Klaus paints a very rosy picture of how all of this technology will make things easier, faster, and more ubiquitous. He mentions things like ISIS just to be balanced, but the book really isn’t balanced in that regard. He tells us that
“a key theme of this book, unpredictable dynamics inherently surface, challenging existing legal and ethical frameworks” (88)
From what I’ve read, key themes seem to be technology is great, it can do a lot of things for us that are beneficial regardless of the social, ethical, and political ramifications.
Case in point:
“Computer systems attached to brain tissue could enable a paralyzed patient to control a robotic arm or leg. The same technology could be used to direct a bionic pilot or soldier.”(88)
Excluding the trans-humanism aspect, which seems a little creepy, notice the very casual thought of controlling someone’s actions.
Needless to say, freewill is out the door.
Also notice how he says bionic as to imply the thing being directed is not human, yet we all know Steve Austin was the 6 million dollar man, AKA The Bionic Man.
In Steve Austin’s case, as with some of the examples Klaus gives, the person was damaged in some fashion and “transhumanism” gives the person back their quality of life.
I doubt there is anyone who thinks technology that helps someone regain lost abilities is a bad thing.
The problem that I see is people who want to augment themselves.
Not fast enough, get some bionic legs, can’t lift enough, get some bionic arms, not too smart, get a CPU upgrade and be on the same level as Einstein.
You’ve done nothing to earn those abilities, yet you are now faster that Usain Bolt and you look like Homer Simpson.
But another problem, maybe not so apparent is this.
When do you stop becoming human?
Are you human between 0-49.99% augmentation and a different class of human if you’re over?
Imagine you can only get that “killer job” if you have x, y, z enhancements? This, coupled with DNA manipulation, seems to me to be a terrible idea.
Even if there are a hundred good reasons, I am sure there are as many bad ones and those it seems no one wants to address.
Now, curiously trans-humanism can do one thing that Marx advocated for in the Communist Manifesto and that was to abolish the family.
Does this appear to be a world where you want to live?
But how is the individual and society to react to all of this? As Klaus has mentioned, we will have one society
“with common ethical guidelines and embed them in society and culture.”(90)
But this will be based on the ethics and morals of people who believe in trans-humanism, destruction of the family unit, and the destruction of nationalities and countries.
I don’t know if I’d consider that a good thing.
By the time Klaus gets around to discussing the fourth industrial revolution and the individual, a lot of ground is re-hashed. He tells us on page 97
“The fourth industrial revolution is not only changing what we do but also who we are. The impact it will have on us as individuals is manifold, affecting our destiny and it’s many facets — our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills.”
On page 100, he asks, “how do we maintain our individuality?” When everything that we are doing is eroding that daily.
Technology isn’t bad, how we use it and why we use can be bad.
It just appears that a lot of what the fourth industrial revolution talks about seems to gloss over the negative aspects of technology especially when technology is becoming ever more pervasive.
“when someone knows he is being watched, his behavior becomes more conformist and compliant.”
Is that what we want, to be watched and managed in all aspects of our life?
Do we even make choices at this point or is it a
“… matter of conforming to new social norms that one may deem unacceptable.”(104).
By the end of the book, Klaus has told us basically, everyone needs to be flexible in how they approach problems, including leaders.
Sure, that is not bad advice. He explains there are three types of intelligence: emotional, inspired, and physical, then tells us that trust is ever important.
“In a world where nothing is constant anymore, trust becomes one of the most valuable attributes. Trust can only be earned and maintained if decision makers are embedded within a community, and making decisions, always in the common interest and not in pursuit of individual objectives.”(110)
Obviously, but notice the term embedded.
Doesn’t that imply something different is put into something else?
So the decision makers, not leaders, because you have to make policy decisions in order to have that title, are put into communities.
So the expectation then is for the community to trust some foreign person(s) who is basically airdropped into it and decides for them, but that’s okay, because they are for the common good and not self serving.
I don’t know about you, but trust is something that is earned over time through the consistency of someone’s character.
How is a community to trust some airdropped apparatchik immediately seems to be a flaw in Klaus’ thinking.
Klaus then calls for the way forward, which is a public-private partnership
“… bringing together the public and private sectors, as well as the most knowledgeable minds in the world from all backgrounds.” (112).
Sounds great, but how is this different from every other time in history?
The only difference, as far as I can see, is he says all stakeholders need to be taken into full account (112)
Again, this is fine, but it is highly unlikely the little guy’s voice is going to have the same weight as a corporation.
This is all apparently needed because the last three industrial revolutions and how they worked are now irrelevant (113).
It’s clear, Klaus has a vision of the future. A vision to
“use the fourth industrial revolution to lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny.”(115).
But the funny thing about all of this is it all boils down to the same things in every era:
“ … people, culture and values.”(114)
Klaus knows this, and he knows what he wants, but he can’t get it unless those people, their cultures, and values are driven, in his eyes, toward what he says is the lofty collective view of raising humanity.
So, ironically, the way we get to this lofty collective view of raising humanity isn’t by the globalists destroying society as we know it, but instead, it will be the very people he needs to embrace his vision of the future.
We need to discard our values and culture for the very things the globalists offer, and that will destroy our society.
To put it bluntly
He Needs Us To Destroy Ourselves
So far they are winning and as much as you hate it, you have to admit it’s brilliant.