NEW WEF Initiative: “Defining and Building the METAVERSE”


WEF Launches ‘Metaverse’ Initiative, Predicts Digital Lives Will Become ‘More Meaningful to Us Than Our Physical Lives’

The World Economic Forum and major corporations last month launched its “Defining and Building the Metaverse” initiative, with corporate stakeholders jockeying for a role in defining, developing — and profiting — from the technology.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) and major corporations, following talks at last month’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, launched a new initiative: “Defining and Building the Metaverse.”

As the initiative’s name implies, its stakeholders are still in the process of defining exactly what the term “metaverse” means.

However, according to the WEF, in part, the metaverse involves a moment “at which our digital lives­ — our online identities, experiences, relationships, and assets — become more meaningful to us than our physical lives.”

One person involved in the talks, Julia Goldin, LEGO’s chief product & marketing officer, expressed optimism about how the metaverse could aid in children’s development:
“To us, the priority is to help create a world in which we can give kids all the benefits of the metaverse — one with immersive experiences, creativity and self-expression at its core — in a way that is also safe, protects their rights and promotes their well-being.”

While the talks focused somewhat on how to definitively define the term “metaverse,” there was also a great deal of focus on who should be involved in — and potentially profit from — its development.

Those involved in the talks positioned themselves to “develop and share actionable strategies for creating and governing” an “interoperable and safe” metaverse.

There also were extensive discussions on providing “guidance on how to create an ethical and inclusive metaverse, engaging organizations across the private and public sectors, including business, civil society, academia and regulators.”

The WEF described the initiative as “bringing together leading voices from the private sector, civil society, academia and policy” to “define the parameters” of the metaverse’s future development.

A May 25 session — “Shaping a Shared Future: Making the Metaverse” — included the following panelists:

Chris Cox, chief product officer of Facebook’s parent company, Meta.
Peggy Johnson, CEO of Magic Leapdescribed by the WEF as “a spatial computing company building the next computing platform.”

Philip Rosedale, founder of Linden Lab, which developed the “Second Life” virtual world, acquired in April by Meta.

Andrew R. Sorkin, financial columnist for The New York Times and co-anchor of CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Omar Sultan Al Olama, minister of state for artificial intelligence in the United Arab Emirates, appointed in 2017.

Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of global affairs who was formerly deputy prime minister of the U.K., said the “multistakeholder initiative” aims to assume a leading role in establishing and shaping the metaverse.

The WEF said early stakeholders will play a particularly significant role in this process:
“‘Defining and Building the Metaverse’ is the world’s foremost multistakeholder initiative to develop and share actionable strategies for creating and governing the metaverse.
“By providing a space for global leaders in industry, civil society and government, the initiative will share and accelerate insights and solutions that will bring the metaverse to life.

“By joining the initiative, members are playing a vital role in defining and building the metaverse.”

Building a ‘metaverse’ that hasn’t yet been definitively defined
Though as its name implies, part of the initiative’s goal is to define “metaverse,” the WEF did offer this highly broad, general definition:

“ … a future persistent and interconnected virtual environment where social and economic elements mirror reality. Users can interact with it and each other simultaneously across devices and immersive technologies while engaging with digital assets and property.”
This expands on the “simplest” definition of the metaverse provided by the WEF, which described it as “a unified and persistent virtual environment accessed via extended reality (XR) technologies.”

The WEF said the metaverse is most usefully seen “as a lens through which to view ongoing digital transformation,” based on the belief that “virtual worlds, incorporating connected devices, blockchain and other tech will be so commonplace that the metaverse will become an extension of reality itself.”

More specific definitions of the metaverse, however, “can develop in many ways, depending on research, innovation, investment and policy,” the WEF said.
According to the WEF, the metaverse “can be categorized into three schools of thought,” which include:

The metaverse “as a product or service.”

The metaverse “as a place where users can connect, interact, and transfer themselves and their belongings across multiple digital locations,” such as “gaming and creator platforms.”
The metaverse as a moment “at which our digital lives­ — our online identities, experiences, relationships, and assets — become more meaningful to us than our physical lives” — a definition described by the WEF in its article as “compelling.”

Despite the WEF’s ambiguous definition of the metaverse as a concept, the organization is definite in predicting its impacts and its value for major (and real-world) corporations and businesses:

“This will have significant impacts on society. Just as the internet and smartphones transformed our social and commercial interactions, the metaverse could change the way people and businesses communicate, and operate, in innovative yet unpredictable ways.”
The WEF’s new initiative will focus on two key areas, or “action tracks:” metaverse governance, and the generation of “economic and societal value.” The WEF “will explore themes across regulatory frameworks, technology choices and economic opportunities.”
More specifically, “metaverse governance” refers to a commitment by members of the initiative to recommend “governance frameworks for interoperable, safe and inclusive metaverse ecosystems.”

According to the WEF, “this entails finding harmonization between regulation and innovation in order to develop interoperability while preserving user privacy and safety.”
In turn, “generating economic and societal value” will involve members of the initiative sharing and accelerating “insights and solutions that will bring the metaverse to life.”
The WEF said that “in doing so, they will map new value chains and business models across industries, identifying elements and use cases that provide economic opportunity.”
Industry ‘stakeholders’ eye profit-making potential of ‘metaverse’

The initiative’s “generating economic and societal value” action track belies what may lie at the heart of the WEF’s efforts to set the rules of engagement in the metaverse while it is still in its nascent state.

More than 60 corporate “stakeholders” have signed on to the initiative thus far, including several Big Tech firms, such as Meta, Microsoft, Taiwanese consumer electronics firm HTC, and Sony Interactive, accompanied by Walmart, the LEGO Group, as well as academics and representatives of civil society.

Many of these stakeholders may be enticed by the growth potential of the metaverse market, which Bloomberg predicted will grow to $800 billion by 2024.

Examples of this are already evident. For instance, according to the WEF, the popular Fortnite video game “sells over $3 billion of digital cosmetic items to players each year, making it a larger apparel company by sales than several global fashion houses.”

Given the market potential, it’s not surprising executives from several Big Tech companies, and from the WEF itself, warmly praised the WEF’s new initiative.

For instance, Jeremy Jurgens, the WEF’s managing director, stated:

“‘The Defining and Building the Metaverse’ initiative provides the industry with an essential toolkit for ethically and responsibly building the metaverse.

“This will help ensure that we can fully harness this vital medium for social and economic interconnectivity in an inclusive, ethical and transformative manner.”
Meta’s Clegg added:

“The metaverse is at an early stage in its development. Done well, the metaverse could be a positive force for inclusion and equity, bridging some of the divides that exist in today’s physical and digital spaces.

“That’s why the ‘Defining and Building the Metaverse’ initiative will be so valuable. It mustn’t be shaped by tech companies on their own. It needs to be developed openly with a spirit of cooperation between the private sector, lawmakers, civil society, academia and the people who will use these technologies.

“This effort must be undertaken in the best interests of people and society, not technology companies.”

Brad Smith, president and vice chair of Microsoft, remarked:

“While the metaverse is in its nascent stage, we believe it has the potential to deliver enhanced connections for everyone.

“As an industry it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure this new paradigm is developed in a way that is accessible for everyone, puts the needs of people first, enhances human connection and is developed securely with trust built in by design.”

Cher Wang, founder and chairwoman of HTC, described the metaverse as “inevitable,” saying:

“The metaverse is the next inevitable step in the evolution of the internet but will require comprehensive collaboration between all ecosystem stakeholders to make it an open, safe and secure environment.

“As such, this Forum initiative is a robust start to addressing the key technology and policy fundamentals to enable the metaverse to fulfill its boundless potential.”

Similarly, Magic Leap’s Peggy Johnson expressed excitement over the transformations the metaverse could deliver, including in areas such as healthcare:

“At Magic Leap, we are excited about how technologies like augmented reality will transform the way we live and work, especially in growing fields like healthcare, manufacturing and the public sector.

“To realize the potential of these technologies, a thoughtful framework for regulation that protects users and facilitates future innovation is required, supported by all stakeholders, including businesses, consumers, government, NGOs and academia.”

Yat Sui, co-founder and chairman of Animoca Brands, a Hong Kong-based game software company, described the metaverse’s potential in the realm of “digital ownership”:

“Animoca Brands is pleased to be a part of the inaugural metaverse initiative launched by the World Economic Forum and we look forward to a dialogue with our industry colleagues as we navigate the potential of true digital ownership in the open metaverse.”

Others, such as Dr. Inhyok Cha, CEO of South Korean IT service management company CJ Olive Networks and group chief digital officer of CJ Corporation, praised the WEF’s new initiative for its potential to help stakeholders overcome “unforeseen complexities:”
“The rapid advancement and adoption of the metaverse will create unforeseen complexities in terms of governance, ethics, social and industrial effects.

“Thus, the need for collective intelligence to anticipate, analyze, design, experiment on and constantly revise governance measures and frameworks will be crucial.”

Who will govern the ‘metaverse’?

Inhyok’s remarks reflect questions also acknowledged by the WEF about who will “govern” the metaverse, and in what manner.

Specifically, the WEF describes metaverse governance as “a multifaceted challenge which needs to consider interoperability, privacy, safety and security.”

According to the WEF, “real-world governance models” represent one possible option for metaverse governance.

However, far from referring to constitutionally defined institutions of governance, with checks and balances, the WEF cites Facebook’s “Oversight Board” as an example of such a “real-world governance model.”

However, according to the WEF, “not all legislators are satisfied” with such models, citing, for instance, new regulations such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which will police content moderation and “disinformation” on social media platforms.

Other potential governance models cited by the WEF include user-based systems modeled on blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Tech companies eager to develop the technologies of the future ‘metaverse’
For Big Tech companies, the potential profitability and revenue streams offered by the metaverse go hand in hand with the companies’ ability to develop the technologies that will be used to create the metaverse.

Indeed, the WEF tells us “major technology companies including Apple, Google, Meta Platforms (Facebook), Microsoft, Niantic and Valve are developing the tech that will shape the future of the metaverse.”

The WEF goes on to add that the metaverse will be shaped by three potential technological innovations, including “virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and brain-computer interfaces (BCI).”

While VR and AR may be familiar to many, BCI represents the most ambitious of these three technological tracks — and may belie the true intentions of the WEF and the “stakeholders” of this new initiative.

Specifically, BCI aims “to replace screens and physical hardware entirely.”
The WEF refers to technology such as Neuralink, that “requires neurosurgery to implant devices in the brain,” as an example of BCI.

Alibaba Group President J. Michael Evans during the meeting gushed over“individual carbon footprint trackers” — resembling “personal carbon allowance” technology previously reported on by The Defender.

Similarly, Nokia CEO Pekka Lundmark predicted that by 2030, “smartphones will be implanted directly into the body,” surely facilitating the expansion of the metaverse. Source

I am praying that God will intervene in this mad man’s plans. We know that God is in control, so if the metaverse actually comes to fruition, then this will be used by God to fulfill Bible Prophecy.

Keep praying and keep sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the lost!


FROM 2006: “To Save the Planet, Kill 90 Percent of People Off,” Says UT Ecologist: And He Got a Standing Ovation

I think there have been numerous board meetings about killing at least 90% of us off to save “Mother Earth.” The Georgia Guide Stones, which was built in 1980, really got the ball rolling on this planned Culling of Humanity.

From From 2006

At first, I thought someone was making a really stupid April Fool’s joke, but apparently it is true that the Texas Distinguished Scientist of 2006, University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka told a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science that 90 percent of his fellow human beings must die in order to save the planet. A very disturbed Forrest M. Mims III — Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, writing at The Citizen Scientist — reported:

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.

Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

The Seguin, Tex. Gazette-Enterprise also reported another recent doomsday talk by Pianka:

A University of Texas professor says the Earth would be better off with 90 percent of the human population dead.

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward’s University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.

Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

“This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”

*********Remember – this is from 2006!

Professor Pianka is apparently a brilliant herpetologist, but like brilliant Stanford University entomologist Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb nearly 40 years ago, he is completely ignorant of economics and demography. Pianka might start alleviating his ignorance by reading some of the analyses by Jesse Ausubel, head of the Human Environment Program at Rockefeller University. Relying on human creativity and wealth creation, Ausubel foresees the 21st century as the beginning of the Great Restoration of the natural environment.

Admittedly, predicting a bright future for humanity and the planet has never made anybody rich or famous, but at least such forecasters have the satisfaction of knowing that they are right. Source

Tucker Carlson interviews Pianka many years ago:

From From 2006


An audience at the Texas Academy of Science was given a disturbing view into the mind and morals of a respected scientist on March 3 when Eric Pianka accepted the academy’s 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award.

An audience at the Texas Academy of Science was given a disturbing view into the mind and morals of a respected scientist on March 3 when Eric Pianka accepted the academy’s 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award.

Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas, described human beings as a “scourge” on the Earth, called for a police state to ensure mandatory sterilization of all U.S. citizens, and rooted for the lethal Ebola virus to mutate into an airborne form that might kill 90 percent of the people on Earth.

Forrest Mims, chairman of the academy’s Environmental Science Section, began taking notes on Pianka’s speech after an audience member was prohibited from filming the presentation. Another member of the audience surreptitiously turned on an audiocassette recorder.

The notes and partial transcript of the disjointed, rambling speech are eerily reminiscent of the Unabomber manifesto, in which Ted Kasczinski called for the destruction of technology and the death of people who in any way affect the Earth’s environment.

Made Bizarre Statements

During his acceptance speech Pianka said, “We need to change our tax system so that you’re taxed for having kids rather than getting a reward,” as quoted in the April 6, 2006 Pearcey Report.

“After the human population collapses, there’s going to be a lot fewer of us. Food’s going to be diminished. Pollution’s going to go down, which will be good. The bird flu’s good, too.”

Pianka continued, “The reason China was able to turn the corner and is gonna become the new super power in the world is because they got a police state and they can force people to stop reproducing.

“Instead of being cursed with our fertility, I would bless us with infertility,” Pianka said. “I asked a reproductive physiologist years ago about this. I said, ‘Could you design a molecule that you could administer once that would bind to the DNA to turn off reproduction and make people sterile?’ And he said, yeah, theoretically. And I said, well, if you did that could you design an antidote that would unmask it just briefly for a few seconds? And he said, yeah, probably. So this is what we need. We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth [laughter] and make the antidote freely available to anybody who’s willing to work for it.

“Immediately you’d get responsible parenthood,” Pianka explained. “No more juvenile delinquents, unwanted kids. You have a kid, you had to work, and you had only a few seconds to do it in.”

Cheered for Ebola Deaths

In a March 31 column in The Citizen Scientist, a biweekly publication of the Society for Amateur Scientists, Mims noted a few other striking comments from the Texas Academy of Science award winner. “One of Pianka’s earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, ‘We’re no better than bacteria!'” Mims pointed out.

Added Mims, “AIDS is not an efficient killer, [Pianka] explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.”

Students, Profs Gave Ovation

The most disturbing aspect of the speech, according to Mims, was not Pianka’s ideas, but rather the reaction of the university students and so-called intelligentsia in attendance.

Observed Mims, “There was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola.”

The ovation was nearly unanimous, Mims notes. “Almost every scientist, professor, and college student present stood to their feet and vigorously applauded the man who had enthusiastically endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population,” Mims wrote. “Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern to extend greetings and ask questions. … Five hours later, the distinguished leaders of the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.”

Dangerous Times

“We live in dangerous times,” explained Mims in his article. “The national security of many countries is at risk. Science has become tainted by highly publicized cases of misconduct and fraud.

“Must now we worry that a Pianka-worshipping former student might someday become a professional biologist or physician with access to the most deadly strains of viruses and bacteria? … I still can’t get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate for the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings.” (emphasis added) Source

And here we are, brothers and sisters in Christ, in the most insane times we could ever imagine. Think about all of those scientists giving that creature a standing ovation over his idea of killing over 90% of humanity with disease.

Ebola was the disease of choice. And this was 16 years ago. Today, the monsters are hiding behind the C-19 Jabs. Can you imagine Gates or Fauci coming on TV and blatantly confessing that their bioweapons which they will use for the culling process is Ebola or Smallpox; or any other KILLER virus which is being cooked up in their Bio Labs?

Demonic, isn’t it?

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).


Biden Administration Forces K-12 Gender Ideology Compliance with Lunch Money Threat: Special Place in Hell

I do believe there is a special place in hell reserved for those who harm children.

“Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones”

Luke 17:1-2


The Biden administration has tethered federal school lunch funding to compliance with gender identity ideology, including whether a school allows boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms.

The move comes as the Biden administration is using heavy-handed measures to enshrine gender ideology into federal law.

Biden’s Department of Agriculture announced earlier this month that in order for schools to receive funds for student lunches, breakfasts, and other food items, it must comply with its interpretation of the ban on discrimination based on sex in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and other food-related programs, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

“USDA is committed to administering all its programs with equity and fairness, and serving those in need with the highest dignity,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a press release. “A key step in advancing these principles is rooting out discrimination in any form – including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“At the same time, we must recognize the vulnerability of the LGBTQI+ communities and provide them with an avenue to grieve any discrimination they face,” the secretary continued. “We hope that by standing firm against these inequities we will help bring about much-needed change.”
Critics of the move are concerned with the Biden administration’s willingness to “play[] politics with feeding poor kids,” according to Indiana Non-Public Education Association executive director John Elcesser, speaking with the Federalist.

During full-time, in-person schooling, the National School Lunch Program feeds nearly 30 million children every day in both public and private institutions. Even during the coronavirus pandemic, the program still maintained feeding 22.6 million children every day.

To receive such assistance under the new rule, the Biden administration is forcing schools to comply with allowing boys to use girls’ changing and restroom facilities as well as sleeping areas, and forcing teachers to use inaccurate pronouns to describe children who believe they are transgender.
“If a school feels like they cannot participate because it’s in conflict with their mission or values, if a religious exemption is not granted, you’re taking away a program that’s feeding low-income kids,” Elcesser continued.

But to the Biden administration, “today’s notice further affirms USDA’s efforts to dismantle barriers that historically underserved communities have faced in accessing its programs and services.”
While some religious institutions could be eligible for an exemption, no government school will be able to seek exemption from the rule — leaving it up to parents and individual school districts to fight the rule in court.

The move, however, is in line with Biden’s day-one Executive Order telling federal agencies to implement rules based on gender ideology. It, and other moves from the Biden administration, have helped promote sex change operations for children in which genitals are mutilated and replaced with prosthetics — oftentimes before or during puberty.

Much of the power to make this decision also appears to come from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by the Court’s liberal wing, read transgender protections into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Still, critics of the USDA rule believe it even exceeds the Bostock ruling.
“The Biden administration is grossly extending the Bostock holding where it does not belong,” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) told the Federalist. “Like many of the Biden administration’s power grabs, this imposition transgresses areas of proper state and local authority. As the principal guardians of federalism, state attorneys general have the ability to combat such overreach where it injures state functions.” Source

Can you imagine the fury of God when He sees the slaughter of our pre-born and the poisoning of the minds of our children? His Wrath is coming – we can be sure of that!