Ciberlytic

May 1st 2021

Life is carbon-based, but the main policy objective of the New Normal is decarbonization.

The collective unconscious is a little-studied phenomenon because it holds important keys to understanding the ease with which almost any idea or norm (normality) can be established through social engineering without the slightest opposition. And this collective unconscious, which is expressed not only in ideologies and explicit slogans but also in cinema, literature, serials…, tells us about something that everyone knows, consciously or unconsciously, and everyone is silent about. We are about to enter a new era of Humanity that will replace the Neolithic: the Cyberlithic. And the Cyberlithic consists, ultimately, in decarbonizing human life, in substituting little by little the organic support of our consciousness, based on carbon, for another type of support based on different chemical elements.

Yes, transhumanism.

Is this good or bad? Neither one or the other. It is inevitable.

Grow and multiply.

For a society based on extensive livestock farming on immense and poor land, with backward technology and an extraordinarily low population density, the problem is not the impact on the environment or on the quality of human life, but to win the battle against the powerful and cruel Nature that surrounds them.

The more livestock, the more people they can feed. And the more people a human group has, the greater its power to obtain territories and resources with which to feed more livestock. That is the Neolithic engine, the force that still controls our lives, our ideas and our beliefs.

Everything, from religion to morality, including the position of women and non-reproductive individuals, politics, technology or the economy, is conditioned by this neolithic livestock principle that generates, as the final product without which the system collapses, a population bubble.

As soon as environmental conditions allow it, this drive for livestock and human growth, which extends to the rest of the economic activity (economic progress is synonymous with “growth”, not, for example, with quality or happiness), leads to a population bubble that shoots up as its natural predators, mainly climatic, disappear.

Cold and heat. Dryness and humidity. Scarcity and abundance. These are the terms that determine the reality of humans.

When we lived according to our anatomical, physiological, psychological and social design built up over hundreds of thousands of years, as group predatory omnivores, human population control was guaranteed by natural mechanisms. Population density depended directly on the abundance of food resources, especially animal prey. It was impossible for a population bubble to be created because the predator/prey ratio did not allow it. Human hunters, with Paleolithic technology, could never become a threat to any open ecosystem or to their own “way of being”, that is, to their possibilities of being happy, something that is an inherent part of human nature.

With the end of the last glaciation, humans changed their paradigm and, while retaining their design as group hunters, they became pastoralists, first of other species and, quickly, also of other humans, starting with women. The Neolithic is not fundamentally an economic, social and cultural system based on agriculture, but on animal husbandry. Agriculture is part of the technology necessary to sustain an intensive livestock model, as is the construction of intensive farms (the cities) and the complex systems of control of the human herd (ideologies, beliefs, hierarchical political systems…) All of this is described in detail at https://www.amazon.es/Homo-Simulator-Rafael-Ortiz-Garcia-ebook/dp/B086Z38P2Z.

As technology developed, driven by the need for larger (human) livestock herds, artificial ecosystems, the technosystems, were created to mimic conditions favorable for life and, therefore, for the growth of the population bubble. What are these conditions that our technosystems mimic? Heat, humidity and high levels of CO2.

It was never a bad year for a lot of wheat.

The abundance of resources leads to an increase in biodiversity and in the total “quantity” of plant and animal life. And this abundance of resources goes hand in hand, unfailingly, with heat, humidity and CO2, which is the main food of plants, the beginning of the chain of life based on the carbon atom of the CO2 molecule. This is so obvious that only the extraordinary capacity of the Neolithic livestock system to shape society’s beliefs can explain why public opinion defends the contrary.

A cold climate leads to lower humidity, i.e., greater dryness and lower CO2 levels, which implies less vegetation development, which in turn allows for fewer animals. Life, as a whole, decreases when environmental conditions are cold, dry and low in CO2. And that’s not good for any living organism. Nor is it good for humans.

But, if warm seasons are undoubtedly more favorable for life and, therefore, for humans, why are they trying to impose the opposite idea? What devilish purpose is behind this effort to limit the main food of plants and fight against global warming?

A shepherd who wants to reduce his flock?

Is there anyone who lives on livestock and wants to reduce their herd so that their animals are happier living freely in an open space with enough resources to feed themselves and no predators to threaten them? Really? Is that what we say those same elites we accuse of living off our backs, exploiting us; those that the more of us there are, the better they live?

No, man, no. The real elites don’t want to go out of business. And their business is us, the human cattle.

And yet, the flock advocates that there should be more and more of us. “Do not allow the diabolical elites to reduce the population. Let us defend life. The shepherds are delighted. But is it really in the Norwegians’ interest that their country triples its population, preferably with multicultural people from the Third World? For what, to touch less (don’t be selfish)? Well, that’s the automated response by the ideological viruses with which they handle a majority of humans. To touch less so that farmers can earn more thanks to the fact that they can fit more cattle in the same farm consuming the same amount of food and energy… Translated, of course, in terms of moral illusionism: solidarity, equality, humanity… Remember: Don’t be selfish. Share. Cost the children that others have happily decided to have just because or because their principles dictate it.

But reality, in the end, rules. And we are already at the end.

The conscious and unconscious signs that we are approaching a change of cycle determined by the end of the benign climatic conditions of the interglacial period and by technological and scientific development, are obscured by the inertia of the neolithic livestock system, which aims to keep the bubble alive, trying at all costs not to decrease the population.

Why do they say, then, that it is necessary to avoid warming and CO2 if that would allow to have a greater number of human livestock? What is the purpose of this huge and grotesque lie? Quite simply, to increase the profitability of the business and guarantee its survival for as long as possible. It is not about saving the planet, it is that we accept to live in greater poverty, without moving much so as not to waste energy unproductively, crammed in domestic cages, isolated from each other so that our nature of group predators does not awaken and we rebel, raising the population to the maximum with the minimum of resources and without making the farm very dirty.

For farmers, it’s quantity. For real humans, it’s quality. Which do you choose?

Economic welfare is so closely linked to growth that population control or, even worse, population reduction is considered an economic catastrophe. But population increase, brutal in the poorest areas of the planet, can only be sustained by scientific and technological development capable of sustaining a constantly growing livestock herd by intensifying facilities, which implies a series of consequences for the vast majority of the population, the herd, that do not affect the minority, the shepherds or farmers.

Overcrowding, immobility, isolation and poverty to reduce the need for food, material goods and freedom requirements incompatible with livestock intensification. It is necessary to reduce the standard of living of the herds which enjoy better material conditions and freedom of movement, the first world, to share among all (equality, solidarity, social justice) and that there is enough. Sustainability, food health, sanitary protection… all these are just euphemisms to hide the principles of profitability and intensification of human livestock facilities. Everything, except attacking the problem of the population bubble that, whether we want it or not, is going to burst in a very short time. In fact, it has already begun to do so, in unison with the desperate efforts of farmers to implement global intensive livestock farming conditions, concretized in the viral dictatorship, climate change and equality disguised as “normalization of differences” to hide the imposition of uniformity of the only aspect that interests a farmer: the submission of the herd.

The development of automation, artificial intelligence and robotization will make the excess of human population completely unnecessary both in economic terms of production/consumption and in terms of security and competition between groups. It will not be necessary to bring into the world or mold human beings equivalent to domesticated herbivores so that real humans can live in the best conditions to do what is proper to them: to seek happiness freely, without material or labor ties, with all their time for themselves, as the dominant minorities do now, who cynically defend the need to continue increasing the population at the cost of reducing their standard of living to maintain or increase theirs.

But maintaining population growth, instead of reducing it in a non-traumatic way, will only cause much more suffering until the bubble bursts and, then, that reduction will take place in a cruel and massive way. And, in the meantime, what is being sought: a growing mass of unemployed people living in conditions of sustainable poverty with social incomes equivalent, at best, to the lower classes of the First World? Importing a Third World population bubble to sustain the pyramidal scam of First World pensions and that, finally, the First World becomes the Third World?

What is the reason for not already initiating a program to stop and reduce the population?

Irrational reasons based on religious beliefs of nomadic shepherds who lived more than three thousand years ago in the desert Middle East, tautological arguments created by the same pyramidal dynamics on which the neolithic livestock economy is based, addicted to growth to sustain the farmers’ addiction to quality or, simply, herd reasons, automatic, absurd to the point of nausea, such as, for example, that humans only occupy a tiny percentage of the available space on Earth.

What is the reason for bringing into the world as many people as possible? To defend life? The livestock discourse has identified population growth without control of any kind, neither natural nor artificial, with the defense of life. Whose life? The life of those who have not even been conceived? The life of the non-living at the expense of the living?

What will we do with those millions of human carbon machines that we have accumulated to avoid the “demographic catastrophe” when the silicon machines work for us? A pension and to lock themselves in their homes, without leaving their county, living sustainably in terms of livestock profitability translated into noble ideals? And so, up to what, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 million inhabitants?

Who wants to live in overcrowded conditions like chickens or pigs in intensive farms? Of course, there is room for many more humans in the world. But, if the Middle Eastern shepherds of more than three thousand years ago who advocated “be fruitful and multiply” were asked if they wanted to live in the crowded conditions to which their beliefs and values lead, the answer would be no way. Are we dumber than them? Do we have a different psychological design? Are we like the gregarious herbivores capable of living to the fullest when crowded and confined in a huge herd?

This is the scenario we are heading for. A world in which machines free us from work, without the need for slaves or human herds, living as we wish chickens and cows do, in free spaces and without overcrowding, all equalized above, in wealth and dedicated to the great adventure of human life: the pursuit of happiness.

This is the framework in which events are already unfolding. Ignoring it means letting ourselves be deceived by the self-interested information or counter-information of the different power, ideological or economic groups. And also, from a collective point of view, to be heading for a tragedy much greater than it should be if we implement the same measures that have made China, with its one-child policy, live much better than India. Because there, curbing the demographic explosion has not meant an economic tragedy, but the opposite. And for those who do not believe it, with the same level of income, instead of having two, four, five or seven children, as is the case, for example, in Niger.

The Cyberlytic, whether we like it or not, has arrived. What is being debated right now is how we are going to enter it. Whether in the most orderly and least damaging way possible or by priming the population bubble so that its bursting is as damaging as possible. All the rest are ideological, philosophical, political, religious or economic stories that in no time, before the mythical and millenarian Agenda 2030 is shown to be the same superstitious hoax as the “end of the world in 2012”, will have been forgotten. The only thing we can do is either to return to the Middle Ages by prohibiting scientific and technological development, or to assume what reason dictates, that which, let it be said for believers, God gave us together with free will to guide us by the principle of responsible parenthood, which consists of adjusting the birth rate to current or future conditions to ensure the maximum happiness of living people and not to fatten a bubble that only makes sense in a system that turns people into shepherds and flocks.

The Cyberlitic is not coming to exterminate humanity, but to free it from the need to work and exploit others. And the price for having done so for millennia is to reduce the population. Resisting to pay implies that the price increases. To start paying implies stopping the demographic explosion and making those who generate it responsible for its consequences. Not feeding it with moralizing, useless charity work or political demagogy.

Cruel?

Misery is crueler. And even more so will be the reality that is entering through the door without our being allowed to see it, because we would stampede to recover our true human condition, no matter if we are made of carbon or silicon:

The freedom.

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s