Skip to main content

Transhumanism and Eugenics



What is Trans-humanism?

Transhumanism, the fancy term meant to convey the idea of humanity extending beyond it's natural biological body, and transcending mere biology. It's all the rage with futurists, science lovers, and of course, science fiction fans. Transhumanism, however, leaves much to be desired so far as it's history is concerned. The very term Transhumanism, is a eugenics term, and a propaganda term used to condition people towards the idea of it all.

Do you suppose you will be given the option or the ability to become transhuman? Do you even have health insurance? In the USA where corporations have basically created the Obama care bill that takes hostage the children of parent's who can't afford to keep those terminally ill children alive - it's plain to see that any technology that could be considered transhuman, will not be made available to the masses. Only your elitist corporate and banking overlords shall have such options, slave, get back to work.

Of course the other side of the elitist coin is that it's forever the grand plan to not just have slaves, but to have slaves who are happy in their servitude, the kind of slaves that never rebel, or seek to be something other than the slave that they are - and that too is a potential offering of the transhumanist elitist science worshipping filth that we see emerging with this ever the more viewable propaganda and reality.

Experiments have already been done on rats - replacing the rat's hippocampus in order to improve their performance. The rat replacement hippocampus brain chip worked fine too - so don't you think your corporate masters would salivate over the notion of yours being improved to where you produce more and think less? I think that that goes without saying.

Sir Charles Darwin's Plans For Eugenics in His Own Family - Backfired Miserably.



Sir Francis Galton formed the phrase eugenics in the year 1883, and it meant,simply, good genes, or good origin, and was promptly considered a moral philosophy to improve humanity by encouraging the best and brightest to reproduce. Is there any wonder that Sir Francis Galton was the cousin of another early eugenics and racial superiority proponent and propaganda man, Sir Charles Darwin?

According to the book Hereditary Genius, by Sir Francis Galton, the fact that the British aristocracy had risen to the top of humanity's economic ladder also proved that they were the highest evolved humans. Surely economic circumstance proves that one is the fittest for survival? Of course that book was merely toilet paper, and so much brown nosing. I've not seen much of anything benefiting anyone from the royal family of England. God save the queen, indeed.

Of the many things that aren't the least bit funny concerning these minions of the new atheist movement, is their never ending veneration of Charles Darwin. The new atheist minions scream and yell about evolution as if that is somehow something that discredits the Abrahamic God, or even less literate an idea - that it disproves God. Little do they ever seem to know that the new atheist movement is intended to divide further and along ever the more deep cultural lines the fabric of every Western nation. Even less known is the subtitle to Darwin's Origin of The Species - the subtitle, of course, is Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.

Now let's please take just a moment to think about this. If some scientist decided to try to prove, or at least "prove" for those who wanted that bit of fantasy to be real - that the British royal family were the most superior beings on the planet and that they'd evolved that way, wouldn't it be certain that those highly insulated from the populace persons would see it exactly the way in which Francis Galton had suggested it? Oh I'm positive the royal family bought that bill of goods hook, line, and sinker - as more and more "scientific work" was created and will continue to be created right along those lines - the money masters and royal families are more highly evolved than the rest of us. Do you suppose that the money masters wouldn't fund such filth science, and promote it everywhere? You know for an absolute fact that they do, will, have, are, and will continue.

Besides the obvious that the globalist and the filth that own mass media trying to reposition science itself in the position where God ought to be in a human mind, Charles Darwin had the following to say about persons born with more money than you:

Elite status is prima facie evidence of evolutionary superiority.

Soon organizations such as The Royal Society were chomping at the bits to promote the memes of Charles Darwin. Scientism, the idea of science as a religion combined with the elitist wet dream that is social Darwinism could then be used to form a direct social change.

Sir Francis Galton went further than Darwin did even, and later described eugenics as,

The Science Of Improving The Stock.

Obviously, what should be noted is that the term stock is that of a herd of cattle, combine that with the teachings of The Babylonian Talmud, and you've got bankers and aristocrats eyeing the public like oxen.

Julian Huxley - Creator Of the Term - Transhumanism


Eugenics Becomes Transhumanism

Late into world war two it had become evident that American and British eugenics ideals had played a major part in Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. Oh how appalling! Jewish bankers were clearly the same level of evolutionary genius as were the British Royal Family! Didn't Darwin say that the position of such persons demonstrated their evolutionary superiority? How could all of this ever be rectified in the minds of the cattle, i.e., the public?

In stepped Julian Huxley, who coined a new phrase for eugenics, transhumanism.

Julian Huxley, of course, had been the grandson of T.H. Huxley, the president of Britain's Royal Society that had loved Darwin's ideas so well. Not even the slightest bit surprising then that T.H. Huxley had also been the president of the British Eugenics society.

Scroll to Continue

Socio Tech and Transhumanism


Study Transhumanism Through


It's easy to see that the average fan of science or the idea of transhumanism does not think along the terms of eugenics or the great divide between the super rich and the rest of us. That in no way means that such a divide and said eugenics are not involved on every level of scientific advancement and the transhumanism movement. Remember that over the past several years the divide between the have's and the have nots has only grown much greater. This is by design, and who can think that it isn't. In America right wing folks hate the notion of the rich paying more taxes - they've already been conditioned to love the fact that they are servile non entities, they accept this, and cheer it on.

Mass media overlords just toss out a phrase like "job creators" for the numb masses to believe in, and they believe it despite all data shown them that shows that the case is otherwise. It's easier to latch onto a phrase of false meaning than it is to think about macroeconomics - the hive mind of the slave class is showing to be responsive to mass media disinformation. Social psychology has been studied and mastered to such an extent that when The Gates Foundation plants Monsanto seed in Africa - people think of that as philanthropy, rather than the purposeful spreading of biomechanics that prevent reproduction.

Socio Tech - is the term used to describe the predictive nature of societal behaviours in response to certain stimuli. Right now the elites are measuring how Americans deal with increasing debt and the sure knowledge that their culture is being changed fundamentally from within whilst more and more wars for corporate profits are being planned.

It's easy to see that anything deemed useful in getting the masses to do what the global controllers wish without negative recourse will be continually exploited, and that those who can see through the paradigm will likely be jailed for one reason or another, or maybe re educated. The growing population is a major problem for everyone, and so much the better should Monsanto food reduce effective reproduction in places like Africa and India. Those programs are already well under way. Also present in America is high fructose corn syrup from GMO corn, and dairy products featuring three percent udder puss and synthetic bovine growth hormone. The bodies of the slave drone common citizens are being experimented on and rewired for future servitude to the superhuman transhumans or "post humans."

Socio Tech has also been deemed useful in fighting "terrorism." It's plain that the very word terrorism has been manipulated with various and sundry legalities to mean exactly anything that the elites of the corporate and banking machine deem undesirable while always excluding the activities and actions of the persons holding the proverbial gun from which their power is derived. Factor in the new indefinite detention bills here in the USA, and it's increasingly an effort for deniers of global governance truth to pull the wool over their own eyes.

In the year 2007 the British Ministry Of Defence's Strategic Trends report predicts that by the year 2035 synthetic sensory perception will be available for slaves via a brain chip. The proof of such work lies right here before you, with the groundwork done in rats.

Scientists develop 'brain chip'

World's first brain prosthesis revealed

  • World\'s first brain prosthesis?
    The world's first brain prosthesis - an artificial hippocampus - is about to be tested in California. Unlike devices like cochlear implants, which merely stimulate brain activity, this silicon chip implant will perform the same processes....

Scientist create "Super Soldier" Ants

Transhumanism, Eugenics, and The Age Of Transitions


Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on April 06, 2020:

Well transhumanism is certainly real. It's real as a concept, or an idea which is being pursued.

It's the same as it ever was, Sanjeev Nanda - the wealthiest people on the planet want to become something more than men and women, they'd like to be "gods." Same as it ever was.

Sanjeev Nanda on April 06, 2020:

Is this for real? I've kept reading it back to back, and I could not justify any of this through any scientific approach we know of. This is purely science fiction (and a good one at that). Great Work!

~Sanjeev Nanda

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on April 16, 2016:

Hey Thanks, Cmoney!!!!

That was flattering! This article truly pissed off a few of my closest internet friends. I tend to see history from a darker perspective, whereas some others see things in a more hopeful light.

I do need to re-watch that video/film 'the age of transitions' to see how I feel about it now a few years later.

Treathyl FOX from Austin, Texas on April 14, 2016:

(Sigh.) I'm just happy there are geniuses like you who can sift through all the research and material on this topic, digest it, and put in an easily readable and understandable article so that anybody and everybody can know what's really going on! Sharing this in my circles. :)

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 13, 2012:

lizzieBoo - gosh you nailed something I've been wishing to narrow down for a long time! I love the way you said,

"The suggestion that truly wicked things have been done without a spiritual or religious motive gets them more angry than anything else"

I'm about done actively debating with anyone and everyone that is the type that you've alluded to.

I'll do it here on my writing, but I'm weeding the rest off of my "friend" lists on sites like Facebook.

lizzieBoo from England on January 13, 2012:

Dear Wesman. I'm with you.

There are some things that really make the anti-religious angry. The suggestion that truly wicked things have been done without a spiritual or religious motive gets them more angry than anything else. But instead of accepting that it is human beings who do bad things, and not concepts, they simply deny anything that contradicts the absurd fallacy that 'religion causes all war'. You're right. It's idiotic.

It's surprising too, because the very thing that anti-religionists accuse religious people of, ie; narrow-mindedness, is precisely what they themselves are guilty of.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 09, 2012:

WD Curry 111 - I've met so many people online that seem to share "Phil's" hive mind mentality that it's troubling.

I see the same idiotic points over and over again.

1. Hitler was a Christian

2 The murders of Stalin and Chairman Mao had nothing to do with atheism

3. Evolution proves that God isn't real.

I could go on and on with the stupid half thoughts I see stated as "fact" by such persons....they've all been programmed by the same propaganda bots.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 09, 2012:

Lone77star - towards your first comment, I'm inclined to agree with you.

I only take the stance that because I can not prove the existence of a God adequately for an atheist, that I should then write about such things in such a manner so that non theist can read or understand what my points are without too much trauma.

Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on January 09, 2012:

@WD, outrageous! And hilarious! Well, I think we all have a bit of genius inside us and it merely needs nurturing. Get ego involved and it gets nasty. Our dear Phil visited my home page inviting discussion if kept friendly; trouble is, he didn't keep it friendly. Alas!

Even at my age, I've sometimes been opinionated and a jerk, but not necessarily at the same time. I've been working on some cures for "jerk" but still find "opinionated" useful if I don't hold on too tightly.

And I've been an artist. That was my first career. There have been many artists I've admired -- geniuses far better than I, but I was good enough, at times. More than anything, it was a lot of fun.

WD Curry 111 from Space Coast on January 08, 2012:

I am pleased with Philanthropy2012 as well. I am just an old school dropout that likes to prod young genius. I hear what you are saying . . . Phil is a force to be reckoned with! I predict that this person will hit it big.

At my age you turn in to an opinionated jerk, but what are you going to do? That is why I became an artist instead of a writer. There are no arguments. I found out . . . there are still critics, and everyone has a relative who is a REALLY good artist.

Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on January 07, 2012:

@Wesman, excellent! You nailed it with the subversive "New-speak" of the super-rich, NWO gang. Transhumanism is eugenics, indeed! And when guys like @Philanthropy2012, you and me are performing a more useful function (perhaps as fertilizer), the NWO gang will be that much happier.

But I disagree with you when you agree with "comparing transhumanism to eugenics is like attacking religion due to the crusades." At a glance it might make sense. And we try to be nice sometimes to our atheist brethren, but let's look more closely at intent.

Both transhumanism and eugenics have selfish and un-Godly intent behind them. The purpose of these Homo sapiens bodies is for reawakening the spiritual half of man. If someone wants to enhance or extend the abilities of the body, they should ask God, not futz with nature and implant microchips. And they shouldn't experiment on their fellow man with drugs and diseases like some Nazi doctor death.

On religion and the crusades, I agree with your later statement that it was "political."

But behind all evil things is one very real monster: ego (physical, vulnerable identity). We each have a slice of that pie and it's up to us to decide whether or not we want to let go of it in favor of our spiritual identity. My guess is that ego is the "self" that Jesus said we need to let die before we can gain "everlasting life." Ego was certainly the evil he found in the Pharisees, who with all their heart followed the letter of the law, but missed the spirit of it by billions of light years.

@Philanthropy2012 likes to think he's intelligent. I'm sure he has a modicum of intelligence, but he doesn't use it very well. On one of his own hubs he tried to pass off infrared spectroscopy as cosmic "red shift." Both deal with electromagnetic radiation and spectral analysis, but that's about as close as they get. He even tried to make a big deal about the "red shift" of planets. Infrared spectroscopy of planets would make sense (attempts to determine atmospheric chemistry),... but red shift? No! Not the red shift of cosmic distance and age. @Philanthropy2012 likes to bandy around big words (that's perhaps his own ego talking), but doesn't have the depth of understanding needed to build a cohesive argument. And I do like a good learning experience.

I love science. But I love God far, far more. Science studies the products of His creation. Eugenics and transhumanism (perversions of science) miss the point of it all by distracting us from our true purpose -- reawakening the immortal soul, the true self and child of God within.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 07, 2012:

Thank you very much Poetvix!!!

Science is awesome, but do we need to fly to the moon when we can't even freaking keep from overfishing Salmon and Tuna into damned near extinction?

WTF is that?

Bad priorities. If we colonized the moon there's be heaps of stupid consumer garbage all over the place in a week, and the police back on Earth will have shot another child with a stick in his hand who was reacting badly to the toxic waste and unproven pharma drugs he was given for not falling in line with corporate "priorities."

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 07, 2012:

Thank you very much WD Curry 111 - I'm actually very pleased with "Philanthropy" - I have wrote "controversial" things in the past here and not got nearly enough in the way of challenges to whatever I was suggesting.

Quantum Mechanics and Nanotech are fascinating. Could it be that there is more than one reality? Is it possible that what is all too real for some isn't real for others at all?

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 07, 2012:

Thank you very much ib radmasters - I don't think human physical flaws devalue the flawed person, but rather - show the value of, and values of those who are so aware of the "flaws."

Thank you very much, AllSeeingEye - sadly, science is a cold and detached doesn't much help stir empathy in anyone....but maybe I'm wrong.

DK from London on January 07, 2012:


Let's get things straight right off the bat, you committed Strawman in your response. My comment never stated my views on the crusades or whether I viewed it as justified to criticize Christianity because of them. My point was that it is a fallacious comparison to compare eugenics and humanism to the crusades and religion.

This is simply because the latter are definitely connected, for whatever reason that may have led up to it, the crusades were done in the name of religion, the pope publicly supported it and crowds were heard cheering "It is God's will!"

Nobody ever said "let's subjectively improve individual humans for eugenics, the subjective purification of the gene pool as a whole!"

The comparison is just not there, and so I reject your statement that if one is valid, the other must be valid, and vis versa.

Seeing as from that comment there is not much to reply to, I will now go on to explain how Christianity can and should indeed be criticized because of the crusades.

Luke 19:27 ""But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me"

Now that has a clear message. It condones violence. That is in the book of what is supposed to be God's work. When a brutal event is then said to be as a result of the guidance of such a message, that message must be criticized. Not as the cause of the event, but as a valid excuse for that event.

You used me as an example, but I have not given you any message or reason to do any of the actions you describe. If you said "I did that because Philanthropy2012 told me to do it, and whatever action it was, was clearly immoral" then I should be criticized for telling you to do so, even if your actual reasoning was different.

And please don't argue about how that should and could be interpreted as something else and give me an extremely elaborate explanation. The bible was not written by idiots. If they had wanted to convey a message, they would have. They didn't need to write the book of God in code for people to decipher.

The fact that Jesus seems to teach the opposite in other parts of the bible has no relevance either. What you then have is a completely contradictory book. A book written with the distinct purpose of allowing any event to occur under it's name at any time. Once again, such a book should be criticized for ambiguity. Any religion founded upon ambiguity is liable to such criticism too. The fact that it was there as a very valid excuse for committing crime is a fault in itself.

The words clearly state "kill them in front of me."

Now, you might argue this is a mistranslation, but from what? "dance with them in front of me" ? Please.

Suzie from Carson City on January 07, 2012:

Bravo!!! Bravo!!! R O C K !!! This last comment is sheer, undeniable, pure G E N I U S!! Well-founded, well-said and extremely well-presented. So true in every single respect. I am copying this and printing it up a thousand times! by W.T.Shaw!! and Lo and behold...YOU FINALLY MADE ME LAUGH, Mr. Oh-So-SERIOUS...your paragraph that begins, "Show me in the Scriptures......" I laughed right out loud! "Cause that's how ye shall roll"...hahahahah lmao. You are outrageously & passionately brilliant!

Brad Masters from Southern California on January 07, 2012:

An interesting and detailed hub.

Neither of these is true, because we don't force evolution as in selective breeding of the survival of the fittest.

We as humans keep pure genes alive from generation to generation since recorded time, although there have been exceptions.

Human gene flaws cause human defects, and that detracts from creating super humans. Or at least the best of humans.

It is like making a soup, any bad tasting ingredient will prevent that soup from becoming a really good soup.

It may be tolerable, but never superior.

my opinion...

AllSeeingEye on January 07, 2012:

Without HEART we will all be mere machines....

DK from London on January 07, 2012:

Wesman Todd Shaw Hub Author 19 hours ago

"comparing transhumanism to eugenics is like attacking religion due to the crusades."

The crusades were done in the name of God the almighty.

Transhumanism is not done in the name of eugenics.

The comparison is false.

Suzie from Carson City on January 07, 2012:

poetvx...hmmmmm "an educated slave." Thanks a heap...I never really felt entitled to a LABEL. Sadly, this one fits! Oh, yes...and how blessed am I to live amongst many malfunctioning cogs.........???

poetvix from Gone from Texas but still in the south. Surrounded by God's country. on January 06, 2012:

While I can't agree with all of your conclusions, I have to agree with many of them for the evidence is shown daily if we but look. I do however see some fatal flaws in the plan to "improve" humanity. Firstly, it assumes such can be done. Secondly, it's flawed in that one person's idea of what is improvement is vastly different from another’s. Lastly, and most importantly, it is the epitome of hubris. Pride cometh before a fall. I do see much pointing the purposeful conditioning to the slave mentality just on a cognitive level not even taking into account the more biological factors you address here. If history has shown us anything, I think it is the fact that all slaves will eventually rise and they will win. How long that takes and/or how bad things get first is anyone’s guess.

To me, this attempt at enslavement while much more subtle than any in the past since it tries so hard to make the slave happy and accepting of his/her/their fate is still doomed to failure. Of course, I'm sure the proponents of such a theory as this would disagree with me for what am I but a somewhat educated slave that's just a cog in the machine? No machine continues to function when enough cogs malfunction.

Great hub and full of food for thought as always!

WD Curry 111 from Space Coast on January 06, 2012:

Opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, this is a great hub. Well written and concise. It flows and is easy to understand.

Phil is almost too intelligent . . . a great writer. My guess is he/she is young, a know-it-all with a lot to learn. We got into it over quantum theory and I went to Annapolis (duh).

It all started with cybernetics in the forties (more or less). There is a fun book for the vintage science fiction fan. "Cybernetic Brains" by Raymond F. Jones.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:

I'll give you something valid that I was just told on Facebook

"comparing transhumanism to eugenics is like attacking religion due to the crusades."

I thought that that was a very valid point, but I spend huge amounts of time arguing with atheist that do think going after religion because of the crusades is perfectly valid.

So if that's valid, then so is this - both are either valid or invalid.

DK from London on January 06, 2012:

Here's another argument Wesman,

Would you say going to the gym is a transhumanist activity? What about following a healthy diet regime? Doing Sudoku?

These are all ways of making us better human beings.

To that point, do you find that clothing, which make us warmer than naturally possible, and shoes, which allow us to walk on rough surfaces, skii's, tennis rackets, cars and girdles too, are all transhumanist products?

These are all products that increase the capability of man. So are they all part of the transhumanist conspiracy movement too?

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:

Thanks John!!!

Oh I well know what you mean about the two gigs of ram and the sex drive and tribal superstitions in the mind.

It's why we can understand The Gates Foundation and Monsanto in Africa while knowing that it's all wrong.

While this type of article is surely going to be irritating for some - if I don't write things down, they get lost due to my own RAM deficiencies!

John Harper from Malaga, Spain on January 06, 2012:

Wesman, you always surprise me, and this is a great article, voted up, FB'd and sent to my list.

Logically I can concede that 7 billion people, most of whom carry about 2k of ram in their heads and breed like rabbits, (and who want to kill me as well) is a disater waiting to happen.

Emotionally I know that EVERY human being has equal worth, and deserves equal opportunity and nurturing, or at least training to the best of their capacities.

Leaves me in a cleft stick.

But eugenics is always going to be plain wrong, because someone must be the judge as to who lives and who dies.

Nobody except God has that right.


Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:


There's room for LOTS of exposure on what I'll call "Uncle Sam's Closet."

Leroy I'm all of a sudden just fascinated by a lot of the new age themed "do it yourself" youtube documentaries. Some of them are very well done. Wish I had the equipment and know how to do some of the kinds of things I'm talking about.

The one on this hub is pretty decent - but the narrator's voice gets sort of tiresome...but that's not important.

Lots of great stuff on the web.

Brian L. Powell from Dallas, Texas (Oak Cliff) on January 06, 2012:

Both of us should write about that one. There is room for two different articles on that subject. It is well documented too.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:

Leroy, exactly - I'm certain that were the funding and support of that "experiment" examined, that eugenics societies would be all over the list.

That would be a good "chapter" in a hub on American Eugenics. Probably something one of us should write about!

Brian L. Powell from Dallas, Texas (Oak Cliff) on January 06, 2012:


I am surprised that you did not mention the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment. At the very least is supports the idea that a government eugenics program is possible in the U.S. The program which studied the effects of syphilis on black males, many of whom were unaware they had the disease, lasted from 1932 to 1972. It was in 1942 that penicillin became the standard cure for this disease. While the study was not technically eugenics, it does demonstrate a certain historical disregard for the poorest citizens. It took a whistle blower and bad publicity to stop the study.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:

Philanthropy2012 - the problem with eugenics is that it pre supposes a value system based upon....nonsense.

I'll just use instead of "retarded" - as that's not such a great term - I'll use for an example a Down's Syndrome child.

Down's Syndrome Children, we'll probably both agree, would be "weeded out" by eugenics. That's always been the case with eugenics - it presupposes that Down's Syndrome Children have no value, or at least so little value in relation to you or I that they're thought to be something to be aborted.

Who is to say what can or can't be learnt from a Down's Syndrome Child? It's economics, and it's wicked to just assume that such a child has no value!!!!

DK from London on January 06, 2012:


People's intentions of how things turn out have absolutely no relevance on how they did turn out.

If I created a ray gun with the intent of killing people and it turned out to cure cancer: people wouldn't shun my ray gun and say "it's evil because it's creator wanted to kill people with it." Preposterous! Intent has no value in the usage or definition of the word.

It's the usage and definition of the word that matters!

And like you say, there are problems with capitalism. But without provoking too many claims of being pro-eugenics, natural inferiority does not allow for equality because some people are born less equal to others (in particular respects). That is the nature of nature. The only way to fix this problem would actually be to implement eugenics or gene therapy to weed out the undesirables by immoral methods, or something like gene therapy.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:

CMHypno - the whole thing with people's insecurities concerning their bodies is ...always sad.

Personally, I've never been a fan of breast implants. I very much understand why some women would want them - but I truly don't like the fake ones, and the fakes aren't the healthy thing for a woman anyway.

I think transhumanism is more inclined to where it's goals are to control the human mind.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 06, 2012:

Philanthropy2012 - I'd be rather inclined to agree with you on the nature of capitalism had you made an actual statement.

I don't find much of what I consider "moral" in any economic system that I know of.

I agree with Marx about the nature of capitalism, but I say that without endorsing communism. I also know that Marx was tied to Theosophy, which was tied to all manner of elitism that embraced eugenics. It's a vicious circle.

Whenever someone wants to rescue the word "transhumanism" they simply have to face the facts of who created the word, and what the intentions were in creating another term for "eugenics." There's no escaping it.

Science is wonderful. I'm not anti science.

CMHypno from Other Side of the Sun on January 06, 2012:

It would be great if we could concentrate more on developing our minds and characters, rather than this obsession we seem to have about creating a 'perfect' physical body. Just because we have the technology to do things doesn't make some of them ethically right, and as soon as we start not seeing all people as the unique and special individuals that they are then we are in real trouble.

Over here in the UK thousands of women who had breast implants are now facing an uncertain future healthwise because they were given implants with industrial silicone in them, rather than medical grade silicone. So at what cost did this so called improvement come?

On a more humourous note, having met some members of the British arisocracy, it might be difficult to start a 'super race' based on their genes. Just ordinary people like the rest of us!

DK from London on January 05, 2012:

"Okay, well, it's plain that retarded people don't make much money! Retarded people are not likely to be able to afford...."enhancements.""

Yes but enhancements like any other would be a product at that point. By your logic, I could deduce that Capitalism is eugenics because:

"well, it's plain that retarded people don't make much money! Retarded people are not likely to be able to afford.... anything as costly as "enhancements"

Retarded people by definition cannot perform as well as other people. That is an unfair fact of life.

Either we say "everyone gets paid for their productivity" which is unfair and predicated a lot on luck and/or crime/manipulation.

Or we say

"everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of how how productive they are" which is unfair because then some people are inconvenienced more than others, and is liable to result in human laziness, knowing that no matter how much you work, you'll be paid the same.

As for which of the two are less immoral? The former, the one we have now.

Why? Because it -seems- more productive which means that everyone on a whole should be richer. Thanks to widespread corruption however, the top 50% of the worlds capital is owned by 10% of the people. :S

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

Debby - no. I'm only recently interested in transhumanism. I've been hearing the term "transhumanism" for a while, but only recently paid attention to who was talking about it, and what the history of the idea is.

Debby Bruck on January 05, 2012:

Wes ~ Are you saying that you have just become aware of this information? Now you are trying to make sense of it all or you are deciding how you will approach your life now that you have some knowledge of human population manipulation by monopolies and governments? Debby

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

I'm not satisfied with what we have currently either. I can't imagine many who are or would be.

So if we can agree that at least the ideas or concepts of religion and government aren't in and of themselves "bad," - then that's great.

What is eugenics, really?

Look at it like this, were not the "retarded" the first subjects of attention to eugenics?

They were - eugenics doesn't much care for "abnormalities" that don't translate into something that they see as "productive."

Do you agree to that, or no?

Okay, well, it's plain that retarded people don't make much money! Retarded people are not likely to be able to afford...."enhancements."

So you see that society is itself what decides who the "fittest for survival" are along some lines.

In a society that venerates David Rockefeller over all others - not directly, but indirectly, it's easy to see that transhumanism is also eugenics in the applied sense.

DK from London on January 05, 2012:

"You say that transhumanism is simply improving or "enhancing" humans - but you're no fool, you well see that it is going to all fall around economic lines."

Yes but then you say that. You don't make false claims such as "transhumanism IS eugenics"

For example: "you well know that the plan is to "phase out undesirables"" that is precisely what eugenics is.

Transhumanism cannot lead to eugenics because it is specifically the amelioration of the human capability.

Whatever results in weeding out undesirables would be given the specific and existing name of "eugenics"

What you've done in this hub is fade the line, make them seem synonymous. It's like me writing a hub about how "religion will lead to paedophilia" because there have been many cases in the past, and then say "religion IS paedophilia".

Even if people realise that this is not true, the association is there, and it becomes libel.

Religion today is specifically a group of unyielding beliefs predicated on a higher power.

I neither believe in unyielding beliefs, which assumes that the morals in the bible are 100% perfect, which to me is false because you cannot deduce what morals the bible is teaching (again the divisions). Nor do I believe in a higher power, being an agnostic, I require at least some form of proof before believing in something.

Thus I don't feel I have been short changed with my stance on religion. Because it can be used that way so easily, I have nothing but disrespect for it's existence in today's world.

I'm not saying that religion as a concept is bad because I am not saying that a new religion shouldn't be made which will provide a better service than the current ones, just like I am not saying that government as a concept is bad because I am not saying that a new government should be made that will provide a better service.

There is the general concept, and there is what we have currently.

I am not satisfied with what we have currently.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

Thank you very much, Debby. I hope to do some more learning here soon. I'm tired of my same old same old type of article as they've mostly been about things I've known of for years.

It's much more satisfying to write about things you're just becoming aware of.

Debby Bruck on January 05, 2012:

Dear Wes ~ What a fascinating hubpages on eugenics. The word transhumanism is new to me, but the concepts are old. I've written about the tactics of atheists and scientism on a number of my hubs. Please check out Lionel Milgrom, physicist and his take on the attacks against anything non-pharma and alternative choices in health care. [Check out Beware In Sources and Articles Written Against Homeopathy & Homeopathic Remedies]

I'm not sure I know exactly what Darwin alluded to with this subtitle; "Darwin's Origin of The Species: Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life." I would have thought this was the way species develop over time in a relationship with their environment being the survival of the fittest.

With the development of gene jerking and nano-technology, plus vaccinations, we have no idea how humanity has been manipulated genetically. Be careful what you put into your body, including all the GMO foods. I believe many people have become aware of government control and propaganda machines. Others simply get swept away.

Thank you for another one of your thought challenging presentations. Blessings, Debby

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

You say that transhumanism is simply improving or "enhancing" humans - but you're no fool, you well see that it is going to all fall around economic lines.

You well know that the plan is to "phase out undesirables" - you you also well know that you can't show that that isn't what it is.

I think you've rather short changed yourself with your stance on religion.

It's like you're an anarchist, and think that government itself is evil - while failing to recognize that government exists to protect a society.

Religion doesn't exist to control people, it's only been used that way. Religion exists to explain what is both infinite and expanding - what the scientific method had never been able to do.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

I knew this was coming! I knew you'd not disappoint me!

I've been looking forward to this since that last comment.

Let's move along:

"When there are 40,000 sects of Christianity alone, all containing their own belief system, I don't think it is MY problem that the scripture is ambiguous and open to manipulation.. Paha."

Your point was....what? "Paha" was that it? You've disproved nothing. You've shown that you are as ignorant as those you wish to portray as fools, but likely, all the more.

What exactly where you trying to disprove there? I see evidence of nothing - are you coherent?

"Oh you can state it, you'd be incorrect though :) All that gibberish about GM products, you forgot to mention that they KEEP US ALIVE. The reason farmers are switching is because they give better results. Yes the dependency is an issue, but it's not as big an issue as widespread global famine..."

Let's be clear here - are you defending Monsanto and GMO "foods?" A simple yes or no would suffice. I'm willing to bet that you go out of your way to make certain that you don't participate in that bit of "human evolution" - but I'm hopeful that you do, I'm not being very impressed yet with your thinking, and as Darwin explained, it's survival of the fittest.

DK from London on January 05, 2012:

@Wesman Todd Shaw

"I think your critique on scripture is ridiculous. Universal truth exists, and if you've not studied enough scripture to know when an allegory is being used and when a more literal history is being detailed; it's not my problem."

When there are 40,000 sects of Christianity alone, all containing their own belief system, I don't think it is MY problem that the scripture is ambiguous and open to manipulation.. Paha.

"Yes, I can state that modern transhumanism is eugenics. I already did so. Would you like to see it again?"

Oh you can state it, you'd be incorrect though :) All that gibberish about GM products, you forgot to mention that they KEEP US ALIVE. The reason farmers are switching is because they give better results. Yes the dependency is an issue, but it's not as big an issue as widespread global famine...

"Modern transhumanism is rooted in eugenics, and is, in fact, eugenics."

"In fact, what one of us can and can't do is more relevant to you. You can't prove that what I've said ISN'T true."

"Do you suppose you would ever get the same "transhuman" options that a member of the Rockefeller family would get?"

"What a joke. You well know that the super rich are an exclusive class, and that they intend to stay that way."

I hope that nobody takes your claim seriously :Eugenics is the culling of genes through the means of murdering and sterilising to preserve what are deemed to be "superior genes" within a population. Transhumanism is simply enhancing humans.

Culling off people is not enhancing the human gene pool but preventing the spread of "undesirable genes" therefore eugenics and transhumanism are not synonymous.

I would agree that transhumanism might be unfair, that if not handled well, could lead to controversial atrocities and evil doers. But that is the same for nearly all science and invention. The key is in being aware of what is happening and speaking up when you see something is afoot.

The way to handle this is not spread - propaganda - because people will just simply say "the opposition to transhumanism is irrational and fallacious therefore transhumanism is to be supported." That in itself is a form of herd-psychology that is being used today.

I don't know perhaps you are indeed a transhumanist supporter and this is your contribution to it's success. In which case "I'm on to you, punk".

Otherwise, you've made an honest mistake. But please, do not fight propaganda with more propaganda.

Also it's quite promising to see that some Americans do actually realise what the government is doing to them. Ever since Edward Bernaise (worth looking up) has America's population been subjected to mind numbing conditioning. It would appear that every other country around the world realises this but of course, the USA itself.

And when anyone tries to tell them, that deep ingrained American patriarchy comes out and it's all "America is the best nation in the world!" and "we have the finest education system in the world!"

Though it's ironic that you can realise the more discrete forms of modern control of the masses, yet you fail to see the oldest one in the book. Religion. Very ironic indeed. Almost mo-ronic. Though religiosity is also part of the American conditioning that we know and love so well.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

Thanks you very VERY much, EFFER!!!!

I'm just way into watching some youtube documentaries...the do it yourself style ones that you can spend all day learning about different ideas with.

I've started another one along the same lines based upon another youtube film - just because some no name put it together doesn't discredit any of it in the least to me, the ideas and organizations can be independently verified, and so far as some of the quotes in this are concerned - they can't be discredited....I'm waiting for a crows that wishes to discredit one of my Darwin quotes to please stop bitching and moaning about it all being against their own ideals...and do something towards showing me how it's not legit.

I imagine I shouldn't "wait too hard."

Suzie from Carson City on January 05, 2012:

Wes....Once again, you have presented a mezmorizing read. Frankly, I'm overwhelmed with this incredible information. What is strange to me at the moment is that I can't really describe what I have just absorbed, in terms of how I am effected. The world the video describes, gives me a bit of a fright. and as always, you inspire me to dig deeper and look further. If I'm not mistaken, all of this says you can put forth literal magic with your writing. You accomplish the very thing a writer needs to create....interest, enlightenment, inspiration and curiosity. Young man, I swear, one day Wesman Todd Shaw will be very well-known. "UP" & ALL except funny.....absolutely NOT funny. Peace! effer

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

Thank you very much, Evelyn Anne. I certainly agree that human pride always tends to rise up and foul any organizations being not the least bit different.

Evelyn Anne on January 05, 2012:

Very intriguing article Todd. Good writing as well. My great hope is that the common man will always be valued by the majority and that the majority will never by taken in by evil parading about as scientific advancement. Even in times of the Tower of Babel, God said that if men were in agreement and worked together they could accomplish what they had set out to do (build a tower into heaven). Trouble with mankind is that we do not often work together long before someone decides to make himself a higher name and give himself more authority than the others. That is where these schemes fall apart, and war begins again.

There is much about the Bible that I do not understand but I do know that at the end of the wars evil is defeated and righteousness wins out. That is where I stake my hope.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

I think your critique on scripture is ridiculous. Universal truth exists, and if you've not studied enough scripture to know when an allegory is being used and when a more literal history is being detailed; it's not my problem.

Yes, I can state that modern transhumanism is eugenics. I already did so. Would you like to see it again?

Modern transhumanism is rooted in eugenics, and is, in fact, eugenics.

In fact, what one of us can and can't do is more relevant to you. You can't prove that what I've said ISN'T true.

Do you suppose you would ever get the same "transhuman" options that a member of the Rockefeller family would get?

What a joke. You well know that the super rich are an exclusive class, and that they intend to stay that way.

DK from London on January 05, 2012:

An allegory is then open to interpretation to which no one has authority to judge. If the bible is not literally taken, and taken liberally, then no one can state the word of god. Only suggest it. If the word of the higher power is not clear in a religion, then the essence of a religion breaks down and what you are left with, is a philosophy.

So either evolution disproves the bible or the bible is useless for all intents and purposes.

Whatever the founding of eugenics is, now, in modern time, eugenics and being rich are very unrelated subjects. Since you are writing this hub about now, in modern time, you cannot state that they are.

Wesman Todd Shaw (author) from Kaufman, Texas on January 05, 2012:

No, evolution does not disprove anything in Genesis. It's a matter of knowing an allegory when you see one. Maybe that's over your head - but it's common literary devices.

Being rich certainly had something to do with the very founding of eugenics, and it was plainly stated that the British Monarchy was in the position that it was in due to evolution.

In other words Galton, etc, saw the British ruling class as more highly evolved.

Yes I agree that there's nothing sinister about nature - there is lots sinister about humanity though, and we're a part of nature, so maybe I'm off a bit on that one.

DK from London on January 05, 2012:

I'll be the first and certainly not the last to tell you that you're sorely mistaken in this hub.

Evolution the fact disproves genesis 1 & 2and so the literal reading of the bible.

Being rich has nothing to do with eugenics. Being rich has more to do with luck than genes. Being high in the social ladder being to do with being born into a particular family, once again nothing to do with genes. Your reference to the Royal Family although true that they don't do much for anyone, has nothing to do with genes and eugenics.

Evolution hasn't got anything to do with eugenics either. It is the natural process of the fittest surviving. There's nothing malicious or cynical there. It's nature.

To say it leads to eugenic is simply a use of the Slippery Slope fallacy.

Related Articles