Genetic invasion: distorting the human future
Are you non-material, or just a programmed brain?
by Jon Rappoport
May 12, 2014
www.nomorefakenews.com
First, read these two quotes from highly regarded academic scientists, to catch the flavor of the genetic revolution:
From Lee Silver, Princeton, molecular biologist and author of Remaking Eden:
“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…
“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.
“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.
“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro[grammed]-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”
Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:
“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”
One scientist says we might lose half of all species getting where we want to go, genetically speaking, and the other says the process will inevitably be guided by wealth and the free market, thus creating two distinct classes of humans, the higher of which has far superior abilities -and they’ll run things.
Aren’t you thrilled? If you make it through, you may turn out to be half-biological, half-technological.
Plexiglass head, two cameras for eyes, titanium feet. Whatever.
But here’s a question. Suppose scientists could take a tiny sample of tissue from you and thereby produce a perfect clone, down to the last iota, including, of course, your brain.
Would that be you?
A surprising number of people think so. Just as they believe, with their brains frozen at death, they could come alive again when “the science has advanced far enough.”
Other people would say, “Well, the clone of me is not me, but if we could plant my memories in him, he’d be very close.”
All of this presupposes that the physical material of you is you…and there isn’t anything else to add.
I have news. That perfect clone of you is just going to stand there. Or if he moves, he’s going to operate as a machine. Programmed for every twitch.
“Yes, but if his programming is the same as mine, then who can tell the difference? What difference would there be?”
A world of difference.
You being you, wearing a human form, is a far cry from a machine that looks like you being a machine.
Discuss among yourselves. Discuss for a long time, because nothing more than the future of the human race is riding on this.
Perhaps you’ve noticed, in recent years, how the societal fixation on the human body and what it looks like is becoming massive.
From issues of race and gender to cosmetics to clothes to “performance” to medical interventions, it’s all about the person as if he’s already a clone, an android.
For the people with such an obsession, do you really think there is any hesitation about playing genetic roulette, other than official assurances of workability?
Here’s another clue. When they come calling with new genes, and when they insert them, when they use those genes “to make your brain better,” do you think the you that is you, independent of your physical form, is going to adapt?
“Well, I’ll just learn the new system. It’s like moving from a small apartment into a big house. You walk around, you get used to it.”
Really? Understand that the genetic enthusiasts don’t for a second believe there is any you to learn anything. To them, you’re just an operating system, and any system will function smoothly, as it’s directed to.
If wholesale genetic intervention takes hold, there are lots of very unpleasant surprises ahead.
Consider the psychiatric drugs like Zoloft and Paxil. You know, the drugs that scramble neurotransmitters like eggs in a cheap diner, and cause some people to commit suicide or randomly kill others. Now multiply the uncertainty of that effect by a hundred or a thousand, when wholesale genetic changes are enacted.
You were aiming to become the next Mozart? And instead you wound up burning down half the city? Just a glitch in the research. They’ll eventually iron out the problem. Take the long view. Don’t worry, be happy.
The debate comes down to who controls, yes, the philosophy. Not the science, the philosophy. Is each human merely and only a system, or is he non-material, inhabiting a physical form?
We already know what the vast majority of brain researchers and geneticists believe, as well as the governments and corporations and universities and foundations that make important decisions.
Of course, these days, the college faculty department considered to be the least important, the most useless, a mere appendage waiting for those with wisdom to put it out of its misery and kill it off…is the philosophy department.
That leaves us to take up the philosophic argument.
Not Lee Silver at Princeton or Gregory Stock or Bill Gates or George Soros or David Rockefeller or the Pope or Stephen Hawking or Obama or the Clintons or Monsanto or Dow or the Bush family or PBS or FOX or some wackadoodle at Harvard or MIT or UCLA.
Us.
Jon Rappoport
No comments:
Post a Comment