“We are digitizing the physical and ‘physicalizing’ the digital.”
~ Gabriel René, co-founder of VERSES, co-author of The Spatial Web, and reportedly the first person to have his “digital double” registered on a blockchain
Who needs the World Wide Web, when you can have the 3D version?
Part 7 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
Spring has officially sprung on our humble homestead. We are actively planting our first round of organic seeds in fertile soil. Our gardens should soon be flowing abundantly with arugula, Parris Island romaine lettuce, French Breakfast radishes, Cherry Belle radishes, Bloomsdale spinach, Cascadia snap peas, Touchstone gold beets, and Early Wonder Tall Top beets. Patience is required as the seeds germinate and their roots take hold in the warming ground.
The techno-lords have also exercised patience over the past century. But no more. Their cravings seem to consume them, as they rush to achieve their end goals. They explain away the appearance of sudden change through two of their favorite concepts — Moore’s Law (computing power doubles roughly every 24 months) and its newer and speedier (albeit obscure) sibling, Koomey’s Law (computing power doubles roughly every 18 months). Additionally, as referenced in Part 1 of my series, they attribute the current expediency to a convenient pandemic scenario, which is referred to by foresight professionals as a black swan or wild card event. They brazenly desire to hijack Nature by utilizing her brilliant blueprint as a backbone, yet overlaying it with their environmentally and biologically embedded mechanical sensors, computerized circuits, and global positioning systems so as to create wind-up toy human automatons. Is this what we want for our children and grandchildren?
Two animal “totems” seem apropos to conceptualize for this essay — the serpent and the spider. Moving forward, it may help to imagine these two creatures within the context of cyber-physical transformation, each capable of inducing fear in people, yet, paradoxically, also exhibiting seductive qualities. I envision a crypto-crazed serpent shedding its blockchain skin, as it slithers its way through global industry and commerce (think container ships in canals; also see here on global container shipping and spatial networks), sector by sector, synergistically colluding with a cyber-savvy spider that is fervently occupied, weaving its strands of technological silk from one node to the next. The humans involved in the emergence of this cyber-biological ecosystem openly present their plans — mixing just enough “cautionary” sentiments, with a heavy dose of positivism, injected with a few sci-fi references for humorous allure. Just a reminder, the plan is for our physical bodies to be nodes in this automated and programmable cyber-physical convergence (referred to by the National Science Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, in 2017, as Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Convergence, or NBIC), littered with stealth “smart contracts” and pervasive “smart environments.” Have you given your consent to this engineered consummation?
Last week, Alison McDowell highlighted — via an online Twitter thread — a particularly potent element to the cybernetic plans of the elites — the Spatial Web. The elites prefer to view all the linking nodes, gears, and circuits from a bird’s-eye view. By surveying the natural landscape in its entirety, their engineers can identify all the nooks and crannies wherein they need to embed sensors and actuators in three-dimensional space for full spectrum dominance. Indeed, their aims reach far beyond the superficial layer of financial profits. In this September 2019 interview (transcript provided), Gabriel René, executive director of VERSES and a pioneer in the evolution of the Spatial Web, explains that whereas the World Wide Web (WWW) is based on Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), linking websites together on a flat computer screen, the Spatial Web is configured such that it “sits on top of that [WWW],” utilizing Hyperspace Transaction Protocol (HSTP) — to link people, spaces, and assets together in three-dimensional physical space.
As stated by the Spatial Web masterminds, the ultimate goal is to seamlessly (and permanently) integrate the physical, digital, and biological domains together into one universal digital infrastructure. They envision this new “living network” as one where the “Web becomes the World.” They seem ardently content with the depiction of this vision as a “mirrorworld,” invoking the pre-eminent conjurer of mirror worlds, Yale University computer engineer (and a leader, yet dissenting voice, in Artificial Intelligence) David Gelernter, author of the 1993 book, Mirror Worlds: Or: The Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox…How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (see Endnote 1).
I’d like to circle back to the first post I wrote at POM in April 2020. At that time, I did not have much of the techno-babble under my belt, such as “The Internet of Bio-Nano Things” (IoBNT) and “The Spatial Web.” While I was beginning to hear buzz about 6G, I was still entrenched in actively resisting 5G. Little did I know plans for “6G Humanity” (and beyond), were already in the pipeline, with infrastructure being arranged behind the scenes. “Sentient World Simulation” (SWS), discussed in my April 2020 piece, ties directly to the Spatial Web, or Web 3.0. I believe that SWS was seamlessly rolled into Web 3.0. As noted by Gabriel René in his October 2019 Medium article, “An Introduction to the Spatial Web”: “In Web 3.0, we will not only create a ‘Digital Twin’ or soft copy of our world and everything in it, but a Smart Twin of everything, with its own unique ID, interaction rules, and verifiable history capable of being linked and synced to its physical counterpart, spatially.” René continued to describe the impending augmented reality paradigm: “Augmented World Expo’s founder Ori Inbar has suggested the term AR Cloud, a digital point cloud or mesh-like scaffolding of environments that allow us to project holograms into the world in ways that can be persistent and therefore experienced by multiple parties. Magic Leap has put forth the term Magicverse, a more playful version of a global digital twin that inspires visions of the fantastical.” Back in April 2020, when I cited the film, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” I think I was on the right track, as I had an intuitive sense of where these mixed reality obsessors were heading. Little did I know that I may have undersestimated their potential capabilities — I did not go far enough in my premise.
That said, it has been nearly a year, and the learning curve has been steep (speaking for myself). Herein, while I would like to touch on the Spatial Web (AKA Web 3.0), and the role that the Internet of Bio-Nano Things (IoBNT) and global 6G deployment play within that overall structure . . . knowledge of the inner workings of these technologies is above my pay grade, and beyond the scope of this installment. Hence, my focus is on how these three elements relate to purported viruses and pandemics.
Accordingly, how do COVID and the new experimental injection technology platforms — integrated with nanotechnology — inform the endgame of the IoBNT and Web 3.0? To gain context, in Part 2 of my series, I mentioned that GSK (a global healthcare company that manufactures flu vaccines), expects to supply more than 50 million doses of its influenza vaccines to the US market in 2020-21, and will distribute more than 1 billion doses globally. I also explained that GSK reported that their flu vaccine already has an existing digital twin in the virtual cloud, and that this virtualization is necessary for scenario analyses. Relatedly, as I discussed in a previous installment, and as we have collectively observed, reports of influenza in the past year have been nearly nonexistent. In a July 2020 IEEE Access paper (funded by the U.S. Army Research Office), “6G and Beyond: The Future of Wireless Communications Systems,” IEEE Fellow, Ian F. Akyildiz, and his co-authors stated that “studies on influenza treatment can shed light on how the IoBNT could assist in future solution development. A critical step for treatment is the antiviral intervention, which blocks the intracellular signaling pathways to prevent influenza virus from replication.” Some readers may consider this a positive development, and other readers may be skeptical that any such intervention is possible given their premise that viruses do not exist (see Endnote 2). From my perspective, and after reading the July 2020 paper, I wonder if this technology was utilized in the past year, and if it could help explain the seeming disappearance of influenza (among other questionable factors).
The authors of the July 2020 report asserted that the proposed technology of 6G and beyond “will enable a plethora of applications in the consumer, military, industrial and medical fields, including transformative networking architectures designed to meet the scalability demands in future cyber-physical systems.” Significantly, they admitted that in March 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the frequency bands above 95 GHz for “research purposes.” Given the timing, and the potential deleterious health effects from shorter millimeter wavelengths, such as 95 GHz, we cannot discount the possibility of recent (and novel) illness being induced and/or aggravated by newly introduced frequencies (Perhaps Sally Fallon and Tom Cowan may have been on to something?).
Akyildiz and his colleagues explained that devices and transceivers used in the Internet of NanoThings (IoNT) are in the scale of nanometers, and thus, behave differently than classical wireless communication systems. To elaborate, the authors elucidate that each nano-thing is self-powered via piezoelectric energy harvesting, and therefore, will consume less energy to perform data processing and data storage, as well as enhancing nano-sensing capabilities that will be required to provide necessary communication. Within the paradigm of bio-nano-networks, nano-materials such as graphene and carbon nanotubes pair with encoded signals being carried by molecules, and utilize integrated plasmonic antennas that use Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) waves (as distinct from traditional antenna arrays and standard electromagnetic wavelengths). The authors went on to point out that the nano-sensors can sense “external force, gas molecules, and biological objects such as antigens and antibodies . . .”
Moving into the domain of IoBNT, which Akyildiz et al. claim was first introduced in 2015, they define the IoBNT as “a network of molecules which can communicate with each other. The types of molecular communications include artificial cells which act as . . . a bio-cyber interface which can convert molecular signals to electrical ones and transmit to external devices for further processing.” Akyildiz previously collaborated (in 2015) with three other researchers on a paper titled, “The Internet of Bio-NanoThings.” I presume this is what they refer to as the first introduction of the concept. In any case, in the 2015 paper, Akyildiz and his colleagues not only praised this new method of embedded bio-computing, they also put forth warnings: 1) The deployment of NanoThings can result in “unwanted effects” on health or pollution due to their electromagnetic radiation emissions; 2) The nano-materials may not be biocompatible; and 3) Bio-NanoThings could be used to access the human body and “either steal personal health-related information, or even create new diseases” (referred therein as bio-cyber terrorism). Never mind these critical cautions though, as proponents of this “game-changer technology” insist science will and must move forward with the IoBNT. I recommend readers take a look at the 2015 paper. My main takeaway from the paper can be revealed by two critical aspects of this intra-body sensing and actuation process (which was asserted within the body of the text and then repeated once again in the authors’ conclusion): 1) “the nanothings, thanks to their limited size, can be easily concealed, implanted, and scattered in the environment . . .”; and 2) “by combining nanotechnology with tools from synthetic biology . . . a cell can be effectively utilized as a substrate to realize a so-called BioNanoThing, through the control, reuse, and reengineering of biological cells’ functionalities . . .”
Related to the notion of biological embedded computing devices and engineering synthetic biological circuits, the IoBNT paper described that this process can manipulate genetic code, enabling genes to encode proteins that can be mechanistically activated or repressed. Lastly, in reference to the 2015 paper — and to return to my question regarding experimental injected medical devices, and how they may connect (literally) to the IoBNT — one key component in nanonetwork architecture is the need for bio-nanomotors that serve as propagation devices in the sensing and actuation protocol of a bio-cyber interface (see Figure 1 in the paper). One promising candidate for such bio-nanomotors are flagellar motors, which can be used for micro-actuation and power generation. Intriguingly, while not mentioned in any ingredient list per se, according to one Moderna patent for an mRNA injectable medical device applied to COVID (see p. 63-64), one of the the key adjuvants is Flagellin, which, in the case of the Moderna patent, is a flagellin polypeptide expressed by Salmonella bacteria. As explained in the Moderna patent, Flagellin is a protein “that polymerizes to form the flagella associated with bacterial motion.” See this 2014 paper in the Nano Convergence journal explaining how and why bacterial flagella are ideal for the application of bio-nanoelectronics. Has this ingredient been included in any iterations that were injected in the past few months?
These digital infrastructure enthusiasts who may dream of an augmented reality universe regularly reference Ernest Cline’s book, Ready Player One, and his concept of “The Oasis” (see Endnote 3). Gabriel René publicly admits to using it as his inspiration. For those not familiar, see the movie trailer here. For context, an oversimplified summation is the story depicts a world where living in a virtual reality game, the OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation), is presumably better than real life.
Interestingly, this emerging Web 3.0, and its integral distributed ledger technology of blockchain, is being hailed by blockchain futurists, such as Gabriel René and his VERSES Labs partner, Dan Mapes (whose clients at his other venture, Cyberlab, include the UN and the Human Genome Project), as the means to connect ALL peer-to-peer networks into ONE interoperable whole — a Metaverse, if you will. (Watch Mapes here discussing VERSES and its recent COVID applications.) Anarcho-capitalists and libertarian-leaning folks claim blockchains to be decentralized networks that ostensibly will allow users to break free from the control of Big Tech and Big Government, thereby magically transferring power back to the people. They may be in for a rude awakening. Indeed, Van Jacobson reportedly was a key figure in building the current Internet (originally ARPAnet used for the military), and is said to have originated the idea of its upgraded version, Web 3.0, (see here at time-stamp 2:34). So, it seems, the writing is on the Spatial Web “smart” wall. Furthermore, if crypto-evangelists think blockchains can serve as tools of liberation, yet rail against health surveillance and vaccine passports as tools of enslavement, then how do they reconcile that some cryptocurrency and blockchain architects are deeply embedded in developing the interoperable platforms for immune passports (see here and here)? Additionally, do cryptocurrency users (who may think they are anonymous and sovereign in this virtual system) realize that each and every transaction they transpire leaves a virtual footprint that can be traced by those with the proper forensic skills — not to mention the more obvious concern of dotting their digital breadcrumbs for alphabet agencies (along with their supercomputers and AI) to track their movements along the serpent’s skin?
I acknowledge that blockchain promoters may wish to utilize the digital ecosystem for financial profit, but where is the evidence that it truly results in personal freedom — particularly when control algorithms already may supersede any human will and intuition? As I cautioned in July 2020 about Trojan horse technologies (including cryptocurrencies), will such notions contribute to propping up a cyber-physical scaffolding that will become ubiquitous in every sense of the word? As I mentioned above, the Spatial Web architects seem to have plans to merge together decentralized blockchains — perhaps akin to how independent organic food companies have been swallowed by food conglomerates. We have observed the same phenomenon with the media conglomerates. However, in this case, blockchain users may be contributing to not only building the future Spatial Web, but, rather, grooming it, as the serpent and spider avidly assemble and aggregate their data and user patterns via increasingly sophisticated machine learning protocols.
There is nothing down-to-earth about blockchain, digital identities, and digital currencies. I respectfully suggest that cryptocurrency patrons revisit the dubious origins of each of the various players, as well as their central banking collaborations, in the crypto realm (also see here). If so, they may not like what they see. Conceivably, returning to the land for authentic and environmentally friendly financial sustenance (i.e, to grow organic hemp, fruits, and vegetables that are not on a blockchain) could be more life-giving, rather than continuing to drive unsuspecting individuals further into digital chains of slavery, governed by potentially predatory AI, while also contributing to environmental pollution (including negative human health impacts). One main caution I perceive is that dopamine triggers may be a central impetus to becoming entangled with crypto trading. Lastly, and maybe most important to contemplate, is how does the exchange of any form of digital currency alchemically affect our energetic and spiritual bodies — our internal currency? Once hooked into the energy of digital monetary transactions, can consumers pull away from its centripetal force? I imagine it would be difficult to break free from the spider’s crypto vortex. What are your thoughts?
If we do not halt, or at the very least, temper the zeal of augmented reality builders (in addition to potentially naive, yet well-intentioned, cryptocurrency consumers), we may soon be living in a version of the Ready Player One “Oasis,” and I suspect it would be a Ready Player All existence. I, for one, do NOT consent to being a programmable node, to be tokenized, precision nudged (see here and here on precision nudging as presently applied to COVID vaccination adoption), data-mined, transacted — AND have my body activity harvested — in their futuristic storyline. I choose a natural means of interconnection and diversity, over omnipresent wireless networks, autonomous satellites, and datafied, gamified, and commodified homogeneity. I am an intrinsic asset of Nature. I embody salt-of-the-earth wholeness and vitality. I choose the Web of Life.
Will you allow the spell-binding serpent to enchant you with its digital blockchain finesse? Has the surreptitious spider tempted you into injecting its cybernetic venom into your biological form? This spider works its bio-engineering sorcery in countless ways. Are you seduced by the seemingly amusing and utopian fantasy being developed by a faceless Dark Lord of the Webs? Amidst this imperial colonization R&D project, who will ultimately reign over your body, mind, and spirit?
1) Gelernter’s book, Mirror Worlds, is beyond the scope of this essay; however, regular writers and commenters here at POM may be familiar with this name. You may find it curious that four years after writing his Mirror Worlds book, Gelernter wrote Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber, describing his experience as a bombing victim. Please see here for a Mathisian perspective. If further intrigued, and wondering why I perceive Gelernter and his family members (including his brother and father) pertinent to this discussion on digital biology, genetics, augmented reality, and militarized AI, I encourage you to read this 2015 National Review article by David Gelernter’s son, Josh Gelernter.
2) The issue of viruses repeatedly pops up in my writing, and some readers continue to negate my essays in toto based on the assumption that the material I present can only be true if “viruses” exist. On the contrary, if one is to accept, at the very least, that cellular debris (observed as nano-sized spherical-type vesicles) is emitted from a sick or dying cell, then one can concede that this means of molecular communication can (and will) be bio-electronically steered and altered (see here and here), thereby modifying the reaction of a physical body in time and space. I want to be clear, that when researchers semantically report on a “virus” and blocking signaling pathways of replication of said “virus,” we can logically deduce that they have the capabilities to detect and alter intracellular and extracellular signaling. Only by accepting that “viruses” and “infections” and “contagion” are best understood within a framework of network communication — involving sensors, propagation systems, transmitters, and receivers — can we attempt to begin to comprehend their future plans. I hope further challenges to the presented material will take this into consideration.
3) Incidentally, the author (and screenplay co-writer) of Ready Player One, Ernest Cline, is married to fellow writer, Cristin O’Keefe Aptowicz, whose brother, Kevin Aptowicz, Ph.D. is a physicist working in the research domains of hydrogels and light scattering of respiratory aerosols. Dr. Aptowicz has collaborated in NASA-funded research with renowned physicist Arjun G. Yodh, Ph.D., who served for 11 years as Director of the Laboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter (LRSM) at the University of Pennsylvania until 2020. Dr. Yodh holds multiple biotechnology patents, including carbon nanotubes as applied to oxygen and blood flow in the human body. It’s a small, small world — particularly in the sector of nanotechnology. Cristin’s sister, Caitlin Aptowicz Trasande has been involved in building the digital biotechnology future, serving in a management role at Nature Publishing Group, then as Head of Research at Digital Science, and more recently as Scientific Director of the Computational and Systems Biology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
P.S. I dedicate this installment to POM commenter, Rastus, in hopes that this answers some “Why” questions . . . 🙂
RE: The Spatial Web (Web 3.0)
“The Spatial Web and Web 3.0: What business leaders should know about the next era of computing” Deloitte Center for Integrated Research, 2020
“The Spatial Web Will Map Our 3D World—And Change Everything In the Process” Singularity Hub, Nov 16, 2018, by Peter H. Diamandis, MD “This digitization of life means that suddenly every piece of information can become spatial, every environment can be smarter by virtue of AI, and every data point about me and my assets—both virtual and physical—can be reliably stored, secured, enhanced, and monetized.”
“What is The Spatial Web and how it will transform the internet?” Mirror Review, by Mayur Shewale
“Why Web 3.0 Is The Next Logical Step,” January 2, 2021 (see 6 minute video above)
RE: Internet of Bio-NanoThings (IoBNT)
“WTF is Internet of Bio Nano Things (IoBNT) and How Secure is It? Hackernoon, January 30, 2021, by Sidra Zafar
“The scientists who are creating a bio-internet of things” MIT Technology Review, November 1, 2019
“Internet of Bio-Nano Things for health applications” (call for paper submissions) ITU Journal, April 2021
“Bio-Nano Things: Organically stimulated Bio-Cyber Interface architecture” (bio-electro virtual interface) International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2018
“A Bio Internet of Things? Hold That Thought” RTInsights, December 6, 2019, by Joe McKendrick
“The Thing with E.coli: Highlighting Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Bacteria in IoT and HCI” (gamification of bacteria within IoBNT), May 2019
“The Internet of Bio-Nano Things” (see 15 minute presentation above), October 18, 2016
RE: 6G Deployment
“Key Drivers and Research for 6G Ubiquitous Wireless Intelligence” 6G Flagship, September 2019
“6G and Beyond: The Future of Wireless Communications Systems” IEEE Access (Funded by U.S. Army Research Office), July 2020, by Ian F. Akyildiz et al. (Pay particular attention to Figure 2)