...and the stupid will believe it and ask to be treated.
This is not correct but this is indeed the same traveler who also introduced Mr Macron to the temple and as all initiates receive the mysteries they predict your future because it is they who design it in accordance with Lu_ifer's will.
Anyway bits of it have been lifted from the book L'avenir de la vie but the interview with Michel Salomon did not proceed as above. The full translation of the interview is as follows:
Is this conceivable parasitic, a 1984 Orwellian based on a behavioral pharmacology?
I don't believe in Orwellism, because it is a form of technical totalitarianism with a visible and centralized Big Brother. I rather believe in decentralization. These machines to watch over our health, which we could have for our good, will enslave us for our good. In a way, we will undergo gentle and permanent conditioning.
How do you see the man of the twenty-first century?
I believe that we must very clearly distinguish two kinds of men of the twenty-first century, that is to say: the man of the twenty-first century from the rich countries and the man of the twenty-first century from the poor countries. The first will certainly be a man who is much more anguished than he is today, but who will find his answer to the pain of experiencing a sort of commercial form of conviviality.
But besides that, I am convinced that the immense majority who will have knowledge of these machines and the way of life of the rich, but who will not have access to them, will be extraordinarily aggressive and violent. It is from this distortion that the great chaos will be born which could be translated either by racial wars, conquests, or by immigration to our counterparts of millions of people who will want to share our way of life.
Do you believe that genetic engineering is one of the keys to our future?
I believe that genetic engineering will be in the next twenty years a technique as commonplace, as well known and present in everyday life as the internal combustion engine is today. It is moreover the same type of parallel that we can establish.
With the internal combustion engine, we could make two choices: either favor public transport and make life easier for people, or produce automobiles, tools for aggressiveness, consumption, individualization, loneliness, storage, desire, of rivalry. We chose the second solution. I believe that with genetic engineering we have the same type of choice and I believe that we will also choose, alas, the second solution. In other words, with genetic engineering we could little by little create the conditions for a humanity assuming itself freely, but collectively, or else create the conditions for a new commodity, genetic this time, which would be made of copies of men sold to men, of chimeras or hybrids used as slaves, robots, means of work.
Is it possible and desirable to live 120 years?
Medically, I don't know. I've always been told it was possible. Is this desirable? I will answer in several times. First of all, I believe that in the very logic of the industrial system in which we find ourselves, the extension of the duration of the life is no longer an objective desired by the logic of power. Why? Because for a long time it was a question of extending life expectancy in order to reach the maximum threshold of profitability of the human machine, in terms of work, it was perfect.
But as soon as we pass 60/65 years, man lives longer than he produces and it costs society dearly.
Hence I cry out that in the logic of industrial society itself, the objective will no longer be to extend life expectancy, but to ensure that even within a determined lifespan , the man lives as well as possible but in such a way that health expenses will be as low as possible in terms of costs for the collective. Then a new life expectancy criterion appears: that of the value of a health system, a function not of the extension of life expectancy but of the number of years without illness and particularly without hospitalization. Indeed from the point of view of society, it is much better for the human machine to come to a screeching halt rather than gradually deteriorating.
This is perfectly clear if we remember that two thirds of health expenses are concentrated in the last months of life. Likewise, cynicism aside, health spending would not reach one third of the current level (175 billion francs in 1979) if people all died suddenly in car accidents. So we have to recognize that the logic no longer lies in increasing life expectancy but in increasing the length of life without disease. However, I think that the increase of the duration of life remains a fantasy which corresponds to two objectives: the first is that of the men of power. The increasingly totalitarian and directive societies in which we find ourselves tend to be run by old men, to become gerontocracies. the second reason lies in the possibility for capitalist society to make old age economically profitable simply by making old people solvent. It is currently a market but it is not solvent.
This goes perfectly with the view that man today is no longer important as a worker but as a consumer (because he is replaced by machines in work). So, we could accept the idea of extending life expectancy on condition of making old people solvent and thus creating a market. We can see very well how the current large pharmaceutical companies behave, in relatively egalitarian countries where at least the method of financing retirement is correct: they favor geriatrics, to the detriment of other fields of research such as tropical diseases.
It is therefore on the one hand, as a socialist, objectively against the extension of life because it is an illusion, a false problem. I believe that asking this type of problem makes it possible to avoid more essential questions such as that of the release of the time actually lived in the present life. What good is it to live to 100 years, if we win 20 years of dictatorship?
The world to come, liberal or socialist, will need a biological morality, to create an ethic of cloning or euthanasia, for example.
Euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies in all cases. In a socialist logic, to begin with, the problem arises as follows: socialist logic is freedom and fundamental freedom is suicide; in consequence, the right to direct or indirect suicide is therefore an absolute value in this type of society. In a capitalist society, killing machines, prostheses which will make it possible to eliminate life when it will be too unbearable, or economically too expensive, will emerge and will be in common practice. It either a value of freedom or a commodity, will be one of the rules of future society.
Will not the men of tomorrow be conditioned by psychotropic drugs and subjected to manipulations of the psyche? How to protect yourself from it?
The only precautions one can take are related to knowledge and knowledge. It is essential today to ban a large number of drugs, to stop the proliferation of conditioning drugs; but perhaps the border has already been crossed.
On the other hand, isn't television an excessive drug?
Hasn't alcohol always been an excessive drug?
The worst drug is the absence of culture. People want drugs because they don't have the culture. Why do they seek drug alienation? Because they have become aware of their powerlessness to live and that this powerlessness translates concretely into the total refusal of life.
An optimistic bet on the man would be to say that if the man had the cutlure, in the sense of the tools of the thought, he could escape the solutions of impotence. So, to take the evil at the root, it is to give to the men a formidable instrument of subversion and creativity.
I do not believe that banning drugs would be sufficient because if you do not tackle a problem at its root, you inevitably fall into the gears of the police and it is worse.
How are we going to deal with mental illness in the future?
The problem of the development of the medicine of mental illnesses will come about in two stages. Initially there will be still more drugs, psychotropic drugs, which correspond to a real progress, for 30 years, in mental medicine.
It seems to me that, as a second step, and for economic reasons, a certain number of electoral means will be put in place, which will be either pain control methods (bio-feedback, etc.), or a computer system of psychoanalytic dialogues.
History teaches us that humanity evolves significantly only when it is truly afraid: then it first puts in place defense mechanisms; sometimes intolerable (scapegoats and totalitarianisms); sometimes futile (distraction); sometimes effective (therapeutic, if necessary setting aside all previous moral principles). Then, once the crisis is over, it transforms these mechanisms to make them compatible with individual freedom and to include them in a democratic health policy. „
„The pandemic that is beginning could trigger one of these structuring fears“ because it will raise, „better than any humanitarian or ecological discourse, the awareness of the need for altruism, at least interested. “
„And, even if, as we can obviously hope, this crisis is not very serious, we must not forget, as for the economic crisis, to learn the lessons, so that before the next – inevitable – prevention and control mechanisms are put in place, as well as logistical processes for the equitable distribution of drugs and vaccines. For that, we will have to put in place a global police force, global storage and therefore global taxation. We will then, much faster than economic reason alone would have allowed, to lay the foundations for a real world government. “
