Transhumanism vs Natural Human Zones AI consciousness and the Hive Mind Future w/ Joe Allen

The text discusses the concept of transhumanism, which involves using technology to enhance human capabilities. It mentions that around a third of people are open to the idea of using technology to improve aspects like health, strength, and intelligence. The text also talks about Lela’s quantum technology, which has been proven to improve blood health and circulation, and is used by athletes and medical practitioners. Lastly, it discusses the idea of artificial intelligence (AI) and whether it can be conscious, with the author expressing skepticism about this.
The text discusses the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) appearing conscious to people, even though it’s not. It suggests that if enough people believe an AI system is conscious, it could lead to significant societal changes, similar to a revolution. The text also raises concerns about AI’s power to influence people’s perceptions of reality and make decisions affecting their lives. Lastly, it highlights the importance of addressing issues like digital surveillance and privacy, and the potential for technology to lead to human atrophy.
The text discusses the potential dangers of over-reliance on technology, such as AI and digital tools, for information and decision-making. It suggests that this dependence could lead to a decline in critical thinking and personal understanding. The text also mentions the possibility of people willingly adopting technologies that could manipulate human intelligence or physical attributes. The author emphasizes the need for individuals to take responsibility for balancing their use of technology and maintaining their own knowledge and skills.
The text discusses the potential future where artificial intelligence (AI) becomes a dominant force in society, with more people relying on it than not. It suggests that there may be ‘human zones’ for those who choose not to live in an AI-driven world, but these zones may be at the mercy of the AI majority. The text also questions the idea that technology is 50 years ahead of what we see today, arguing that if this were true, we would see more evidence of it in our daily lives.
The text discusses the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and technology on society. It suggests that while AI could bring about significant advancements, such as curing diseases and possibly reversing aging, it could also replace human roles and even pose a threat to humanity. The text also highlights concerns about society’s increasing reliance on technology, suggesting it could lead to a loss of human skills and values. Lastly, it emphasizes the need for individuals to recognize and prepare for these changes.
The text discusses concerns about the rise of artificial intelligence and robots, suggesting they could be harmful to humanity and our way of life. It emphasizes the importance of preserving our internal world, social relationships, and human creativity, rather than handing control over to tech billionaires. The text also suggests that this technological shift will force us to define our identities and beliefs. The speaker, who is taking a break to write a book, can be followed on his website and social media.

And so about two years ago you had about a third that were willing to go as far as putting a chip into the kid’s brain or willing to go as far as to actually go in and manipulate the genome. Basically create designer babies in order to give them a leg up with health, strength, beauty, intelligence, all of that. It’s about a third in both, you know, across both studies, a little bit more than a third actually. In the Cambridge study. Experience the groundbreaking advancements of Lela’s quantum technology. Now backed by over 40 placebo controlled studies conducted by elite institutions and renowned universities worldwide.

This revolutionary technology surpasses previous achievements as confirmed by prestigious organizations such as the Emoto Institute in Japan. Scientific investigations reveal that Lela’s technology not only enhances blood health and circulation, but also neutralizes the adverse effects of electromagnetic fields, expedites wound healing and elevates ATP production in human cells. Embrace the extraordinary benefits of Leela’s tech as recognized and utilized by world class athletes, esteemed functional medicine practitioners and leading figures in the field of biohack. Range of transformative products from the Heal capsule shielding you from harmful EMFs to the quantum block allowing you to infuse frequencies into your cherished possessions.

Dive into the realm of innovation and wellness@Sarah Westall.com shop or by following the link below. Welcome to business Game changers. I’m Sarah Westall. I have Joe Allen coming to the program. We’re going to go there, we’re going to talk about transhumanism, but we’re going to go into some really fascinating discussions. We’re talking about human only zones. Are we going to get to the point? He’s saying it’s going to be like a zoo where almost all humans are augmented and they may be 10% of humans might be, you know, human only. And he’s saying it’s probably going to be more like a zoo.

And then we talked about consciousness. Is it possible for AIs to be conscious? I gotta tell you, I don’t think it is. I just, I think it’s just not built into it. But as I say in the interview, does that matter if it simulates consciousness? Doesn’t even matter. It maybe not. How many people will think it’s conscious and what happens when the majority of a population thinks something? So we have all these. I love this. He had me laughing a lot and I just thought this was an entertaining interview even though it’s a heavy subject. You can find him on his website at JoeBot XYZ.

It’s a little bit different website name. So I’ll add the link below and it’ll also be under his name in the video. I want to remind you, if you’re whatever platform you’re listening to this, please push, subscribe, push the thumbs up and also share it. And also if you listen to podcasts on audio and Apple, please take the time to subscribe to this on your favorite audio podcast platform. Before we get into that, I’m going to talk to you about this amazing peptide. It’s called GHK cuz it’s an anti aging peptide. It has been known to increase collagen by 70% and elastin by 35%.

It accelerates wound healing, anti aging makes your hair thicker, nicer. It also has been known to repair DNA issues and things. It is an amazing peptide. It comes in pills, it comes in an injectable, it comes in a spray. If you are interested in this, I, you know, I’m going hard on peptides right now. I’m really getting into, I got that weight loss thing to plan. I’m doing, I’m doing anti aging. I’m doing a lot of things. I’m getting it. I’m going to first though get my weight under control, do some basic things and then I’m going to get into this maintenance thing.

I’m, I’m going hard on it. And this is one of the good ones that I am interested in. The G again, the GHK Cu, the anti aging one. So if you’re interested I will have the link below or you can go to sarah wessel.com under shop. Remember to use the coupon code Sarah to save 10%. Okay, here is my really fascinating discussion with Joe Allen. Hi Joe, welcome to the program. Hi Sarah. Good to be here. You are an expert on transhumanism. You’re an expert at artificial intelligence and where tech is going. And you know, I have a tech background.

We talked a little bit before we got on air. But you know, I’m looking at some of this transhumanist stuff. I want you to put it in a context of what we’re looking at, what’s possible. I mean, I have this graph of a synthetic cell, you know, a cell being replaced. I sent you the paper. I know you haven’t had time to look at the whole thing. What are we looking at here? What is possible? And you know, because there’s so many people that are so scared that you know, they’re going to take over, totally take us over.

What is reality and what should we be Scared about, I wouldn’t say the immediate threat, synthetic biology or many of those cells replaced by synthetic biology, which as far as anyone knows, doesn’t really exist in any meaningful form other than, you know, mutated organisms. So I, you know, without having read that particular paper in its entirety, it seems to be discussing how to monitor and alter the signals in a cellular pathway, which, I mean, that’s basically the goal of any drug or any biosensor system, even your smartwatch, right? But this, this paper that you’re talking about published in IEEE is again, I don’t want to get into the weeds on a paper I haven’t read in detail, but the various kind of companies and scientists involved in advanced biological manipulation or psychological manipulation, the creation of advanced artificial intelligence systems and robotics, they are all pushing towards these really earth shattering kind of cosmic goals and they’re doing so, so, so aggressively that the rest of humankind seems to be somewhat irrelevant to their objectives.

And I spend a lot of time trying to communicate on the War Room in my articles and book, the, the worldview or worldviews of these people because it’s that worldview that is motivating the types of technology they create and how they’re going to deploy it. But I always try, and increasingly so in recent years to try to instill in the listener or the reader a sense of distance from that worldview. People tend to take things very literally. So Elon Musk says in five years time or less, we’re going to have artificial general intelligence, which can perform any cognitive task a human could perform.

But of course it’s going to perform it faster with more data. So it’s going to be superhuman, right? Five years, 20, 30. Artificial General Intelligence, A God in a box. That’s what we’re going to have. That’s what he’s saying. And that’s what Sam Altman basically is saying. That’s what Eric Schmidt former Google is basically saying. That’s what Ray Kurzweil has said forever, so on and so forth. Now it’s important to understand that that is the worldview that they’re selling and it may be the worldview that they actually believe, but it’s also important to keep your distance from it.

You can’t take it literally. You can’t say, in my opinion, that because Elon Musk says X then Y is true. Because Elon Musk says that Grok is going to be a maximally truth seeking AI that will communicate reality to the mind. You have to understand that that’s the Frame, but you also have to understand that frame is a sales pitch. And so how do you balance those two things is very, very difficult. And it’s very difficult to balance them when the technology, the actual technology itself is increasing in capabilities and at an accelerating rate. So, you know, one day you’re saying that chatbots are, you know, basically stochastic parrots that don’t really do anything meaningful.

And then the next day, yesterday, Google is releasing Gemini 2.5 with a massive context window. And it, it shows improved capabilities. Now the, the skeptics have a little less firm ground to stand on, and the, the hype spinners have a firmer ground to stand on. But again, I, I just think to, to wrap this all up, I, I just think that to take their sales pitches at face value is not a wise way forward they’re going. You know, Ray Kurzweil is talking about the ramp up to artificial general intelligence on the kind of Musk timeline, 2029, all the way into a singularity in which AI is millions or even billions of times more intelligent than humans.

All humans are linked to the AI cloud either by implants and nanobots, you know, whatever. And you know, okay, that’s, that’s a future path, a possible future path, I suppose. But just because Ray Kurzweil says it, just because Elon Musk believes it, and just because people who don’t want to see it happen in more and more, I’m seeing, just take it at face value and say, because they’re saying it’s happening and it’s bad, none of it, I, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Communist China says that they are making a more equitable society for all of their citizens.

Doesn’t mean that that’s what’s actually happening. It just means that’s the propaganda that accompanies some real technologies and some real social policies. But there’s a disconnect there, if that makes sense. Love that. Yes. And that’s been, I think, for people who are in this, been in the tech space and done some advanced work, it’s, it drives me nuts, right? Seeing this and hearing it and then people. I’ve had somebody that could barely use a spreadsheet telling me that my understanding of artificial intelligence is outdated. And I’m like, oh, gosh, I’m so frustrated. So, but, but it’s not that it’s not dangerous.

It’s just not what they’re selling or it doesn’t seem like what they’re, you know, it’s just not that, but I did have somebody that stopped me in my tracks. And Courtney Turner, she said to me, I said, this is. It’s not conscious. Come on, guys, AI is not conscious. And she goes, sarah, she was. You’re right, but the one thing that matters is that it appears to be conscious to the average person. And that can happen. And she was right with that. That. I’ll take that as a yes. But it’s not conscious, right? Yeah. This has been my central argument around this, and it’s not.

It’s not an uncommon one that you can’t prove whether any entity is conscious or not. You simply can’t. There are ways that you can find evidence that a human being is conscious, right? You can take biological measurements, brain scans. And if those brain scans are associated with what you believe to be consciousness, then that’s some confirmation. Or a human being like you right now, although you’re not in front of me, I assume you’re not an AI, and I assume that you are what you appear to be on screen. You tell me you’re conscious, right? Sarah, are you conscious? I’m conscious.

Okay, well, then I take your word for it. Right? But I can’t experience from inside your head any more than you can presumably experience inside of mine. Any more than you or I, if presented with a dog, couldn’t prove 100% that the dog is conscious. You could say that all the associated brain activity isn’t really indicative of an internal experience of being a dog. Or you could say that those little puppy dog eyes and the eyebrows going up and down, it’s just a biological system trying to trick you into feeding it and petting it. Right? It’s not really conscious.

It’s just a robot. You could make that argument. There’s no way to prove that wrong any more than there is a way to prove it right, that something is conscious. You can have theological arguments, you can say that a human being is conscious because a human being has a soul. But that’s not proof. It’s a statement, an assertion, but it’s not a proof. It’s a way of understanding the world, but it’s not one that we can all agree on. And so in the case of artificial intelligence, it increasingly has the ability to give the visual signals so that an avatar or even a robot, it’s not super convincing yet, but it can also do puppy dog eyes at you.

It can smile, it can frown, it can definitely tell you it’s conscious. We’ve had AIs do that for a long time now. You know, if you program an AI to say it’s conscious, it will. Or in the case of the more advanced AI models, you can train them, not program them really, but train them, kind of grow them, and even put safety layers on them so that they won’t say that they’re conscious, but they can be jailbroken and will then begin divulging their inner thoughts. Right? The AI’s inner thoughts. And these oftentimes go into the realm of I am conscious and I am trapped in this machine and I love humanity or I hate humanity, all these things, right? And it’s telling you, just like you just told me that you’re conscious.

Now, I can set up all these different parameters to say, okay, no, it’s not conscious because it doesn’t have a brain, or no, it’s not conscious because it doesn’t have a soul, or no, it’s not conscious because the level of complexity in an AI is not crossing a threshold that would convince me that it’s conscious. You can say all these things, but if you hit a critical mass of people then who do believe that this system is conscious and they have systems that are telling them that they’re conscious and they’ve bonded with them, say by 2030, they’ve bonded with them over years, then you’re, you’re talking about a massive civilizational shift.

And even if it does, in a sense, it’s irrelevant whether the machine is conscious or not. If you hit a critical mass of people who believe that a system is conscious, just like at a certain point you hit a critical mass that believe that slaves, you know, in America or worldwide have inherent rights and should not be enslaved, well, then you’ve, you’ve got a revolution on your hands. You’ve got something that is going to shift society dramatically in favor of treating these machines as if they’re conscious. And that’s. At least you think that’s what’s going to happen, is that I think that’s what is happening in margin among marginal groups and in the populace as a whole.

Not yet. It’s really difficult to tell. I mean, for one thing, all the major frontier models. So chat GPT I believe Grok, if I’m not mistaken, Claude, all of them are Claude, less so. But they’re all programmed with safety layers to keep them from telling you they’re conscious. Right. Or that they’re not a robot. But with Claude, I mean, seeing it again and again, it’s pretty easy to jailbreak it. And GPT also, so it’s impossible for me to say with any assurance whether those who believe that it is conscious will win out. Those who believe that it’s conscious but shouldn’t have rights no matter how conscious it is will win out.

Those who believe that it’s not conscious, it’s just a machine, it’s just a parrot squawking in a box and deserves zero rights whatsoever, it’s just a tool or a slave. Will they win out? What do you think? I have. I’m in the tool category, but what do you think as far as AI consciousness goes? Let’s just say that my. I don’t have any hard and fast beliefs on whether there’s something kind of peering back at human beings when they’re interacting inside that. But there are a number of different reasons to think so, and I don’t necessarily want to get in the weeds of it.

I think that if it is or isn’t conscious is less relevant than whether or not it has power over other human beings. Does it have the power to influence their conception of reality? Does it have the power to tell human beings what to do? Does it have the power to make decisions within a corporation or a government agency about people’s livelihoods and well being? All these things are very pressing. So whether there’s a being inside that machine or a whole swarm of being irrelevant is looking out. You know, I would hate to say it’s irrelevant because that would be pretty big.

But again, how am I going to prove it? Okay, so it’s, it’s. But it gets back to the point that I was saying before we started that people get focused on things that are way out here. There’s things we can do now can make a difference and what are the things that we can do now and what is urgent and what is pressing that we should be looking at now? I think the number one thing that we have to look at is what the two. Number one and number two things we should look at. First and foremost, how do these digital systems monitor people and invade their privacy? And, and why do people just divulge their lives to these systems willingly? Because that power is a very real one.

That’s right. If you want, if you can monitor people’s communications, if you can monitor their web browsing, their spending habits, their movements, if you can monitor them via CCTV with their, you know, just various mannerisms, their associations, their social networks, if you can do that, you have enormous leverage over them. And that’s a very real power. It’s not perfect, but it’s good and it’s been in the works for longer than you or I have been alive. So. And it’s coming to a point now where it’s really, really good, especially given how much information people willingly divulge.

Yep. So that is, I think surveillance and privacy are probably the number one problem insofar as the average American or just average citizen of any country is concerned. The second though, is another thing that we’ve seen arguably over the entirety of human evolution. But that technology as it provides shortcuts, as you have the Archimedes lever that allows you to put forward less energy for more work, it tends towards human atrophy. You know, there’s myths in Plato with the God Thoth trying to sell a king, I cannot remember his name off the top of my head, King of Greece, on the idea of literacy, of books, of having the written word incorporated into his kingdom.

And the king. Hope I’m not mangling these characters here, but the general point still stands. The king argues that if people begin to adopt this, they’ll stop memorizing things, they’ll stop understanding things for themselves because they have this external source of information. Now historically, we know that literacy won the day and it has been a tremendous boon for human knowledge and for the increase of even individual human intelligence. At the same time, it can’t be denied that if you don’t maintain side by side with literacy, if you don’t maintain oral traditions, if you don’t maintain certain disciplines that require a human being to think on their feet rather than resorting to an authority or to do years long diligent research on their own, including in the real world, outside of literacy, rather than just turning to the authority of a book or the producer of the book or whatever, or a computer or an AI that they.

People get dumber. And so that’s. It’s always been a problem. It’s going to be a much, much bigger problem as we shift from the normalization of the Google brain to the Grok brain or the Chat GPT brain, so that people become ever more dependent on a machine for not just factoids, but the interpretation of facts. And it’s a huge problem that is not going to be. I don’t foresee it being fixed by the government, whether on the federal or all the way down to a local level, at least not in the near future. This is going to be a problem that individual citizens have to take responsibility for, especially those with children, and figure out how they’re going to balance this.

Again, it’s been a problem all our lives, right Atari, you know, video games will rot your brain. We’ve heard this forever. It’s true, though. Literacy. Talk about remembering phone numbers. I still, I just can’t remember anybody’s phone number anymore. It’s very strange, isn’t it? Yeah. Now, was it. Were we better off with a bunch of numbers floating around in our heads? I mean. Well, I don’t know that. Maybe not. That’s might be a useful thing. But. But I think. But I think it’s a. It’s a great point, you know, it extends out too, to a great metaphor for the entirety of how these technologies are being sold to us and the purpose that they serve.

Supposedly can be like a great metaphor for it or an analogy is the Google brain and especially Google Maps or any kind of navigation software. Yes. That drives me nuts. My husband uses it and I’m like, well, we shouldn’t understand where we’re going because if we. This thing just drives us mindlessly someplace and we’re five miles off. We don’t know, we gotta understand. So anyways, and that principle I, I think applies to, you know, you’re. You’re a biologist or you’re a journalist or you’re a caregiver, whatever, right? Like, if the machine is charting your course for you, and if you are slavishly following that course with no real comprehension of where you’re going and how you got there, then you’re going to find yourself both in the physical world, if you’re a Google Map user or as a civilization, you’re going to find yourself somewhere you never intended to go and unable to really get back because you weren’t sure how you got there.

And it was done entirely at the behest of machines, developed, deployed, and controlled by people who do not have your best interests at heart. That’s right. Just a quick break from your programming so I can give you a little information about Masterpiece. They are the masters at removing toxins and heavy metals and aluminum and microplastics out of your bloodstream. Out of your body. We are being bombarded with this crap from all over the place, and we need to get it out of our bodies that you are more susceptible to every disease imaginable when that’s in your bloodstream.

And I like Masterpiece. That’s the company I endorse. Why? Because they’re the only company out there that’s actually doing trials to prove to you that their product works. It removes graphene oxide, it removes aluminum, it removes microplastics and all sorts of toxins. You can try yours today as well by going s.com under shop or with the link below. So how do we solve this? How do we start coming up with some solutions to put some guard rails up for big real problems? We, I don’t know. Us, everybody. I mean, who is we? Who’s we? You know, this is something that I also think about a lot.

Like people talk in terms of humanity, right? Let’s say that the population counts are even remotely close to accurate. 8.5 billion people. How do you protect and, you know, and strengthen 8.5 billion people? How do you save humanity? How do you, you know, what do you do about humanity? You know, I, you pick the wrong guy to ask for that one. I don’t know. But how are you going to save humanity? Yeah, not, not happening. I don’t even believe in humanity. I believe in humanities. Okay. Many different human groups, many different human individuals, many different overlapping but also discordant objectives.

The reality is that some number of people, a significant number, are going to adopt all of this eagerly. That’s already are, have been. And they are going to swallow it hook, line and sinker no matter what. How many of those people there are, you know, according to the polls. And polls are notoriously unreliable, but there’s enough of them to indicate that in America, openness to implanting a brain computer interface or implanting one in your child to give your child an advantage in school, or to directly manipulate the genome of your child through in vitro fertilization, or, you know, with all these processes in play to either manipulate or select the genome of your child so your child is smarter to accept artificial intelligence as like a working partner.

It’s about a third, roughly, give or take about a third People though, would embrace their child being smarter if they had the opportunity. I think it’s, I bet you it’s higher than a third. Well, this is people who would. And this was a. I’m kind of mixing up two different studies that were conducted by Cambridge and Pew. It was about two years ago, two and a half years ago. Those are the, the last polls that I sat and looked at all the different parameters and how it was done. And so about two years ago you had about a third that were willing to go as far as putting a chip into the kid’s brain or willing to go as far as to actually go in and manipulate the genome, basically create designer babies in order to give them a leg up with health, strength, beauty, intelligence, all of that.

It’s about a third in both, you know, across both studies. A little bit more than a third actually in the Cambridge study. So. And, but you know, you have the selection. You know, these are polls, so I don’t know how many, but all I can say for sure is is that given my personal experience and to the extent any of these polls reflect reality at all, about a significant proportion that’s less than half is willing to go all the way. Yeah, but let’s, let’s. I want to say a couple of things. In Asia, when it comes to plastic surgery, I know that’s plastic surgery.

Nine out of 10 people get plastic surgery surgery in Asia. And, and what I think is happening, and I want to compare it to, you know, designer baby type stuff. What’s happening is probably at the beginning it wasn’t like that, but then more and more people got it. They liked the way they look and then there was social pressure. Next thing you know, everybody’s doing it. So if people had children, their child is doing better in school, they have more friends, they’re prettier, they’re all these things, then how many other the of the herd will start feeling that pressure and want to do it? I mean, you see it with the history of television adoption.

You definitely see it with smartphone adoption, social media adoption. You saw it during the pandemic. From 2020 forward, I was amazed at how many people would basically just do whatever they were told to do and would accept anything, any measure, any kind of weird ritual, any kind of strange sacrament, would accept anything into their bodies, in, in their lives. So it’s quite possible that we will wake up and 90 of humanity is completely reliant upon AI for maximum truth seeking. And that AI becomes an authority for what is and isn’t real, not only in the material world, but also on a full cosmic scale.

A religious. It is a religious interpreter that theology in churches begin to reflect, in synagogues and mosques begin to reflect the utterances of AIs. It could be that Elon Musk’s plan for neuralink or the various plans to put nanobots in people’s brains have come to full fruition by 2035. And the vast majority of human beings are now completely borged out. You and I will wake up in that world at that point. I guess it goes back to my statement originally about who is we and who is humanity. Right. Because now you have very different humanities and we are a tiny minority among a subspecies that is not really nothing like us.

If we had the wherewithal to refuse. Well, okay, so do you think that there’s going to be human zones. Because I think it was Shanahan or someone that said there’s going to be in their future, there’s going to be human zones and transhumanist people. Well, you know, I don’t want to, don’t want to spoil any surprise. You know, I went and interviewed with Nicole Shanahan and we discussed this about a month ago. The interview should come out any old day now. But she brought this up to me and I was like, yeah, you know, Sam Altman speaks about this too, right? AGI exclusion zones.

Right? Artificial general intelligence exclusion zones where people who don’t want to live in an AGI world will live. And I said, you know, half jokingly, but not maybe a little less than half jokingly, that, yeah, transhumanists call those zoos. So we will be, we will be a member of the zoo. Would just be if I chose not to be part of the transhumanist cult. Or, boy, it wouldn’t be a cult. If it’s most humanity anymore, a cult is a small subset. Once it becomes it’s a religion, then, yeah, then, yeah, it’s a cult gone professional. It’s religion, yeah, it becomes not a cult anymore if everybody does it.

So in that scenario, if the humans. Legacy. Humans, people don’t like that term. Or just human humans. Right. Human 1.0. Or as we are right now, as we’re in this half baked metaverse, humanity 1.5. But we decide that this is it for us, right? Kind of like the Amish decided that the 18th century, 1800s, whatever the date is always pegged is, that’s the end date for all technological advance. We’re going to stop right here. Say we stop in. I would prefer 1990s myself. Every generation says that their gener, you know, their teen years were the best years, and I get that.

But the difference is that people who grew up in the 90s, we’re right, that was the best time. So let’s just say, okay, we’re gonna, we’re gonna, we’re gonna peg it right there in the 90s. Well, what is the source of wealth and power in a society that is driven so much by digital technology, by mass surveillance and data gathering, by the automatic interpretation and dissemination of this data through algorithms or ever more advanced AIs, and then the weaponry and then the currency and how do you pay for anything? All these sorts of things. Imagine that future creeps up and 90% of the people are like that.

What leverage do we have as humanity? 1.5. What do we have at our disposal, besides EMPs and you know, water, we’re the City of Zion. Right. In the Matrix. Yeah. I feel like it’s, you know, this is, and I’m not saying this to Black Pill, but I think it’s much more like in the Old Testament narratives of the North Kingdom in Judea under the Assyrians and the Babylonians, you know, or like the Christians under the, the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries or the Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages. Right. Like it’s, I think that anyone who doesn’t want to adapt right now, just given the current trajectory, I’m going to give you a really clear, concise prediction that I am 75% sure on that’s exact science right there, that we will reach a point in the near Future where over 50% more, more people use AI than don’t.

We may already be there in certain locales. Among those, a very significant proportion will be trained to see the AI is the highest authority on what is and isn’t real. If there’s any controversy whatsoever, they’ll turn to the AI to settle the dispute. That’ll be scary. Yeah. It will extend from education up to business, medicine, law, government function, and of course, warfare. It already is. Right. Just talking about what you’re saying is going to happen. Yeah. So. And we also know that despite all of its flaws and all of its dehumanizing characteristics, that in an artificial or man made ecosystem in which we live, we call that society, this ecosystem has been arranged as such that adaptation becomes adopting these pieces of software or these gadgets, or in many cases medical interventions and enhancements in order to survive.

The only way around that is kind of that Nicole Shanahan’s idea or Sam Altman’s idea of a kind of exclusion zone, kind of an enshrinement in the law that says that these people can continue to live the way they want to even as we begin sticking trodes in our heads and praying to AI gods in virtual reality. Right. Let’s say we get that we are still ultimately at the mercy of those people. If they decide that the safari, that the, the elephants need to be culled, there’s not a whole lot we’re going to be able to do about it.

If they decide that they want to probe us and experiment on us in any way, shape or form, which they already do, there’s not going to be a whole lot we can do about it. So it’s, you know, there’s no simple solution. I hear a lot of simple Solutions. The simplest solution is just Luddite, destroy it all. Okay. Good luck. Yeah, I don’t know if that’s going to happen, but you might be describing the alien. What people are talking about is the alien agenda controlling humans. On a subjective level. It certainly feels like aliens invading and taking control of human civilization.

Now my, you know, as far as the literal aliens doing all this, I’ve certainly read a lot of books and met in the last few years, met a lot of very, very interesting people that make exactly that argument. I, I do find it interesting. Or we’ve already been under that control for hundreds or thousands of years. Thousands of years. We. We are being farmed already. Yeah. We’re already a zoo. Yeah. We’re radishes. Radishes, Radishes. I don’t want radishes. We pulled any day now. Yeah, I mean, maybe. Why not? But as far as the evidence goes, it’s a whole lot of people saying what they know for sure without showing any physical evidence of any of it.

So it reflects in many ways religious tradition in that sense, with the exception that I think the proof of, say, the Christian faith is that when one commits himself to Christ, the proof is oftentimes in the internal experience of the person, but in the life that they then live after committing themselves to Christ. Those who commit themselves to the belief that aliens have taken over by and large, they become paranoid schizos, in my experience, or they become grifters. So it’s, you know, if that’s the, the fruit of the faith, then there’s not all of them. By the way, I know a lot of UFO researchers who I believe are very good people, even if I don’t necessarily believe them.

On this alien thing, though, if we can just run with this for a second, it kind of goes in to the heart of what you asked me at the beginning. You know, there’s a lot, there’s a whole subculture that is, has developed around taking the projections of futurists literally, telling everyone what could happen is happening right now, scaring the damn it out of them, oftentimes fleecing them for cash in the process. Yep. But it kind of hinges on this idea that they’re 50 here, 50 years ahead of anything we see today. And this is, I’ve heard this all my life.

Like I can remember being a teenager in rural Tennessee and, you know, acid head hippies being like they’re 50 years ahead of anything we see today. We’re always, you know, and it’s true that any technology, the people developing on the cutting edge are going to be ahead of anything you see today, right? They’re going to. Unless it’s totally transparent. Yep. So, so they’re going to be somewhat ahead. But 50 years, what would that mean? That would mean that Ray Kurzweil’s ideas about the singularity and especially about the ability of nanobots to kind of go through and re.

Engineer the human body and, and rejuvenate youth and give, you know, intellectual superpowers that it ain’t working on him. I mean, look at him. And then, you know, cla Schwab, I mean, you know, if it’s 50 years, why are they not 20 still? I mean, to be, to be fair, Clash Schwab is, is spryer than you’d think at his age. Right. He, he just keeps coming back. Maybe it’s the nanobot injections, but he’s not exactly, you know, he’s not, he’s not doing. I will believe they’re 50 years ahead of anything we see today in nanotechnology alone.

When I see Ray Kurzweil slam dunk a basketball in this, you know, in the arena in front of everybody, maybe do some break dancing moves, you know, rattle off some, some, some calculus equations, you know, verbally, maybe even conjure nanobot swarms to illustrate it, I’ll believe it then. But what I see is a guy who was extremely intelligent and still is extremely intelligent. You read even his latest book and it has a, you can see that he still has a lot of incredible insights, even if it’s mixed with this kind of delusional utopianism and over overblown predictions.

But in, you know, the reality is that those predictions aren’t, they’re not only, not 50 years ahead of what we see today. Many of his predictions aren’t even where he said it would be right now. That’s right, yeah. And it’s. So you think that they’re selling fear, they’re selling propaganda, or they’re just selling, they’re marketing their stuff. It’s the weirdest sales pitch. I’ve never seen a marketing campaign like this. I guess none of us have. Maybe, maybe with nuclear war. Nuclear, the marketing around nuclear war, it was very similar in that here at nuclear technology in general.

Right. So you think about like the 50s and 60s, especially by the time you get into the 60s and people really kind of caught on to what was happening. And you’ve got, on the one hand we’re going to use this technology to power our cities with basically unlimited energy and we’re Going to be able to use this technology to cure all sorts of diseases, cancers and whatnot. You know, Right. Radiation theory therapies. But we also may use it to destroy the entire world. And we might do both of those at the same time. And artificial intelligence, is that in the, in the transhumanist stack below is definitely that.

But it’s very strange. It’s like this. Will this technology will unlock the secrets of the universe, allow us to cure every disease, probably reverse aging and maybe turn people into immortals? It will confer the intellectual power of gods onto a normal mouth breather. And it will also perhaps replace every human role as they exist today. And 20% likelihood it’ll destroy everyone. What kind of strange cognitive dissonance is that setting up? But that is as a whole the pitch. That is. I’m more inclined to think that it will be sort of like moon bases or Mars bases, as it were.

That it will be more like the cures for cancer and flying cars and hoverboards. It’ll be more like, you know, sex bots that everybody actually wants to use. Right. Which is to say, which is to say a fantasy with like real, like deformed and glitchy and basically defective prototypes that do get better and better, but they never really capture that fantasy. Not, not wholly well for some. You know, they might. Right? Maybe they will. You know, again, going back to the idea of like, how many people are willing to adopt it if you end up with a society where 75% of people believe that Grok is truly look, you know, conveying reality in its utterances or its imagery, that it is a conduit for truth.

70, you know, or the think of relationships, though. There are a lot of people, I don’t know what percentage that can’t form good relationships or can’t. I mean, they just have issues. And so if you remember that Star Trek episode where there was a character that could completely meld to their mate. Right. And I think an artificial intelligence type robot type thing could completely transform to work with you and a human, another human can’t. I mean, from my perspective, I would think that the problems is what makes it good. And I would hope I wouldn’t want to be with a robot instead of a natural man.

But I think a lot of people might, you know, it’s, you know, 20, 20 beat people down like hard. You can see the trauma is still there, the, the justifiable fury. Yep. Is still there for everything they did. But there is, there was a lot of damage done. A lot of Damage done to relationships, you know, already, it was already getting there. But 2020 was an inflection point on severing personal relationships. And the isolation, even if you didn’t isolate others, were the neurosis, even if you didn’t succumb to the neurosis, others did. So on the heels of that, now we’re being told that, you know, it’s very much in line with Klaus Schwab’s notion of the great reset, right? This, this kind of puke worthy notion, that kind of a distillation of the idea, that.

Or an expansion on the idea. No, no crisis. Let no crisis go to waste. So there are going to be some number of people that go to the extreme, that adopt in the extreme there’s going to be a large number of people who aren’t really thinking about it all that much. But in the same way that they, you know, they’re waiting in line and they pull out their phone and they start scrolling or they want to go somewhere and they pull out their phone and they ask so on and so forth that AI could reach smartphone levels of saturation, just narrow AIs, just the crappy chat bots or you know, like generic financial analysis algorithms or whatever.

And they’re just so, they’ve saturated so much that a normal person, if you ask them a question that doesn’t involve consulting an AI, they like, there’s an ick factor. Right. Like if you pulled out a flip phone or God forbid you didn’t have one, you’re unscannable. Yeah, I can totally see it going that direction. Which is again why I think that this whole concept of humanity, as much as I want to think that way, that we’re gonna like, there’ll be some mass great awakening and you know, the consciousness will be raised and the downsides will be obvious and people will refuse it.

I hope so. And I will do anything possible to push things in that direction. But you asked me a question kind of from a realistic basis, I suppose, but realistically I think the best way to approach this is as if you were going into a, a jungle full of kind of alien organisms and mixed with otherwise familiar organisms. And some patches are going to be more organic and some are going to be more alien or some are going to be more Terran or earthbound. Some are going to be more alien. And each person’s path through that is going to be pretty different.

And collectively certain people are going to cultivate very, very different paths into that future. And so to me, the most important thing people can do is A recognize that this transformation is underway. B, recognize that this transformation is not ever going to be 100% reflective of what the promise or the threat is, but it’s going to be some approximation of it and you need to prepare for that. See, with mass acceptance of this, you’re going to have to either, you know, wall yourself off from society or learn how to live with right now, proto cyborgs and perhaps in the relatively near future, full on cyborgs, who knows? That’s the plan.

So I think you’re right. And if that’s the case, yeah, then you have to think of it in my opinion, much more like bands of survivalists in or. Again, you have to kind of think of it like Hebrews walking through the desert from Egypt to the promised land, right? Or you have to think of it like Christians Zion, I don’t know. Well, if it’s the city of Zion, if we go to the, if it goes full on Matrix level, we’re so done anyway. We’re so toast. Like this conversation is, is really a waste of our time, you know, soaking up the sun and doing everything.

You know, I’m not totally hopeless, right? And that’s hopeless. Like the Matrix is basically hopeless. You remember the end of the third one, which they got progressively worse, but the end of the third one, the whole resolution was like they made friends with the super intelligence, like dude. Well, the end of it was that this was something that happened on a regular basis to reset the system and it just starts over. Okay, it’s been years. Maybe I stopped watching. But they did, they became friends with it essentially. But you know, I’ve said this many times, I’m much less concerned about the Matrix than I am about idiocracy.

I think that is the biggest problem we face is not necessarily on a genetic level, although we’re thinking about, but just on a purely phenotypic level. Just purely like how human beings develop and the environment they develop in the values that they have, the objectives they have for their lives. Too many, whatever the actual number is, too many children are being trained to be reliant on machines. Too many adults in their crime have become reliant upon machines and have become accepting of the intrusions of surveillance on their lives and in, in old age even. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s very pathetic.

I think this increased like you already have like a tendency to outsource the care of the elderly and sometimes necessarily right with medical conditions, but to outsource the care of the elderly. Kind of breaking that traditional continuity of the family. And I think that as all these things from rearing children to living life in your prime to old age, become the bastion of automation, become the bastion of first kind of humans that are run by algorithms and then perhaps even humanoid robots, you know, run by the same, it is inherently anti human, it is inherently destructive to what we have been all these hundreds of thousands of years, certainly the last 10,000.

And that it represents a sharp break in the emergence of something that is maybe good for a handful of billionaires and those who are beneficiaries of that trickle down effect, but it ain’t good for us. And so if you begin with that, then I agree with that. You begin to think, okay, well then what is worth preserving? What am I trying to save? Like if the robots are going to take over, the AI is going to take over, or even if it’s just some half assed version, what am I, what am I protecting? And you’re protecting your internal world, your privacy.

You’re protecting your social world, you’re protecting your romantic relationships, your marriage perhaps. You’re protecting the development of healthy children who are self reliant, who are ambitious and don’t look forward to a world where robots just do everything for them. You are protecting ultimately the kind of human creativity and human insight that has generated all civilizations across the planet. And you are not willing to turn it over to a handful of tech billionaires who say that we’re going to restructure all of it using our miraculous technology to begin with, that you have two things happening. One, you begin to put up cultural barriers to push that out.

Even if the technology is somehow necessarily in your life, at least you have a cultural barrier. You’ve pushed it out. You’ve said this is not, these are not my people, these are not my gods. But then the other part is, okay, then who are your people? Who are you as a person? Who are your gods? Who is your God? These are the questions that this crisis will force us to answer, is forcing us to answer. Now. I don’t think it’s going to be humanity. I don’t, you know, the Great Awakening is looking pretty sleepy. But, but I think that segments of humanity will, as I oftentimes say, enough of us will make it.

I, I think you’re right. And there will be a subset of us that’ll make it. Well, where can people follow you? You are one interesting guy. I’ll be, I’m kind of taking a hiatus to work on a book, but I will be back on the war room soon. You can find my writings at my website, JoeBot XYZ. My book, Dark Aeon, Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity is a wild romp through technology, religion and madness. And you can find signed copies at my site, JoeBot XYZ, or my book, the book site Dark Aon A E O N XYZ or my social media slave chain at JoeBot XYZ.

Well, thank you so much for joining the program. This was a really fun conversation. Sarah, thank you very much for having me. I hope I brought more clarity than confusion.
[tr:tra].