This is from 2002:

>The phrase “convergent technologies” refers to the synergistic combination of

four major “NBIC” (nano-bio-info-cogno) provinces of science and technology,

each of which is currently progressing at a rapid rate: (a) nanoscience and

nanotechnology; (b) biotechnology and biomedicine, including genetic engineering;

(c) information technology, including advanced computing and communications; (d)

cognitive science, including cognitive neuroscience.

Among the "twenty

ways the workshop determined that convergent technologies could benefit humanity

in a time frame of 10 to 20 years" [i.e., 2022] is this one:

>The ability to control the genetics of humans, animals, and agricultural plants

will greatly benefit human welfare; widespread consensus about ethical, legal,

and moral issues will be built in the process.

Later:

>If we make the correct decisions and investments today, any of these visions

could be achieved within 20 years’ time. Moving forward simultaneously along

many of these paths could achieve a golden age that would be a turning point for

human productivity and quality of life. Technological convergence could become

the framework for human convergence (Ostrum et al. 2002). The twenty-first

century could end in world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher

level of compassion and accomplishment. It is hard to find the right metaphor to see

a century into the future, but it may be that humanity would become like a single,

distributed and interconnected “brain” based in new core pathways of society.

...and they want total control of that "brain", using educational institutions to shape our views "from the nanosphere to the cosmos." They want it all; and they want it now. It's the gnostic/pagan dream: "All is One, One is All," all brought about by a "One World" agenda.

Excerpts from: [Converging Technologies

for Improving Human Performance](https://drive.proton.me/urls/A3RDH1GCKW#gy7nZXHyHXMd) published by the NSF/DOC in 2002.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Is it good or bad ??

bad

Why is it so? I don't think academic research is bad. Why sciences is bad ?

Science is never neutral, and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Some of the things they discuss are extremely powerful--too powerful--and, to embarrass myself by quoting Marvel's "Winter Solder" movie -- "no one should have that much power." The power to "control human genetics" and our food?

No.

HARD no.

I agree with you on some points. But we are browsing internet and using mobile phone processors and using blockchain because of Nanotechnology (processing). Biotech is important for medicines and building new vaccines as we did in remarkable amount of time in pandemic. IT (Infotech) is all we are building our Web3 apps on, backend and networking structure, our nostr relays etc. Similarly, Cognitive Science is important too for understanding of human cognition (not to control), consciousness, to treat diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and disorders like depression etc.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. It's a double edged sword though, I agree.

If the document I posted is read in concert with others like the PNAC's "Project for a New American Century" or the publications of the Tri-Lateral Commission or the Rockefeller Foundation or the WEF or UN or IMF or WHO etc. it is clear that underlying them all is the same agenda--and that agenda is anti-individual, anti-civil-liberties, even (at bottom) anti-Christian. That's all I'm saying. I don't have time to say more.

Ugh. I meant PNAC's "rebuilding America's defenses" from 2020