Mandatory Vaccinations in the age of Nanotechnology

Vaccination, in the traditional sense, involving chemical and biological agents, has been a pretty heated subject of debate for a variety of (good) reasons.

The issue of whether government can make choices for our bodies, the issue of personal liberty, the issue of parenting and the government interfering in the parent-child relationship, the issue of being forced to do something that you don't even know whether it's safe or not due to problematic safety testing, and other similar issues are among the major themes of this debate.

As always, heated debates have some part of "right" and some part of "wrong" in both camps (not always in equal proportions) - which serve to attract people to the pro and against camp. But there is something in the horizon that will make this debate seem dull in comparison...

Vaccines in the age of Nanotechnology

A new dimension will be added into this moral debate, as vaccines evolve to include not only chemical and biological agents, but also nanotechnology-related ...robots (nanobots). Yes. Robots.... Miniaturized robots flowing in the human bloodstream. These will be programmed electro-mechanical devices intended to perform certain pre-programmed tasks.

The moment these are deployed, and a nano-technology infused vaccine is deemed mandatory, at that exact point the government has also decided that Transhumanism -the merging of man and technology- is also mandatory.

In effect, it's like being forced to get chipped - but this is on a whole different level of invasion - which also involves and fundamentally alters the way the human body operates: Its natural defenses are considered inadequate and new, artificial means, are used to "enhance it".

Over time, reliance in artificial means will produce de-evolutionary responses in human biology, weakening what has been the cultivation of a multi-million-year biological evolution. If threats are dealt in an electro-mechanical way (at the nanoscale), then natural cellular defenses don't even have to exist, thus getting into a state of atrophy.

The Game-changing Nanobots

A whole sort of questions can arise regarding the existence of programmed nanobots in our bloodstream - and none of the answers are satisfying. If we can't even trust chemicals and viruses inside a vaccine (there are scientific papers and scientists who have their doubts), which can be analyzed and tested after all, how can we trust black-box ("patented") nanobots that we can't even tell what they are programmed to do?

Even worse, how can a patient know that one out of X nanobots is not intended to have a different functionality that could be triggered by, say, a remote signal / a time-trigger / a genetic-trigger, to perform something totally different than what it claims to be. What if the government can then press a button to induce people into having a whole sort of symptoms, from itching, to death, on demand? Who can say that this level of power can't be abused?

Government "rooting" technology

Even if the pharmaceutical establishment is well intended in their efforts (which they don't need to - their responsibility as companies is to make profits after all), everything technological tends to be "rooted" by the Government.

Whether we are talking about device firmware, processor microcode, BIOS and UEFI backdoors etc, most of the time the Government will ask a company to ..."cooperate, or else" for "national security reasons", in order to introduce new control "features".

With such a track record, who can guarantee that nanobots won't have a covert programming to perform tasks that weren't even intended by well-meant scientists? Or that 1 out of a population of X nanobots is programmed differently to do something else?

Who can guarantee that the government won't be using such technology to violate our right to privacy (nanobots as embedded "bugs" that monitor and record our activities), or health (nanobots embedded to act disruptively or even kill people), especially after knowing their track record?

Defenses and counter-defensive measures

There are so many exploitable routes with this technology that it's disturbing to even contemplate them, let alone find that it is a good idea to force people into accepting nanobots into their bodies. And if someone starts to calculate ahead of this, the strategies employed might even become more problematic...

It's not out of the question that private groups might develop other nanobots to eliminate government-mandated nanobots, and then have both of them extracted in some way. Or create circumstances, like EMP blasts, or blood transfusions and specialized blood filtering, to eliminate the larger part of the nanobot population. Which can then trigger an "evolution" into creating nanobots which attach themselves to the organism in a way which prevents that, and which will necessitate even greater levels of invasive "defense" methods. Something like that could also justify the official introduction of RF-communicating nanobots under the pretext of ensuring compliance, while also allowing the RF-emissions to be used for remote monitoring and control.

As I wrote a bit earlier, all these are disturbing to even contemplate in all their implications. Yet it might be the new type of moral debate that we will have to face in a decade or two...