

by Sergey Baranov 7 November 2014 from GrahamHancock Website



Source: Wikimedia

"Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor"



"Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just 'responsible parenting', claims an eminent Oxford academic"



"By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out"



"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring - rather than consigning them to the natural lottery - then we should."



"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance." (1) Well, apparently, to me as a father, responsible parenting means something completely different from what it obviously means to an Oxford professor.



I'm glad I'm not a part of an academic establishment and my life does not depend on government grants. Thus, being a free thinker, I would rather say that genetically modified babies would mean the end of humanity as we know it.



I'm sure you are familiar with the term " Eugenics ", but just in case you aren't, here is a brief overview: Eugenics is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic heritage of human species. It's aimed to produce a more "desirable" people thus, allegedly, improving the human race.



It began with Sir Francis Galton, a pioneer of eugenics who gave it a name in 1883. During the first decade of the 20th century, eugenics grew into a social movement and became an academic discipline. Galton was inspired by the work of his cousin Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. But even though Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest had a natural way of selection, Galton took it a step further and proposed selection by force. That has resulted in eugenics policies and programs like compulsory sterilization, birth control, marriage restrictions, racial segregation and forced abortions gone wild.



When the eugenics mindset was adapted by Hitler, who was obsessed with the idea of racial superiority and the Aryan race while inspired by the eugenics philosophy, genocide followed. His obsession resulted in the loss of millions of innocent lives. Certain ethnic groups were declared inferior and thus not worthy of living. The holocaust was one of the expressions of this sick mentality also known as racism. Considering the historical facts, it would be nearly impossible to believe in eugenicists' altruism. If the hijackers of science would have humanity's best interest at heart, they would use it to improve life on Earth for everyone, not only for themselves. They would use science to tackle diseases, famine and poverty rather than targeting those who are affected by such calamities.



Deeming people unworthy of living and seen as unfit is the true face of the eugenic elite to which we the people are simply "useless eaters" who need a gene hygiene.



Quite recently we saw a worldwide protest against Monsanto , whose genetically modified organisms , which some people call "food", are posing a serious threat to our health and environment. (2)

It would be bad enough if we would only see GM corn or soy beans on our menu. (3)



But things have progressed much further. Genetically modified fish is now threatening to disrupt and distort the whole ecosystem. (4)



As the information is breaking loose and people are becoming more conscious and aware of the danger of genetically modified organisms released into the environment and causing all kinds of health problems including tumors and organ failure as the recent studies suggest, (5) the corporate heads came up with "solution". When our organs will fail due to the consumption of Frankenfood , we will be able to replace them with new ones, grown for us in pigs! Pigs, they say, are almost our relatives! (6) Here is what they say: "Next to apes, pigs are pretty good matches for humans, physiologically speaking ". Well, when I look at pigs, I don't see anything in common with humans, not physiologically, not emotionally, not mentally and most definitely not spiritually. The only thing we share in common is a desire to live - one feature seen among all living beings on Earth, which is hardly noticed by science, much less by the proponents of eugenics.



So they've got us covered! Like the food and pharmaceutical industries : one is damaging our health

another is selling us drugs to repair the damage, or shall we say to suppress the symptoms? But I digress.... The point being is that if we think that Frankenfood is the peak of the madness, we should think about Frankensteins coming from the labs! (7)



Among other things, Dwight Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States has warned us that: "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific technological elite." (8) Is it not what we are witnessing today?



How much bigger should be our outrage when we learn about scientific proposals to genetically modify our kids? And this modification is only a beginning. Human-animal hybrids are already on the way! (9)



Don't we realize that monsters are coming and human rights would likely be claimed by these new life-forms? So far as a society we can't even protect the rights of humans, let alone clones. It's also important to remember that the State will be the legal parent of these creatures. Just think about the implications! What will happen to the human race, when it begins marrying and mixing with lab made human-animal hybrids?

Do we realize that this scientific nightmare will not end soon after we devour our popcorn while watching a sci-fi movie on the big screen?



How can we trust the scientists to mess with human DNA when only 3% of it is understood, the rest of it they have declared to be a " junk DNA " - a label given to 97% of human DNA which function has not yet been identified? Some scientists are saying that, "junk DNA has little specificity and conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism". However, there are others, who went even further by claiming that non-coding (junk) DNA was "selfish" and even detrimental since it was parasitic. In other words, that which hasn't been understood by science is dismissed as invalid, declared as void and even deemed as harmful!



And these are the folks who are playing God?



In his article, oxford Professor Julian Savulescu, has made an attempt to separate himself from the eugenics movement by saying that people would have a choice: "unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favor when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children." But what choice do we have now that makes us think that more of it we'll have in the future? George Carlin has put it best: As we moving towards totalitarism as a human society, it isn't difficult to picture a future in which birth licenses would be issued and a mandatory embryo screening required, obligating the parents to do all necessary genetic modifications "advised" by the medical doctors. There is already talk about whether the doctor should be able to override the parents: "If the doctor feels that the parents' decision is being made in unreasonable manner, he should be able to go to some other body with the authority to override the parents. I don't think it should be just the doctor. A hospital ethics committee is better than a court, but a court is also a possibility." Proposes Peter Singer (10) So it well can be that like the one child policy in China, we soon will see a, "no child policy unless genetically screened and modified". In other words it would simply mean that no one would be allowed to have children unless approved by the government which will make it illegal to do it any other way. History is full of those examples. Among other states which implemented eugenics programs in the early 20th century, were North Carolina, which implemented it the longest, from 1929 to 1974 thousands of black and poor women were "persuaded" by the state and forced by other means to be sterilized.(11) And as Mark Twain have said: "history rhymes" (meaning that history repeats itself), we should be concerned about it. In his speech the professor admits that, "by screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out. In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future." But considering the fact that the ruling class is authoritarian and eugenics at heart, it's highly unlikely that people will have any choice.



I wonder if I have to point out the likelihood of future generations being engineered as docile, obedient and apathetic at birth, guaranteeing that the status quo remains unchallenged. These clones would hardly have anything human other than human tissues. They would be artificial creatures devoid of humanness. I think the best way to understand this matter is to read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley or watch the film.



His brilliant work is the best testimony for what is coming if both mad scientists and the control freaks behind them are not stopped.



Bertrand Russell made a curious statement in "The Impact of Science on Society" in 1951: "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so." Do Russell's words sound any different than those of the Oxford professor? The only difference I see is in the methods of achieving the same exact goal.



Why not to leave us alone and let us, parents, to decide for ourselves what's ethical and what are our moral obligations?



Often we see how evil is done in the name of the good, like the wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq, all has been sold to us as being "humanitarian" missions rescuing people by delivering them democracy packed in the "peace" bombs which are then kindly dropped on their heads for the sake of their freedom. It seems to me that same exactly pattern is re-appearing here - breeding us out of existence for our own good by using medical science for political gain.



After all, we are just a commodity. (12)

SOURCES http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/19/gmos-give-rats-huge-tumors-organ-damage

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/02/monsantos-roundup-linked-to-over-40-different-plant-diseases-and-endangers-human-health.aspx

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/genetically-engineered-fish/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/246171/human-organs-grown-in-pigs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2011/07/the-scientific-dictatorship-explained/

http://singularityhub.com/2011/07/26/uk-plans-for-human-animal-genetic-hybrids/

http://www.salon.com/2001/06/25/singer_2/

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/eugenics-compensation-closes-sad-history-2150719

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/02/peter-singer-babies-are-a-commodity-so-abortion-and-infanticide-okay/ Return to Synthetic Life - Robotoids, Parasites and Artificial Humans Return to Genetically Modified Organisms - Foods and Others Return to Transhumanism