#eithics

[fdr-blog]

Social impacts of IT

I.T has had an impact on almost every aspect of life in different ways, below are some of the many ways I.T has impacted different environments.

The individual

Social Media.

Social media is a key part of everyday life, it allows for easy communication, exploration, easy promotion for businesses and general entertainment.

The concept of being able to make friends thousands of miles away in a different country is great. Social media allows people from all over the world to have a voice, meaning that more people can be aware of ongoing situations worldwide. But with this freedom for anyone to have a voice comes a huge disadvantage.

With having a large social media following comes responsibility, and at times this is abused for many purposes including monetary gain, mental gain, and physical abuse. For example, the platform YouTube allows for content creators to upload videos of anything they like, there has been numerous accounts of these "content creators" abusing their platform for personal gain. One incident that shocked the internet was when a content creator by the name of "Logan Paul" filmed himself finding a dead body whilst exploring a forest in Japan. Instead of Logan reporting the body to the correct authorities he proceeded to use the incident for personal gains (Subscribers, likes, money). Luckily this incident stirred up a lot of backlash and the opposite happened to him.

Social media has a massive effect on young people's mental health. With applications like Snapchat pushing "beauty" filters onto people to fix natural "flaws" on their body. Actions like this make people doubt their own beauty, making them think that these "natural influencers" who use image altercation tools are the normal beauty standard.

Education.

I.T is a massive factor in education nowadays, from using the world wide web to research information to completing entire courses with the help of computing tools.

The benefits of I.T within educations are huge. During the 2020 covid-19 lockdowns computer software such as Microsoft teams allows for students to get a certain level of education without having to be in a physical classroom environment. This meant that students could still get an education without the risk of transmitting the Covid-19 virus.

The negatives of using I.T within education - With students being able to work/submit work remotely it opens an opportunity for cheating. For example, in a classroom a teacher can monitor what their students are doing, but whilst these students "work" behind a screen it allows them access to the world wide web where they can get question results instantly.

Gaming

Whilst games used to be played outdoors or using physical objects (football, chess, tennis). These can now all be done with a handheld controller or a keyboard & mouse.

Gaming has had a great impact on our day-to-day life. Connecting people all over the world, opening job opportunities, and allowing entertainment with ease. These things can help to build social confidence, coordination skills, and problem solving skills.

But with all these things come a massive negative impact both physically and mentally. Gaming has been proven to cause addiction, causing lower physical face-to-face contact, driving social anxiety, and causing physical problems. Some countries have taken steps to ensure that these negative effects are minimized, take for example Chinas recent "ban" on children gaming.

Society

Relationships.

Relationships are built upon trust and commitment and I.T has and continues to impact both. With applications like tinder or bumble allowing people from all over the world to meet each other, finding a partner has never been easier. But with such ease comes a massive downfall in relationships I.E cheating. Cheating/affairs are a massive factor in using these applications with an estimated 18-25% of users on tinder being in a “committed” relationship. But it’s not all negative, love is strong, and these applications have allowed people to build families and find a lifelong partner.

Entertainment.

The new norm for entertainment is using I.T, from short burst videos like those found on tiktok, to full scale movies on Netflix. The benefits of these websites are great as they allow for more & more entertainment with lower cost. Users can access these platforms from their laptops, tablets or phones. This allows for ease of use but also drives isolation, instead of going to the cinema with friends they now sit on their bed scrolling through ten seconds clips on tiktok.

The problem with short burst media is that it lowers the user’s attention span. From hour long movies to ten-minute YouTube video, and now thirty second tiktok clips. Our attention span is lower than ever before. These platforms are proven to cause depression and anxiety; lower face-to-face interaction and a higher drive to constantly check our phones are causing people to feel depressed and isolated. Instead of getting dopamine from spending time with real friends, people are now relying on Share buttons, likes, followers to feel this release of dopamine.

Jobs/Employment

Finding a job has never been easier. With websites allowing employers to find future employees, the job-hunting process is now so simple anyone can do it. The I.T sector has opened millions of jobs worldwide, from creating a website to managing system-networks.

New technology has the potential to bring huge economic benefits. AI, robotics and other forms of smart technologies have the potential to boost global GDP by an estimated $15 Trillion.

Everyday workplaces have been impacted in some way by new technology. From stocking shelves to using complex PDA systems to find and manage stock. These things benefit businesses for the better and allow for a constant flowing workplace. More and more employees are using personal devices during work hours. These things’ lower workflow, and lower employee self-esteem. Social media has impacted how we view/interact the working environment.

With companies showing off a “perfect workplace” on social media sites, it creates this dystopia like version of a workplace, and falls back to this fake standard of how everyday things in life should be. With life in the workplace being shown as a great happy reality where everyone communicates with one another. More and more workplaces are becoming an antisocial space. Fewer group activities, more employees sitting alone using some form of technology, listening to music whilst working. These actions drive not only an antisocial workplace but help to create an antisocial world.3

Another affect technology has had on employment is the lack of new jobs due to automation. Many jobs we do now-a-days will be replaced quickly by robotics/ai. So said “new” jobs have been replaced. An example of this would be uber eats, first released to the public in 2014 uber eats allowed for easy delivery of food. In 2020 the uber eats drivers were replaced by robotics for certain shops. This is a prime example of how robotics will take over most everyday jobs, in the span of six years an entire sector of the delivery was automated.

How do we benefit from job loss? With more of the world becoming automated the need to rely on technology comes an opportunity to apply for jobs supporting the I.T sector, from fixing servers to installing operational software into plants around the world. There’s a huge number of unfilled jobs currently around the world with an estimated 3.5 million unfilled jobs in the cyber security sector alone.

Communities

I.T has impacted almost every community around the world in some way, from neighbour’s lack of socialising to high street shops going completely digital. These things all have a massive impact on communities.

High street shops now rely on user data to ensure what product is in stock. Amazon is a prime example of this, recently opening several stores that don’t rely on typical human-to-human contact, but instead use sensors and cameras to track what users are doing within the store. But what affect does this have on the consumer? Normally when a person enters a store they’re greeted by a happy face and a welcoming message, now welcomed by a prompt to sign in before entering the building. This creates a feeling of isolation, loneliness and sense that the consumer is no longer viewed upon as a human, but now a number in a database.

Without the face-to-face contact when completing everyday tasks our communication skills including listening, speaking, and body language will never grow, creating a world where everyday tasks are automated will ensure future generations don’t understand how to communicate correctly in different environments

Social media groups are wonderful as they connect people with similar interest from all around. This is great when it comes to things like cars, dogs, or technology. But the downside to these groups is that they’re also used by raciest, homophobes, and sexiest people. Multiple incidences of gatherings organised using social media groups have resulted in injury, harm or even death.

Social media groups are not all negative, they allow for gamers to communicate about their favour topic, parents to communicate about what’s best for their child, dog owners to share photos. These elements of social media are great as they show the best parts in people, allowing users to develop communicational skills for future use.

Legal and ethical issues

Technology has brought forward a lot of issues relating to law and ethical rights. Millions of people use the internet every day for malicious reason including crime, violence, and arranging physical harm.

A key example of misuse on the internet is pornography, porn has been at the centre of many crimes on the internet, resulting in serious injury and even death at times. An estimated 37% of all content on the internet is pornography. Now imagine how much of that is illegal material, harmful material or hateful material.

Pornography is a serious addiction for many, and continues to rule over people’s lives, it plays a serious role in how young people interact in relationships. It creates an almost dystopian view on sexual relationships, ruining the chance for many to build healthy bonds. Many who view porn struggle to hold a healthy relationship with loved ones.

Many ethical issues come with technology, including the misuse of personal information, misinformation, deep fakes and use of ai.

Misinformation is so common on the internet; you may have heard of “clickbait”. Commonly referring to using titles that don’t have anything to do with the subject topic, click baiting is used more & more daily, from online entertainment channels to news broadcast. With click baiting becoming more common, more users are finding themselves in vulnerable situations.

Such is the case with older generations falling victims to monetary schemes, and identity fraud. An estimated one in 12 respondents of a survey aged over 65 fell victim to monetary scams because of misinformation online.

Another ethical issue with technology is the use of AI. AI or artificial intelligence refers to the “theory and development of computer systems.” In simple terms this means that a computer can teach itself new skills that should ultimately benefit humans.

A big problem with A.I is the question of emotions relating to said A.I. Commonly asked is the question of “Can A.I feel human emotions”. With the right programming such “emotions” could take place, this raises multiple questions including Should they have the same rights as humans, can we harm them, will they overpower us.

A.I is used for many good things including surgery, developing cars, and detecting illnesses. These helps reduce resources and increase working hours. The negative side of these actions is that jobs are lost, communication is lacked, and knowledge isn’t shared.

With A.I replacing many jobs, humans lack the need to learn new skills including, how to communicate within certain aspects of a work environment, hands on skills, and functionality in society.

-FDR 22/11/2021

[oryx-and-thickney]

On being vegan and hating myself for it...

I literally went vegan because I did research and the research I found told me that being vegan was something beneficial I could do for the environment, no different than recycling, really, except more extreme I guess.

I read that it was one of few things an individual could do to fight global warming, deforestation, ocean pollution, and even world hunger to a degree. By no means did I think it was going to be the end all or be all of the world’s recovery but damn.

Every day now it seems something is on my dash accusing vegans of being less ethical than everyone else. We don’t care about immigrants, we don’t care about small farmers, we’re nazis comparing meat-eating to the holocaust, we’re privileged because some parts of the world literally can’t afford vegan diets or we’re racists because we don’t take into consideration all the cultures that sustainably consume meat or we’re all rich elitist white people looking down on everyone for not trying to go vegan and change the world while refusing to acknowledge the majority of the problems I stated above are at least 70 percent caused by the top 100 mega corporations.

I used to feel so good about this decision and honestly now I feel like a terrible person comparable to a colonialist imperialistic nazi because I don’t consume animal products like. Is it actually that wrong? Is it impossible to be vegan and conscientious? Or does it automatically make me a privileged fuckbag?

I’m honestly asking, I don’t trust myself to do more research, given that the first time I did, I found nothing on any of these points. I’m guessing that given my background as a white middle class American I’m prone to ignorance on the intricacies of this subject that I can’t enlighten myself on.

[locustheologicus]

Another Look at the Natural Law:

Examining its relationship to virtue ethics

The more I study some of the latest academic work on the concept of the natural law, and specifically the scholastic understanding of the natural law, the more I become fascinated with what this moral theory offers our contemporary field of ethics and moral theology. I am becoming more convinced that a scholastic concept of natural law can build a bridge with our human and social nature which (I firmly believe) emerges from the cosmological nature as we understand it. Part of this development includes how the scholastics understood natural law as emerging from nature and reason, the theological framework of the natural law that guided them, and also the emphasis they gave to the role of virtues in guiding our moral development.

I recently discovered a document from the Vatican's International Theological Commission titled: "In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law." Sadly I have not heard much about it but having stumbled upon it I felt a need to see what the Church was adding to the conversation on natural law and universal moral norms.

"In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law" International Theological Commission

I found the document to be open in how it considered its investigation into natural law, moral theology and ethics. It recognized a social reality where forms of moral relativism has allowed the socio-economic and political powers to compromise many of our cherished rights and social regulations.

Aware of what is currently at stake in the question, we would like, in this document, to invite all those pondering the ultimate foundations of ethics and of the juridical and political order, to consider the resources that a renewed presentation of the doctrine of the natural law contains. This law, in substance, affirms that persons and human communities are capable, in the light of reason, of discerning the fundamental orientations of moral action in conformity with the very nature of the human subject and of expressing these orientations in a normative fashion in the form of precepts or commandments. These fundamental precepts, objective and universal, are called upon to establish and inspire the collection of moral, juridical and political determinations that govern the life of human beings and societies. They constitute a permanent critical instance of them and guarantee the dignity of the human person in the face of the fluctuations of ideologies. #9

The document was written in 2009, during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. This document can be considered a follow-up to the 1993 moral encyclical by St. John Paul II titled Veritatis Splendor which I will add here in this post as well. Catholic morality has been deeply concerned with the overall state or moral relativism. The triumph on that encyclical was to offer a powerful exegesis on Matthew 19 and integrate the notion of universal moral principles with the Gospel message. Certainly Veritatis Splendor did what it could to address the grave concern of relativism but the framing of this encyclical made it seem that its moral focus was on promoting moral absolutes of sexual ethics only. At the same time, the encyclical, while claiming to not promote a particular school of moral philosophy, attempted to delegitimize the use of teleological ethics and narrowly defined proportionalism so that it appeared to be part of this ethical school of thought (it is not). Unfortunately, because of these two things, the encyclical's attempt to promote and defend the natural law was not widely accepted.

Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, 6 August 1993

And yet, the concern about moral relativism is very real. We now live in a culture where misinformation is not morally reprehensible, wild conspiracy theories are becoming the norm and opinionated pundits have just as much credibility as research organizations and academic journals. The splendor of truth may, in general, shine forth in the works of the creator but in America it is having a difficult time. Sadly, we are culturally aware of this but we laugh at it rather than take it seriously. For example...

As cute as this cartoon is it points to an unfortunate reality that we must take seriously, truth and morality are in danger of relativism in our post-modern society and this is something that we must address. Truth and morality are at the center of Catholic moral theology and Christian ethics, the struggle is that it needs to have an objective contribution to the truth while being morally practical to the particular context. In order to address this concern I have looked over these documents along with a further review of the natural law theory by Jean Porter who is a well recognized contemporary Thomistic theologian and dedicated to evaluating the natural law ethic and its contribution to contemporary moral theology.

In this post I just want to suggest that a relationship between natural law and virtue ethics exist and this relationship must be explored and developed so that we can address the moral issues we face the truth of our nature and respond adequately to the moral issues we encounter. I contest that the Catholic magisterium ought to consider updating Veritatis Splendor in light of some of its shortcomings that have not resolved current moral issues. Veritatis Splendor was issued to address moral concerns, specifically the issue of moral relativism which is very much real and has gotten worse I believe since the 1993 when the encyclical was issued.

Fundamental Option and Virtue Ethics: In order to respond to the crisis of moral relativism Veritatis Splendor proudly emphasized the need to promote moral absolutes. It reverted to a strong neo-Thomistic approach emphasizing a deontological ethic (which ironically it did not name).

The Church's firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man's true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth, the categorical — unyielding and uncompromising — defence of the absolutely essential demands of man's personal dignity must be considered the way and the condition for the very existence of freedom. #96

Similar to a comment made by Bishop Barron this teaching saw a dualism between moral relativism (and the danger of teleological ethics) and moral absolutes. In addressing the dangers of the former the Church defended the latter.

In making this defense the encyclical critiqued the notion of the fundamental option. The document does not get into virtue ethics per se; it may be that at the time virtue ethics was not taken seriously or seen as a moral threat unlike teleological ethics. In critiquing the fundamental option however it addressed moral theologians who were exploring that ethical system, namely Karl Rahner, SJ and Bernard Haring, CSSR (although not by name). The concept of the fundemantal option corresponds to a transcendental anthropology that both of these theologians promoted. The idea that the great moral measure is not in each individual moral act but in the overall free orientation, the fundamental option, for people to grow in their ultimate humanity. This of course happens when one is spiritually open to God. This is a spirituality that resonates with the scholastic tradition and we can see it clearly in Jesuit spirirtuality as you consider the First Principle and Foundation which tells us that "our only desire and our one choice should be this: I want and I choose what better leads me to God's deepening life in me." This free orientation to God becomes the context for the moral decisions and actions we take. We grow in virtue and character towards this fundamental option and our moral actions ought to be evaluated from that context.

But St. John Paul II's encyclical expressed concern that this fundamental option would no longer allow moral norms to have the power to morally judge actions.

To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behaviour means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. A fundamental option understood without explicit consideration of the potentialities which it puts into effect and the determinations which express it does not do justice to the rational finality immanent in man's acting and in each of his deliberate decisions. VS #67

Josef Fuchs commented on this concern in his essay "Good acts and good persons" (found in the book, "Considering Veritatis Splendor" edited by John Wilkins) where he suggests that this concern was missplaced.

When they criticize the theory of the "fundamental option", these consultors see a split or dissociation between fundamental option, on the one hand, and the inididual acts, on the other, which in their view drags those acts down and would make them insignificant as far as the person is concerned. In truth, precisely because the fundamental option and moral choices are on different levels, the theory stresses rather their mutual relationship and interpenetration, and thus is the very contrary of division and separation. (Wilkins, pg. 24)

Virtue ethics is defined as a theory of right conduct where morally good actions are explained in terms of virtue and virtuous agents. The starting point for the moral evaluation of an action is the character and virtue of the agent. Mark Timmons defines agent-based virtue ethics by explaining “right conduct based on the actual motivations of the person whose action is being evaluated,” and he also adds that:

Another view explains right action, not in terms of the actual motivations or character of individuals, but rather in terms of the motivations and character of a hypothetically virtuous person - an idealized person who by definition possesses all of the morally significant virtues and consistently acts on them. (Timmons, pg. 270)

Rahner and Haring's “fundamental option” emerged from their belief in a transcendental anthropology where people (eg. those who adopt Jesuit or Redemptorist spirituality) make a fundamental option to follow Christ and to live as an authentic disciple of his. Neither Rahner nor Haring could have concieved of the “fundamental option” without seeing it connected with the formation of virtues and in relation to virtue ethics. It’s difficult to understand how the encyclical could suggest such a separation.

But perhaps it is not so difficult to understand if your moral lens is based on a binary evaluation; moral absolutes on one hand and moral relativism on the other. Yet many Catholic moral theologians (one of the intended audience of the encyclical) have argued that there are creative options and with the further emergence of virtue ethics this became more pronounced.

Happiness, Virtues, and the Natural law: Veritatis Splendor, consistent with moral teachings of the church since the High Middle Ages, recognized the importance of natural law as a moral framework based on nature and reason. In defending this concept it characterized it within a neo-thomistic framework highlighting "certain specific aspects of the natural law, especially its universality and immutability." Under this definition many people in the applied ethical fields of healthcare and social work have dismissed the natural law. In principle I saw the the ideal of the natural law, the ideal as it was defined by the scholastic community, as an interesting and meaningful concept with moral implications that I thought were as relevant today as it was during the scholastic period of the high and late middle ages. One common discovery that is very much relevant today is the place of virtual formation in the way the natural law was understood then and as is emerging now.

The 2009 document from the International Theological Commission that was signed off by Cardinal William Levada did a review of the natural law and in their examination they observed that "today a new blossoming of “virtue ethics” inspired by the Aristotelian tradition" has emerged. This commission reviewed the contemporary research on the natural law and uncovered the following insight:

Morality cannot, therefore, be content with producing norms. It should also favour the formation of the subject so that, engaged in action, he may be capable of adapting the universal precepts of the natural law to the concrete conditions of existence in diverse cultural contexts. This capacity is ensured by the moral virtues, in particular by prudence that masters the particulars of a situation in order to direct concrete action. The prudent man must possess not only the knowledge of the universal but also knowledge of the particular. In order to indicate well the proper character of this virtue, St. Thomas Aquinas is not afraid to say: “If he should happen to have only one of the two kinds of knowledge, it is preferable that it be knowledge of the particular realities that more closely affect the action”. #56

This document offers a marked difference for how the theological commission of the Church viewed the natural law tradition from the way it was presented in Veritatis Splendor (VS). As the document progresses it looks at the importance of values for organizing the social order and the natural law is considered the moral framework that can provide these values.

The organization of society in view of the common good of its members responds to the requirements of the social nature of the person. The natural law then appears as the normative horizon in which the political order is called to move. It defines the ensemble of values that appear as humanizing for a society. As soon as we are in the social and political sphere, values can no longer be of a private, ideological or confessional nature: they concern all citizens. They do not express a vague consensus among citizens, but instead are based on the requirements of their common humanity. #86

It is worth noting that this document raises four social values that it proposes for the ordering of society. One of these is justice which is the only connatural virtue that it mentions. I am inclined to agree with Jean Porter that the virtues are what the scholastic community suggested can help direct humanity towards authentic happiness and well being. Although I have and will continue making the case for the two architectonic virtues of charity and justice as the moral guides for our authentic human nature and social order. What I read from the theological commission suggest that they have considered well the role that this virtue has (or at least ought to have) in the ordering of society and in the practical influence it offers to positive law and the political system.

This norm is not arbitrary: the requirements of justice, which flow from the natural law, are prior to the formulation and enactment of the norm. It is not the norm which determines what is just. Nor is politics arbitrary: the norms of justice do not result only from a contract established among men, but arise first from the very nature of the human being. The norm of natural justice anchors human law in the natural law. It is the horizon from which the human legislator must take his bearings when he issues rules in his mission to serve the common good. #89

Natural law, as the scholastics understood it, inclines individuals to the ultimate purpose and happiness that they have which we theologically find in God, what we call the beatific vision. The natural law is manifested by reason and the inclinations of our virtues, some connatural (temperence, courage, fortitude, justice) and others graced (faith, hope, charity). These inclinations could be further informed from our own motivation which is where the fundamental option comes into play. This is path of the natural law that guided the scholastics and from which they developed the method of casuistry from which moral positions emerged including natural and human rights, private property, rules of war/peace, commerce, and even social welfare and the universal destination of goods.

Furthermore, while reason will always be seen as an essential aspect of our human nature and the source for how we access the natural law I believe we need to embrace the theological lens of our scholastic forbearers and this will includes being open to a moral orientation that is guided by our own spirituality (in dialogue with other faith traditions own rich theological access to the natural law). For me this would suggest that the fundamental option, understood in the way the Rahner not VS suggested, adds the theological context for our own virtue ethics and these can function as a guide for how we envision our ultimate happiness and well being.

Many moral theologians are developing a renewed contribution to the natural law and its relationship with virtue ethics. I have look at, and will consider further, the contributions by Jean Porter, Brian Linnane, SJ, Stephen Toulmin, and Christina Astorga. I believe that their contribution will not only redefine that natural law and its fusion with virtue ethics and the fundamental option for the next generations of ethicist but, more importantly, it will also integrate ethics within the emerging cosmology. I share in Toulmin’s belief that a cosmological worldview does influence our social systems and it may be that this scholastic approach with contextual adaptations may offer practical insights into the fields of applied ethics. Perhaps we can revisit the scholastic method of casuistry with a contextual emphasis similar to the narrativist model to formulate ethical case studies that raise principles that flow from particular situations and from which we find universal norms. As you can see, I am considering my own contribution to this field. I believe that the language of 2009 document by the theological commission is a step in this direction.

Overall the document by the theological commission of the church has developed a healthier understanding of the natural law which I think will allow moral theologians and applied ethicists to be open to it as they struggle with contemporary moral issues. I will look to see how moral theologians and philosophers like the ones I mentioned can further develop this framework. For now I remain convinced that the scholastic vision and the casuistic method are contributions that may be useful in addressing moral dilemmas within our emerging social order and I certainly intend to explore this further.

Again, it is my hope that in the future I can add to this moral development but my greater hope is that the church may someday offer a renewed moral teaching that steps away from the tired binary formula of absolutes vs. relativism and embrace the creative moral process of the scholastic community.

[buscaserebuscas]

class slang language work ethic exploration patriarcal society

o que a sociedade não entende about girls that are only cursing at work and are black, they are only cursing because that's actually their language but

"we all" nós todas "can" podemos

aprender a xingar menos ou nos adaptar [auto'gentrificação'monetárista-burguesista]

aos ambientes de trabalho e o que isso significa,

agora uma loja de conveniencia, ela é o centro e o auge de onde o atendimento deveria ser o exemplo de todo o resto do mapa'cadeia'mapa'rede'mapa'circuito'mapa'tiposdepdvs'mapa'storesize

de lojas para consumo

agora nesse lugar a atendedora pode passar pelos piores e mais folgados e agressores clientes do mundo, elas também são treinadas/escolhidas para ter atitude que espante mais o crime (de certa forma)

..........

[alemanbarbecue]

SPaMCAST 789 - Fluffing Capacity Limits, Sales Engineers, Essays and Conversations

As a coach and mentor, I often observe meetings and events so I can debrief with the person(s) I am coaching afterward and provide them with a different perspective. I was involved in observing a planning session in which a stakeholder stated, “Combine these two items, they are similar, and only count it as one toward our capacity.” What?  We also have a visit from Jon M Quigley and his Alpha…

View On WordPress

[learnfasttips]

Navigating the Moral Maze: The Crucial Role of Ethics in Education

🚀 Brace yourself for a journey through the ethical frontier of education! Unveil the secrets behind the crucial role of ethics in education. Explore the ethical compass that shapes the future of learning and be part of a groundbreaking conversation. 📚🌟 Full article: https://learnfasttips.com/2023/10/23/navigating-the-moral-maze-the-crucial-role-of-ethics-in-education/

[tinyshe]

The Plan to Turn You Into a Genetically Edited Human Cyborg Analysis by

Dr. Joseph Mercola

February 14, 2022  

New Study Confirms Ivermectin Outperforms Other Options

Story at-a-glance

The U.K. Ministry of Defense and the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning Human stress that human augmentation needs to be a key area of focus to win future wars

Human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite eventually using their augmented “super-human” status as justification to rule everyone else

The goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution — introduced and pushed by the World Economic Forum — is transhumanism, the merging of man with machine

Human augmentation can directly affect behavior, either positively or to the detriment of that person

In the transhumanist view, the human body is a “platform” that can be augmented in myriad ways, physically, psychologically and socially

A May 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, offers shocking highlights of the dystopian cybernetics future that global technocrats are pushing mankind toward.

The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”1 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars.

But human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite being augmented “super-humans.” It’s worth noting that anything released to the public is a decade or more behind current capabilities, so everything in this report can be considered dated news, even though it reads like pure science fiction.

“... the field of human augmentation has the potential to transform society, security and defense over the next 30 years,” the report states. “We must begin to understand the implications of these changes and shape them to our advantage now, before they are thrust upon us.

Technology in warfare has traditionally centered on increasingly sophisticated platforms that people move and fight from, or artefacts that they wear or wield to fight with. Advances in the life sciences and converging developments in related fields are, however, beginning to blur the line between technology and the human ...

Many technologies that have the potential to deliver strategic advantage out to 2050 already exist and further advances will undoubtedly occur ... Our potential adversaries will not be governed by the same ethical and legal considerations that we are, and they are already developing human augmentation capabilities.

Our key challenge will be establishing advantage in this field without compromising the values and freedoms that underpin our way of life ...

When we think of human augmentation it is easy to imagine science fiction inspired suits or wonder drugs that produce super soldiers, but we are on the cusp of realizing the benefits in a range of roles now. Human augmentation will help to understand, optimize and enhance performance leading to incremental, as well as radical, improvements.”

Changing What It Means To Be Human

As noted in the report, “Human augmentation has the potential to ... change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” This is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.2

WEF has been at the center of global affairs for more than 40 years, and if you take the time to dive into WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution material, you realize that it’s all about transhumanism. It’s about the merger of man and machine. This is a dystopian future WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not.

Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers. As noted by history professor Yuval Noah Harari in late 2019, “humans are now hackable animals.”3 As noted in the featured report:4

“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.

Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but by those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machines. The importance of human-machine teaming is widely acknowledged but it has been viewed from a techno-centric perspective.

Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle. Thinking of the person as a platform and understanding our people at an individual level is fundamental to successful human augmentation.”

Key words I’d like to draw your attention to is the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” Now, if you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.

Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.

Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.

The Human Platform

On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:

Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight

Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance

Social performance — “the ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here

They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), the gut microbiome, synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, herbs, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants. As noted in the report:

“The senses can be extended by translating frequencies beyond the normal human range into frequencies that can been seen, heard or otherwise detected. This could allow the user to ‘see’ through walls, sense vibrations and detect airborne chemicals and changes to magnetic fields.

More invasive options to enhance existing senses have also been demonstrated, for example, coating retinal cells with nanoparticles to enable vision in the infrared spectrum.”

They also point out that, from a defense perspective, methods to de-augment an augmented opponent will be needed. Can you even imagine the battlefield of the future, where soldiers are barraged from both sides with conflicting inputs?

As for ethics, the paper stresses that “we cannot wait for the ethics of human augmentation to be decided for us.” There may even be “moral obligations” to augment people, they say, such as when it would “promote well-being” or protect a population from a “novel threat.”

Interestingly, the paper notes that “It could be argued that treatments involving novel vaccination processes and gene and cell therapies are examples of human augmentation already in the pipeline.” This appears to be a direct reference to mRNA and vector DNA COVID jabs. If so, it’s an open admission that they are a human augmentation strategy in progress.

The Challenge of Unintended Consequences

Of course, there can be any number of side effects and unintended outcomes when you start augmenting an aspect of the human body or mind. As explained in the featured report:

“The relationship between augmentation inputs and outputs is not as simple as it might appear. An augmentation might be used to enhance a person’s endurance but could unintentionally harm their ability to think clearly and decisively in a timely fashion.

In a warfighting context, an augmentation could make a commander more intelligent, but less able to lead due to their reduced ability to socially interact or because they increasingly make unethical decisions. Even a relatively uncontentious enhancement such as an exoskeleton may improve physical performance for specific tasks, but inadvertently result in a loss of balance or reduced coordination when not being worn.

The notion of enhancement is clouded further by the intricacies of the human nervous system where a modifier in one area could have an unintended effect elsewhere. Variation between people makes designing enhancements even more challenging.”

Still, none of that is cause to reconsider or slow down the march toward transhumanism, according to the authors. We just need to understand the human body better, and for that, we need to collect and analyze more data on human performance, behavior, genetics and epigenetics. As noted by the authors:

“Devices that track movement, heart rate, oxygenation levels and location are already commonplace and will become increasingly accurate and sophisticated, making it possible to gather an increasingly wide array of performance data in real time. We can also analyze data in ways that were impossible even five years ago.

Artificial intelligence can analyze massive sets of information almost instantaneously and turn it into products that can inform decision-making. This marriage of data collection and analytics is the foundation of future human augmentation.”

Lab-Grown Designer Babies

As mentioned, by the time a technological advancement is admitted publicly, the research is already a decade or more down the road. Consider, then, the February 1, 2022, article in Futurism,5 which announced that Chinese scientists have developed an artificial intelligence nanny robot to care for fetuses grown inside an artificial womb. According to Futurism:6

“The system could theoretically allow parents to grow a baby in a lab, thereby eliminating the need for a human to carry a child. The researchers go so far as to say that this system would be safer than traditional childbearing.”

As of now, the AI robot is only in charge of lab-raised animal embryos, as “experimentation on human embryos is still forbidden under international law.” However, that could change at any time. In May 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research went ahead and relaxed the rules7 on human embryonic experimentation.8

Up until then, the rule had been that no human embryo could be grown in a lab environment beyond 14 days. Human embryos may now be grown beyond 14 days if certain conditions are met. In some countries, laws would still need to be changed to go beyond 14 days, but regardless, there’s no doubt that as transhumanism gets underway in earnest, ethical considerations about growing babies in laboratories will be tossed out.

Combine the announcement of an AI robot nanny to care for lab-grown embryos with the 2018 announcement that Chinese scientists were creating CRISPR gene-edited babies. As reported by Technology Review, November 25, 2018,9 “A daring effort is underway to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing.”

The embryos were genetically edited to disable a gene called CCR5, to make the babies “resistant to HIV, smallpox and cholera.” The embryos were then implanted into a human mother using in vitro fertilization. At the time, the lead scientist refused to answer whether the undertaking had resulted in a live birth, but shortly thereafter it was confirmed that one trial participant had indeed given birth to gene-edited twins in November 2018.10

In June 2019, Nature magazine published an article11 questioning whether the CRISPR babies might inadvertently have been given a shorter life span, as research had recently discovered that people with two disabled copies of the CCR5 gene were 21% more likely to die before the age of 76 than those with one functioning copy of that gene. The babies might also be more susceptible to influenza and autoimmune conditions, thanks to this genetic tinkering.

Should We Breed Chimeras to Satisfy Need for Organs?

Ethical considerations about animal-human hybrids (chimeras) will probably also fall by the wayside once transhumanism becomes normalized. Already, human-monkey hybrid embryos have been grown by a team of Chinese and American scientists.12

The hybrid embryos are part of an effort to find new ways to produce organs for transplant patients. The idea is to raise monkeys with human-compatible organs that can then be harvested as needed. Here, the embryos were grown in test tubes for as long as 20 days — and this was done before the ISSCR officially agreed to relaxing the 14-day rule.

The question is, if this kind of research ends up being successful, and the creation of animals with human organs is actually feasible, at what point does the chimera become a human?

How do we know that what looks like a monkey doesn’t have a human brain, with the intelligence that goes with it? Taking it a step further, even, what’s to prevent scientists from growing human organ donors? Human clones, even? It’s a slippery slope, for sure.

Privacy in the Age of Transhumanism

Perhaps one of the greatest concerns I (and many others) have is that not only are we moving toward a merger of man and machine, but at the same time we’re also increasingly outsourcing human morality to machines. I cannot imagine the end result being anything but devastating. How did that happen? Timandra Harkness, a BBC Radio presenter and author of “Big Data: Does Size Matter?” writes:13

“As the recent pandemic years have shown, the desire to be free from scrutiny unless there’s a good reason to be scrutinized is widely seen as, at best, eccentric and, at worst, automatic grounds for suspicion.

We simply can’t articulate why a private life is valuable. We have no sense of ourselves as autonomous beings, persons who need a space in which to reflect, to share thoughts with a few others, before venturing into public space with words and actions that we feel ready to defend ...

Part of the appeal of technologies like AI is the fantasy that a machine can take the role of wise parent, immune to the emotion and unpredictability of mere humans. But this tells us less about the real capabilities of AI, and more about our disillusionment with ourselves.

The urge to fix COVID, or other social problems, with technology springs from this lack of trust in other people. So does the cavalier disregard for privacy as an expression of moral autonomy.

Technology ethics can’t save us, any more than technology can. Even during a pandemic, how we regard one another is the fundamental question at the root of ethics. So we do need to treat technology as just a tool, after all. Otherwise we risk being made its instruments in a world without morals.”

[dougie4christ]

if the intended use is exploiting women's psychology to trick them into having sex with you- what is the unethical use????