In these years of intellectual perplexity, the idea that science is impartial and that every “scientific” choice is therefore politically correct, based on scientific data, is back in fashion.
We are in the presence of one of the greatest lies directed at purposes that not only have nothing scientific, but serve only to cover political and moral choices with a kind of neutrality, and thus make choices, utterly arbitrary, necessary and inevitable. .
Science has never been free. For many years, he had to live with the severity of the Church, which demanded that auctoritas prevail over data and research evidence. Galileo is a known victim and we can give a valid example to all. He disguised himself to save his skin. Giordano Bruno preferred the stake.
Many of Leonardo da Vinci’s inventions are the result of his relationship with power, which required war machines, fortifications, and tools for defense and attack.
Even in present times, to say that science is free to act and research is a lie, as research laboratories are supported by states and private entities that fund according to their goals and not when their purposes are not thought through.
Science often ventures into worlds that are on the edge of humanity or, under the guise of protecting humanity, plays, like Dr. Strangelove, with the lives and survival of humans.
A recent example of scientific falsehood is the acquisition of functional laboratories, in which viruses in animals are taken and enhanced to attack humans, under the pretext of preparing an antidote. In essence, chimeras are produced and then fought off. The truth is, chimeras can become deadly weapons to be used in hybrid warfare. He lies.
A scientist who works to gain laboratory jobs can very well say that he is impartial, that he is simply doing laboratory research, but in fact he is lying on his conscience, because he must be well aware that he is preparing chimeras at the disposal of power.
The main, albeit belated, historical example of repentance of a great scientist is that of Einstein.
The Manhattan Project for the development of nuclear weapons that made it possible to build the bombs that were detonated in Japan in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, originated in Albert Einstein’s letter delivered on October 11, 1939 to US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, by which he recommended the world to begin research on nuclear fission To create devices of enormous power, before Nazi Germany succeeds under Hitler.
Einstein never worked on the bomb project. He was passionate about advocating the building of nuclear weapons in the belief that the United States would never use them except in self-defense against a similarly armed enemy power. He had to change his mind when it was used against Japan on its knees, now ready to surrender, for the sole purpose of imposing itself on the Soviet Union: “If I had known that the Germans had not succeeded in building the atomic bomb, I would never have lifted a finger.”
Shortly before his death, on July 18, 1955, he sent a letter to Bertrand Russell in favor of the declaration known as the “Russell-Einstein Manifesto” for nuclear disarmament, which was signed by dozens of Nobel laureates.
Research on the atomic bomb also allowed the development of civilian nuclear power.
Therefore, research has never been impartial, but directed by economic and political power, and even when it was free, it produced scientific evidence that was often two-sided: it could be used for the purposes of health, well-being, and the development of humanity, or, conversely, destruction and death.
The question is raised today in a dramatic way as science invades the most intimate domain of man, which concerns his inseparable whole. Not only was the unavailable ownership of the body of every human being free by nature questioned, but reason was questioned, assuming that soul and spirit do not exist, because they are unscientific superstitions.
Elon Musk recently announced that he is ready to implant chips in the brain using the Neuralink device. The stated purpose is clearly the noble aim of restoring essential functions to those who have been deprived of them by disease or accident.
The news immediately raises some questions.
The first concerns the individual’s freedom to have or not have anything implanted in his body and, above all, in his brain.
The second relates to the authority that can be delegated to verify that what is being planted is only related to the stated purpose and nothing else.
The third, which manages plant consequences.
Elon Musk is part of a scientist who in recent years has presented himself as “scientific” and who has made science the new religion. This world is the world of Big Tech, an ally of Big Pharma and Big Money, which in California in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley developed a scientific ideology that gradually became an implementation of transhumanism with overtones of Nazism.
In his article “The Dark Side of Silicon Valley” (Domino 8/2022), Zeno Joji starts from an article by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron that describes Silicon Valley CEOs as a cross between hippies and intellectuals who wanted to activate a kind of electronic agora and who wanted to activate gadgets aimed at abolishing democracy and limiting the power of the nation-state.
Over time, Silicon Valley CEOs came up with transhumanism which is “a scientific philosophical theory that aims to undo the limitations that nature and certain ethical and religious legacies place on the development of human intelligence and life, thanks to new discoveries in biology, genetics, and technology.” [i]
Transhumanists held their first assembly in 1994 in Palo Alto, which later became the association’s official headquarters in 2004.
Ideas of transhumanism are cultivated at the Extropy Institute, which opened the Extropy Center Nextropia in Cupertino.
Transhumanism centers are actually centers that press on “making ideas such as human-machine interference, modifications of the human genome, the search for eternal life, space colonization, and the design of brain interfaces that allow us to control digital systems through ideas.” [ii]
Posthumanist ideas find their roots in universalism, in the works of Julius Huxley, president of the British Eugenics Society between 1959 and 1962, Nick Land (The Dark Enlightenment), and Steve Fuller (Humanity 2.0).
Steve Fuller also called for a “rehabilitation of part of the Nazi aspirations”. [iii]
“How can we be sure – as Zeno Joji finally wrote – that the consequences will not be harmful? Mind control, mass conditioning, technological dictatorship, experiments on the poor. We have already pointed out the totalitarian tendencies of the Silicon Valley establishment.”[iv]Who wants to abolish the state and the laws of nature.
Where is the neutrality of science? Who manages research funding? Who governs scientific applications?
The answer is not: “Science says so,” because it is a filler answer that hides reality.
The answer is that science can be directed, and governed by a democratic state or an authoritarian power, or by a broad and positive interest, aimed at the upliftment and advancement of humanity or by special interests or by an elite that presupposes the right to rule the world. .
The answer is not conclusive, it is about democracy, forms of government, ethical standards that do not belong to science, and politics.
The topic is about the “borders”, which they want to abolish in Palo Alto. Not everything is permissible, even if it is scientific and science cannot decide what is permissible and what is not.
Claiming that “science says so” as a justification for political choices is a lie that must be exposed to prevent political choices from being dominated by the interests of a few or an ideology.
in the end. Scientists cannot hide behind a mask of neutrality. As humans they have a conscience. They will answer.
[i] Zeno Joji, The Dark Side of Silicon Valley, Domino 8/2022
[ii] Zeno Joji, The Dark Side of Silicon Valley, Domino 8/2022
[iii] Zeno Joji, The Dark Side of Silicon Valley, Domino 8/2022
[iv] Zeno Joji, The Dark Side of Silicon Valley, Domino 8/2022
“Infuriatingly humble alcohol fanatic. Unapologetic beer practitioner. Analyst.”