Gates & Musk are BOTH struggling with the dilemma that it's very difficult to maintain control over a fractured, alienated, population. To have all the fancy things technocrats desire, they need at least the pretense of a human society to sustain it. People can directly feel and understand when they're under attack, but it's much harder for them to realize when they've sold themselves out.
This is why I believe Elon Musk is all about neutralizing resistance. Moving forward, I'm convinced that only the most obvious and severe assaults on the public will be given attention. As you've touched on many of the health reforms being discussed are directly tied to military requirements. This alone is troubling because it means that we can expect the bulk of the "help" and intrusions to be aimed at children and young adults.
It's the urgency that's most worrying. Trying to turn around the "health" of a populace in 30-50 years is a very different predicament than attempting to do so in under 10-20 years. Clearly the desires and long-term well being of the individual will be some of the first corners cut. During this time, we can expect an immense amount of propaganda aimed at bringing people's guard down while even more nefarious measures roll in.
To not leave this on a completely bleak note, I feel the need to share what the actual way out of this is. I was blown away at Julie Ponesse's testimony at this year's National Citizen's inquiry. Dr Ponesse perfectly explains what the big picture threats are and what we can do as individuals to address the actual root causes.
Gabe in my scenario, the health of the citizenry matters for 2 reasons:
1) Sick people cannot travel in deep space and colonize Mars. You need people in top physical condition because they are going to be wildly abused for years both physically and psychologically
2) Cyborg-ing (so go speak) of humans will also damage and kill human beings. The weaker you are, the more likely you will die or become "useless" in the cyborg process.
Lastly what I will say about this - a counter argument could be "Well you only need to take care of SOME people to do those things, not all"
Perhaps, but I would argue that Musk believes you need a LARGE PORTION of society to pick from to be successful in EITHER of these two potential endeavors. These are massive experiments that are bound to fail multiple times in multiple ways. To be successful, you will need millions of prime specimens to utilize and to experiment upon.
I'm very partial to the cyborg angle for a variety of reasons, but I think we're both converging on the idea that a radical transformation of the public for some (or many) high risk ventures is desired by part of the technocrat class.
I would argue, the reason for wanting the majority of the population to be... modified in such order is that there is a converging of interests. I don't presume that Musk himself would be in charge of the White House or policy moving forward. For all we know, Musk himself may simply be one "vendor" for cybernetic "augmentations". Just as Tesla popularized electric cars, Neuralink could be the wedge to normalize various intrusions to the public.
What's clear is that there is an obvious national security angle to pushing for better health, and just as we both know there are sincere health advocates, yourself being among them.
But the troubling part is how nominal "improvements" can be made on a population level to justify the erosion of individual autonomy. I can very much see the angle becoming "Russia wants us weak" or "we tried letting people fix themselves but it just doesn't work" to argue against people's ability to make their own choices.
To me, this is partially what makes this dangerous territory. It's one thing to want to remove structural barriers to people living more healthily, but it's a whole different thing to grant the state presumption it has the right to determine what citizens "should" be. This is partially where my concerns come from, I think this is a particularly slippery slope where very justified concerns can be weaponized for troubling overreach. I believe the broader coalition (Beyond just Musk & RFK Jr.) has reasons to go much further for either wartime, or the reasons you outline.
Regardless, I think the answer is a strong commitment to individual autonomy and medical ethics. If anything we need to strengthen medical ethics conceptually, socially and legally. I greatly appreciate your efforts in this space.
To me, this is a huge discussion, which I know I won't do justice in this comment, but here's what I'm thinking. Apologies in advance for the long reply.
I think you're striking at the root of a crucially important idea.
Personally, I'd want to set Gates & Musk aside to flesh out this idea better. While their stated motivations are diametrically opposed, I'm not convinced that their methods will differ much in the long run.
What nobody in power wants is an engaged self-governing citizenry. This includes both Gates & Musk. Musk seems to me like a transhumanist eugenicist wearing a paper-thin "pro-humanity" persona designed for a particular culture war participant. Instead of merely culling humanity, he would prefer people become cogs in his "Human Colossus" (https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html#part1)
As somebody watching his platform X from a distance, I feel I know everything I need to know about his plans to "uplift" humanity.
Alright. Musk Bad, but that's not really a salient point or even the point of your piece here. There are two major questions to address:
1) To what degree MAHA is being permitted to be part of the discussion for military purposes?
2) What does Musk offer this coalition?
To zoom out a bit, in hindsight, what did Covid-19 accomplish? As a whole, I would say it reasonably effectively normalized injection mandates, expansive public health powers, and totalitarian suppression of dissent. I don't think I'm alone in that assessment, but many people underestimate the lasting effects.
Back in 2022 Denis Rancourt did an excellent interview on Geopolitics & Empire discussing the concept of the Covid Crisis being leveraged as a way to "totalitarianify" society. Speaking as a Canadian, I think it has been wildly successful at this, despite push back on particular points.
"So you never have democracy during war time and you always have this absolute totalitarian system, and that's what they're installing. And that's what they're putting into place in making sure that real democratic governance never returns, not for the near future anyway."
Denis Rancourt on "COVID19 is a War Measure for Population Control in Shadow of US-China Conflict" (https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=108)
So if war (on Earth, or conquest in space) is coming, presumably soldiers (or just bodies) are needed at some point or another. I didn't consider cyborgs when I started thinking about this, but I think you're absolutely on to something here. Why can't "enhancements" be "medical countermeasures"? Regardless, if the war machine needs meat for testing or the grinder, why does the health of the citizenry *really* matter? We've seen increasing amounts of immigration deployed for other issues, why would this be any different?
Technocrats like Gates & Musk are BOTH struggling with the dilemma that it's very difficult to maintain control over a fractured, alienated, population. To have all the fancy things technocrats desire, they need at least the pretense of a human society to sustain it. People can directly feel and understand when they're under attack, but it's much harder for them to realize when they've sold themselves out.
This is why I believe Elon Musk is all about neutralizing resistance. Moving forward, I'm convinced that only the most obvious and severe assaults on the public will be given attention. As you've touched on many of the health reforms being discussed are directly tied to military requirements. This alone is troubling because it means that we can expect the bulk of the "help" and intrusions to be aimed at children and young adults.
It's the urgency that's most worrying. Trying to turn around the "health" of a populace in 30-50 years is a very different predicament than attempting to do so in under 10-20 years. Clearly the desires and long-term well being of the individual will be some of the first corners cut. During this time, we can expect an immense amount of propaganda aimed at bringing people's guard down while even more nefarious measures roll in.
To not leave this on a completely bleak note, I feel the need to share what the actual way out of this is. I was blown away at Julie Ponesse's testimony at this year's National Citizen's inquiry. Dr Ponesse perfectly explains what the big picture threats are and what we can do as individuals to address the actual root causes.
https://rumble.com/v5izvud-nci-vancouver-2024-hearings-day-1-october-17-2024.html?start=13775
Gabe in my scenario, the health of the citizenry matters for 2 reasons:
1) Sick people cannot travel in deep space and colonize Mars. You need people in top physical condition because they are going to be wildly abused for years both physically and psychologically
2) Cyborg-ing (so go speak) of humans will also damage and kill human beings. The weaker you are, the more likely you will die or become "useless" in the cyborg process.
Lastly what I will say about this - a counter argument could be "Well you only need to take care of SOME people to do those things, not all"
Perhaps, but I would argue that Musk believes you need a LARGE PORTION of society to pick from to be successful in EITHER of these two potential endeavors. These are massive experiments that are bound to fail multiple times in multiple ways. To be successful, you will need millions of prime specimens to utilize and to experiment upon.
I'm very partial to the cyborg angle for a variety of reasons, but I think we're both converging on the idea that a radical transformation of the public for some (or many) high risk ventures is desired by part of the technocrat class.
I would argue, the reason for wanting the majority of the population to be... modified in such order is that there is a converging of interests. I don't presume that Musk himself would be in charge of the White House or policy moving forward. For all we know, Musk himself may simply be one "vendor" for cybernetic "augmentations". Just as Tesla popularized electric cars, Neuralink could be the wedge to normalize various intrusions to the public.
What's clear is that there is an obvious national security angle to pushing for better health, and just as we both know there are sincere health advocates, yourself being among them.
But the troubling part is how nominal "improvements" can be made on a population level to justify the erosion of individual autonomy. I can very much see the angle becoming "Russia wants us weak" or "we tried letting people fix themselves but it just doesn't work" to argue against people's ability to make their own choices.
To me, this is partially what makes this dangerous territory. It's one thing to want to remove structural barriers to people living more healthily, but it's a whole different thing to grant the state presumption it has the right to determine what citizens "should" be. This is partially where my concerns come from, I think this is a particularly slippery slope where very justified concerns can be weaponized for troubling overreach. I believe the broader coalition (Beyond just Musk & RFK Jr.) has reasons to go much further for either wartime, or the reasons you outline.
Regardless, I think the answer is a strong commitment to individual autonomy and medical ethics. If anything we need to strengthen medical ethics conceptually, socially and legally. I greatly appreciate your efforts in this space.
I LOVE ❤️ THIS COMMENT!
WELL DONE GABE!
I agree with tons of what you say, not all. We need to get a roundtable discussion about this with Liam soon!
Let's do it!! Hit me up and we'll get it scheduled!