Today's blog is actually about two different articles sent in this week by two different people, W.G., and V.T. The trouble is (and was) that as I was going through this week's emails and articles to sort which ones to blog about, I was initially at a bit of a loss, because I wanted to blog about both of them, but with all the other articles I received, I could only do one. So which one?
At some point, the light bulb went off when I wondered if, in fact, the two stories were related? Well, today's blog is premised on exactly that high octane speculation. The first story is about Big Tech's new startups in procuring the blood of children for their anti-aging agenda, and the second is about the not-too-far-off creation of artificial wombs:
So, before we get to today's high octane speculation, let's look at the two articles and what they're saying, The first is clear enough: studies have shown that the blood of younger organisms is "revivifying" or "rejuvenating" when transfused into older versions:
Powerful tech corporations are putting billions of dollars into startups that intend to harvest the blood of children for the purposes of rejuvenation and anti-aging.
Newsweek published a profile on the growing industry, which includes injecting stem cells taken from dead mutilated fetuses into people, of humans playing God with disastrous consequences.
Stanford University neurologist Tony Wyss-Coray found years ago, with help from Saul Villeda, in 2011 and 2014 that injecting the blood of young mice into older mice had tremendously positive effects on their brain chemistry. His company Alkahest has done additional research in subsequent years.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, billions were pouring into this new industry. Some firms want to create infusions to change blood chemistry in the elderly. Others want to alter stem cells by introducing certain proteins into the bloodstream. The NIA is getting in on the action now, planning to spend $100 million over five years to understand “cellular senescence.”
Scientists are already coming up with quaint-sounding justifications to commit atrocities.
Once this idea kicks off and becomes mainstream, a lucrative market will develop for children’s blood as a depraved and vainglorious society becomes dependent on their blood to maintain their vitality.
The internet has been abuzz for years about "the rich" and "super-rich" taking transfusions of young blood, and there is a whole lore built up around the substance of "adrenochrome". But the bottom line is, that there is some "science" to it, and like most modern "science", the "scientists" and technocrats pushing all of this are willing to do almost anything to bring the anti-ageing vision to pass. To be honest, when I read this story, I was not only nauseated by the callous and cold-blooded nature of "fetal harvesting" and the ongoing slaughter of the innocent unborn - notice how the justifications have shifted from "women's rights" to "anti-ageing" - but I couldn't help but think of the Matrix trilogy of movies with human beings being literally grown in life-sustaining pods, and their energy harvested while a "virtual reality 'life'" was played for them.
Which brings me to this from the second article:
An artificial womb to enhance the chances for survival and quality of life of extremely premature babies by mimicking the conditions of a real womb. Whereas a year ago during the Dutch Design Week there was only an initial design, in the next years the focus will be on working towards the first (pre)clinical tests. Researchers Prof. Frans van de Vosse and Prof. Guid Oei of TU/e and MMC are the initiators of this research.
Because the lungs of extremely premature babies are not yet sufficiently developed, the artificial womb will eventually have to replace the incubator and artificial ventilation. This is much more natural, because this technique approaches the conditions of a real womb much more closely. "Using this artificial womb, we want to help extremely premature babies through the critical period of 24 to 28 weeks," says Guid Oei, gynecologist working at MMC and part-time professor at TU/e.
The chances of survival of these babies are small; about half die at 24 weeks of pregnancy. And the surviving babies often have life-long problems with chronic conditions such as brain damage, impaired lung function and/or retina problems with possible blindness as a result. "With each day that the growth of a 24-week fetus in an artificial womb is prolonged, the chance of survival without complications increases. If we can extend the fetal growth of these children in the artificial womb to 28 weeks, the risk of premature death is three times as low," says Oei.
In other words, scientists are now developing artificial wombs - note the "selling point", as always, is a promise for greater human health benefits - to ensure greater survival rate of premature babies, who in the twisted "'moral' 'logic'" of the technocrat, manage to be babies when they're born prematurely, and mere foetuses if they're aborted.
But I've become so used to seeing these moral justifications for emergent technology being used to sell them, and then later on down the line we find out that "they" have other plans for them, that I am initially skeptical about "artificial wombs". Don't get me wrong here; I think saving the lives of premature babies is a good thing. But by the same token, I also think saving the lives of babies in the womb is also a good thing and that slaughtering them in the tens of millions is a very evil thing. But in a world being run by an increasingly inhuman and anti-human Mr. Globaloney, I rather suspect in my high octane speculations that saving premature babies won't be the only use to which such technologies will be put, especially if Mr. Globaloney wants to transfuse the blood of the young in order to live a lot longer. I rather suspect - as is already the case with "organ and tissue harvesting" from aborted babies - that the technology will drastically extend the practice of "young blood transfusion" from babies specially "grown and harvested" for the purpose. Add in a dash of cloning ala some science fiction films like The Island with Ewen MacGregor and Sean Bean, where people are literally cloned and then murdered to provide organs to their archetypes in "the real world", and you literally "get the picture."
Then throw in a social credit system, and one might be talking about a world in which you might be allowed to have children "the old fashioned way", and you get an even more gruesome picture.
And of course, because the technocrats who might (and in my estimation will) do such things are such galloping materialists, we will be assured that there is absolutely no difference between the "final products". Except, as always, Mr. Technonazi will not have done any long-term intergenerational studies of the psychological and social implications of their tinkering (unless of course, they have already done so and have kept the results secret). Humanity isn't a cipher, nor a cog in a machine, nor a "resource" to be "harvested"; humanity is in the image and, with some effort and grace, can be in the likeness of God. Such technological "fixes" will thus in my view leave an indelible scar on the human soul, to the detriment of humanity itself. And as always when humanity decides to play God, the real thing often shows up...
See you on the flip side...