Transhumanism, Cybernetics, and Our Crying Need for the Return of the Divine Feminine

Or, how, despite lip service given to “feminism” (which, in practice, has pretty much morphed into women aping and competing with men in the job market), mechanics still threatens to take over biology.

I put the two following posts together, because together, they help us understand the depths to which the Cartesian world-view of the body/mind split still rules the unconscious of the scientistic worldview and includes, by the way, the still deeply powerful, biased attitude that the male is identified with the (light, bright, high and mighty, abstract and airy) mind, and the female with the (dark, ugly, low and debased, concrete and weighty) body.

Hint: For the authors of both posts, LOVE rules.

The first post is by a man! (YES! He gets it!):

The Transhumanist Scrapbook: Artificial Wombs and Motherless Births


“The age of motherless birth approaches…” That says it all.

And it is this I find so disturbing. There will doubtless be some who view the whole notion as a great boon to humanity: parents unable to have children for whatever reasons of health, a woman unable to bear children but who nevertheless wants them, might, should the arc of technological development suggested in the two articles continue, be able to do so. And of course, all of this will be “sold” to humanity as a good thing. Call me a Luddite, if you will, but I am not so sure. Far from it. Our earliest contact with other human beings occurs in our mother’s womb. We hear her heartbeat and breathing and conversation. We might hear, even, distant and muffled, our father’s voice. But our human development begins there and not, as some would have it, outside the womb. Our personhood begins there in that primordial ocean, surrounded by the muffled voices of a community of remote indecipherable gods from the get-go.

But now our technology threatens to take away even this most primordial humanizing experience, and, if one read between the lines a bit, it is a profoundly anti-feminine, anti-female agenda that it portends; it is a kind of technological rendering of superfluousness of the feminine and the female that I find so disquieting about this, for our first human interactions, whether we are male or female, is in the womb, with our mothers. We can imagine, of course, the kind of totally “technotronic era” envisioned by twisted minds, where everything is plotted and planned by the great corporate state: this seminal sample will be matched with that egg sample, be born in an Ehrlenmeyer flask, and nurtured in a test-tube tank with the appropriate “nutrients” monitored by cold and remote technicians until the “time of birthing,” when it will all be disconnected and, perhaps like Neo, flushed out of the system, or handed over to pre-selected “parents” to raise “it.” Of course, the scientismists will object that they can play pre-recorded conversations of the selected parents in the artificial “womb” and thus head off all possibility of whatever dehumanizing might occur. And this, of course, is the reduction. And we can envision more horrors of the reductionist kind as well, for “as the age of motherless birth approaches,” so too, the age of fatherless conception must lie not far behind. And once the scientismists bring us there, with fatherless conceptions and motherless wombs and births, one can imagine the inevitable psychological impact.

And it will all continue until some bright(or really, just common sensical) psychologist notices that “something tends to be wrong” with the portion of the population “birthed” (or even “conceived”) in this way, because the bottom line, folks, in spite of all attempts to reduce it to merely material processes or chemical reactions or statistics, is that love is not a material quantizable phenomenon, and anyone who tells you otherwise, is lying, and knows he (or she) is lying.


And the second is by a woman who is attempting to clearly say why we must stay away from mechanics when we are trying to understand either our own biology or the workings of Mother Nature. A complex discussion of the words “economy,” “ecology,” and “ecosophy,” different philosophical interpretations of each, what they have in common, the differences between them, and how we need to learn how to think and act in a new (old) way about our home planet (the prefix”eco,” from the ancient Greek, means “house” or “household”), to have even a slim hope of survival (not to mention thrival!) during these perilous times.

Ecosophy: Nature’s Guide to a Better World


We know there is something obsolete, something hopelessly immature, about the competing and fighting and grabbing going on at the highest levels of human society. After all, those are the very things we teach our children not to do to each other. The Occupy Movement that began in North Africa, moved to the Middle East, came ‘round the Mediterranean to Spain and swept across to America was a natural outburst against such destructive and immature behavior. In many places, Occupy has been a peaceful and overtly loving process.6 It is most surely part of the wake-up call to humanity.

Love and other values lost to consumerism are pouring back into our lives like fresh water. Community as a concept, finally having lost the taint of its association with communism, is in wonderful revival as local self-sufficiency and sustainability become very human and very practical goals in an uncertain world. Caring and sharing are replacing competing and grabbing, in no small measure due to the increasing empowerment of women, who have always held these values. Indeed, many of us see this as a growing-up, as the maturation of humanity. As an evolution biologist and futurist, I find this view entirely compatible with my own theory of a repeating evolutionary cycle of maturation.7

Values such as caring and sharing made little sense in a meaningless, purposeless material universe operating by mathematically describable scientific laws, including the law of entropy. But western science is not the only source of universal law and there is a considerable revival of the Perennial Philosophy—the universal truths found common to all religions and popularized in the West by Aldous Huxley, 8 as well as other compilations of universal laws honored in various ancient cultures (e.g., Vedic Indian and ancient Egyptian as attributed to Hermes Trismegistos, elaborated in contemporary scientific terms by Marja de Vries).9 These ancient laws, based on human inquiries into cosmology, have to do with Oneness, Correspondence (as in ‘As above, so below’), Vibrations (cosmic energy waves), Polarity, Rhythm, Cause and Effect and Dynamic Balance. Further, such laws are in complete harmony with contemporary findings in physics.


In high technology societies, many people are now promoting the observation of nature to learn clean, non-toxic production,26 full recycling,27 ‘Natural Capitalism,’28 ethical markets29 and fair finance.30 Integrating all of these with a myriad peacekeeping and human potential efforts we can see it is possible for us to develop ecosophies.

The perfect storm of crises we now face may well prove to be the challenge that drives us into our greatest evolutionary leap. Economy must be made subservient to ecology if we want to continue our life on Earth as a healthy, embedded global human society. Economy based on principles of a conscious universe’s mature ecosystems, including that of our bodies, becomes Ecosophy. We know deep in our hearts and souls that this must be done; all we need is the courage to lead the way for all!


Here’s to partnership, between men and women, between the male and female archetypes inside us all, between humans and our common “household.”

The two really are one. One plus one is one.

We belong to each other, and we belong to the Earth.

Sorry. Couldn’t figure out how to load this terrific dance of the two as one. Via Cousin Ben.









This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *