Smart wearables, associated with “Digital Health”, are body-monitoring, data-collecting, wireless devices that interface with the internet and Big Tech companies.

We have learned to our cost that the internet isn’t neutral. It “…weaponises neuroscience by using the brain’s reward system to drive continuous engagement” Source. All internet-connecting devices (generally referred to as smart devices) promote addictive behaviours, functioning to inflict a deep, biologically induced, reliance on internet connectivity so we can be isolated and targeted for our data by corporations, government agencies and, often, hackers.

The internet has enabled a culture of digital dependency and further, digital addiction – centered on smart technology. Comforting convenience is part of the addiction and AI automation is further accelerating society’s “dependency” on smart technology, as the virtual reality and wearables industries know.

“Health” move?

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the US is promoting such a dependency, recently advocating all US citizens invest in wearables to improve health. This type of initiative chimes with the World Health Organisation (WHO), which has a “Digital Health” agenda that encourages smartphones and wearables, devices that give up troves of health and other data to corporations. The US is withdrawing from the WHO but seems determined to take advantage of digital health. But is it about health? As startus-insights.com reports, wearables are “biometric technologies [that have] become integral to security, authentication, and identity…”

Kennedy’s move draws attention to data privacy issues, as well as the health issue of radiofrequency exposure. We can only wonder what has led to his advocacy of technology that enables wireless body area network (WBAN) architecture and sensor-based human activity recognition (HAR) which are integral to the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) and wireless technology markets associated with the Internet of Bodies (IoB). These frameworks for smart technology promote deep data acquisition through implants and smart dust, and includes “…electronic sensors and computer chips embedded in edible pills“.

Data sharing

Grand View Research reports that “This industry is expected to rise as a result of a number of factors, including strong government initiatives, growing use of contactless biometric in context of the pandemic, and expanding usage of face recognition in both public and private sectors.”

Speaking about facial recognition technology to Politico, Albert Fox Cahn, head of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said, “The NYPD has a decade-long history of abusing its surveillance operations to target Black New Yorkers, Muslim New Yorkers, political protests and every aspect of dissent,” Cahn said. “These are technologies that would be chilling in anyone’s hands. But to give an agency with such a horrifying record of surveillance abuse even more power, at a time when they face dwindling oversight, is a recipe for disaster.”

There are biometric data sharing schemes between police forces and the private sector. Can we imagine wearables data landing in the hands of the NYPD, for example, adding to their surveillance data?

Has Kennedy been lobbied? After all, stakes are high and it’s a big year for Big Tech companies, and the wearables industry which catalyses other industries like AR and even, Neuralink – Elon Musk’s company. Meta’s Reality Labs, according to The Verge, is working on all kinds of wearables, boasting that, “If there’s a part of your body that could potentially host a wearable that could do AI, there’s a good chance we’ve had a team run that down.”

2025 is the year AI is set to transform wearables with “predictive analytics,” and generative AI features. Altogether wearables represents a multi-billion dollar industry that is a critical part of “automating” society, supporting smart cities and harvesting data to influence behaviour as well as health choices.

The data we leave behind, cannot be left behind

Battery-free wearables (smartwatches, fitness trackers, smart rings, and smartglasses) are a class of smart technology that can interface with smart phones and personal computers to collect a variety of data, which is a security concern, especially with data synchronization. According to Stetson Law, “owners may be unaware that the data collected by these devices is discoverable [and admissible in court].”

Wearables empower smart dust technology (tiny sensors using nanotechnology), and 5 GHz backscatter technology that is “a way for a device to communicate with a WiFi router [or a 5G cellular network] by reflecting the very signals it sends out back at it….to send data back and forth” for energy harvesting and efficiency.

Wearables technology is rapidly evolving and collects biometric data, which is highly valued by Big Tech firms and governments that can use these datasets, working in concert, to support controversial immigration policies, for example. Today, Palantir’s reach into biometric and personal data has become unprecedented, and is raising concerns. According to The Debrief, “the enigmatic tech company Palantir, co-founded by entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel…has reportedly been contracted to assist in building a centralized database that will contain sensitive personal information on American citizens.”

People have come to believe that smart devices like wearables can improve wellbeing and may even make people ”smarter”. Though, as Economic Journal suggests, “Whether technology makes us smarter or just plain stupid is an ongoing debate. It is a fact that current technology changes us – the way we function, perform tasks and think. It also changes the way we obtain and retain knowledge.” As a result, ”…memorising, critical thinking and contemplation are skills we seem to lose.”

This raises additional concerns about reliance on wearables and smart phones, and so we can appreciate that these technologies contradict, in some significant ways, the idea that health, wellbeing or “smartness” are ultimately being reinforced. Only the dependency on such technology is being reinforced, beyond doubt, which is a boon to the smart technology economy. Whether lives are “improved” is a sticky question.

RFK Jr’s recommendation of wearables to citizens is likely to profit Big Tech companies, including the wireless industry, not just in traditional economic terms, but from amassing data and from the ability to monitor populations.

Surprising move

This potentially huge data-grab relating to Digital Health and manouevres towards a “centralized surveillance infrastructure” involving Big Tech firms like Palantir, represents a surprising move for RFK Jr, whose recommendation of smart wearables also reinforces the idea – challenged by an immense body of research and science – that exposure to radiofrequency emitting devices 24/7 is not a health risk. All of this seems to represent a massive U-turn for him politically.

Stepping toward Digital ID

A wearable for everyone can also function as a stepping stone to Digital ID, something many Western governments are now obsessed with implementing, and a big reason 5G was implemented. Needless to say, further intrusions into our privacy are on the horizon.

RFK Jr is a political figure who formerly chaired The Children’s Health Defense who had this to say about wearables:

“We agree that people should be able to monitor their health in innovative ways using the technology they choose. But we do not think the federal government should try to push wearables on every American…We do not share this vision,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program. “Quite the contrary, we oppose governmental pressure to incentivize the widespread use of wearables. They pose serious health risks, especially to children, and they threaten privacy.””

Kennedy has been well-regarded for challenging Big Pharma and the predations of the tech industry. That he is now encouraging 5G smart technology as a health enhancement for all is a development that raises many questions.

RFK Jr, who according to pcmag.com, “wants everyone to wear a smartwatch, fitness tracker, or other piece of wearable health tech as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda”, is in the “vipers nest” so to speak, immersed in a government culture obsessive about surveillance and now fully infiltrated by Big Tech in the guise of Elon Musk.

Surveillance

There is likely more to Kennedy’s politics than first meets the eye and we can continue to observe. The Trump government certainly has a technological agenda, which reaches all of the way to Israel, and, despite tussles with Musk, the Trump administration continues to “deify” Big Tech as an instrument of American Imperialist domination putting it at the top of the agenda. Since 9/11 and the War on Terror, with the Snowden disclosures following, from the PATRIOT Act, to Facial Recognition Technology (FRTs) rollouts more recently, the US government’s agenda to “dominate” and surveil populations is relentlessly assisted by Big Tech.

Wearables exemplify Big Tech’s desire to make smart technology in various guises addictive and ubiquitous in the extraction of data. With Digital Addiction at an all time high and statesmen siding with Big Tech to promote a society controlled by smart technology from dawn to dusk, there is every indicator that a new Cold War is being waged from inside the White House against citizens who are not onboard with the smart technology agenda, or the political agendas in flow, such as the ICE controversy, which is also bad news for those on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Technological smart surveillance, which wearable technologies promote, is giving governments and corporations unprecedented powers over populations. We are reminded of the wisdom of Edward Thurlow, who said, “Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like.”

Corporations and statesmen alike believe they can support Big Tech and “…therefore do as they like.” This is deeply concerning and surveillance agendas have been called out from within the Big Tech companies by employees over recent years.

“I refuse to build technology that powers genocide, apartheid or surveillance.”
– Google Cloud employee (protesting at Google’s role in Project Nimbus)

Conclusion

Society is becoming very digitally divided. However, we all have an interest in unifying over the issues concerning digitally enabled erosion of privacy and the misuse of data through wearables and other technologies. We must decide what kind of society we are building.

Supporting the proliferation of smart technology is a sure way to entrench surveillance and deter democracy, as well as exacerbate racial discrimination. Is that the future we want?

“Emerging digital technologies driven by big data and artificial intelligence are entrenching racial inequality, discrimination and intolerance.”
– Tendayi Achiume, UN Special Rapporteur on racism

When we are now being told by government officials that biometrics-collecting wearables technology provides an effective means of caring for our health in the 21st century, we have every reason to be cautious. “Racial biases in the science behind wearable tech” can prevent “equitable health care for certain segments of the population“, as wesleyan.edu reports.

Nothing from Big Tech is “neutral”. Digital health is not neutral. Governments are not being transparent on the issues surrounding Digital Health. We should consider the ultimate consequences of adopting wireless smart technology and wearables, which not only enable further technological agendas for control, they also expose us to wireless radiation, can promote digital addiction, and may expose us to considerable data risks and algorithmic biases that are anything but “healthy”.

Exit humans, enter robots?

Drones and humanoid robotic machines equipped with Artificial Intelligence (AI) are on the rise. At the same time a significant population crisis is on the horizon. This investigation recognises how the penetration of “intelligent” technologies, role of population planning, and post-pandemic policy implementations – serving the rapid development of data-driven “smart” societies based on sustainability politics – are all contributing to an unfolding population crisis and health impacts that favours the rise of robots.

According to demographers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) this population crisis could “completely reconfigure the global economy and international balance of power – and will necessitate the reorganising of societies”. It has been suggested that, as this is a population replacement crisis, technology will be a part of the replacement crisis “solution.” It is anticipated that “AI and automation will…pick up the slack”, as the Financial Times puts it.

5G networks integrating cloud and AI digitalisation are already creating the foundations for artificial life to bloom and assert its influence on our populations – but at what cost? Is all of the “blue sky” thinking concerning implementations of robots and artificial intelligence really for solving society’s problems, or to sustain mega-profits and questionable political gains that ultimately fragment the populace and, quite possibly, dismantle democracies? Significant issues deserve our attention, as our future’s trajectory becomes massively influenced by the politics of AI and robotics.

Robots and the workplace

Replacing humans with robots is becoming a norm. Artificial Intelligence (AI) fuels forms of robotics that are displacing humans across the spectrum of employment. MIT researcher and economist Daron Acemoglu’s finding that adding a robot to the workforce can replace around 6 people represents a concerning prospect. The increasing abilities of robots, is also driving the replacement factor.

Goldman Sachs Research “…points out that there’s been significant progress in end-to-end AI, through which models can train themselves, removing the need for a human engineer to code everything by hand. That’s speeding up robot development, allowing these devices to do more tasks and adapt to new situations (such as working outside of factories) more quickly.” You can see the 2024 Goldman Sachs report on Global Automation, here.

Supporters in favour boosting robot numbers and responsibilities in the workplace often spin the developments as a “good thing” for society. For instance, the World Economic Forum reports that many “…robots are managing jobs that have high-accident rates or long-term health consequences for humans.” While it is recognised there may be positives to robots handling dangerous tasks, the comprehensive deployment of robots and automation in other areas of employment accelerates the process of replacing people with technology.

According to The Conversation, “…surveys show AI researchers overwhelmingly agree AI will achieve human-level “thinking” within this century.” It becomes ever more apparent that the replacement of humans in various roles will be continually reinforced.

Robots and AI automation may help many manufacturers streamline production, and save a fortune in insurance and benefits and other relative “human” costs. However, from factory workers, to teachers, to drivers and surgeons, to the fields of agriculture, medicine, and environmental management, for example, the reality is that automation will not only exponentially increase unemployment, but threaten a range of skills (including the emotional and social skills that make us human). Beyond the seductive scenarios advanced by industry, robotic automation spells trouble for society with humans gradually left unable to compete with this technology in many sectors.

According to Future Learn, the business network PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwC) predicts that up to 30% of jobs could be automated by robots by the mid-2030s. Recently, entrepreneur Elon Musk announced that he wants 1 billion humanoid robots in the workforce by 2040. If actualised, that would mean that around 6 billion jobs would disappear, based on what is suggested by the research finding of MIT’s economist, Acemoglu.

As AI increasingly impacts the workplace and is poised to “pick up the slack” for a declining population, wouldn’t that feasibly sustain lower populations – indefinitely in developed countries? And, possibly even sustain further population decline? After all, a robot doesn’t have human costs, needs or limits, and are considered assets that defy illnesses and mortality as they replace human labour. Generally, in the political climate of “sustainability” governments in progressive Western technological societies aren’t encouraging larger native human populations, with the “demographic shifts” happening, trends are towards artificial population replacement (elevating the influx of migrants, refugees, and strategic deployments of AI / robots, for example).

Challenges of depopulation, social transformation, and the rise of robots

The UN, which deeply guides policies of its member states to pursue technological goals, believes, “…high population densities accelerate disease spread and strain already overburdened health services” – according to populationmatters.org. The UN encourages lower populations, which has been more successfully achieved in developed countries. It’s the bitter “logic” of the UN’s sustainability drive that populations are now creating more robots than people to facilitate increased automation.

The United Nations (UN) now guides developed societies with shrinking populations to transition into robotised smart cities monitored and automated by AI. According to earth.org, “Since the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) establishment in 2015, numerous engineers have developed robots to help nations accomplish their sustainability goals.”

The alignment of technology to sustainability goals gives a green light to industry to help the UN and its specialised agency for information and communication technologies, the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) realise a digital future dominated by robots that assist in managing the population.

Automation may eventually destroy the social fabric of our society over time. As Monash University (MU) states, “After liberating us from “uncreative”, routine work and rote repetition, digital automation promises to relieve us of creativity and sociality itself – of the decisions that embody and reproduce our social and political commitments.“

MU also observes that, as society embraces increased AI automation, decision-making processes are becoming centralised and controlled. As “the decision-making process itself is being automated, we should be wary of the concentration of power in the hands of those who control the databases and write the algorithms. They’ll be deciding not just how products get built, but how society runs.“

The UN is deciding how society “runs” through the policy-building 2030 Agenda that sustains this politically motivated trajectory towards digital automation, bringing “together experts, policy-makers and business leaders”.

It is interesting how the UN’s Population Division has influenced population reduction in developed member states (which are rapidly developing digital technologies and AI powered robots – with some robots becoming almost “human-like” in their “biomimicry”) yet in underdeveloped countries, like Africa, the populations are above replacement levels with a population enjoying improved mortality rates.

“The [UN’s] Population Division has created and maintains a comprehensive World Population Policies Database , going back to the mid-1970s….Monitoring of government views and policies on population issues is important for tracking progress in the implementation of the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, and other internationally agreed development goals that are related to population, including the Sustainable Development Goals.”

The Hoover Institute posits that Africa will “be the source of virtually all labor force growth in the world, and by far the youngest region, in the 21^st century.” The population may “reach 2.5 billion by 2050….growing to 4.5 billion by 2100.”

A significant population decline by comparison is expected to impact developing countries where supplementing native populations with “displaced peoples” and “replacement migration” – as well as synthetic appropriations – to help manage society, is on the cards.

It is also expected that the UK’s natural population is expected to start declining by 2025 according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), where “deaths will surpass births two decades earlier than expected….” as reported in the Financial Times in 2022. In this climate of population decline it is worth noting that robotisation in society brings further social and demographic repercussions.

A study published by The Journal of Human Resources has found that, in “regions that were more exposed to robots…marital fertility declined” for there was a decrease in the number of marriages. It was highlighted that this occurred because robots reduce gender wage gaps and so diminish the value of men in the marriage market by increasing the relative economic status of women. A study published by Elsevier titled Robots, gender economic opportunities and household adjustment: Evidence from China clarifies that, “These technologies [robots, AI, Automation] primarily replace low-skilled, physically demanding jobs traditionally held by men, thereby improving employment opportunities for women….[which] correspondingly diminishes their satisfaction with the economic and domestic contributions of men within the household, thereby shifting their priorities toward career advancement rather than marriage and childbirth.”

Such studies show that populations exposed to robots experience a significant lowering the fertility rate (which drives population reduction). The role of robot technology in global depopulation, and also fertility enhancement, cannot be underestimated.

Researchers at the Institute for Integrative Nanosciences at IFW Dresden has developed a technology called “Spermbots” which they want to replicate inside the human body to propel sperm using “tiny robot suits that can help sperm become more mobile”. The technology is classified as “assisted reproduction” and targets couples struggling to conceive. According to ScienceAlert “These ‘spermbots’ are miniature metal helixes just large enough to completely wrap around the tail of a single sperm and help it along its way towards the egg. The bots are powered with the assistance of a magnetic field controlled by the scientists.”

Such innovations, which also pave the way for the development of “robotic micro-systems”, are sold as helping solve population issues. However, introducing nanotechnology into the reproduction process attached to cells in the reproduction cycle represents increasing steps towards the infiltration of electromagnetically powered nano-robots into the human body that sets disquieting precedents, and are not without risks.

The hazards of nanobots in the body are being studied. Man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from wireless infrastructure and devices are known to negatively affect sperm motility, and fertility. Ironically, motility, and fertility are the problems “being addressed” by these “wireless” nanobots. Introducing artificial electromagnetic fields for propulsion and monitoring of the bots clearly represents a health risk.

Other risks have been highlighted in a study titled Environmental and health risks of nanorobots: an early review, including “…(i) the use of hazardous materials and UV light in nanorobots, and (ii) the loss of propulsion/targeting control.” The long term health impacts of nanorobots and robotic micro-systems on human populations are unknown, yet the impacts could be significant, and push humanity towards a transhuman existence with AI and nanobots being used to constantly monitor human bodies.

Ray Kurzweil, Google’s Director of Engineering believes, “One application of these medical nanorobots will be to extend our immune systems. These robots will also go into the brain and provide virtual and augmented reality from within the nervous system rather than from devices attached to the outside of our bodies.” Source.

A race to robotise society: The dawn of humanoid robots and Society 5.0

According to McKinsey & Company, “The AI revolution is not in its infancy, but most of its economic impact is yet to come.” Some societies are more economically predisposed to welcome the rise of robots (or even biosynthetic life), like Japan for example which has suffered economic decline since the 1990s, and more recently this has been exacerbated owing to natural disasters, political problems and a worsening demographic situation.

As population prospects worsen, the concept for a “better” future has been developed, focusing on the Japan’s alignment with the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) to transition the country to a digitalised “Society 5.0”.

The “sustainability” pathway believed essential for Japan’s economic “recovery” is also a road to a post-human future which buys into technological augmentation and the data-driven “smart” society promoted by the UN, a symbol of humanity’s closer alignment with technology, blurring the lines between cyberspace and physical existence.

With robot penetration into society heralding problems for marriage (already a problem in Japan, with the value and identity of men in crisis) and sustaining demographic problems (with increasing numbers of Japanese men migrating as a result), Society 5.0 could lead Japan into deeper social and economic upheavals. However, the “blue sky” message of “sustainability” has been effective in drawing Japanese society into the UN’s vision of the globalist, robotised future.

Society 5.0, according to UNESCO is the “super-smart society…as it envisions a complete transformation of our way of life….Society 5.0 will help to overcome chronic social challenges such as an ageing population, social polarization, depopulation and constraints related to energy and the environment….autonomous vehicles and drones will bring goods and services to people in depopulated areas.” That is a very polite way of saying that “cyber-physical” systems and other technologies will replace face-to-face human interactions, while replacing vast numbers of human beings and human labour. Cyber-physical systems refers to robots and automation, both controlled by wireless networks and real-time data processing.

With technology expected to drive economies in need of “post-pandemic” recovery, Japan won’t be the only society embracing accelerated technological transformations. The ultimate consequences of societal transformation could push humans closer to a “transhuman” existence, the ultimate biosynthetic merging of society with the machine “nervous system”. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) already posits that humans are heading for a “hive mind” resulting from a merging of all minds and data, which has been called a “singularity.” As The Conversation notes, “Hypothetically, if a hive mind were to emerge, one could imagine it would mark the end of individuality and the institutions that rely on it, including democracy.”

All of this is possible, and societies following the UN’s lead (through accepting the stipulations of the “sustainability” goals and “climate change” narrative) are on track to that future.

Humanoid robots for the world

What is a robot is in today’s terms, and, what developments are under way to “sustain” them in the “smart city” society?

According to Future Learn, today’s “Robotic systems can be defined as interconnected, interactive, cognitive and physical tools that are able to perceive the environment using sensors, reason about events, make plans using algorithms implemented in computer programs, and perform actions enabled by actuators.’ 

The “humanising” of robots matters in tomorrow’s world. Developments in China have resulted in “human-like” robots with nuanced facial expressions becoming almost indistinguishable from human citizens in the near future.

Already, “Companies across the world are in a tight race to develop the best suitable robot that can give us human-like feel” according to Interesting Engineering. It’s the perfect camouflage for robots to bend into society, but will humanoid biomimicry bring more acceptance of robots in our midst?

As populations are set to decline, and as robots are politically elevated for an increasing role in our world, so-called “bio-inspired” robots (with some developments now incorporating human skin) seem likely to proliferate and are likely candidates to supplement the original human population seamlessly. Their convincing human appearance may overcome the intimidating appearance of the rigid metallic humanoids that resemble something like “Terminator”.

5G and emerging 6G wireless infrastructure (sensors and networks – the nervous system of AI) promises to give robots (including devices and appliances) a shared electronic consciousness (hive mind) courtesy of the internet and the cloud, making real-time analyses of data possible, where robots and devices make independent decisions.

Data-driven “smart” societies like Communist China politically operate like a “hive mind” as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regards individuality as a threat. This “threat” is largely neutralised by China’s utilisation of AI technology and automation to manage society. China intends to lead the current technological race towards a robotised society. Can we expect anything other than the domination of robots?

Prospects of this seem likely in technological societies where fertility rates have been lowered and a population crisis is playing out. China has an “irreversible” fertility decline, one that could more than halve the population. As ABC reports “the population is aging mainly because the birth rate is falling.” China’s economy is set to weaken, and “this weakness will present challenges to the world’s economic recovery”. China’s answer to the potential challenges? Robots.

China is aggressively pursuing labour automation to raise productivity despite a shrinking population, and is set to supply the world with “humanoid” robots and the components for building them. Source.

Fortune Business Insights has its eye on the global market and says “the market for humanoid robots is projected to grow from USD 3.28 billion in 2024 to USD 66.0 billion by 2032.” These robots are “entering into the real world for various applications such as research, space exploration, personal assistance caregiving, education and entertainment, among others.”

According to the centre for International Governance Innovation, “… robots are now increasingly capable of…complex human tasks. Unlike specialized industrial robots, humanoid robots can be designed for general purpose application across a range of working environments. This includes agriculture, manufacturing, mining, health care, education, entertainment and even defence…Chinese planners hope to control the global supply of core components for the robotics industry by 2025 and achieve global dominance in the manufacture of humanoid robots by 2027.”

A world made for robots, or of robots?

We are witnessing the emergence of forms of artificial life relying on “data.” Known generically as robots they are also referred to as “cyber-physical” systems (CPS). Martin Rees (Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge) states, when asked if robots will take over the world, “…we are increasingly dependent on computer networks…” and “…these could behave like a single ‘brain’ with a mind of its own, and with goals that may be contrary to human welfare.”

Katherine Richardson PhD, an anthropologist of robots believes, “…as a culture we tend to imagine they [autonomous machines, robots] are greater and more powerful than they really are and subsequently they become so.” Source.

It is always being suggested to us, especially by the media, that digitalisation, AI, and robots empower society for a “sustainable future”, or “economic growth”, for example – but it is also reasonable to assume that they may also disempower society. AI experts have warned us of the non-negligible chance that human extinction could be caused by AI.

This existential risk hasn’t discouraged the appetite for “robotic ecosystems” that are changing our world, driven by entrepreneurship, wealth and investment. As Built In reports, “In light of recent investments, the dawn of complex humanoid robots may come sooner than later. AI robotics company Figure and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI formed a partnership that’s backed by investors like Jeff Bezos. Under the deal, OpenAI will likely adapt its GPT language models to suit the needs of Figure’s robots. And microchip manufacturer Nvidia revealed plans for Project GR00T, the goal of which is to develop a general-purpose foundation model for humanoid robots. These announcements come in the wake of Elon Musk and Tesla introducing the humanoid robot Optimus in 2022, although the robot is still being trained.” Musk anticipates selling the “Tesla Optimus Robots” for an estimated $20,000 per unit – according to Fox Business. 

If it seems that our world is made for robots. Another factor drives the appetite for robotic ecosystems. The International Federation for Robotics (IFR) highlights that “…the integration of robots and robotics technologies is emerging as a powerful tool in contributing to the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

This situation was being prepared for, politically, decades ago. The UN’s Brundtland Report of 1987 (a.k.a. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development) urged a “global agenda for change.” This document gave birth to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of UN Agenda 2030. It described various crises that would afflict society and how technology would be aspirational, yet also prove to be a double-edged sword for humanity.

A section of the report titled “The Interlocking Crises” expounds the familiar idea that technology is here to save the planet. The report also acknowledges that technology is also a gamble with our planet’s future. It stated that, “A mainspring of economic growth is new technology, and while this technology offers the potential for slowing the dangerously rapid consumption of finite resources, it also entails high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways.”

Changing evolutionary pathways

Technology advancements since the Brundtland Report of 1987 have connected half of the global population to a wireless-powered artificial ecosystem of telecommunications networks and data servers referred to as “the cloud”. Some have called it a “nervous system for the earth.” This evolving synthetic organism (of multiple networks of automation and cyber-physical systems) may eventually eclipse the native spectrum of life on our planet.

Today, the earth, oceans and skies are being drawn into the data-gathering “nervous system.” The Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) and the Internet of Flying Things (IoFT) and Internet of Space Things (IoST) are in progress as component projects within the “mother” datafication project, the Internet of Things (IoT). Space X is launching 250 5G satellites to assist in the transformation of our world into a wireless taxonomy of trackable objects and lifeforms.

The earth’s atmosphere is under artificial transformation. Its native electromagnetic fields are infringed upon by artificial industrialised ones (like 5G) which are powering the wireless digitalised surveillance economy dependent on the IoT for Big Data and Machine Learning. ALAN (Artificial Light At Night) is a global disruptor causing significant ecological impacts. These significant, widespread artificial adjustments caused by digital technology are registered by the earth’s native life forms, playing havoc with their biological sensitivities as the world caters increasingly to the prospect of introducing more and more digital devices and intelligent machines – predominantly in countries facing the prospect of sharp population declines.

Collectively we might call these artificial biological and ecological impacts an act of concerted modification, the effect of which has been to reduce and weaken native species (including humans) with unprecedented exposures to radiofrequency transmitting devices, CO2-reducing geoengineering projects, and LED radiation pollution – all of which are scientifically known to change the longevity, behaviour and fertility of ecosystems, and populations, yet persist in the public imagination as “sustainable” technologies.

The unfolding side-effects, such as the declination of species and a plethora of other negatives, continue to be widely neglected, remaining at the periphery of societal consciousness. Light pollution, exacerbated by the excessive light spill and glare from LED street lights, car headlamps and electronic screens, affects us in very specific ways. It targets hormone levels, ultimately destroying sleep, and fertility, by hampering reproduction. Source. Similar effects take their toll in the natural world’s ecosystems. In insect ecosystems, for example, light pollution is a recognised driver of species decline.

“Sustainable Development” goals drive not the emancipation of societies, but dependency on technologies that will modify and take-over societies, even reduce their populations. Yet, society believes all of these technological changes are the product of eco-wisdom guiding us to a sustainable utopia. However, society is in danger, and 5G and LED lighting is only the tip of the iceberg.

No-one knows this more than Gro Harlem Brundtland who chaired the Brundtland Report. She helped introduce society to the concept of “sustainable development” in 1987, paving the way for our current digital paradigm and its acceleration. However, she has discovered that the EMF radiation from technology brings unexpected consequences, and has come to accept that the wireless radiation powering the “sustainable” technological paradigm is a significant threat to her health.

Brundtland is a medical doctor and Master of Public Health (MPH), who faired as Prime Minister of Norway (1981–1996), as well as becoming director-general of the World Health Organization. She is convinced “of the link between health and the environment.” She has openly challenged WHO’s conclusions about harm from wireless radiation.

According to Physicians for Safe Technology, while still heading the WHO “…she went public with her self-diagnosis of EHS [electromagnetic hypersensitivity]…while the agency was refusing to acknowledge that EHS symptoms were directly caused by EMF exposure.”

In her 2012 speech at the opening of a new School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo in Ontario she responded to questions by Dr. Magda Havas PhD. where she “…cautioned about the overuse of cell phones and went on to explain how she became allergic to microwave radiation.” Brundtland also stated that “…the environment needs to be modified to reduce electrosmog exposure in order to protect health.”

EHS, also referred to by researchers as “Microwave Syndrome”, is aggravated by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones and other artificial EMFs in the environment and is affecting over 5% of the population. Evidence points to this number increasing with the roll out of 5G, a new modulation of the electromagnetic spectrum utilising barely researched millimetre waves for the advancement of a “sustainable” robotised digital paradigm that necessitates a latency free bandwidth for real-time data processing for the IoT.

The novel deployment of “robot pollinators”, automated animal surveillance, and impacts of 5G on fertility and food security

A health report compiled for the European Parliament (EP) called the “Health Impact of 5G” suggests there is more than meets the eye concerning fertility issues in the population. There is “sufficient evidence of adverse effects on fertility in men and limited evidence of adverse effects on fertility in women” from wireless radiation in the range of 450MHz to 6GHz, which covers the history of DECT phones and mobile phones up to more recent models using 5G infrastructure.

It’s an arresting finding, especially when it is becoming clear that many countries won’t sustain the human populations they’ll need for growth and security in the years ahead. Demographers anticipate fertility rates dropping below replacement levels earlier than expected – possibly by 2030.

Predictably demographers attribute the population’s precarious status to “factors such as higher education levels among people who give birth, rising incomes, and expanded access to contraceptives.” However, on the road to digitalisation, other factors come into play and wireless radiation continues to be one of them as “The Health Impact of 5G” strongly suggests.

Some countries are beginning to act, realising that wireless radiation poses a threat to populations. According to a report by Environmental Health trust, “India dropped their RF limits by 1/10th after a research review documented the majority of research studies found adverse effects to wildlife, birds and bees.” This is the precautionary principle (PP) in action, mostly ignored by the rest of the world in pursuit of digitalisation.

The World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) “Living Planet Report” illustrates severe population decline in the natural world. In the report, the WWF issues a “climate change” alert urging action in the language of the UN’s sustainability goals, suggesting that wildlife is being decimated because of human populations causing global warming. At the same time, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) promotes AI, and automated wireless devices, for the surveillance of animal populations. Projects called “Eyes on Recovery” and “Wildlife Insights” supported by Google, rely on motion sensor activated camera traps. These operate continuously with powerful LED flashes taking millions of images to collect species data. This activity could be disrupting ecosystems with ALAN (Artificial Light At Night which is recognised as a significant impact on ecology). These projects are executed in the name of protecting animals, so that “scientists, land managers and other stakeholders can better anticipate threats“. Technological ecological disruption is arguably a threat.

WWF’s Living Planet Report highlights threats to ecology, yet not all. It neglects the influences of technologies on wildlife, including the wireless expansionism in recent decades (which creates ecologically impacting electrosmog emissions), and, the modalities of extraction that serve the appetites of the semiconductor and lithium battery industries. It emphasises a UN-friendly conception of how the world should quantifiably change without acknowledging how digital wireless technologies represent a threat to wildlife populations.

The UN advocates wireless technology to solve problems, and advocates smaller populations – and demands a radically different society, one where wireless technology and robots will systematically monitor populations, and be used to replace wildlife species, just as humans are being “replaced”. This is playing out to extraordinary degrees across the world.

While bees and other pollinators are dying from EMF exposure causing colony collapse disorder (CCD) – very commonly blamed on “climate change” – action to support ecosystems today includes deploying wireless robots to make a difference. According to howtorobot.com robotic pollinators are being despatched to replace pollinators (population replacement), which as we know, are averse to exposure from the wireless transmitters powering wireless robots systems like these.

It is believed that, “these robots, designed to mimic the actions of bees, can help maintain plant populations and genetic diversity within ecosystems…[though] there are concerns about its effectiveness and potential impacts on natural pollinator populations.”

In a similar vein, as the BBC reports, “…new Biotracks technology tracks the harmonic radar tags attached to bees with a receiver carried on a drone in a bid to improve understanding of what is happening to pollinators” in research led by a team at The University of Oxford in the UK.

Despite research that suggests bees are not at all benefiting from man-made EMFs, such novel “science” projects gain publicity and support while they promote IoT technologies like drones and wireless devices.

According the the website beeing.it, a “study conducted at the Beekeeping Application Centre of the University of Bayburt offers valuable insights into the disturbing effect of electromagnetic radiation on bee behaviour….Implications of these findings go beyond bees’ welfare. As crucial beings for pollination, bees play a vital role in agriculture, contributing to the fertilization of numerous crops, including fruits, vegetables and nuts. The loss of their ability to navigate accurately could lead to a decrease in crop yields, affecting food production and threatening global food security.” New Scientist has also acknowledged the negative influences of EMFs on the bee populations asserting that “Electromagnetic fields…are messing with honeybees…Transmission towers emit electromagnetic fields that can disrupt honeybees’ ability to pollinate nearby plants, which could reduce biodiversity in these areas”.

Sadly, the vulnerability of earth’s species to EMFs – which are decimating pollinators and adding to growing food insecurity – may drive increased demand for “solutions” such as the aforementioned robotic pollinators. We live in a politicised technological climate, which is biased towards implementing wireless technology in mainstream research and in solving environmental problems – even to replace pollinators. Concerns about EMF radiation impacts on wildlife (or human populations) are hastily being dismissed, and this is not in the best interests of the environment or declining populations.

Mass die-offs: another decline of populations, amidst the rise of wireless robots

The global technological “arms race” that now depletes our world of life was known by the original architects of the UN’s sustainability project as entailing “high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways.”

Society’s technology consumption now heralds populations pushed to the limits, and declining across the spectrum of life on earth, presenting security issues and widening global disparities. Within this unfolding scenario AI-powered robots are guaranteed a starring role in managing the fall-out as the natural order of things is increasingly infiltrated by synthetic life forms, on queue for population replacement and other duties.

As wireless robot ecosystems expand, we are also facing the daunting reality of “mass die-offs” in the natural world which “…can reshape the ecological and evolutionary trajectories of life on Earth” as discussed in National Geographic, where “…Researchers reviewed historical records of 727 mass die-offs from 1940 to 2012 and found that over that time, these events have become more common for birds, marine invertebrates, and fish.”

Scientists researching the publicised die-offs cannot say for certain why this is happening, and when offering hypotheses, commonly assume it must be “climate change” related. That’s a predominant theory with a broad sweep, but it does not put the problem in the context of the rapid technological developments that are taking their toll on earth’s ecosystems.

The die-offs continue. In 2020 in Mexico “hundreds of dead birds were discovered in numerous spots across the New Mexican landscape. With each new, grim find, researchers began to realise these clumps of carcasses were not isolated incidents.” Martha Desmond from New Mexico State University (NMSU) told Las Cruces Sun News “We’re losing probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of migratory birds.” According to the researchers “the birds seemed “to act strangely before their deaths, spending more time on the ground than perched in trees, and generally appearing dazed, sleepy, and lethargic…the affected birds also look different.”

According to The Independent, the “dead birds were found in states including New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Arizona and Nebraska.” Scientists could only speculate as to the cause. This is only an example of a widespread (and sudden) “die-off”. Another bird population event in Mexico was filmed by a security camera, as blackbirds fell dead from the sky in mid flight. Watch here.

Another infamous case in the Netherlands offered the same theory as for the birds grounding in Mexico, that a hunting bird may have frightened them. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (which encourages cooperation between research institutes and businesses to invest in a powerful, sustainable country) were quick to point out that it “wasn’t 5G”.

However, it is fully acknowledged that EMFs disrupt bird navigation though it is never offered even a possibility in relation these events when it most likely should. Scientists believe the effect of EMFs on birds “…is greatest when birds fly over urban areas”, as reported by the BBC in 2014. As we know, in recent times the sources of EMF have multiplied dramatically to accommodate global wireless expansion, and cell towers with a high-density population produce high EMF radiation emissions affecting birds. The position of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, allied with the wireless industry was most likely political rather than scientifically defensible.

Amidst the mushrooming of uncharacteristic syndromes and mortality rates in the earth’s ecosystems, notably, the military is developing an arsenal of autonomous robotic weapons (specifically drones) and is studying the swarming behaviours of birds, as well as fish and marine creatures so that wireless drones have the “ability to act in concert, combined with the inherent adaptability and versatility of individual drones, results in a force that can swiftly respond to changing conditions on the battlefield….enhanced by AI and space technology.” Source.

5G infrastructure has been rolled out on earth, in the seas and in the skies to make way for drones and other synthetic life forms at are now infiltrating the habitats of native life forms in a big way. As a side effect of the 5G technological agenda, ecosystem levels of ambient electromagnetic radiation are affected, with man-made electromagnetic radiation (electrosmog) becoming an increasing burden on wildlife around the world – including swarming birds, fish and marine animals.

According to a scientific report in Nature, it is recognised that “Anthropogenic EMFs, represent a poorly understood, yet potentially important and increasing emission into the marine environment, which may disrupt or mask vital environmental cues to EM-sensitive species….Ubiquitous anthropogenic sources of marine EMFs include ships, bridges and subsea cables^1,14.” As the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUWT) develops to drive the monitoring and robotisation of the oceans, this problem will become severely exacerbated. You can become acquainted with the implications in an MDPI report called “Recent Advances, Future Trends, Applications and Challenges of Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT): A Comprehensive Review” which states that “The key enabler technology for the IoUT is the underwater wireless sensor network (UWSN).”

There is no question that the comprehensive wireless sensor networks advancing the Internet of Things (IoT) present a danger to the sensitive species of our planet. A landmark “150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies.”

Man-made radiofrequency modulations experienced by birds and fish can interfere with their navigational behaviours, and health, which are tied to the native electromagnetic resonances of the earth. Radiofrequency radiation is scientifically acknowledged to be causing species decline, so plausibly could be influencing mass die offs. Our skies and seas will be subject to more radiation pollution in the years ahead, from the political and economic drive to accommodate robots while displacing populations of native species as the “wireless nervous system” of 5G networks and sensors grows.

The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) is advancing research in biomimetics (also known as biomimicry) where robotic weapon systems imitate animals. According to Drone XL, “Northrop Grumman has built the Manta Ray, a mysterious 
Underwater drone for…DARPA”. It’s described as an “…innovative craft, reportedly four years in the making, [that] could revolutionize long-range military missions by hiding in plain sight and harvesting energy from the seas.”

Meanwhile DARPA’s “…OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) programme is another “biomimicry” project aimed at enabling small-unit infantry forces to use swarms of small weaponised drones – 250 robots or more – to complete complex missions.” Source. Swarms of wireless drones resemble shape-shifting bird formations and murmurations but are used to remotely kill. In imitation of nature, autonomous weapons systems are being created that defy the principles of international humanitarian law – representing a “paradigm shift in warfare.” Another imminent threat to populations.

From here to Africa – A world to be dominated by robots?

All of these developments pave the way for a world dominated by robots – especially as earth’s native populations are being politically manipulated into accommodating them, and accepting them. In doing so society gives the green light to become further dominated by technologies that may not, after all, serve their best interests.

Unprecedented animal population reductions and mass “die offs” that coincide with our rapidly accelerating digital era of cyber-physical transformations leave our population ever more vulnerable to industrial-political manipulations and troubling prospects for our species if we don’t alter our path. We find ourselves in a situation eerily predicted by the Brundtland Report’s architects of “sustainability” – for we are on the road that politically prioritises the technological economy, which “entails high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways.”

The UN’s Agenda 2030 is an influential political tool for supporting industry goals, and securing society’s support in advancing technology to support questionable globalist projects. With the developed world suffering population decline and accelerated technological output, Africa by contrast is still developing and has averted a population crisis. Africa is proving fertile ground to continue the “globalist project” – and to roll out 5G. Much development in this direction is being done in the name of “philanthropy” and under the guise of “sustainability goals” but ultimately is an agenda and an investment.

The Rockefeller Foundation, for example, is branding infrastructure projects in Africa as “sustainable development” with an initiative called Mission 300, which anticipates a case for 5G in Sub-Saharan Africa where electricity is an issue. According to intelligentcio.com, “Africa’s lack of infrastructure, expensive hardware, and limited technological background are all issues impacting IoT deployment.” Mission 300 is an “ambitious initiative to connect 300 million people to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030” while opening the door to 5G wireless developments that will assist the robot revolution in Africa.

According to, 5G in Africa: realising the potential “Operators and tower companies operating in the region have pointed to the following as the main barriers to using more solar: high upfront cost for solar panels and batteries; theft and vandalism, especially in remote locations; and space limitation on cell sites to assemble the solar components.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is actively invested in resolving these solar energy supply issues, a process that fits with the “green communications and networking paradigm” where solar/renewables assist the 5G infrastructure roll out. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying the groundwork for 5G networks and the IoT as part of “doubling down on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” prompted by the “pandemic”.

This ultimately opens the door to “…a broad set of industry stakeholders, including Google Cloud, EdgeQ, Gigabyte, Marvell, Nvidia, NXP, Qualcomm Technologies, Dish Network, Vodafone, Accelleran, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Radisys, Saankhya Labs and Tech Mahindra.” Source: 5G in Africa: realising the potential, PDF.

Africa Center Senior Fellow Aleksandra Gadzala acknowledges in “Coming to Life: Artificial Intelligence in Africa” that “many African nations still lack the statistical capacity, infrastructure, and good governance necessary to see AI take off. However, in a select handful of countries, AI solutions are already being successfully deployed at scale….what African governments need to do to strengthen the ecosystem necessary to see these technologies flourish…to advance sustainable development and inclusive growth.” It is only a matter of time before the robot ecosystem emerges in Africa in the name of “sustainability”, of course.

The social, political, and economic “terraforming” of earth for a robotised future dominated by AI continues at remarkable pace. What this all really means for the diversity, distribution and longevity of earth’s native species remains a big, and urgent, question as our world continues to be transformed by a political-industrial imperative that artificially alters our atmosphere – and existence – to accommodate a burgeoning ecosystem of synthetic life on our planet.

Leading illustration by Sean Alexander Carney.

Screenshots have been used in this article for non-commercial educational purposes. The sources are credited, and links are supplied. The Copyright Act of 1976 outlines the statutory framework for determining and identifying Fair Use and when one can use copyrighted material without permission. Teaching, criticism, reporting, commenting, and researching are all activities that often qualify as fair use.

The future: Turning people into transmitters

Through the ubiquitous wireless connectivity promised by the Internet of Things (IoT) humanity and every living thing is turned into a wireless “transmitter.” As this is currently being done without full consent of the population, across the globe – it raises concerns from a health perspective, and a human rights perspective.

Governments rapidly rolling out 5G tell us that exposure guidelines backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) ensure we are all safe within “set limits” and, that they readily support the wireless IoT for the purpose of developing a data-driven future epitomised by the smart city, a “vision” of a new society propelled by the UN’s politics of “climate change” and “sustainability”.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already achieved a data-driven society. However, the CCP is technologically suppressing individual ideas, voices and social groups to align all minds and actions to the “goals” of the Chinese authorities.

Not surprisingly, “China now plays a significant role in shaping the IoT.” Spurred by China, the UK governments are already introducing facial recognition technologies, configuring internet censorship legislation and for their own benefit have even planned to overhaul the Human Rights Act, which allows citizens to hold the government to account. The world is changing rapidly, and unfortunately technological advancements favour unprecedented opportunities for a totalitarian government system to emerge. The late social theorist Paul Virilio, once said that “Totalitarianism is latent in technology”. Clearly he has a point.

One World – Under “wireless”

The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) seek to shape the IoT, and governments, in accordance with a globalist “one world” view and conceive of the worlds nations as finally dissolving into a centralised global order. Wireless technology is presenting opportunities to change society rapidly.

Governments around the world are responsive to UN technological and environmental policies aligned with the UN’s concept of “sustainability” and these are driving 5G expansion, and datafication anticipating an increasingly automated technological society heavily dependent on the wireless networks.

The UN wishes to conform the whole of society to live in an environment high in radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and subordinate to “sustainability” doctrines, while the WHO is focused on digital health solutions and conforming nations to its “pandemic preparedness” and “technological solutions” doctrines. Both organisations neglect widespread concerns concerning potential health impacts from RFR – even though it is widely accepted that children, the elderly and people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) are highly vulnerable to RFR. Not all people are treated equally in this globalist “one world” view of health and human rights.

Many of us assume that United Nations and the World Health Organisation are defenders of our liberties and welfare. However, first and foremost they are a “forum” for members to influence policy. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that these organisations allow industries and political organisations to steer political outcomes that affect our liberties and welfare, through their memberships, donations, and funding. From this perspective the wireless industry has great influence on the UN and WHO (if not carte blanche to shape politics to their advantage), as we will see.

Workhorses of the wireless industry

Both the UN and the WHO are invested in technological empowerment and at the same time are affecting our liberties and welfare by reforming policies and engineering social behaviours to the tune of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and “Digital Health (DH)”. These are far reaching projects that rely first and foremost on expansive digital infrastructure and wireless networks.

The SDG and DH projects are sustained through the development of the Internet of Things (IoT), a project which electronically connects physical devices, vehicles, manufactured goods, and other physical objects in society – and the natural world – across the expanse of the earth to wireless networks facilitating the sharing and collection of data.

The UN and the WHO are very dependent on the wireless industry – to a phenomenal degree – as are their stakeholders and members. All are invested in SDGs and DH expecting significant profits and are guiding the political agendas of the UN and WHO into the wireless “smart” future. (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres is even “An engineer who has taught telecommunications so what better leader to facilitate a wireless agenda and sustain the wireless industry into the future.

With the UN and WHO so dependent on wireless technology, and their stakeholders so invested in it too, can they be relied on to protect health and human rights? Or are they biased, and “bought” by investing so deeply in the promise of the IoT and the 5G infrastructure?

The UN and WHO are aligned in pursuing increased powers. They encourage an authoritarian data-driven future – a surveillance economy (like China’s), and at any cost it would seem. They do not want to acknowledge the harm that rapid technological and social transformations will cause – the economic consequences and divides – nor the health impacts. In fact, as the “pandemic” shows, catastrophe spurs technological agendas, especially when technology is always offered as part of “the solution”. The pandemic 5G roll out was an example of “seizing opportunity in a crisis”, increasing the power of the wireless industry manifold, as well as accelerating the IoT.

Both the UN and the WHO are deeply invested in the wireless industry – but how deep is deep?

The Wireless Health Agenda

Following its inception after the Second World War, the UN incorporated the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as a specialist agency for advancing wireless telecommunications internationally.

The ITU is “…committed to connecting the world” and helping the UN with ICT (Information and Communications Technology) aspects of Agenda 2030, promoting universal internet access, and assisting other digital goals. As a result, Europe embraces the “Digital Decade“, and the “global community” follows suit with parallel objectives of “digital transformation” for sustaining wireless technologies into the “smart” future.

Nothing helped kickstart the IoT more than the “pandemic”, during which the ITU announced that, “Smart sustainable cities worldwide are fully leveraging information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the digital health and wellbeing of their inhabitants. These cities are utilizing digital infrastructure to deliver vital health information, track health trends, and locate essential health resources.” Source.

It is within this “post-pandemic” digitally “interconnected” smart world that WHO advances its “Digital Health” goals, pursuing these objectives in partnership with the European Commission (EC) which tables laws for adoption in the European Union.

The WHO’s “One Health” exemplifies the widening reach of WHO’s anticipated technological forays, and is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods….The C0VID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system.” The language emphasises treating the “whole” not just a part. It all feeds back into a “power grab” called the “Pandemic Treaty” which emphasises control over the whole population, with “…no public debate on the ramifications of such far-reaching encroachments on national autonomy, state sovereignty, and human rights”. Source.

Wireless technology has arguably encouraged WHO’s agenda of enhanced global surveillance. Smart phone’s were made for tracking us (accommodating GPS, AI tools and sensors). Our data a political and economic currency. WHO and the UN want everyone to have a smart phone as a citizen of “the global community” – preferably as surveilled and as compliant as Chinese Communist society is, thanks to AI and 5G.

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “At least seventy-five out of 176 countries globally are actively using AI technologies for surveillance purposes…[and]…Liberal democracies are major users of AI surveillance…The most important factor determining whether governments will deploy this technology for repressive purposes is the quality of their governance.”

As the UN and WHO model their appetite for “global change” on China’s technological social and economic “gains” – espousing smart cities and digital monitoring of the population – we’d be advised to keep a close eye on developments.

Smart Phones For Health

The WHO is promoting health markets that sustain mobile phone use as a health measure. Many would argue that promoting exposure to radiofrequency radiation doesn’t seem like something the WHO should be doing. Yet the WHO facilitates the “datafication” of health and supports wireless technology markets to achieve it.

WIreless technology is hailed as the future of “healthcare.” The WHO incentivises the public to invest in wireless devices, like smart phones, to optimise health. According to the WHO, the “Public Digital Health Technology (PDH) team engages with a variety of stakeholders in digital health…to…provide support to countries to adopt and scale quality digital health technologies.”

Digital Health has long been in the pipeline. We know because WHO states that the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile (BHBM) initiative was set up by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Telecommunication union (ITU) in 2012.”

The use of a mobile phone to access digital health treatments (apps, text messages, etc) is called “MHealth”. According to the ITU, “This technology, coupled with the fact that the wellness and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) mobile health market is projected to garner revenue of US$23 billion in 2017 means that there are exciting business opportunities for the 8 focus countries during the initiative.” Source.

WHO and the ITU couldn’t wait for 5G’s implementation. We all know when it arrived – throughout the WHO’s “pandemic” along with a truckload of other necessary technologies to advance Digital Health, and promote data surveillance.

The WHO’s commitment to 5G and smart phones

The WHO stated in 2020 that, “5G is expected to increase performance and a wide range of new applications, including strengthening e-Health (telemedicine, remote surveillance, telesurgery).” Source. 

According to the WHO, “The use of mobile and wireless technologies has the potential to transform the face of health service delivery across the globe. There are reportedly more than 7 billion mobile telephone subscriptions across the world, over 70% of which are in low- or middle- income countries. In many places, people are more likely to have access to a mobile telephone than to clean water.” Wireless needs are catered for, above essentials like clean water?!?

WHO promotes wireless wearables

The WHO is promoting studies advocating (wireless) mHealth and wearable health technologies (mobile phones are also considered “wearable health technologies”) which are advertised as “improving personal health.” They typically use radiofrequency (RF) transmitters meaning that “wearable health devices” expose the user to radiofrequency radiation, at very close range.

Though they may initially reduce the workload of clinicians, wearable health technologies may expose problems that don’t exist, having a negative effect on health and wellbeing. Doctors already recognise they can give false positives, worsen health anxieties – and can in some users feasibly become part of a cycle of “digital addiction” (for users feel compelled to share their personal health tracking data on social media).

The WHO’s motivation for promoting “digital health” is arguably for the collection of health data to influence policies. Data is the currency of our times, providing stakeholders in the health market (and third parties) with insights that can be exploited and can quickly add up to profits.

Under the influence

For a long time it has been questioned whether the WHO is impartial and objective concerning wireless radiation research, especially when the scientific literature increasingly shows a range of bio-effects and non-thermal health impacts from radiofrequency radiation.

Is the WHO to be trusted, or is it vulnerable, and open to manipulation from the powerful wireless industry which can benefit from the dampening public concerns about wireless radiation?

It was observed in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “WHO has a funding problem [and] reliance on voluntary donations exposes WHO to the undue influence of contributors.” Is it outside influence, inner influences, or both that leave the WHO vulnerable to conflicts of interest in the shaping of its scientific information and recommendations for health?

The WHO’s conflicts of interest (including in the assessment of potential harms from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency radiation) have been widely condemned.

Many scientists see how deeply the wireless industry influences the WHO. But what can they do?

Many scientists consider it a big problem for health that the WHO hasn’t acted to support the precautionary principle with regards international roll outs of 5G. Concerns about 5G are ignored (by the EU, the UN for example), even when 438 medical scientists and doctors urgently request a moratorium “until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences [of 5G] has been conducted.” Source. The scientists have been requesting this since 2017.

Oncologist Lennart Hardell is clear about the issues. He informs us that, “In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation.”

People are largely uninformed about the health risks of 24/7 exposure to 5G, a new technology that is still underpinned by 4G LTE networks and brings new radiofrequency modulations and millimetre waves into the environment, something of an experiment on humanity with total disregard for those most vulnerable to RFR impacts, like children and the electrohypersensitive – a huge section of the population. Some agencies remind us that millimetre waves are used in airport scanners, and are therefore not a health risk, however, people pass through an airport scanner for a few seconds, so there is no comparison to longer exposures of the population to 5G. Studies already suggest public health is at risk.

Managing the public mind

Extensive control of health information regarding RF exposure is a priority of the wireless industry. This creates a filter system for suppressing certain findings, pointing the public towards a reassuring “safety” narrative, where the public largely believe continuous exposure is harmless.

A private NGO called the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP), which has “formal relations” with WHO, influences the scientific reviews of the WHO concerning RF health matters. ICNIRP’s views influence government agencies and sustains the view in the media that wireless radiation isn’t harmful.

ICNIRP, which describes itself as “independent and non-profit” produces RF exposure guidelines that are adopted by governments globally. Microwave News reported that in the 2020 RF Guidelines ICNIRP reported that there is no evidence for cancer. However, the U.S. National Toxicology Program found “clear evidence” that exposure to RFR can lead to cancer. Source.

The guidelines crafted by the “industry loyal NGO” set the tone of public policy on radiofrequency exposure levels. ICNIRP promotes the opinion that, other than thermal health effects there is only “suggestive, but unconvincing evidence” of biological and non-thermal health effects. ICNIRP rejects the view that bio-effects are a concern.

ICNIRP’s perspectives on existing research are used by governments, not in the sense of RF exposure “guidelines”, but as a “gospel” that has become empowered to such a degree that it is utilised to approve roll outs of wireless technology and to influence public expectations to the point of suggesting that 5G is safe.

The population, as a result, is misinformed about the potential risks because of ICNIRPs scientific biases that omit biological findings that are very significant. It’s a veritable boon to the wireless industry, promoting information that ultimately sustains a plethora of economic gains for the industry. What about the WHO and its commitment to the global community’s health?

The promise

Before the “pandemic” WHO had promised “a health risk assessment from exposure to radiofrequencies, covering the entire radiofrequency range, including 5G, to be published by 2022” courtesy of the WHO’s “International EMF Project” team of researchers. It was delayed, and the review has been published in 2024 asserting that “Mobile Phones Are Not Linked to Brain Cancer According to a Major Review of 28 Years of Research.”

Some of the review’s authors have close ties with ICNIRP, including Ken Karipidis, Sarah Loughran, Maria Blettner, Mark Elwood, Susanna Lagorio Dan Baaken, Martin Roosli and Maria Feychting who wasn’t listed as an author but designed it. Source.

In all the “biased” review gives a green light to digital health as a “safe” product, as well as possibly influencing global exposure policy for a very long time. It comes at a critical time, because stakes are high in getting the digital wireless agenda firmly in gear, and profitable, so industry stakeholders, member states and the UN will be pleased to chug ahead with their technological agendas. 

Questions are already being asked about the review (published in Environment International). According to Microwave News, “The results of this review were never in doubt. The WHO managers, who selected the Karipidis team, knew what to expect —and they got what they wanted.”

The late Michèle Rivasi and Klaus Buchner of the European Parliament commissioned a damning report about the activities and behaviour of ICNIRP called “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G” Here, we confront the reality that “ICNIRP pretends to be scientifically neutral, and free from vested interests of the Telecom industry. We show with this study that this is ‘playing with the truth’ or simply a lie.”

The Nuremberg Code

In 2018 Karl Muller (an independent journalist and researcher, and licensed radio operator with the Eswatini Communications Commission, based in the southern African Kingdom of Swaziland) called for the removal of the International EMF Project because “…the WHO continues to deny that there is any sign of any danger whatsoever from wireless technology.”

His revealing article includes “a lengthy correspondence chain with the World Health Organization and the United Nations” that he accuses of complicity in “genocide”. Source.

Genocide is a strong term. Is it justified?

Scientists opposed to 5G roll outs and the inadequate radiofrequency exposure guidelines, have openly condemned WHO and ICNIRP for cherry-picking scientific studies that support industry-friendly findings which are not in the interests of protecting public health or the environment. Yet, they have always been reluctant to use the highly emotive term “genocide” in reference to the potential widespread harm to the population from what amounts to either a deliberate attack on public health, or an experiment.

In Karl Muller’s assessment “…the International EMF Project, the World Health Organization, the United Nations itself, all spit on the Nuremberg Code every day.” We may come to agree with this assertion as we come to terms with the fact that the global population are being subject to microwave technologies such as 5G in what can only be described as an experiment, with unknown long-term consequences for our species, or all others with which we share the planet.

Far from independent

It is the opinion of many scientists and researchers that biased ICNIRP copiously “self references“, contriving RF exposure guidelines and reviews to deliver exactly what the WHO wants to hear, invested as it is in the wireless industry for its digital services and, no doubt, its survival.

Headlines about the International EMF Project review, such as The Guardian’s here, will no doubt reassure the public, but to what avail?

The WHO’s new “science” distorts reality, denying us a balanced picture of health. In the context of the organisations long plan to emerge as a promoter of mobile phones and wireless trends, it may at last come as nor surprise to many, but amounts to a tragic insult to the public who look to their “guardians” to keep them “safe”.

Why the UN promotes and protects wireless interests

It’s a human right to own and use a smart phone. Is it now the most “politically” valuable human right that the UN wants to protect the most?

Smart phones are proudly advertised on WHO and UN web pages, which are designed to influence the public at large. It reflects how human augmentation by technology is made socially acceptable. The UN promotes a technologically augmented Human 2.0 society that relies on wireless products to exist, where “humans” are ID tagged and permanently tracked like a profitable product by the UN and its stakeholders. Many academics argue we are on the precipice, gravitating towards a post-human, post-human rights world where the currency is data, fuelling a surveillance economy, where the world, and “humans” are “smarter”.

Data (our personal information) means profit for organisations like the UN. The population are accepting technolgies of augmentation, acclimatising to the UN’s goals within a Big Data future. Member states, transnational corporations (stakeholders) and wealthy interests bank on the UN to deliver us all into an existence governed by the data we produce.

The augmenting of humanity, which will proceed towards implants beyond smart phones and “wearable” technologies (which are developed to collect a growing spectrum of personal data) reflects “transhumanist” aspirations shared by wireless technology industry cheerleaders like Klaus Schwab, founder of the cultic World Economic Forum (WEF).

He is a UN Agenda 2030 advocate and supports the view that humans are “hackable animals”. He has told the monopolising stakeholders invested in this “agenda” that “the future is built by us” for the “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological dimensions.”

The UN has long pursued a “one world” view incorporating a politically beneficial wireless digital agenda. Within that scope, “internet governance” plays the role of transforming society’s perceptions, digital freedoms, and expectations. The UN has long helped this process along through the ITU, but has seized the opportunity to “control knowledge” by developing censorious approaches.

The UN considers the public untrustworthy in cyberspace, it seeks loyalty, and condemns the “trafficking of lies, fear and hate.” It is a human right to be critical, have opinions, or to be in error. Yet the UN doesn’t want people with their smart phones engaging in free speech, especially in a crisis. Fundamentally it wants compliance with its ideological stance and statements.

Controlling Information to promote wireless interests

Are we not free to interpret and globally discuss the UN or world events as we see and understand them? Is the UN building digital walls to compartmentalise public access to information and knowledge? As we may already appreciate, the “pandemic” had two very well publicised objectives which were subject to virulent “damage control.” The campaign to roll out of “experimental” wireless technologies (5G infrastructure) and the campaign to inject people with experimental mRNA treatments promoted by “hand in glove with the wireless industry” WHO. Opposition to both campaigns – voiced on the internet during lockdowns, and further, voiced by reputable academics, physicians, politicians, scientists and in widespread global protests – caused concerted efforts to control public information (internet, media) through censorship, to bring “compliance”.

In its information targeting agenda – first outlined in the literature of a “fictional pandemic scenario” called Event 201 and sparked into reality by the “pandemic” – the UN lists information “crimes” and condemns “misinformation” and “disinformation”, seeking the cooperation of governments, Big Tech and transnational corporations to promote a commodity it calls “trusted information” – a bias towards promoting the discourse and opinions of the UN and its stakeholders, to the exclusion of counter arguments or opinions that do not serve the goals of the Digital Health or digital (wireless IoT) sustainability agenda.

The UN admits “…There is no clear definition of, or shared common understanding and approach to, the term “disinformation” but classifies it as “…information that is inaccurate, intended to deceive and shared in order to do serious harm.” The UN also states that “…digital platforms are being misused to subvert science.”

Policing what the UN, the WHO, and their stakeholders consider to be “harmful disinformation” or “subverted science” is part of a slippery slope to increasing the practice of censorship globally, which erodes democracy and free speech. This happened in 2020, for example, when celebrities were raising concerns about 5G, like John Cusack who “posted on Twitter…that he believes 5G would be harmful for humans.” Many scientists had also raised concerns about the technology causing ill health at the time. Censorship soon followed for these health-related hypotheses, and it proved an opportunity for WHO and the wireless industry to hike up opposition to any information that challenged the pandemic narrative, lockdowns and restrictions, and the concurrent 5G roll out. 5G is a technology with known health effects and no body of research exists confirming industry or government agency claims that it is safe everyone.

Throughout the period, telecommunications infrastructure related to 5G was seen as a threat, and was reported in the media being dismantled, burned and attacked, by authorities and citizens. The reality of the opposition caused the telecommunications industry alarm. According to the BBC, (which like most media outlets now calls all pushback against wireless interests a response to “conspiracy theories”) Vodafone called the problem “a matter of national security”.

In 2021, following media coverage of global pushback against 5G and lockdowns across the globe, 5G infrastructure was thus considered an “attack surface area” (for physical and cyber attacks) and was legislated into law as a matter of National Security, exemplified by the UK’s Telecommunications Security Act 2021.

The Act was created for a “more robust telecoms security framework, that will meet security challenges both now and in the future whilst ensuring the timely roll-out of the UK’s critical digital infrastructure. It suggested that as technologies grow and evolve the UK must have a security framework that is fit for purpose and ensures the UK’s telecoms critical national infrastructure remains safe and secure both now and in the future.”

Censorship and bias in the media was achieving a great deal for the wireless industry, and governments since haven’t relented in changing laws to favour the wireless industry and accelerate 5G across the globe. A Censored Planet study related to the period found “increasing censorship activity in more than 100 countries” reflecting a “proliferation of growing restrictions to online freedom.” (The study was highlighted by the University of Michigan).

The UN’s strategic partner, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is supportive of global information restrictions, especially to target “health misinformation”. Even military agencies are getting involved. Consider that, “DARPA’s Media Forensics Program is an initiative by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency aimed at developing advanced technologies to detect, analyze, and counter misinformation and disinformation in media.”

Since the “pandemic” fostered a climate of information hysteria, corporate coalitions have sprouted up to target what they see as information “threats” including the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) – which has been influenced by DARPA, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) [recently discontinued], WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety and the UN’s Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.

The UN’s growing support of censorship strategies that can better serve its “sustainability” goals and WHO agendas – like the motivations of the Chinese authorities (CCP), for example – is a confirmation of its intent to control the global conversation.

The UN has already made progress using the internet. The UN targeted many communities during the “pandemic” with a coalition of in-person censors to safeguard the WHO’s pandemic agenda. The UN recruited indoctrinating “messengers” from across the globe through an initiative called “Verified“. This was led by the Department of Global Communications, a public relations outfit which promotes the “official” UN stories in the media and across digital platforms, to build the UN’s “positive” image.

The “information crisis” picked up on during the pandemic became known as an “infodemic” by organisations like the UN that infiltrated public forums and communities in order to sustain compliance with the “official pandemic narrative”. The excuse? The pandemic was considered “unusual” circumstances. However, the “pandemic” is over and the censorship drive aggressively continues.

Most recently “The United Nations launched new Global Principles for Information Integrity, “emphasizing the need for immediate action” and advertising the ideological sustainable development goals that the UN’s digital “censorship” agenda satisfies (see below). The UN is protecting its “sustainability goals doctrines”, Industry 4.0/5G infrastructure, the international policies it influences, and its stakeholders interests.

Rebranding the UN for the wireless “smart future”

It’s clear that the UN wants deeper control of information, to aid in the realisation of its political, globally impacting, aims. It is preparing for this by building data capacity (using more wireless technologies and energy guzzling servers) because “Nurturing modern data capacities is about making shifts in expertise, processes and technology so that entities improve how they collect, handle, govern and use data from more diverse sources to generate deeper insights for better decisions – powered by advanced analytics, machine learning and visualization techniques.” AI is going to play a deep role in “world peace” and the UN will rely on its predictive analytics and surveillance capacity.

This is all part of a huge rebranding exercise to improve public confidence. In recent statements we learn that the UN is rebranding as UN 2.0 and in its report “Our Common Agenda” stipulates that “behavioural science” (the psychology of persuasion) will be a core component in managing public expectations and driving compliance with its aims. The UN 2.0 Policy Brief rebrands the UN as “a powerful fusion of data, innovation, digital, foresight and behavioural science expertise.”

Behavioural science (BS) for corporate goals is rooted in, and assists, the creation of advertising campaigns and propaganda. BS espouses the work of social manipulators like Edward Bernays who worked for the tobacco industry, which helped destroy health. It provides the means to manipulate the behaviour of populations, and manufacture “consent”, something both the UN and WHO are so desperately trying to do in a concerted attempt to increase their powers.

There is a clear desire here to manipulate and transform society through the “sustainability” goals. That desire is becoming more aggressive. According to the World Economic Forum, “UN member countries [have] pledged their renewed commitment to accelerating the delivery of the goals…[SDGs]”

The (wireless) business of Global Health and “Sustainability”

The SDGs were released back in in 2012. It is known that “The mobile industry was the first sector to commit to the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate action, in 2016.” This coincides with the drive to roll out 5G, and was the beginning of “green-washing” and “ethics washing” the wireless industry, aligning it with a global “transformation” agenda that it would influence greatly. Orange is “…a founding member of the Net Zero Initiative, which sets out a vision of a carbon-free world with other large organisations. The list goes on….

Both the WHO and UN are, as a result of their technological pursuit of increased power over populations, knee deep in wireless contracts, and as always are protecting and funding the wireless industry on which their shared goals rest. Deutsche Telekom is a prime facilitator of the organisations’ digital agendas, particularly with regards to “United Smart Cities”, which is coordinated by the ITU.

“United Smart Cities (USC) is a programme set up by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and OiER in 2014. Building up smart and sustainable cities, improving life for all citizens and managing upcoming challenges are part of the United Nation’s Development goals.” “USC is aiming to set up a holistic ecosystem to support our cities of the future.” Source.

In 2022 Deutsche Telekom was chosen by WHO to create a “global health passport”, beginning the digital discrimination road to health app-artheid. Telecoms.com reported “The World Heath Organization, which had such a great pandemic, wants to ‘facilitate’ its 194 member states to introduce digital vaccination certificates. To do so it’s setting up a ‘gateway’ to standardize the issuing of QR codes that confer privileged health status to their owner. Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems has been chosen as an industry partner to develop the vaccination validation services.”

The control exerted on the UN and WHO by wireless interests is incongruent with any responsibility they may claim to have regarding the protection of human rights and health, for it renders the organisations at the beck and call of transnational corporate interests that steer the organisations’ agendas and funding.

As a result of the UN’s priority (its stakeholders’ needs, not the interests of the population), wireless interests have become aggressively expansive and politically protected. For society that means the wireless industry is at greater liberty to threaten health, privacy and, even what it means to be human.

The reality of Wireless Growth

UN and its profiteering stakeholders, see wealth as a means of reducing the impacts they have on the environment. Within the “sustainability” game’s rules they are permitted to calmly trade in carbon credits – a new system of impunity, where companies can purchase the reduction of their own “carbon footprint.” Some think that they will “save the planet” by planting more trees or investing in renewable energy”.

This “logic” permeates wireless companies and is meant to score points with the public in support of UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). According to AZO Cleantech, “Through emissions offsetting reforestation, the company said it can essentially provide carbon-neutral calls, texts and data.” By the magical rules of the carbon credit system.

AZO Cleantech alerts us to a significant statistic. “The wireless communications industry is not the first industry that comes to mind when people talk about emissions or increased sustainability, but actually, it does represent a significant share of global carbon emissions. According to research published by mobile phone maker Ericsson, the overall telecommunications industry accounts for about 1.4% of emissions worldwide. By comparison, the aviation industry generates 2% of all global carbon emissions.” Not only that, a wireless device is a polluter because “…personal devices make up the biggest share of the telecommunications industry’s carbon footprint. About 50% of device-related emissions are associated with usage and the other 50% is associated with device life cycle. Networks and data centers account for the next biggest emission shares in the telecom industry.”

With the Internet of Things (IoT) such pollution is set to increase exponentially, but in its sustainable goals, the UN has no intention of releasing facts that sully the image of the wireless companies, and could scupper the sustainability project.

According to AZO cleantech, “Expert predictions have forecasted that internet usage will annually increase by 30-40%. If this comes to pass, there will be 30 times today’s internet traffic in just 10 years. This will translate to the telecom industry comprising 60% of global energy use.”

Though the UN esteems wireless developments, the reality is that “the wireless industry has not been very proactive with regard to emissions.” While the wireless industry claims it is cleaning up its act, there can be no doubts that it is pure “green-washing”. Such behaviours are not uncommon among industries playing the “sustainability game”, and we can appreciate how the facts contradict the stated aims of the UN’s “sustainability” project by contributing significantly to pollution.

The Club of Rome

The wireless industry along with political organisations like the Club of Rome have long controlled the direction of the UN, leading us up to this point where the human population is brought to kneel at the temple of wireless interests in the name of “sustainability”.

“Sustainability” is influenced by the Club of Rome, and has become a catalyst for ticking all the boxes necessary to advance wireless telecommunications infrastructure and technology integrating the activities of the wireless industry within a “green” sustainability narrative. The human race is the enemy and technology is here to redeem society.

For the Club of Rome, “The networked knowledge society is nothing less than a paradigm-shift form the industrial model of the two past centuries. It can introduce new patterns of social structure and behavior, of public and private organization, of production and trade. It can re-define the links and relationships between people, nations and religions.” It can also fuel a future of unprecedented “extractive” practices for rare earths and minerals, and other environmentally unhelpful impacts, as well as geopolitical impacts, to sustain the wireless infrastructure and technologies required to achieve such a socially transformative plan – but that isn’t acknowledged. Promoting the wireless networked society (data driven Internet of Things, ultimately) is the priority.

At the 2003–2005 World Summit on the Information Society The Club of Rome was a guest of the UN’s wireless agency – the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – in support of the “emergence of a networked knowledge society” with “ICT (Information and Communications Technology) as an Innovator for Sustainable Development.”

The Club of Rome advocates “Taking advantage of the wireless communication facilities” and believes “education for ICT is necessary to promote the use of local knowledge with new technologies.” That is exactly what the UN’s wireless agenda (Agenda 2030) has put into motion. Its a “green” agenda that masks the true environmental cost of the wireless industry as the UN, influenced by the Club of Rome, “sustains” the industry’s impactful practices and future empowerment.

The wireless industry is “at home” in the UN 

The wireless industry has always felt at home within the decision-making apparatus of the UN. Shortly after its inception in 1945, the UN became responsible for helping nations adopt radiofrequency telecommunications and evolving new wireless technologies. This happened because The International Telegraph Union (formed in 1865) became an influential participating organisation. 

The ITU is an influential representation of wireless industry interests. It is now named the International Telecommunications Union and describes itself as “the United Nations specialist agency for information and communication technologies – ICTs.”

Because “the ITU membership includes hundreds of private-sector organizations, as well as 193 States” it has been very influential and effective in expanding wireless infrastructure and technology across the globe.

In 2005, as part of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva and Tunis, The ITU advanced the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (backed by the Club of Rome) to help stakeholders expand the information society (wireless telecommunications infrastructure and internet management) into developing countries and close global digital divides (between countries, not social classes).

This “information” agenda called for a multistakeholder internet governance and stressed a “development-oriented Information Society” as well as a commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which were broadened in scope renamed sustainable development goals (SDGs) after the MDG effort had largely failed by 2015.

Then came the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (a.k.a. Millennium Development Goals, Round Two), which comprises 17 goals emerging from a report called “Realizing the future we want for all”.

Wireless development is visibly at the heart of all of these “sustainable” development goals and the ITU describes itself as an enabler in achieving the SDGs. Naturally, all wireless companies across the globe promote their activities accordingly in line with “sustainability” which the UN describes as supportive of accelerating technology for “ensuring information integrity in an era of deep-fakes and disinformation; and reinforcing the multi-stakeholder foundations of Internet governance”. All digital technology is promoted as “sustainable” today, and a wireless satellite features on the “Summit of the Future” poster where the public aren’t consulted about that future.

Advancing the “Information Society” for the ITU has now become advancing the Internet of Things (IoT) in all of its facets – which advances wireless infrastructure for the future of “digital everything”. Promoting smart technology and smart cities make it plain SDGs are for “sustaining” the wireless industry for digital technology development. This project “sustains” a wireless surveillance economy advanced by the UN/ITU and it’s stakeholders where reaping rewards from Machine Learning and Big Data translates into power and profits to the tune of a surveillance economy (epitomised by China’s IoT society).

In 2005 the ITU suggested World Internet Day to promote the ITU’s need of the internet, but sold as recognising “digital divides” and the need to heal them. In 2006 World Telecommunication and Information Society Day was invented by the ITU.

It’s all helped to promote wireless dependency, which binds stakeholders across the board to pursuing what the UN and ITU desire: the wireless interconnectivity of everything on earth for the IoT, in the name of “sustainability.” We know that this is a radiation grid formed from wireless infrastructure and devices, subjecting all living things and global resources to quantification and wireless surveillance.

Reimagining the social contract – for the erosion of democracy

In March 2021, when the roll out of 5G and IoT infrastructure was well under way, the UN called for a “New Eco-Social Contract” because the current social contract may not effectively empower the UN and its stakeholders to deliver “the transformative vision of the 2030 Agenda” and push onwards with the goal of expansive wireless interconnectivity and rolling out AI.

The UN has also called for improved education about its goals. According to UNESCOs pitch of a new social contract for education, “Education must also now be rethought to help respond to urgent and unprecedented new challenges such as the climate crisis, the emergence of generative AI technologies, the continued growth of inequalities, and the persistence of conflicts.”

The IMF has also supported the idea of a renewed social contract, and says it wants to “fix the system” for the global economy with a post-pandemic social contract. In the IMF’s view (which chimes with the UN’s, WEF’s and Industry 4.0 perspectives), post-pandemic “…disaffection stems from the failure of existing social contracts to deliver on people’s expectations for both security and opportunity.”

A research program called “The Digital Revolution and the New Social Contract” suggests that, “technological and economic transformations have reshaped the relationships between education, work, opportunities and welfare, rendering our previous social contract outdated, and making it necessary to establish a new one that benefits everyone.” This is the conclusion of research from The Center for the Governance of Change (CGC), an applied-research, educational institution based at IE University that aims at “improving the general public’s awareness and agency over the coming changes. All this for one purpose: to help building a more prosperous and sustainable society for all.” NATO, The UN and an array of other data-hungry organisations and transnational corporations are among the partners keen to transform the social contract, along these lines.

The idea is backed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a close partner of the UN, which has long wanted to “go nuclear on climate change”. The NGO/think tank, based in Geneva, is keen to ensure stakeholder capitalism can thrive into the future. The dangers were spelled out by Open Democracy, which stated, “The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less…”.

The sustainability agenda has gained renewed urgency with the recently announced “Our Common Agenda” brought by the UN “to forge a new global consensus” even though it is clear not all people agree that the wireless agenda in store represents an “inclusive” or universally acceptable future vision.

The outcome will be an “…action-oriented Pact for the Future [that] is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”

The private sector will dictate a renewed social contract that state institutions and the individual are expected to accept. The United Nations 2.0 will emerge, powered by “data, strategic foresight, results orientation and behavioural science” to sustain wireless everything and an empowered WHO and “global vaccination plan. The rest of the key proposals for accelerating the SDGS are here.

Philanthropy, the Club of Rome, the UN and “unlimited” growth for 5G and IoT

The UN and WHO are investment opportunities. Philanthropists (Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, for example) and other vested interests including member states and the private sector exercise influence. Health governance and world governance are attractive prospects to powerful interests, with sustainability opening up opportunities for the powerful (aligned with wireless goals) to technologically transform society.

Agenda 2030 is a valuable tool for shaping society and advancing technology to support globalist aims – so is Digital Health, shaping the course of health governance, and selling Big Pharma and Big Tech “solutions”.

The Rockefeller Foundation branding its work as “sustainable development” with an initiative called Mission 300, “aims to accelerate the pace of electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa” and is partnered with the Global Energy Alliance to pursue a “sustainable” “solar” solution in line with the UN’s goals. The project anticipates a case for 5G in Sub-Saharan Africa where electricity is an issue. According to intelligentcio.com, “Africa’s lack of infrastructure, expensive hardware, and limited technological background are all issues impacting IoT deployment.”

According to, 5G in Africa: realising the potential “Operators and tower companies operating in the region have pointed to the following as the main barriers to using more solar: high upfront cost for solar panels and batteries; theft and vandalism, especially in remote locations; and space limitation on cell sites to assemble the solar components.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is actively invested in resolving these solar energy supply issues, a process that fits with the “green communications and networking paradigm” where solar/renewables assist the 5G infrastructure roll out. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying the groundwork for 5G networks and the IoT as part of “doubling down on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” prompted by the “pandemic”. Mission 300 is an “ambitious initiative to connect 300 million people to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.” Source.

This ultimately opens the door to “…a broad set of industry stakeholders, including Google Cloud, EdgeQ, Gigabyte, Marvell, Nvidia, NXP, Qualcomm Technologies, Dish Network, Vodafone, Accelleran, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Radisys, Saankhya Labs and Tech Mahindra.” Source: 5G in Africa: realising the potential, PDF.

As J.P. Morgan states, “When considering the future growth of 5G adoption, consumer demand will be key as it can be monetized.” Thanks to “sustainability” projects, and private investment, 5G is moving easily into place “…with forecasts anticipating mobile data traffic of almost 330 exabytes per month by 2028, more than three times the volume consumed in 2022.” Source.

Africa is experiencing new technological horizons and investment courtesy of the UN. Some of these technologies bring home how eager the UN is to accelerate societies towards a data-driven model like that of China. In Africa the push is towards a Digital ID framework and biometric solutions, all made possible by smart phones, internet connectivity and 5G developments. This is the UN’s testing ground for technologies to tag and monitor populations, as well as creat billions for investors. “The Africa and Middle East biometrics market is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 21%, with the global biometrics industry set to reach US$82 billion by 2027, according to the “Biometrics – Global Market Trajectory & Analytics 2020” report published by US-based research firm Global Industry Analysts.”

The Club of Rome is also helping “…African and European communities and organisations, towards a mutually just transformation for a regenerative future” believing that “Today, with eight billion people, the world is “Full” [and] …the world right now is set on a course for a potentially disastrous level of climate change.”

With all of its opinions about population size and premonitions about disaster, how can the well-informed Club of Rome think that steaming ahead with 5G and unlimited growth for the wireless industry, (heralding an IoT future to the tune of SDGs and “Net Zero” driven totalitarianism), isn’t a disastrous course?

Does the Club of Rome realise that there have been no public health or environmental risk assessments carried out in order to measure 5G’s “actual” impacts? With regards to energy consumption it is known that “…new 5G macro and especially small basestations dedicated to satisfying trends of ascending data volumes will have a significant impact in terms of increased energy requirements…” Source.

The Club of Rome also believes in “Inclusive Ai for a better future“, when “AI is energy-intensive” and “AI’s energy demands complicate efforts to decarbonize the grid as more electricity–generated with a mixture of carbon-free and fossil fuels–is required to support its growth.” Source. Does the IoT future really sound sustainable? “Tech insiders estimate more than one trillion devices will be connected over the next 10 to 15 years.” Source.

“Deloitte Global predicts that the number of FWA [fixed wireless access] connections will grow from about 60 million in 2020 to roughly 88 million in 2022, with 5G FWA representing almost 7% of the total (figure 1). While our analysis reveals a 19% 2020–2026 CAGR in total FWA connections, 5G FWA connections will grow even faster, at a CAGR of almost 88%, over the same period.²” Source. According to J.P. Morgan, “It is expected that 5G will exceed $180 billion in North America by 2030.”

The WHO “…relies heavily on private donors. One of those is the Gates Foundation, by far the largest private contributor to the WHO, accounting for some 10% of its budget.” Source. In 2018, Gates had been ruminating about the nature of a future pandemic at the Shattuck Lecture and in 2019 helped sponsor a pandemic preparedness event (Event 201) with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Center for Health Security). The “event” necessitated “public-private cooperation for pandemic preparedness and response” and was described thus in 2019: “The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.” Source.

Bill Gates has invested heavily in 5G wireless “solutions”, such as wireless birth control solutions, in wireless stock and 5G projects like “Pivotal Commware” which has secured $50 million funding for 5G mmWave infrastructure and as the World Economic Forum (WEF) has stated, Gates is invested in smart cities – building his own in Arizona.

By 2019, Gates had accumulated 5.3 million shares in Crown and Castle (CC) “…the company positioned to make a fortune from the coming 5G revolution.” CC is “a key player in the U.S. communications infrastructure market” which “operates in three primary segments: towers, small cells, and fiber.” Source. The 5G “revolution” was massively rolled out during the “pandemic”. Telecoms.com recognises 2020 as the “beginning of 5G implementation”. Crown and Castle is the “highest-yielding stock held by Bill Gates.”

All of these activities to promote 5G infrastructure and smart cities supports Club of Rome/UN/WHO political, even “colonialist” development aims – and involve significant investment in wireless telecommunications to advance the IoT.

The Artificial Future and its Fatal contradictions

With the rebranding of the UN, and the “damage control” exacted by the International EMF Project recently, you can be sure that WHO’s “health governance” agendas and Agenda 2030 are about to pick up pace.

With the immense investments, and the high stakes, can we really say that, politically and ethically, the UN and the WHO really “looking out for society”? Is Agenda 2030 really all about inclusivity, human rights and protecting the health of all – or is it an investment in increased censorship, population control, and social engineering tailored to ideological goals, delivering a technological society driven by data, biometric systems, and smart technologies modelled on China’s totalitarian template?

We should bear such questions in mind in light of a new social contract being developed by the UN, which will no doubt be putting the wireless industry and transnational corporate interests above the concerns and interests of the population.

Based on ideas from the Club of Rome to control and limit growth – including human populations – and to control society (and knowledge) through wireless networked technology into the future (IoT) on the basis of “human-caused climate change politics” – we can see that many aspects of the “sustainability” project are highly questionable. Under scrutiny, they favour the advancement of a “holistic” wireless digital agenda. It may look and feel “green and good” in the marketing (behavioural science) sense, and may sound like “progress” in “think tank” sponsored discourses, but in reality is full of fatal contradictions and prospects.

The “theories” holding up both the sustainability goals and RF exposure narratives that are promoted by the UN and WHO rely on synthetic models, hypotheses, conjecture, and contrivances to sell “sustainable solutions” that advance smart cities and a “Human 2.0” society that will take us so very far from an existence connected with the natural world, or a life in balance with nature.

The UN and WHO: “model” behaviours that are promoting wireless growth

The Club of Rome’s report of 1972, “The Limits to Growth” has been very influential on the UN’s Agenda 2030. It is a conceptual work, developing ideas about avoiding overpopulation and population collapse. By admission of the organisation, it represents an imagined future.

clubofrome.org supplies a short guide to the “The Limits to Growth”, which states, “The authors…identified a set of assumptions that produced a “stabilised world” scenario – called the “sustainability scenario” in which collapse was avoided and standards of living remained high.”

How did they come to their conclusions? “The MIT team fed data…into a global computer model and then tested the behavior of the model under several sets of assumptions to determine alternative patterns for mankind’s future.” Source.

Based on negative theories of population growth postulated since Victorian times courtesy of Thomas Malthus, The Club of Rome promoted a simulation, a narrative (like The Great Reset) to “get attention” and to be used to transform society. This informs current sustainability trajectories of the UN which are about blaming populations for destroying the environment and over-consuming resources, a theory that has provided the opportunity for the few to control the future of the many.

The “story” of Easter Island’s “ecocide,” – concerning a population consuming itself to extinction – is often regularly cited as evidence to support sustainability action. However, population genetics challenges the popularised Malthusian theories concerning population collapse that were projected onto our common understanding about what happened on the remote island. Such research inspires us to look at our history and context from different angles, and importantly, beyond myopically perceiving our world in terms of the influential Victorian ideas of Thomas Malthus (a theory that population growth will always tend to outrun the food supply and that betterment of humankind is impossible without stern limits on reproduction).

Through the narrative of sustainability much flawed thinking defines the UN’s aims, which are ultimately discriminatory and elitist in nature in the way our population is being viewed, and organised. The UN’s policies from its inception have played a role in limiting the global population, even pursuing policies of “replacement migration” – all ways of artificially and politically altering the population structures globally. Technology is also part of the logic of “replacement”. The global fertility rate has plummeted over decades and we are now at a point where technology such as AI, drones and robots are poised to “take over”.

According to the Financial Times, economic and social forces are to blame for plummeting fertility rates, but don’t worry, “AI and automation will…pick up the slack.” Advancing AI’s role in society is part of the UN’s vision. This vision, concerning population and development, is also applauded by industry.

There are so many contradictions in the sustainable political framework of the UN’s Agenda 2030. Clearly its not about “limiting growth” and favours “the “growth” for technological advancements and smart cities. Its about expanding wireless infrastructure, supporting semi-conductor technology markets and smart cities for a paradigm shift into a full blown IoT Big Data surveillance economy.

The UN says it promotes “safe and trustworthy” technologies. But we know it does not, and measures technology in utilitarian and profitable terms, which often throws concerns about health and important social impacts to the wind. Easing society into a false sense of security concerning habitual exposure wireless technologies, WHO-approved ICNIRP has been promoting the idea that they can make our world safer by setting limits to exposure to microwave telecommunications infrastructure with a novel “simulation”.

ICNIRP rejects research confirming radiofrequency-induced bio-effects, and the temporal factors related to such bio-effects. ICNIRP presents guidelines based exclusively on a “thermal hypothesis” while excluding the gamut of non-thermal and RFR-induced biological injuries that have been scientifically studied and established at or below the so-called “safe” levels of exposure.

To sell us “safe” exposure, ICNIRP prefers the “physics” of modelling, and not experiments that tell us what happens to RFR-exposed biological specimens. This is why ICNIRP derives its theoretical exposure guidelines from mobile phone RFR affecting a synthetic dummy filled with gel (a Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin – SAM) to simulate thermal impacts of RFR.

ICNIRP’s (and therefore the WHO’s) bias against biological studies like the NTP study continues, and is putting public health at risk, for we are biological, have individual sensitivity to RFR, we are not synthetic, and come in all shapes and sizes, unlike the SAM.

UN sustainability politics relies on its selected climate scientists making predictions about the future, like the Club of Rome did, to convince us with simulations. It is said that “climate change is physics….[and that] modelling is our best window into the future.” Climate science is based on simulating the future on computers for “predicting global warming” in which AI will play an increasing role. The computer models are prone to failure, and can’t accurately predict.

The Hoover Institution states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the established global authority on climate change, acknowledges this in its most recent Assessment report, from 2013: The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. [bold and italics in original] and…”According to a 2002 article by climate scientists Vitaly Semenov and Lennart Bengtsson in Climate Dynamics, climate models have done a poor job of matching known global rainfall totals and patterns.”

Astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon has stated that “our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO₂emissions, let alone whether this change will be for better or for worse.” Source.

In addition, all predictive climate simulations and computer programs (including AI itself) are subject to the biases of the persons interpreting data, giving input/hypotheses. They are not immune from political and ideological biases, and of course, errors. AI is also prone to “hallucinating” – making things up and presenting them as fact (producing “harmful” misinformation).

Both synthetic “SAM mannequins” and synthetic “modelling” not only sustain politicised theories that are managing public perceptions and expectations – they can produce data that isn’t fit for purpose, which puts the public at risk.

This political use of simulations to sell a convincing case for the “smart” future to the population, moulds the perception and expectations of the public. The WHO manipulates the science concerning exposure to wireless radiation and the UN seeks influence through amplifying the “predictions” of “climate science” to sustain “multilateral” international action (co-ordinated by stakeholders and member states) supporting rapid technological manufacturing (Industry 4.0) and rapid implementations (5G, 6G, Big Data, Internet of Things, Smart Cities, etc).

The UN and WHO present questionable biased theories to shape our futures, and our health. It is questionable whether is the UN is protecting human rights, or the WHO our health, in the future being planned, but it is abundantly obvious that the wireless industry is highly favoured in the UN’s and WHO’s vision of the future, and operates with impunity as it pollutes and continues to put the population’s health at risk.

According to the ITU (the telecommunications arm of the UN), they are glad they have a UN Secretary General that “speaks their language“. He is after all, a physicist and engineer who has taught telecommunications.

He is the “right” political and business choice, sympathetic to the telecommunications industry and it shows, as he is promoting a purely wireless future, which is being justified by prevailing climate change theories that rely largely on modelling to inform the UN’s dire environmental forecasting (which is so relentlessly being used as a political tool, and a social engineering opportunity).

The UN, soon to be rebranded as the UN 2.0 is incorporating behavioural science into its arsenal (because Agenda 2030 isn’t winning people over as much as needed?) is “teaching” (or rather preaching) that a global community governed through wireless technologies will bring a healthier, “sustainable” and inclusive future for all.

One world, but not for all

Is it true that loyalty to the SDGs or Digital Health can result in an inclusive future, for all? No, it isn’t for all. Today, the UN turns a blind eye to the human rights abuses happening in China, which includes slavery for the production of wireless technology components. This forced labour is for supply chains which many Western companies, and notable Big Tech firms rely on. According to Walk Free, “Forced labour is exacted under the guise of vocational training and poverty alleviation…”

It is true much can exacted when the ideological goals and the parties exacting them clothe them in the guise of “worthy causes”, but this political trend is ultimately promoting totalitarianism in the guise of “improving the world” – and wireless and Big Tech firms reliant on electronic components and minerals for manufacture, are influencing such a political trajectory, based on extracting astronomical profits through the IoT/Sustainability markets, as well as unprecedented power over the population.

As the UN is reluctant to address the issues the CCP has come to “enjoy a growing sense of impunity [and] tries to exploit the openness of institutions in democracies to impose its world view and silence its critics.” Sounds like the wireless industry! The behaviour of China and the UN’s response sets a disquieting precedent.

We are seeing the UN and WHO, in pursuit of their ideological imperatives – SDGs and DH – doing everything they can “to silence the critics” – who in their eyes have little to offer but “misinformation”. However, there is plenty to criticise about SDGs and DH, as well as the concurrent roll outs of IoT technologies and 5G infrastructure. For the UN, these are politically vital projects, however, this profitable political agenda could set future generations up for serious health and environmental consequences.

Rapid reformations are being invested in by those who are banking on technology and compliance with UN-backed “solutions” (SDGs) to be richer and empowered. The UN’s and WHO’s technological projects for the future society, if successful, will bring immense powers to these “guardian” organisations, and their private investors, but none of it could ever be achieved without the UN’s ties with the wireless industry, the Club of Rome, and the ongoing political manipulation of environmental issues and science to promote strategic technological implementations for domination and profit.

Featured opening illustration by Sean Alexander Carney.

Geoengineering, the artificial modification of earth’s climate, is an issue that concerns us all. In this article we’ll discover what it has to do with expanding wireless technologies and the international drive to transform our society, our atmosphere – and our world.

A technology for modifying our planet

Geoengineering has a propensity to cause confusion and division, as well as misunderstanding. Yet, in the era of Net Zero (a political drive for net zero CO2 by 2050) ever more extreme climate modification methods are being considered.

If you are familiar with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which demand “climate action”, you might already know that geoengineering programs are hastily being rolled out by governments of member states in “climate action” policies and mandates related to the SDG agenda.

More than ever before, geoengineering and weather modification programs are receiving coverage in the news. However, for all the reporting, is there enough transparency about geoengineering – which concerns artificial and speculative measures (of more political than scientific value), for “fixing the climate”?

Governments around the world are taking baby steps towards officially justifying using aerosolised particulates (like sulphur dioxide, silica, and silver iodide) to support “climate change action” Such stratospheric geoengineering can generate synthetic cloud formations in our skies, which proponents believe will bring benefits. New cloud formations (noticed over the last 30 years) have now been officially documented by the UN, are covered by various publications, and are being classified with new features, behaviours and properties – all while the controversial subject of geoengineering is carefully managed by the media.

Some “climate” solutions may involve “nano-materials” to modify the atmosphere and environment. Nanomaterials present environmental and health risks, and are a problematic issue for law. Yet, they are sold as part of “a sustainable future”.

These types of “climate” projects undoubtedly present opportunities for wireless and nano-scale technological transformations of our environment through Industry 4.0 so that the Internet of Things (IoT) can make deeper roots to transform society. Climate action is often being sold alongside a concept known as “Society 5.0, where all people and things are connected with the Internet of Things (IoT).”

The message couldn’t be clearer that climate ideology and smart technology developments go hand in hand to transform our society, and in the end, us. We shouldn’t be surprised, because the UN’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation spells it all out and aims for “Universal Connectivity by 2030.“

As governments digitally and chemically transform our lives in the name of tackling “climate change” and at the same time hasten the Internet of Things (IoT) into being, the remarkable pace of geoengineering research and technological developments gravitates into controversial territories, gambling with the future, diversity and sanctity of life on earth.

Every breath we take

There is without question an international political-industrial desire to enhance the atmosphere (and environment) with highly conductive, aerosolised particulate matter that evidently promotes electromagnetic transmission. At the same time, carbon is “vilified” as our biggest “climate problem” and is being removed from the atmosphere and environment.

A highly conspicuous fact, in the context of all of this, is that Carbon is not considered a good electromagnetic conductor. We find it is being removed (often buried) in rapid “climate change action”. This is part of a geoengineering process which helps to produce an anthropogenically modified atmosphere favouring an emerging wireless, sensing environment. Such changes to the quality of our atmosphere will also inevitably alter our bodies, and impact our health (especially our respiratory health).

All of this hastened “modification” is integral to fully achieving the IoT – a goal of the UN and various corporate stakeholders who are rapidly rolling out smart technologies, and nano-technologies, supported by Industry 4.0 (a.k.a. The Fourth Industrial Revolution, as coined by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)).

In the context of ensuing IoT developments, Geoengineering fulfils more than the generally understood, mainstreamed purpose of tackling “climate change” so it is important to consider the implications for our world.

A change of atmosphere

Some say “Life on planet Earth is under siege” because of “climate emergency.” Weather events such as the “unusual storm” of the Atlantic, the “category five” Hurricane Beryl, come to dominate the media and these unusual weather events are portrayed as the inevitabilities of climate change as defined in climate agendas and politics of the UN. The BBC reports that, “only two other Atlantic hurricanes in history have intensified more rapidly – Felix in 2007, and Wilma in 2005 – and only 4.5% of named storms in the Atlantic have grown to a category five in the past decade.” There is a history of ongoing weather modification in hurricane hotspots (and UN member states in general) that is being ignored while we hear more about “cases of rapid intensification as the climate continues to warm.”

The Guardian, for example, has reported with “Cloud spraying and hurricane slaying: how ocean geoengineering became the frontier of the climate crisis” that “around the world, dozens of ingenious projects are trying to ‘trick’ the ocean into absorbing more CO₂…[and] Nobody knows if these concepts will work, or what consequences there could be.”

Meanwhile, the very golden sun that heats our world, gives life, is now so often vilified as an existential threat within the narrative of “climate change.” In thrall of technology and witnesses to the intergovernmental wars against nature, the too-often pixelated face of the human family turns away from the radiance of our natural world to the radiation of screens in Wi-Fi saturated “smart technology” environments.

Not just the sun, but the human race itself is vilified as an equal threat within the politics of “human-caused climate change” guided by UN officials, stately figures, celebrities, politicians and industry magnates today, often in the same breath that human-caused AI and smart technology is praised by them.

Owing to the sun’s political reputation as a radiation force to be technologically tamed, the sky above us becomes the target of copiously funded research to alter the climate and reduce earth’s atmospheric sunlight by chemical and other means – a process which may irrevocably alter our climate and life on earth as we know it, “forever”.

On this controversial issue a report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the US called Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, was published in 2015. This review of “peer-reviewed literature” was compiled for “leaders to be far more knowledgeable about the consequences of albedo modification approaches before they face a decision whether to use them.”

The publication covers technologies for reflecting sunlight away from earth and it can be read here. It focuses on utilising aerosols of known toxic pollutants (associated with respiratory health problems and carcinogenesis) and releasing the payloads from high altitude aircraft into the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is formed from incoming solar radiation). This is a highly controversial approach to altering the course of so-called “anthropogenic climate change” and in terms of it being considered a “climate solution”, beggars belief.

Chemical weather/climate modification (a.k.a. atmospheric modification) is nothing new, yet is something the public knows very little about. Most of us are very familiar with so-called “chemtrails”, however. We might, after perusing the aforementioned publication, find no distinction between the concept of “albedo modification” in the stratosphere and the concept of “chemtrails” (which the media regularly describes in terms of a “conspiracy theory”).

As aerosolised chemical “spraying” to alter our atmosphere is a real issue, and no longer is tethered in the realm of fantasy or so-called “conspiracy theories.” We all deserve to be more informed about it. The potential for irreversible damage from such “radical” geoengineering methods cannot be underestimated.

On the trail of climate impacts

The Met Office in the UK introduces the public to the concept of “atmospheric modification”, but stresses that it does not “promote any atmospheric interventions” such as aircraft “…injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.”

Many of us will be familiar with the idea that illegitimately, certain controversial aerial geoengineering programs may have been happening for years. What does the Met Office think? “There is misinformation on social media suggesting the condensation trails (contrails) from high-altitude aircraft are…attempts to alter the atmosphere…” It is an expected refutation of the possibility of weather modification and serves to inhibit the ongoing conversation about the issue.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), an agency of the United Nations (UN), classifies contrails as new clouds called Cirrus homogenitus in its Cloud Atlas. According to an article published in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health, “Persistent aircraft trails seem to be a “natural” and unavoidable consequence of aviation. However, other documents referring to a weather modification technology must be taken into account in order to better understand the problem as a whole.”

The Met Office, a trusted source, has disputed the possibility weather modification as a consequence of aviation. However, it cannot always be trusted. Weather modification has a history, and the Met Office has played a part in denying it – and possibly still does.

As the UK’s DevonLive news resource reports, “Operation Cumulus was the name of the experiment being carried out by the RAF and an international team of scientists in August 1952. On…August 15 1952, the cloud seeding [weather modification] experiments came to a sudden end, official documents have confirmed. It was also the same day that Devon experienced the biggest, most tragic, flooding event the region has seen in more than 300 years….[in which] thirty four people died…Witnesses described the ‘purple black’ clouds that accumulated over Exmoor – some even said the threatening skies had a weird greenish tinge….The meteorological office [Met Office] had previously denied there were any rainmaking experiments conducted before 1955, but a BBC Radio 4 history investigation, broadcast in August 2001, unearthed documents at the public record office showing that they were going on from 1949 to 1955. RAF logbooks and personnel corroborate the evidence.”

Today, Google’s “Project Contrails” states that aircraft contrails are produced “…when water vapor in the air condenses around tiny particles of soot” and “…contrails can persist as cirrus clouds for minutes or hours, depending on the conditions…At night natural clouds and airline contrails trap heat. During the day, they also reflect back incoming sunlight and warmth.” We are clearly given the impression that aircraft emissions are altering the climate.

Google – a start up funded by the US Department of Defense (long involved in experimental weather modification programs) – shares with us the idea that the contrails we’re seeing in the sky are generated “only…when planes fly through humid regions” and believes Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help pilots avoid flying through them and creating more contrails (which Google states contribute to global warming). Working with American Airlines, Google wants to strategically influence commercial flight paths, by integrating AI insights into pilot workflow, with plans to “extend our models to geostationary satellites over Europe, Africa, the Indian Ocean (Meteosat Third Generation), East Asia and Western Australia (Himawari).” Interesting that Google wants to prevent global warming but relies on satellites that contribute massively to GHG pollution!

Fuelling climate modification

Google’s line of thinking is based on “A recent IPCC report [which] noted that clouds created by contrails account for roughly 35% of aviation’s global warming impact.” It is interesting to note that Google’s long time sponsor, “The US military has been at the forefront of aviation fuels development“, and also weather manipulation research.

We could say that the military has been responsible for the climate impacts caused by aircraft contrails all along, tailoring the chemical composition of jet fuel. What can Google get from all of this contrail concern? Public image enhancement (after Project Maven controversy, etc), climate action kudos, more applied and profitable data-generating AI surveillance (via satellite imagery, weather and flight path data) and the greenwashing of Google’s “carbon footprint.” (According to Statista, “Google’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions increased by 13 percent in 2023, to 14.31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e).”)

The following studies suggest that, despite the exciting cover story of Google’s “green” efforts, the continuing pollution from jet fuel and communications satellite launches will most likely sustain the very global warming that they claim AI technology in Project Contrails can help to reduce.

Led by scientists at Imperial College London, a study published in August 2024 found that “Modern commercial aircraft [such as Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 Airliners] flying at high altitudes create longer-lived planet-warming contrails than older aircraft…[and]…private jets produce more contrails than previously thought, potentially leading to outsized impacts on climate warming.” The study is published here.

That newer aircraft create longer-lived planet-warming contrails than older aircraft is an interesting finding for it means they are influencing the weather and climate against public expectations. Newer passenger aircraft are using the latest sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), which we’d assume are mean’t to assuage further damage to the climate – though it would appear not – even though the public is told they are modified to reduce CO2 and are supposed to be more effective against global warming.

As Robyn Schofield, Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Environment and Sustainability), The University of Melbourne writing for sciencealert.com points out, it isn’t just aircraft contrails that can “geoengineer” and impact climate. A 2024 study has confirmed that contrails from satellites “could facilitate ozone-destroying chemical reactions.” Satellites such as those from communications companies like Starlink, reaching the end of their useful and short lives will fall to the earth and “along the way, they will leave a trail of tiny metallic particles. According to [ the 2024 study ] by a team of American researchers, this satellite rain may dump 360 tonnes of tiny aluminium oxide particles in the atmosphere each year. The aluminium will mostly be injected at altitudes between 50 and 85 kilometres, but it will then drift down to the stratosphere – home to Earth’s protective ozone layer.”

Researchers have also found that as a result of satellite launches and their inevitable falling to earth, around 10% the stratosphere’s aerosol composition “…already contain[s] aluminium [oxides], and [have] predicted this will increase to 50 percent over the next 10–30 years.” There is concern about what these metals will do when they reach polar regions, especially as “…By some estimates, more than 50,000 satellites may be launched between now and 2030.”

Weather/climate manipulation happens due to a variety of anthropogenic influences. It has most certainly been achieved deliberately, and this continues that way with geoengineering, for example. Deliberate manipulations of the weather/climate were once highly experimental, secret, and confined to military operations, illustrated by the Vietnam War, for example, when Operation Popeye, was launched to make the weather a tactical weapon to disrupt Vietcong operations over areas of the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Strategic “operations” to change the climate are gathering pace today, this time not just by the military, but by corporations, start ups, universities, and governments in the name of “climate research”.

As we can see, the compulsive launching of satellites for wireless communications are also playing a role in altering the atmosphere, and the ozone layer, through aluminium oxide and other emissions. The abuse of the ozone layer, on an industrial scale, is as relentless as ever.

To drive home the point, aluminium oxide, the pollutant being added to the atmosphere by satellites, has also been proposed as a geoengineering aerosol to be injected into the lower stratosphere “to mitigate the global warming aspect of climate change.” This has been highlighted as a serious health threat as the British Medical Journal reports in a letter to the editor in 2022 (by Giovanni Ghirga, Pediatrician, International Society of Doctors for the Environment ISDE, Italy). Ghirga’s letter also states that “Worldwide land precipitation of aluminium following aerosol spraying into the lower stratosphere would increase human body exposure and seriously threaten Global Mental Health.”

Directed microwave energy

The electromagnetic realms of the sky are the target of other research which may also affect the climate. Today scientific research has extended well beyond chemically influencing the weather – the capability exists (in research facilities such as the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), located in Alaska) to modify the ionosphere by directing immense energy from an array of antennae to artificially heat it (using high intensity radio-waves). As your-physicist.com reports, “The process is similar to how a microwave oven heats up food by exciting its molecules.”

This heating process affects “the complex dynamics of the ionospheric plasma, a gas of electrons and ions enveloping our planet.” The ionosphere consists of charged and neutral gases and absorbs harmful radiation from the sun, a buffer protecting us from “space weather” and solar radiation. It reflects and modifies radiowaves used for communication and navigation allowing the propagation of radiowaves and GPS signals across the globe, and is where many communications satellites orbit. The influence of weather, including space weather (as well as the directed microwave energy from ionospheric heaters) changes how the ionosphere behaves, and can interfere with radio communications.

There are many ionospheric heaters on earth and you can view them here. These antennae arrays “can create temporary radio mirrors that can reflect radio waves back to the ground over long distances.”

Whether HAARP’s influence on the ionosphere (creating artificial plasma waves) has implications for upper-atmospheric influences on climate is not explored in this article, however the existence of HAARP shows us that anthropogenic modification of the earth’s atmospheric layers extends far beyond the skyscape we are familiar with, to the threshold of space.

“While ionospheric heaters are not currently used for weather modification on a large scale, some scientists have proposed using them to modify the ionosphere to mitigate the effects of solar storms or to reduce the risk of climate-related disasters.” Source.

However, we are reminded this is a military intallation, and the reality is that the military does not study anything that it does not intend to weaponise, and it has certainly weaponised microwaves, has an interest in weaponising weather, and continues to develop electromagnetic warfare.

HAARP, the most well-known ionospheric heater of the Department of Defense (DOD) has gained mixed reports and certainly raises concerns about the use of directed energy (microwaves) and the potential of ionospheric heaters to modify weather. Is blasting through the ozone layer with powerful electromagnetic radiation really a good idea (even if it is presented in the name of scientific and military research)? Ionising Solar blasts, for example are reported to “devastate the ozone layer.”

As we can appreciate, compared with Operation Popeye’s context and goals during the Vietnam War, the reasoning behind deploying climate/weather modification and research strategies today is related to the public in the socially acceptable dialogue of climate change, which helps politicians manufacture consent as they justify the roll out of the geoengineering technologies.

Governments want to change the climate

Chemical-based weather modification in our time arises from a commercial and political desire, rooted in questionable military research, and is marketed into the mainstream through the UN-sponsored narratives of “Climate Change” and “sustainability”.

Spurring fears about global warming is a catalyst to normalising the adoption of weather/climate modification technology and public expectations about global warming interventions. Vilifying the sun’s influence on our planet while the military industrial complex pours chemicals (and microwaves) into the deepest realms of the sky illustrates a certain absurdity and hypocrisy in motion – but the public’s focus sees not folly, and is kept locked on political personalities and celebrities applauding the power of science and technology working against the clock to “fight the climate enemy”.

Governments across the world, whether we see their hypocrisy or not, are currently involved in various weather manipulation research programs, some known to the public, with others so controversial and played down that they are yet become officially promoted, or enshrined in policies.

At this moment, research and lobbying continues internationally to gain permissions to release huge quantities of acrid sulphur dioxide (SO2) – a chemical that has a long history in chemical warfare – into the earth’s upper atmosphere, which proponents believe will over time artificially alter earth’s temperature as part of a strategy for adjusting the climate.

The recurrent idea – which has scientists divided, and inspires zealous adherents invested in the gamble – requires that payloads of SO2 are released in sustained and massive quantities from aircraft. The SO2 released forms an aerosol barrier in the stratosphere (when the atmosphere converts the SO2 to sulphate particles – a salt of sulphuric acid). The aim of doing this is to lower earth’s temperature by reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space. The aerial “spraying” of SO2 must be done relentlessly. New research suggests such geoengineering “climate action” could “cause worse climate anomalies than burning greenhouse gases as usual.”

Experimentation, and “research” into such controversial “climate management” concepts requires lots of money from those interested, which includes the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)  (which will feedback data to the UK government), and private interests, like Bill Gates who supports The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University (cancelled in 2024). Much of the “conversation” involves data from modelling, as outlined by an NGO called the Degrees Initiative.

Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

The concept of altering the earth’s climate through artificial means is called Geoengineering, and today its becoming a huge investment, believed to “offset” climate change. As Geoengineeringmonitor.org has reported, “In March 2022, the European Commission announced that it is spending € 1.1 billion co-funding seven large-scale climate projects. Among them are five geoengineering projects, which will cost € 880 million.”

While much of the media focus is on Carbon Capture, the EC believes that “…in most of the scenarios and modelled pathways considered in the IPCC, it is now more likely than not that global warming will exceed 1.5°C, at least temporarily by the end of this century. Therefore, additional climate responses such as SRM [Solar Radiation Management] are gaining more attention.”

SRM is the specific Geoengineering process of blocking the sun and dimming the earth, a type of “albedo modification”. As the EC states, “SRM technology options include stratospheric aerosol interventions (SAI – the most studied option), marine cloud brightening (MCB), ground-based albedo modifications (GBAM), ocean albedo change (OAC) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). Modelling studies have shown SRM could potentially offset some climate change risks, including the increase in frequency and intensity of extremes of temperature and precipitation. However, it could also introduce a range of new risks related to the change of global weather patterns.”

We can understand how SRM is a highly controversial research area – essentially a troublesome topic concerning a toxic “fix.” SRM causes many scientists alarm, and also, no end of skepticism in their ranks. But it is not without its supporters.

According to carbonbrief.org, “The idea of engineering the climate in order to limit sunlight has been debated by scientists and politicians for more than 50 years, but – apart from studies based on computer simulations – very little field research has been carried out.”

Owing to a lack of transparency and public discussion, the matter of SRM is something of a taboo subject, mostly off limits, despite the promotion of other geoengineering techniques such as Carbon Capture. Yet, SRM is not off the table concerning the international climate agenda and seems destined to emerge from the shadows as governments and start-up industries (that make weather modification their business), are irresistibly drawn to SRM techniques, and aspire to be on the cutting edge of climate action.

Concerns about geoengineering projects like SRM have been highlighted by Former climate advisor to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly Tracy Raczek writing for Chatham House in 2022: “The Arctic Ice Project, an NGO, intends to deploy small hollow glass beads, composed of silicon dioxide [used in the microelectronics of wireless/digital devices], across parts of the Arctic Sea’s ice and in the Arctic Ocean to increase reflectivity and slow global warming. Australian universities are piloting a salt spray over the Great Barrier Reef to reflect more of the sun’s heat in an attempt to conserve the reef.” In the science journal Nature, we discover “artificial clouds” are also being used by Australian scientists to block sunlight.

What impacts will artificial clouds bring to the Great Barrier Reef? And, can the synthetic process involving experimental “microspheres” promoted by The Arctic Ice Project (AIP) (partnered with NASA Earth Exchange) really restore the Arctic, or is it more suitable for the Internet of Oceans? Silica Microspheres lend themselves to “biotechnology applications such as biosensing” and could be ingested by sea life.

The AIP project describes the microspheres of silicon as safe, yet if they are microspheres they must resemble silica dust which is known to impact the immune system. “Breathing in very small (“respirable”) crystalline silica particles, causes multiple diseases, including silicosis, an incurable lung disease that leads to disability and death” according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). One hopes the project isn’t just more toxic pollution damaging health and wildlife, discarded for future generations to inherit, however as we can see, scrolling down this supplier description, the signal word for silica microspheres is “danger”.

Synthetic clouds: what is the real cost?

Reflecting the sun’s radiation back off the earth seems to involve toxic substances. Aircraft-based SRM techniques utilise the stratospheric spraying of corrosive SO2 into the atmosphere, a process that presents serious risks to the climate, environment, and life on earth. SO2 will inevitably fall to earth and become part of our breathable atmosphere. It seems incomprehensible that SRM is being considered when it can contribute to air pollution which is recognised by The World Health Organisation (WHO) “as a risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and cancer, and the economic toll they take.”

Many of us maybe unaware that SO2 is a corrosive irritant. It is more at home in the plumes of a volcanic eruption. Yet it is regarded as the chemical of choice in a 24/7 “climate” operation that is touted to cool the planet.

We might be surprised that the UK and other governments are spending millions on researching controversial SRM as a “climate” manipulation strategy. A prolonged and profitable global spraying spree is what the proponents of SRM have in mind, and they compare it with a “natural phenomenon” – though blanketing the earth for countless years with SO2 is far from natural.

The “logic” behind SRM is based on the assertion that massive volcanic eruptions that blanket the skies in SO2 and other aerosols may have cooled the planet. The outpouring of SO2 and other pollution from Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 which is believed cooled the earth by 0.5 degrees celsius is hailed as just one example by those in pursuit of dimming our skies indefinitely through SRM geoengineering. 

SRM requires a relentless, targeted injection of SO2 into the atmosphere. According to CNN, because “the aerosol particles do not tend to remain in the atmosphere for more than about a year, solar geoengineering would have to be continuously maintained.” And what of the consequences should it stop? Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of physics at Oxford University, told CNN that “termination shock” would unleash “all the pent-up warming “ready to slap the Earth in the face”.

“Termination Shock” has been described in an open access article by Andy Parker and Peter J. Irvine. who state that, “If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept.”

In addition we learn that “Termination shock could be very damaging for natural and human systems as the rate of warming would probably be much higher than that otherwise expected under anthropogenic climate change (Irvine et al., 2012; Llanillo et al., 2010; Matthews & Caldeira, 2007; McCusker et al., 2014), meaning that both ecosystems and human societies would have less time to adapt to the rapidly changing new conditions (McCormack et al., 2016; Trisos et al., 2018).”

The article also informs us that, “SRM only masks the warming effects of GHGs and is not designed to reduce their concentrations in the atmosphere.”

Is there sufficient transparency?

Many of us maybe unaware of our own government’s sustained interest in the SRM Geoengineering process. It shows how little transparency there is about it, and this hasn’t changed in over 75 years or so. Now that such taboo technologies have been recently rebranded as “last chance” climate solutions (without any proof that they ever can be, but plenty of predictive computer modelling), more mainstream reporting of Geoengineering has ensued.

However, that is not an indicator of sufficient transparency. Showing us that the climate can be modified with “contrails” and “aerosols” from planes after all, has been approached in the media like a public relations exercise to reassure the population that geoengineering is about “climate solutions” rather than whatever the derogatory sounding (yet somewhat accurate) “chemtrails” might suggest, as governments exhibit a “flurry of interest globally” in SRM.

It is quite alarming, but not necessarily alarmist, to contemplate the implications of blanketing our skies with SO2 to create a climatic shift in temperature for the sake of theoretically tackling global warming. We must ask – as I hope the governments permitting SRM research are doing – whether putting the health of the global population at stake is worth the weight of the climate theories in hand. It shouldn’t be.

More than meets the eye?

As our planet’s health burden of air pollution shows no signs of slowing, surely the answer isn’t to fill the air with particulates that further challenge our health, and our boundaries?

The miniaturisation of wireless telecommunications (to nano-scale technologies) gains momentum with the development of smart dust and nano-scale wireless antennae while the Internet of Things (IoT) and the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) accelerates in earnest intending to “a world-wide network of smart interconnected underwater objects with a digital identity”.

It is known that nanobot sensors (required for the IoT in all its facets) can be aerosolised, just like geoengineering payloads. Would they ever be combined, is the question.

In the journal Health Security in 2019, Jennifer Snow and James Giordano alert us to how “the development of aerosolizable nanomaterials and devices also poses defined risks to public health and biosecurity that warrant consideration, address, and constraint. Aerosolized nanobots could be used to sidestep extant proscriptions of the current Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) or Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).”

Payloads of micro/nano-materials and nano-mites to advance wireless telecommunications will need to cover the earth. Nanotechnology capable of self-assembling into intelligent networks also requires energy, and is increasingly developed to draw energy (sustainably) from the environment, whether that be the sea, or a blood vessel.

This is also out in the open, has been for a while and is most certainly on the cards. We should keep in mind that inorganic SO2 used in SRM is also electrically conductive and has thermal properties (when mixed with water/precipitation) and would proliferate in skies and fall/rain down into the environment, making it a carrier like a semiconductor that could help drive nano-technologies relevant to the IoT and wireless innovations.

Diamond doped-silica (another conductor) has been proposed for SRM, as well, and microspheres of silica (more at home in technology and cutting edge medical applications) is the material being used by the Arctic Ice Project (AIP). Is there more scope to geoengineering developments, and materials, than first meets the eye?

Why our health hangs in the balance

What do we know about the long term health implications of living beneath a sky seeded with SO2 from relentless daily aircraft runs? Scientists theorise but do not conclusively know the health outcome of a sustained SRM program on the global population.

Scientists and governments do know, however, that exposure to SO2 can cause inflammation, and serious damage to the respiratory airways and lungs. Sulphur dioxide rapidly enters the bloodstream through the lungs and even short-term exposures can be life-threatening. According to the UK government’s Statement on the differential toxicity of particulate matter according to source or constituents: 2022, sulphates in the atmosphere “…show associations with adverse effects in epidemiological studies.” To be clear, sulphates can cause organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity and cancer.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) asserts that “sulfates contribute to acidification of surface water and soil, and contribute to acid rain and fog that damage ecosystems, forests and plants” – further, blocking the sun with SRM reduces carbon dioxide uptake in plants, and therefore reduces the production of oxygen.

Sulphates have ” health effects similar to those from exposure to PM2.5. These include reduced lung function, aggravated asthmatic symptoms, and increased risk of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in people who have chronic heart or lung diseases.”

The ARB adds, “Because sulfates are light colored, they reflect energy from sunlight back into space. This means that sulfates have a cooling influence on climate change…Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility by scattering light before it reaches an observer. This light scattering reduces visual clarity, mutes colors, and reduces the distance one can see.”

Who is most vulnerable? Children are much more vulnerable to SO2 exposures than adults as they breathe more voluminously for their size and weight than adults. However, as the American Lung Association reports, adults share certain vulnerabilities that increase their risk manifold. “Short exposures to peak levels of SO2 in the air can make it difficult for people with asthma to breathe when they are active outdoors.” Other vulnerable groups include older adults with chronic heart or lung diseases, and people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) are very sensitive to low level exposures of chemicals in the environment putting them at higher risk, too. MCS is often discussed in tandem with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a debilitating heightened sensitivity to industrialised electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the environment which has overlaps with MCS.

It is known that “…in the last few decades MCS [like EHS] has received considerable scientific and governmental attention in light of the many persons reporting this illness…A number of countries and health care communities have recognized MCS or similar entities as a debilitating illness.” The unavoidable reality is that we are all vulnerable to SO2 exposures, and from such pollution may develop asthma, MCS and chronic diseases as a result.

Industrially, Sulphur dioxide has various uses and careful handling and safety protocols are necessary, as it can increase asthma in those regularly exposed (like a population subjected to SRM?) You can learn more about the health impacts of SO2 here. It can exacerbate existing health problems well beyond asthma.

We can think of SO2 as potently corrosive bleach. Owing to such properties SO2 is used as a fungicide, a disinfectant, and is a problematic air pollutant. This should make it clear to us the potential catastrophic results that could arise from our governments applying SRM in our skies. Spraying SO2 in our skies is asking for trouble. Encountering precipitation, the aerosol application of SO2 will result in acid rain.

SO2 also inhibits photosynthesis and causes plants to lose water. Imagine the impact on gardens, crops and food supply. According to an article published in Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, “The cumulative effect of sulferous pollution is to reduce the quantity and quality of plant yield. Generally, its impact is more severe when in combination with other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, fluorides, and ozone. At the ecosystem level, sulfur dioxide affects species composition by eliminating more sensitive species.“

Imagining SRM to be a potential “healer” of the earth’s climate seems incomprehensible when the governments interested in SRM also claim to be concerned about global warming, ocean acidification and the preservation of ecosystems. Scientists know that sulphur dioxide presents very real and well-known health and environmental risks. Despite all of this, the money, research and planning in the direction of SRM deployment continues.

Confronting reality

SRM is a very taboo subject for the public. However, to transcend the taboo, we must confront the reality that our climate can be altered in a calculated way through methods known to our governments, in ways that could bring catastrophe.

To think our governments might be or possibly intend to release chemical toxins (often described as “chemtrails”) into our atmosphere from aircraft deliberately has long drawn public skepticism. Yet the UK government has not dismissed the toxic approach to climate intervention promised by SRM. Anyone can read the UK government’s position on geoengineering which states:

“The Government is not deploying SRM, and has no plans to do so. The UK Government has commissioned research into the effects of SRM on climate, and monitors research in this area. The World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP’s) Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), is investigating, using computer modelling, the effects which SRM would have on the climate.”

Why spend millions on researching something with no plans to use it? Having no plans, is not the same as stating it will never be used. The door has been kept open for SRM.

Global interest in SRM

In 2018 it was reported by carbonbrief.org that “…interest in SRM appears to be growing. In October of last year, scientists met in Berlin to discuss the future of geoengineering. Last November, the US House of Representatives held a subcommittee meeting on geoengineering, with SRM dominating the conversation.”

In 2023, MIT Technology Review reported that “researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK.” Not only does this “test flight” set a terrible precedent, it seems incomprehensible that the UK (or any other) government should ever consider permitting the deliberate spraying of toxic particulates (which erode the immune system and is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream through inhalation). The world was recently locked down by governments in the name of protecting the respiratory health of the population. Do we really want to walk down that road again? Further SRM research that could result in more global respiratory health crises is attracting the attention of governments fixated on Net Zero and other climate strategies. Darkening our world with particulate matter (PM) to reach “climate targets” rather than focusing on the health repercussions for the global population should not be the priority.

The MIT in the US continues to push a Solar Geoengineering agenda and the pressure on governments across the globe to adopt SRM seems to grow. However, not all geoengineering projects survive. In 2024 Nature reported that “Harvard University researchers announced the cancellation of a high-profile solar geoengineering experiment, frustrating the project’s supporters. But advocates say that all is not lost, and that momentum for evaluating ways to artificially cool the planet is building internationally.”

Contradictions

The UK government is not alone in financing solar Geoengineering research. According to CNN, in 2022 the Biden Administration committed $4 million towards exploring solar geoengineering. A Harvard study of 2018 estimated that a sustained solar engineering project will probably cost $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period, with 4000 flights necessary in year one alone. The process is estimated to possible take “several generations“. Only specially adapted planes are able to deliver the payloads, from altitudes “as high as 20 km” into the lower stratosphere.

We can instantly appreciate how such a project would contradict the global measure to tackle aviation emissions, a measure that the UK government for example fully supports. It is no theory that the UK government is collaborating with, and is being influenced by, scientists, institutions and industries working out how to best move forward with SRM (also called SAI – stratospheric aerosol injection), even though it presents a long term risk to public health and will likely bring more respiratory problems for us all.

There is little transparency about SRM, and no consensus that it should ever be done. We are told that the real-world effects of a large scale SRM intervention are unknown. It is understood that deep geopolitical conflicts could arise as a result of altering climates with SRM.

Cloud seeding: Rain-making and rain-stealing

Another form of geoengineering known as “cloud seeding” has already brought this consequence to the fore. As Tracy Raczek writing for Chatham House states, such climate “interventions can cross borders and what may be good for one country may not be good for its neighbours… This is not a hypothetical problem. Iran has already accused Israel of stealing its water by using cloud-seeding that reduces rainfall over its territory. China, which already artificially alters its weather over major cities, plans to be able to modify weather over half its territory by 2025, to the alarm of neighbours including India. And two Middle East rivals – the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – are scaling up rain-making operations.”

The Diplomat, in the article “How China uses Geoengineering to Pursue a Hybrid Warfare Strategy” reports that, “the country is committed to bringing about 5.5 million square kilometers of its land area under its weather modification program by 2025.” The consequences of implementing weather modification (“rain-making”) as Raczek highlighted “can cross borders.” The Diplomat states that in the context of China’s program, “….the impact of cloud seeding can be seen beyond China’s borders, [and] may disrupt the normal monsoon in neighboring countries such as India, Myanmar, Vietnam, etc. This would have an adverse impact on the agriculture in these countries, rising potentially to a form of “rain stealing.””

The Diplomat singles out China for using “geoengineering techniques to manipulate and jeopardize the rules relevant to maintaining the international order”, though neglects the reality that many countries are engaged in cloud seeding programs (as well as other types of geonegineering). Sadly, The Diplomat doesn’t acknowledge this and believes China could “sabotage global climate change efforts” by operating outside of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity, which is evidently not moving fast enough for China.

In truth, there are no formally agreed “rules” being broken by China, for there is “no formal agreement or convention regarding geoengineering” at this time. Creating artificial rain, as theadvocatepost.org states that “legal frameworks face considerable challenges, concerning their scope, coordination, and enforcement. This is because cloud seeding can cross international borders and it can involve multiple stakeholders with varying interests.” advocatepost also highlights how, although Article 5 of the UN Conventions on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and Article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (and the Nagoya Protocol) attempt to “regulate” aspects of cloud seeding, “the biggest challenge at hand is the lack of any universal definition of cloud seeding or artificial rain.”

Kunal Sharma who created The Diplomat article lives in India where the monsoon may be influenced by China’s geoengineering activities. Sharma, however, doesn’t want to stop the cloud seeding experiments. Instead, Sharma highlights how it is “rogue” to do such things while the UN still seeks standards to shape the development of geoengineering projects – so believes the geoengineering projects should still be happening, just not on India’s doorstep. We can’t really blame Sharma for condemning China’s “rogue” weather modification experiments, though, even if they had the UN’s blessing, it wouldn’t alter the fact that such experiments involve aerosolised toxic carcinogens and bring a number of potentially devastating environmental costs.

Organisations like the Weather Modification Association (WMA) believes cloud seeding is a risk worth taking believing there is no toxic impact of concern after examining literature that embodies “tens of thousands of samples collected from cloud seeding program areas over a thirty-year period.”

Cloud seeding certainly has been going on a long time, and without the UN being particularly bothered about its practice, or the potential harms. I include the screenshot of the the Weather Modification Association which can be shared with anyone who doubts that weather modification is possible or happening.

The “Our Corporate Members” list at the bottom of the WMA’s “About us” page shows an array of corporate interests in weather modification including the North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board which works to improve cloud seeding because in its opinion “CLOUD SEEDING HAS SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE EFFECTS ON CROP YIELDS AND IMPROVED LOSS RATIOS”.

This all illustrates an epidemic of hypocrisy. China’s geoengineering activity is condemned as “rogue” and a possible threat to climate/weather, while the rest of the “international order” escapes criticism for executing cloud seeding programs of their own.

SRM without laws or borders 

The risks are many, and are being neglected. An ambitious start-up company called Making Sunsets infamously epitomises the hubris of zealous SRM “climate action.” In 2022, through private funding, the company launched a series of weather balloons full of SO2 inside of Mexico in what was broadly perceived as a provocative rogue act of climate intervention. The US based company, which regards itself as a “cult” with a mission to blanket the earth through SRM Geoengineering as a matter of pride, vowed to release huge payloads of SO2 above Mexico continuously into 2023 – without any governmental approval, scientific oversight or transparency with the public.

Such behaviour has raised environmental and humanitarian concerns. In January 2023 it was reported that Mexico had banned solar geo-engineering experiments. (It should be noted that the Mexican government prohibited the further deployment of Geoengineering acting on the precautionary principle laid out in a 2010 moratorium on SRM technology developed at a UN conference on biodiversity).

Various fact checkers jumped on the “Mexico/Making Sunsets” issue to quickly assert that Mexico didn’t ban “chemtrails” because they don’t exist. However, whether we call them “contrails” or “chemtrails” or clouds of sulphur dioxide being poured from weather balloons over Mexico, it adds up to the same controversy: the anthropogenic release of chemicals into the stratosphere to reduce solar influence on the earth.

Over seventy five years of artificial clouds

In 2023, Mexico suffered extreme droughts and turned to another climate altering technology called “cloud seeding” which uses aircraft to deposit aerosols of silver iodide into the stratosphere to artificially stimulate rainfall.

This is a weather modification project which according to CNN has been approved by the Mexican government since 2020. The operation is run by a company called Startup Renaissance. The technology of cloud seeding dates back to the 1940s and as CNN reports “Since then, it has been used in around 50 countries, including in the United States and China. Mexico has been experimenting with weather modification for more than seven decades.”

What about the UK? The UK funded cloud seeding experiments in the 1950s as the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has confirmed following a freedom of information request. The DECC confirmed that although the experiments were carried out, the “DECC does not hold information on these experiments” and the DECC “does not undertake any cloud seeding activities”, and “does not hold information about the amount of chemicals used annually for cloud seeding purposes.”

Already we can see that anthropogenic climate interventions, through chemical emissions such as silver iodide and sulphur dioxide, have a long history, and with that history, questions arise regarding transparency and public health, air quality, and biodiversity.

It is already acknowledged that contrails typically released from aircraft are responsible for creating sustained blanketing of the skies with vapour that traps heat. Whatever way we look at it, aerosol pollution from aviation is a means of influencing the climate. It is inevitable that they also influence health. As noted by scientists, “Aviation emissions [which contain sulphur dioxide (SO2)] are responsible for an estimated 24,000 premature mortalities annually and 3.5% of anthropogenic radiative forcing (RF).” 

Radiative forcing (RF) refers to changes in the earth’s atmosphere owing to natural and human-caused concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHCs), aerosols and changes in solar radiation. According to climateworks.org, “Non-CO2 effects make up two-thirds of aviation’s climate impact.”

SO2: A polluting emission

SO2 for SRM, a chemical deployed to change solar radiation on earth is a polluting anthropogenic emission, and ironically, is also a component in aviation fuel today which relates to the aforementioned mortalities.

Like the global cloud-seeding deployments of silver iodide, (another toxin, and one which can cause reproductive disorders, developmental defects and cancer) prepared for international geoengineering requirements, SO2 in aviation fuel is a form of particulate matter (PM) that increases the global health burden.

SO2 is responsible for aviation-induced PM2.5 illnesses. So why should any government, or company, propose adding more of this to the atmosphere – especially when the government is at the same time, as in Europe and elsewhere, grappling with the reduction of sulphur in aviation fuel because of its alleged “climate impact”?

It should come as no surprise to us that SRM is regarded as an “extreme intervention” for mitigating solar radiation. Yet as mentioned, it is not off the table as governments reach for climate technologies to do battle with “climate change”.

SRM: projects and research that we know about

In February 2024 a new 10.5m five-year programme to independently risk assess and model impacts of SRM for policymakers was announced by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), interestingly to assess “existing data” on SRM and “engage with international activity in SRM.” NERC states that SRM “can reduce negative effects of climate change” – but at what price?

The detrimental side effects of SRM deserve to be known. I have touched upon the health implications of changing our atmosphere with SO2. But what else is there to be concerned about?  SRM changes climate, which is what computer modelling is concerned with. Asking a computer to model our future is a risk in itself, but let’s be clear about what we could be facing from SRM. Rainfall patterns could become dramatically altered increasing drought and risk of floods. The ozone layer will become more severely impacted by SRM. We may see threats to biodiversity, possibly driving extinction events, eroding ecosystems and human health.

The methods of SRM being proposed internationally include Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), Marine cloud brightening (MCB) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) all of which alter cloud cover and usher in the catastrophic effects already discussed. Perhaps the governments toying with SRM should consider the words of Dietmar Dommenget, an associate professor at the School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment at Monash University, who asserts “climate is quite chaotic – we should be assuming the worst – we don’t know if it will happen, but we should assume the worst.“

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations (UN) with its huge influence on climate attitudes regards SRM as an unnecessary type of treatment that doesn’t address “the root cause of climate change”, which in its opinion is CO2. Yet, governments who are members of the UN are involved in SRM and expansive cloud-seeding projects. For example, according to geoengineeringmonitor.org, “In December 2020, the Chinese government revealed plans to enlarge its weather modification activities, covering an area of more than 6 million km²…” and by 2023 “…hopes to deploy an effective program, e.g., to battle droughts, control rainfall in agricultural lands or minimize losses from natural disasters. The program will be achieved by seeding clouds with particles of AgI [silver iodide] or other chemicals to induce precipitation.”

Why is the spraying of SO2 above our heads even being considered when there is no evidence it will change climate for the better, and presents a health and environmental risk that could cause irreversible damage to human beings and the natural world?

Beyond the exploits of “Making Sunsets” in Mexico recently, other known companies who have deployed SRM across the globe from 2020 onwards include: SCoPEx (Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment) organised by Harvard University [and supported by Bill Gates, but cancelled in 2024], Great Barrier Reef Marine Cloud Brightening trial(s)by a research team led by Southern Cross University, MCBP (Marine Cloud Brightening Project) led by Washington University & research partners, MCB (Marine Cloud Brightening) with sea water led by Stephen Salter (Edinburgh University) & Centre of Climate Repair (CCRC), Iron Salt Aerosol Method led by gM-Engineering. Details on the projects in 2022 were not available to the public. www.geoengineeringmonitor.org has more on this.

At the time of writing, according to a very useful, detailed interactive online map (prepared by ETC Group (a technology watchdog group) and the Heinrich Boell Foundation), 10 Solar Radiation Management projects which include stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and other chemical interventions in the earth’s stratosphere, are underway with 5 completed and 2 cancelled. 2 of the SRM projects are happening in the UK. According to ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, to date “…more than 1,700 [geoengineering] projects have been identified.”

As we might now appreciate, a deeply concerning picture of the expansive nature of global climate modification is revealed. The tampering of our atmosphere in the UK, and elsewhere, is not limited to SRM, but many Carbon Capture and Storage projects are also ongoing. All are believed to mitigate what the IPCC defines as anthropogenic climate change, yet necessitate anthropogenic climate changing solutions.

Regardless of the risks to our planet, largely covert and risky interventions are happening in our skies and around us. As Jack Doughty has confirmed in Past forays into SRM field research and implications for future governance (2018) “Outdoor field research studies self-identifying as or closely related to solar radiation management (SRM) technology have already been carried out by scientists.”

What will be the ultimate effect on our health (particularly our respiratory health) as the greatest experiment on our atmosphere continues? As Dietmar Dommenget suggested, we should “assume the worst”.

SRM: Resistance from scientists, campaigners and documentary filmmakers

There are countless articles on the internet, both supporting and debunking chemtrails. The BBC tries to assure us that spraying the country with chemicals, though done “once upon a time, long, long ago, isn’t something we should expect any time soon. As the BBC reminds us, “In the 1950s and 1960s, decades before the conspiracy theories were born, much of Britain was sprayed with airborne chemicals in a series of secret germ warfare tests. And in 1950, San Francisco was sprayed with a chemical agent from a ship to gauge the effects of a bioweapon attack on a populated area.” It’s as if we all live in a changed world now. Can we really say that we are, knowing what plans are afoot in the name of Geoengineering?

The privately planned and funded spraying of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from aircraft (to theoretically avert temperature increases for years to come) that has been described in this article, isn’t that different in principle from what the BBC has described concerning experimental aerial chemical payloads in the 1950s and 1960s.

The public has a right to be concerned about it, regardless of whether they see a contrail or a chemtrail in the sky – SRM isn’t a fiction, it’s a “transboundary technology” threat any way we look at it.

There is credible resistance against SRM worthy of note. As Geoengineering Monitor observes, “In January 2022, a group of more than 60 concerned senior climate scientists from around the world called for an international solar-geoengineering non-use agreement, as SRM poses unacceptable risks if ever implemented. This global call has since been endorsed by more than 320 scientists from the Global South and the Global North. The non-use agreement calls for banning SRM funding, prohibiting SRM outdoor experiments and restricting research on SRM technologies, including supporting technologies.” By comparison it was reported by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative’s report on the “Global status of activities relating to Solar Radiation Modification and its governance” in 2023 that “90+ scientists published a letter supporting more research into atmospheric aerosol-based SRM.”

Campaigners have issues with geoengineering, as this document from etc GROUP makes plain. It makes some excellent points, and states: “If deployed, SRM has the potential to cause significant environmental damage. It is not possible to know with any certainty how altering the amount of incoming heat to the planet could affect ecosystems, since it will create an entirely new ecological balance (or disturbance) that could diminish biodiversity and disrupt ecosystems. The energy from incoming sunlight is an essential resource for life on the planet.”

Clouds, whether we think of them as modified or natural, are being referred to as a species of their own. According to sciencealert.com new species of cloud are appearing causing “the International Cloud Atlas – the official reference work on all things cloud, as published by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) [the UN’s official weather body]” to be updated for the first time in 30 years. “The WMO has also recognised five new supplementary features – distinctive cloud structures that attach to other kinds of clouds…The updated Cloud Atlas recognises a new accessory cloud – the name for features that merge with another cloud – called a flumen, which is associated with severe convective storms.

The updates to the WMO’s cloud atlas (which was first published in 1896) seem to have been prompted after “the founder and president of the US-based Cloud Appreciation Society, Gavin Pretor-Pinney in 2006…noticed members of the organisation posting images of clouds that didn’t quite look like anything he’d seen before.” There are now “special clouds“, which describe localised conditions where clouds are generated due to either natural causes or human activity [ie, contrails, geoengineering].”

Four eye-opening documentary films, Frankenskies, The Dimming, UNconventional Grey and the acclaimed Forecast make interesting points regarding the artificial transformation of our skies and highlight a range of environmental and ethical concerns about geoengineering and weather modification technologies.

Are we protected from geoengineering practices?

SRM is among many climate technologies influenced by military research programs, that is, from research into weather modification for tactical purposes. HAARP, as mentioned earlier, can be considered a climate technology. Because it is an ionospheric heater, it can artificially modify a region of the earth’s ionosphere, and therefore its behaviour, using beamed microwave radiation. Manipulating the ionosphere presents risks, and may result in destructive events on earth. Scientists know that changes in the ionosphere are observable ahead of seismic activity, and as NASA has highlighted, there are deep connections between the ionosphere and weather on earth.

Because it has immense destructive capacities, HAARP has all the characteristics of a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW). Yet although this invention (of Bernard J. Eastlund), is patented and classified as a DEW, it is presented in the media as the research tool of scientists experimenting on the ionosphere “as it pertains to surveillance, military and civilian communications, as well as radar and navigation systems.” [Source]

HAARP can mimic the effects of space weather and affect the physical and electromagnetic behaviours of earth’s atmosphere by “heating up the heavens.” HAARP has 3.6 megawatts of power at its command. It uses high frequency phased arrays of 180 antennas (that direct and shape beams of focused electromagnetic radiation – like 5G phased array infrastructure does). Both of these technologies are branded as “progress” not as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or DEWs capable of biological and environmental devastation. (You can download the related patent PDF here.)

Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) a.k.a. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), for many reasons, is raising concerns. Its potential to be weaponised is well recognised by governments – yet, today, the aerial spraying of SO2 and other toxic chemicals is often positively approached as a “valuable” research opportunity and mitigation tool within the narrative of “climate change”.

According to the Arms Control Association, “A chemical weapon is any toxic chemical that can cause death, injury, incapacitation, and sensory irritation, deployed via a delivery system…” and stresses that, “The use and possession of chemical weapons is prohibited under international law.” There are calls for SRM to be banned. It employs harmful toxic chemical agents that, like a chemical weapon, “can cause death, injury, incapacitation, and sensory irritation.” But we notice how all of that seems perfectly acceptable when it is being sold as a solution in the context of “climate action,” research, and “mitigation”. As we have seen, there is sustained opposition, but also rising interest from international governments and sectors of industry in SRM, and they are guided by the UN’s ideological discourse on climate change and sustainable development which is rolling out geoengineering “mitigations” as solutions. However, it has been observed that, “SRM techniques do not fall within the usual definitions of mitigation” as laid out by the IPCC.

In a review article titled Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals, published in 2019 by The Royal Society, the author Jesse L. Reynolds (of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law,) states that “[as] solar geoengineering would presumably affect all countries, widespread if not universal consent is needed for its deployment to be legitimate.”

According to Alexander Proelss, author of Geoengineering and International Law, “Despite persisting legal uncertainties, there is a good case to argue that a general prohibition of geoengineering does not exist in international law. Furthermore, a closer examination of individual geoengineering technologies supports the conclusion that carbon dioxide removal tends to meet with fewer legal objections than solar radiation management.”

As etc GROUP observes, “193 countries at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) established a de facto moratorium against most forms of geoengineering including all forms of SRM. The landmark decision was reaffirmed in 2012 and 2016. However, promoters of
geoengineering – the most vocal of whom are based in Northern high GHG-emitting countries – have been attempting to ignore the CBD decision and to move toward initiating experimental trials of SRM technologies.”

Governing Solar Radiation Modification Under The Vienna Convention states: “Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention has a wide scope and covers all human activities which “modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer”. This will include SAI as it will likely modify the ozone layer.” Source.

The UK government declared in “The Regulation of Geoengineering” of 2009-10 that “the UN is the route by which, eventually, we envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving.”

Some officials at the UN see the risks inherent in SRM and are pushing for regulatory frameworks warning that “We only have one atmosphere. We cannot risk further damaging it…” However, in the same breath they also support additional research of SRM.

Despite recognising that “while SRM techniques may be theoretically reducing some climate hazards, the risks or benefits they pose are poorly understood and relevant governance is weak or missing” the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – as stated in a report called “Global status of activities relating to Solar Radiation Modification and its governance – supports ongoing research before drawing conclusions for a regulatory framework. The IPCC is encouraged that “the international discussion about SRM and its governance is now firmly emerging on the international agenda.”

Thus SRM as a geoengineering solution within the context of the “climate change” agenda (which is justified by science – largely based on theories, predictions, and computer modelling about which there is no scientific consensus) stays on the table. As a consequence, any country deploying SRM may unilaterally affect the climate whenever they like. As we know, countries are currently permitted to deliberately affect the climate with SRM experiments, and in particular, “trusted” cloud seeding programs and rampant carbon capture, to name but a few climate modification programs are in motion. New “species” of clouds with novel features and behaviours have been well-documented. How ongoing geoengineering activity has influenced unusual and extreme weather events that are reported by the media is worth bearing in mind before accepting the theories, opinions, and predictions promoted by the scientists, politicians and popular culture figures invested in the micromanaged narrative of human-caused “climate change”.

Will effective “geoengineering” regulations ever be resolved, be relevant for safeguarding the health of populations, or even adhered to? Will they serve the public interest and safeguard life on earth, or be tailored to perpetuate the existing Net Zero climate narrative, benefit industry and politically profitable agendas invested in it? And, how will the possible intrusion of nano-materials or even nano-technologies be properly regulated in any emerging framework? People have a range of concerns regarding geoengineering and are voicing them widely on the internet. There is widespread criticism of the political and ethical role – as well as the scientific opinions, and attitudes – of both the UN and the IPCC who push governments forward with questionable climate policies and national climate plans and contrive “transparency” as a political tool functioning to progress Net Zero, and not as an opportunity to face the public about the destructive geoengineering programs that for years have been impacting the climate and are able to cause unusual and extreme weather, as documentary and eye witness accounts covered in this article attest. Weather and climate modification is surely a neglected and critical aspect of the “climate narrative.”

There has been plenty of posturing, and plenty of time for politicians to be upfront with the public about the artificial and chemical means of climate modification happening around us (essentially happening without the knowledge, awareness or consent of the population). The consequences of unregulated climate modification have been long known and officially debated – behind closed doors. Today the very mention of “chemtrails” stirs censorious reactions, when the public has every right to label SRM, military-influenced contrails, and ongoing stratospheric aerosol events as such. Regulations, transparency, and open debate are long overdue, especially when there is the propensity for climate altering technologies such as SRM to cause mass destruction, just like a weapon. The problem is that public perception, discourse generally, and law as it stands, predominantly recognises SRM more as geoengineering than a chemical weapon capable of “ecocide” (and possibly genocide) from the chequered history of military “innovations”, assigning it the status of a “mitigation”, no matter how inaccurate and wholly inadequate that designation actually is.

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) signed by 48 states prohibits the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. As Tracy Raczek, Former climate advisor to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly, advises, we “need to attend to the security implications of geoengineering and weather modification. Dusting off ENMOD is the place to start.”

As a penultimate point, the legal definition of “ecocide” was developed by international lawyers in 2021. Work is underway to add environmental damage to the list of international crimes at the International Criminal Court. The “expert panel’s definition of ecocide is: “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.

By recognising ecocide as a “crime” (a “crime” now recognised in 11 countries) some believe this will “transform the fight against climate change.” How such a legal framework is crafted is critical. Would SRM fall within the new definition of “ecocide”, the crime of “killing the environment”? It may take a while, as “climate engineering…”, according to Jesse L. Reynolds (in Geoengineering Our Climate?) “…is such a challenge for international environmental law and its scholars.”

Whether the concept of ecocide serves only the predominant political view of “climate change” and “climate science”, or will equally serve to bring justice when pertinent anthropogenic climate threats – such as aluminium and GHG pollution from communications satellite launches, international cloud seeding programs using silver iodide particles to increase rainfall, the pollution potentials of nanotechnology and nanomaterials, the toxic threats from carbon capture geoengineering, the toxicity and climate impacts of SRM, as well as deforestation in the name of erecting wind farms – are happening, remains a question.

These neglected environmental issues seriously threaten the quality of our breathable atmosphere, and our physical and mental health, but they continue to be “spun” by the perpetrators and their supporters as “research”, or “solutions” integral to “climate action” deemed necessary to “save our planet”.

However, profit, and not just politics, may be a significant motivator, putting wealth before populations – as Time magazine reports, “Billionaires are obsessed with blocking out the sun…Among the world’s ultra-rich, plans to swat back the sun’s rays like they’re capital gains taxes (to, as it were, apply a generous helping of sunblock to the earth’s atmosphere) have seemingly been all the rage.” George Soros, Bill Gates, Dustin Moskovitz – are among the SRM supportive figures discussed, set to profit from economies driven by globalist political agendas that include technologies pertaining to an AI-driven smart future, climate change “mitigations” and sustainability.

We shouldn’t underestimate how important a political and economic tool UN-defined “climate change” is. “…The effects of climate change are increasingly being looked at through the lens of national security and intelligence,” according to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which has had great interest in the possibility of “modifying storms” with cloud seeding technology.

While Google seeks to monitor and guide aircraft contrail distribution with AI, the Met Office seeks to hypocritically police social media discourse to discourage discussion of “chemtrails” (as if chemical climate modification programs like cloud seeding and SAI/SRM aren’t happening). Meanwhile, over 350 academics including Frank Biermann (professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University, director of the ERC GlobalGoals project, founder of the Earth System Governance Project, and editor of the Earth System Governance journal) are urging an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering.

You can sign an open letter calling for an international non-use agreement on Solar Geoengineering at solargeoeng.org.

We all have our concerns about geoengineering and the motivations behind adopting climate modification technologies, and we should give a voice to those concerns. Writing to your government, as zerogeoengineering.com suggests is a good way to register your opposition to SRM and other toxic geoengineering experiments. The web site is also a good source of information.

Indigenous groups like the Sámi people of Northern Sweden have spurred objections to “blocking out the sun with reflective particles to cool the earth” stopping the the SCoPEx project’s progress there. Swedish solidarity against the technology shows us protest can be powerful.

Blogging, making films, journalling our observations of the skies, presenting evidence, informing ourselves and our communities, making it clear we don’t consent to geoengineering programs, we improve our awareness and consciousness about our environment and make the urgent topic of geoengineering more visible. We also become part of the debate instead of feeling outside of it.

If you are in the medical profession, or a scientist, you can highlight the issues, in your societies and journals, as Giovanni Ghirga did in the British Medical Journal. Whatever our background, by informing ourselves we can be articulate, and act to confront the problems. By uniting across borders in opposition to destructive geoengineering, we can be a powerful force protecting our collective health, environment and future.

Featured image: designed by Sean Alexander Carney