To Err is Human, To Really Screw Things Up Takes A Computer...

 There is a saying that to err is human, but to really screw things up takes a computer. As humerous as that statement may be, it seems to be the theme of Anthony J. DeBlasi's article at the American Thinker entitled Planning An Exit From Reality. People are often so taken with the apparent ability of computers to do things that they think that they can do anything. Sadly, this is an illusion. Your "smart" phone is not really so smart. What computers do is access stored information faster than we humans. But that is because it is already stored. They do not generate information. They are not actually "smart." They are more like idiot savants and one trick ponies.

Here's the problem, though.

Global planners aiming to remake the world in their image are in fact, it seems to me, trying to reinvent reality and repeat mistakes of the past on a grand scale – mistakes that thwart efforts for better life for the world’s inhabitants. Their belief that high technology hitched to unimpeded power leads to a new and better world is in fact the re-endorsement of hoary old thought and action that treat humans as chattel – the Master/Slave Syndrome in its latest and greatest iteration.

What I have to say regarding this mega-misappropriation of science and technology in planning a “better world” begins with reference to a disturbing and forgotten fact . . .

In his writings and lectures, J. Bronowski made clear to fellow scientists and laymen that all rational systems, including mathematics and physics, have inescapable and permanent dead ends, beyond which it is impossible to proceed. This is significantly premised by the abandonment, before mid-the 20th century, by scientists themselves, of the belief that science can actually explain the world. Abandoning this traditional concept of the role of science threw a dream of Enlightenment thinkers into the dustbin of history. Breakthroughs like relativity, the uncertainty principle, subatomic deconstruction of classical mechanics, and much else of modern physics made it increasingly hard to maintain the old confidence in “total knowledge through science.”

Stated another way, this intrinsic limit of science to unravel all mysteries about the world – a fact still in limbo among the general public – tells us that strictly logical systems are ultimately circular. This means that their starting assumptions (givens, premises) can lead only so far along a path to their intended conclusion before a point is reached where further advance ceases to be linear, requiring a reexamination of the original assumptions. If these are not altered (for whatever reason) in order for the system to maintain its internal consistency, then the system’s integrity and intended purpose are compromised.

...snip...

Extensive and intensive personal interface with programming, programmers, and managers force me to join the naysayers. I’m hardly the only one that notices a huge red flag. What reason is there to turn the world over to brain-trusts whose minds are wrapped around technologic progress instead of being intensely focused on justice for people? Granting, “for the sake of argument,” the possibility of preternatural human intelligence, but aware of the propensity for error and malfeasance in any profession, what can be expected from an artificially constructed world controlled by humans or biorobots capable of amplifying to the nth degree of magnitude the mistakes and crimes of the past? I see a scenario worse by far than Huxley’s Brave New World or Orwell’s 1984.

I am always amused by the idea of self driving cars. The number of scenarios that automobiles with human drivers can encounter are no doubt limited, but still quite a large number. But, beyond that though, the number of correct reactions spreads to near infinite. In theory, this fits into the wheel house of the idiot savant. So it is interesting that they haven't made it work yet. But perhaps it's just that you can't teach a machine compassion, sypathy, empathy, or ehtics...it doesn't have a conscience.

To take for granted that science can explain everything, that technology can do everything is foolhardy, to say the least. To then apply any “knowledge” and “expertise” gained from such manipulation of science and technology to the human domain is reckless, to say the least. This is not the same as using science and technology to improve life on earth but is the application of scientism – the imitation of science – to achieve a non-scientific goal. Combined with politics, scientism is at best fraudulent, at worst, disastrous – something we have witnessed over the past couple of years in the “official response” to Covid-19. “Mr. Science” Anthony Fauci and friends may cry foul against valid criticism of their actions, but they can’t forever hide their hypocrisy. The fact is, their plan to use the Covid-19 “pandemic” to “reset the world” – necessarily involving tactics that treat the world’s population in much the same way as lab animals – is outlined by Mr. Great Reset Klaus Schwab in his 2020 book, Covid-19: The Great Reset.

What the politicians pushing these ideas are really after is power, the more absolute, the better. They want power, and they want to keep power. And they are quite willing to enslave you in the process and turn you into a serf.