WE Are Playing God, Berenson Says

[NB – This topic (in the article below) reminds me of the field of academic study called the ethics of technology. One of the terms used is “technological optimism.” There is a criticism implicit in the term: that those who believe technology can solve every problem are overly optimistic.

They are ignoring the risks and possible negative side-effects, which can be potentially enormous with some technologies. They can be world-ending (e.g., nuclear technology). Genetic engineering and nanotech are like that also. This is why they’re often used in the setup of dystopian science fiction plots.

Do technological optimists consider these risks? Not really. I recall when I was studying this field in grad school, I asked students of nano-tech if they were taught ethics. No, they were not. I made presentations before committees on nuclear techology. They too were not too concerned with risks. They simply believed that if there’s a problem the technologists can solve it with another technical fix.

Ethics is subordinate to technique, in their worldview. It comes after the fact, in the form of regulatory committees tasked with approving what’s already happened. In practice, if something can be done, it will be. The precautionary principle is not employed for prevention in our world. This has been the case since modern science and technology emerged as a world force in the 17th century.

Bill Gates is a technological optimist re: global warming, disease, and world hunger. Geo-engineering for example is his solution — but also population control. And since the public did not accept the straightforward moral argument for climate mitigation, he and others devised a deception with which to introduce social controls necessary to reduce net consumption and GHG emissions. Except that as with all such complex and dangerous technologies, there are enormous risks and potential of disaster.

For example, the human element: how does Gates know that the CCP won’t achieve world domination (as they openly wish to) and ruin the environment anyway with their massive fossil fuel consumption and desire for endless economic growth? They view it as their turn, now that the West has done it. Gates really can’t be sure of that, even with population reduction and reduced consumption for the time being. And the issue of individual rights is thrown away completely in the Great Reset plan.

On top of that, as Berenson points out in this article, we don’t know the long-term risks of this new mRNA technology. Things will change in ways we can’t fully anticipate. Theodore Kaczynski (of Unabomber fame) warned us of this. No one in their right mind could agree with his tactics, but his so-called Manifesto is worth reading. It’s coming true before our eyes.

Kaczynski predicts the emergence of a technological and bureaucratic elite who look down on the masses — who in the future are out of work because they lack the skills and there is no need for them in a world of robots and computers.

On top of that, we’re seeing the emergence of positive eugenics and designer babies, leading to “superior” humans who are smarter, faster, live longer, etc. This is sometimes called transhumanism. After that happens, it’s a simple matter to get rid of the “inferior” masses through some ruse, such as a mandatory injection for some supposed disease (real or imagined) — slowly, of course, so as to not arouse too much suspicion as to the true intent.

Or it could just be that things run away from the technologists, creating results they can’t anticipate. Maybe they have good intentions that get out of hand — because the precautionary principle is certainly not being employed with these so-called ‘vaccines.’ But it keeps the vaccinologists employed and the elites busy and the corporations profitable. It ensures unlimited power for a few.

With allopathic medicine, pharmaceutical solutions are preferred over healthy diet and exercise, and natural immunity, keeping the pharma companies profitable. What’s going on now follows the same model, but accelerated beyond anything before it.

Berenson and others critical of medical tyranny are providing some valuable insights into the risks, both in medical and political terms. As the title says, we (meaning those imposing this new regime) are playing God.]


Playing God (badly)Alex BerensonOct 29–Berenson is a well known American Journalist —His New Book Plandemia Comes Out Next Month.

AS I write this, I’m finishing A Shot to Save the World, the new book about the hunt for a Covid vaccine.Which – surprisingly – I don’t hate. Written by Gregory Zuckerman of the Wall Street Journal, the book is a serious look at the decades of scientific work that helped produce the mRNA and DNA/AAV Covid vaccines.

Even better, it contains this line about Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s chief executive, from Derrick Rossi: “He was asking me to steal from a hospital that treats children. Stephane is someone without a moral compass.”

Who’s Derrick Rossi? Some crazy ivermectin-loving anti-vaxxer, no doubt!Cofounder of Moderna? Oh, that was my second guess. Meantime, Stephane has $10 billion in Moderna stock to buy a new moral compass.

But to read this…

View original post 1,161 more words


  1. Kenneth T. says:

    The right technology IN the right hands, may be able to solve every problem. Sadly we don’t quite have the right technology, AND we definitely do not have the technology (we do have) – in the right hands.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ungekrzte says:

      Certain technologies are certainly practical and valuable (we are using one now, the computer), to be sure — and the usual thinking is that technology is morally neutral; it’s just the intent of the user that matters. But there is another position worth considering, one raised by George Grant and Ursula Franklin, and others.

      It is that the problem it poses is not just in how it’s used but also is embedded in the technology itself, in its very design. The design process is key and determines what flows from it. A software engineer, for example, makes decisions that can profoundly affect us – for example.

      The people who created Facebook did not consider how much it would change the world. They didn’t see it. I recall that Zuckerberg thought it would be a dating tool for college kids he could make money from.

      Its potential to shape our lives as much as it’s done is not something he saw — but it was embedded in the early programming. The decision-making is in the very design itself. Sometimes this is deliberate (e.g. planned obsolescence) but sometimes unintentional.

      With Covid-19, however, it’s clear that it was designed with a nefarious intent in mind. Sadly, mRNA technology was not designed for ill intent but has been used for it, similar to nuclear. Robert Malone is the 21st century Oppenheimer: a man with regrets who seeks to redeem himself by pointing out the dangers.


    2. Paul Jenkins says:

      This doctor describes the damage done by lipid nanoparticles to cellular respiration, comparing it to that of ionizing radiation and its potential to alter DNA through reactive oxygen species. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9EDHMtkUg&ab_channel=ChristalreadyWon

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s