I am posting this paper because people need to understand how our military has moved forward on studying the creation of Cyborg Human Machines. It discusses that the health care system will get society used to human machine augmentation. Remember that Sasha Latypova explained much about the connections of the Department of Defense and the C19 injection roll out. The Military has been developing many human augmentation strategies for decades. I have excerpted a few paragraphs. Note that they use nanotechnologies for brain augmentation. In the study they discuss optogenetics light control for physical enhancement. I have discussed optogenetic mechanisms for the C19 shots before:
Hence, who needs CRISPR or mRNA for that matter, considering the C19 shots as a mass Cyborg transformation of humanity. All you need is the hydrogel nanotechnology and metals to control their electronic development – this would explain why worldwide teams did not find mRNA in the vials.
I encourage all to do their own research. Consider looking at this C19 war from a military perspective, and ask yourself what weapons system would the military deploy against its enemies. The enemy is us, we the people, in this case. Look deeper into their capabilities and interests.
Thanks to Brandon Iglesias for the links. These and other documents can be found at Army Mad Scientist . The work described in this report was started in September 2018 and completed in August 2019.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following vignettes are relevant to military needs and offer capabilities beyond current military systems:
ocular enhancements to imaging, sight, and situational awareness;
restoration and programmed muscular control through an optogenetic bodysuit sensor web;
auditory enhancement for communication and protection; and
direct neural enhancement of the human brain for two-way data transfer.
Although each of these technologies will offer the potential to incrementally enhance performance beyond the normal human baseline, the BHPC study group analysis suggested that the development of direct neural enhancements of the human brain for two-way data transfer would create a revolutionary advancement in future military capabilities. This technology is predicted to facilitate read/write capability between humans and machines and between humans through brain-to-brain interactions. These interactions would allow warfighters direct communication with unmanned and autonomous systems, as well as with other humans, to optimize command and control systems and operations. The potential for direct data exchange between human neural networks and microelectronic systems could revolutionize tactical warfighter communications, speed the transfer of knowledge throughout the chain of command, and ultimately dispel the “fog” of war. Direct neural enhancement of the human brain through neuro-silica interfaces could improve target acquisition and engagement and accelerate defensive and offensive systems.
Although the control of military hardware, enhanced situational awareness, and faster data assimilation afforded by direct neural control would fundamentally alter the battlefield by the year 2050, the other three cyborg technologies are also likely to be adopted in some form by warfighters and civil society. The BHPC study group predicted that human/machine enhancement technologies will become widely available before the year 2050 and will steadily mature, largely driven by civilian demand and a robust bio-economy that is at its earliest stages of development in today’s global market. The global healthcare market will fuel human/machine enhancement technologies primarily to augment the loss of functionality from injury or disease, and defense applications will likely not drive the market in its later stages. The BHPC study group anticipated that the gradual introduction of beneficial restorative cyborg technologies will, to an extent, acclimatize the population to their use.
Neural Implants and doped nano implants:
Technical description: Neural implants to enable BCIs provide the brain with input and output channels that are dependent on brain activity rather than peripheral nerves and muscles, which eliminates the need for conventional delivery mechanisms such as joysticks or keyboards. Neural implants to facilitate BCI can be broken into five components: signal acquisition, signal preprocessing, feature extraction, classification, and signal transmission. The signal acquisition component can be invasive and involve methods that use microelectrodes directly implanted into regions of the brain or extended across the surface of the brain. Noninvasive methods in which electrodes are positioned on the scalp can also be used. The level of invasiveness directly correlates with the quality of the signal received and transmitted to the processor and classifier components. For the warfighter, neural implants would have broad battlefield applicability. External processors and transmitters would allow for interaction with battlefield assets (i.e., weapon systems, reconnaissance drones, UAVs, and unmanned marine vehicles [UMVs]) as well as personnel within proximity or across distances through hierarchical relays with a central network. Early deployment of BCIs in enhanced individuals would be limited to small-scale specialized teams in which one or more enhanced personnel would offer squad support through asset control. The level of invasiveness of early iterations and the potential irreversibility of these implants may limit acceptance by military personnel and society, although specialized teams (Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, etc.) may be more inclined to accept these technologies if they could provide significant improvements in capability, lethality, survivability, and overall battlefield superiority. Improvements in neural implant technology could be significant by the year 2050. Anticipated improvements would focus on reducing the level of invasiveness of the implant itself. This could be accomplished through location-specific assembly of electrodes using biocompatible nanoparticles that can be directed through an external force (doped iron oxide nanoparticles that can be positioned through the use of directed magnetic fields) or through improvements to the signal acquisition capabilities of externally placed electrodes and processors. The study group expects that warfighter needs will influence these technological advancements; however, such advances would plausibly lead to revolutionary changes in how society interacts with machines on a daily level. These technologies (personal robots, entertainment options, and vehicles) would be driven and sustained by commercial entities.
Influence on public acceptance of Cyborg technologies:
Aside from allied acceptance and military interoperability is the global political costs of fielding cyborg military assets. The workshop participants unanimously anticipated that state and non-state adversaries will seek to use U.S. deployment of enhanced warfighters to undermine U.S. interests and stigmatize the DOD as unethical. Given the results of the Pew study, religion seems a likely platform to galvanize these arguments against U.S. interests with entertainment and social media reinforcement. Mass media, including film and literature, is also a known stage for demonization of cyborgs. From Frankenstein to the Terminator, the message is often that technology’s integration with the human body robs the human spirit of its compassion and leads to violence and grave, unintended consequences. However, fiction can also reflect imaginative applications of emerging technologies as well as real concerns with those technologies. For these reasons, fiction can be a powerful tool for engaging the public in discussions of bioethics. A better-informed public that creates and consumes media related to emerging technologies may thus help DOD and its partners forecast ELSI concerns to mitigate problems early in the development of enhancement-related capabilities. The study group recommended that efforts should be undertaken to reverse the negative cultural narratives of enhancement technologies and leverage media as a means of engaging the public. Across popular social and open-source media, literature, and film, the use of machines to enhance the physical condition of the human species has received a distorted and dystopian narrative in the name of entertainment. More accurate depiction of technology and its applications in fiction and nonfiction media could lay the groundwork for a new generation that sees opportunity for societal benefits in cyborg technologies. If technology is to become a more intimate partner in the physical enhancement of the human species, then DOD personnel must help alter distorted cultural narratives. A realistic, balanced (if not more positive) narrative will serve to better educate the public, mitigate societal apprehensions, and remove barriers to productive adoption of these new technologies.
The Cyborg’s data generation issue:
The first consideration that must factor into our discussion is that cyborgs inherently generate data. Human activity by default does not, at least, not beyond footprints, fingerprints, and DNA traces. We can think and move without leaving meaningful traces; we can speak without recording. Digital activity, by contrast, creates transactional records. A cyborg’s activity is presumptively recorded and that data may be stored or transmitted. To record or transmit data is also to enable the collection or interception of those data. Unless one specifically engineers a cyborg to resist such collection or interception, it will by default facilitate surveillance. In the event a cyborg is engineered to resist surveillance, data are still created. In other words, a world of cyborgs is a world awash in data: data about individuals, data of enormous sensitivity, and the further cyborgidization progresses, data of ever-increasing granularity. Thus, the most immediate impact of cyborgidization on the law of surveillance will likely put additional pressure on the so-called third-party doctrine, which underlies a great deal of governmental collection on transactional data and business records. Under third-party doctrine, an individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to voluntary disclosure of information to a third party (e.g., a bank or a telecommunications carrier), and the Fourth Amendment, therefore, does not regulate the acquisition of such transactional data from those third parties by governmental investigators.
Ocular enhancements:
Technical Description: The enhancement technology is likely to manifest itself in one of two ways. In the first manifestation, an ocular enhancement system would overlay the ocular tissue and retain use of the retinal walls within the existing structure, similar to systems used in ongoing research to treat adults with advanced retinitis pigmentosa. Data streams would be overlaid against the retinal wall and transduced through the optic nerve, where input is interpreted by the brain. It is unlikely that these data inputs would be perceived in the same way that visual light is understood by the brain. In this respect, the warfighter would have to learn how to understand and interpret what the brain is being fed as a raw data stream. Under this situation, the retinal tissue could be altered such that other wavelengths could be interpreted to include infrared regions and beyond. Such capabilities are likely to be available, and they could mature by the year 2030 given that research efforts are already under way at the present time. In the second, more complex manifestation, which is anticipated to be mature by the year 2050, the retinal wall is not retained. In this situation, the eyeball itself is completely replaced, and data feeds pass directly into the optical nerve bundle behind the eye. The sensory input for visualization would be completely mechanical or electronic in composition, which would allow data feeds of all types and across all spectra including those previously not capable of being visualized by humans. The fundamental challenge that will be overcome by 2050 is the ability to feed data directly from an inorganic sensory system into individual neurons within the optical nerve bundle. The development of high-bandwidth implantable interfaces that stimulate nerves at the single neuron level will facilitate two-way data transfer that is not currently possible. In essence, the eye would be completely artificial and capable of pulling in any manner of sensory data and feeding it directly into the brain for interpretation.
Restoration and Programmed Muscular Control through an Optogenetic Bodysuit Sensor Web Technical Description:
In this scenario, muscle control is enhanced through a network of emplaced subcutaneous sensors that deliver optogenetic stimulation through programmed light pulses. This enhancement is best described as an implanted digital sensing and stimulation system that is coupled with external sensors (e.g., boot inserts and wearables), which are linked to a central computational controller. In effect, the human body would have an array of small optical sensors implanted beneath the skin in the body areas that need to be controlled. These sensors could be manifested as thin optical threads that are placed at regular intervals over critical muscle and nerve bundles and are linked to a central control area designed to stimulate each node only when the muscles below it are needed. Optical control would occur across the network of optical threads in a programmed manner to effect a fluid muscular action in a choreographed “dance.”
Interesting questions and considerations:
Should the DOD mandate substantially longer commitments of service for enhanced individuals if the DOD is required to maintain these implants in perpetuity? Should all enlistees be eligible for enhancement, or should only very select groups be eligible (e.g., those who are able to meet certain physical and mental criteria)? Can individuals with preexisting augmentations join the military? How do enhanced individuals rank compared with the non-enhanced, and how does this change the current hierarchies and criteria for promotion and recognition or awards?