GMOs

YET ANOTHER ONE FOR THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: THE ...

April 21, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

Ms. C.W. sent this one to me, and it's another one to file in your transhumanism scrapbook. Before we get to it however, you'll recall that one of the things I talked about in Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men, was the implication that if there was genetic engineering involved in any genome or sequence, it was subject to patentability under U.S. law. Additionally, on this website, I have talked previously about the fact that, when one adds up all the various patents already taken out on this or that aspect of the human genome, pretty much the entire thing belongs to someone under some patent. Chief Injusice Roberts and the other injustices of The U.S. Supremes are slated to hear a case on human genome patentability soon.

Well, with that in mind, contemplate this:

"In vitro eugenics" straight from Brave New World

I want to point out the central quotation in this review...:

"Once researchers have succeeded in creating several generations of embryos in the laboratory in the course of researching the genetics of disease, a question will inevitably arise about implanting embryos created through in vitro eugenics into the womb of a woman in order to bring a new individual into the world. Moreover, this question is likely to arise with some urgency because of the potential of in vitro eugenics to serve as a powerful technology of ‘human enhancement’. If it becomes possible to breed human beings in vitro, it will be possible to use all of the techniques of artificial selection to produce embryos with desirable genomes. In effect, scientists will be able to breed human beings with the same (or greater) degree of sophistication with which we currently breed plants and animals. Importantly, there are currently several influential bioethicists [one being Julian Salvulescu] who argue that we are morally obligated—or, at least, have strong moral reasons to—enhance future human beings. Implanting embryos that have been bred for above-species-typical capacities into the wombs of willing women would be one way to achieve this goal."

...and now the conclusion the reviewer draws from it:

"After reading "In vitro eugenics" by Dr. Robert Sparrow in the Journal of Medical Ethics, I have to agree. Dr. Sparrow explores the possibility of creating embryos in the lab, then using the stem cells from those embryos to create egg and sperm cells, and then using those gametes to create more embryos. Essentially, this would take human reproduction into the laboratory not just for one generation, but for generation after generation. These embryos would be 'orphaned at conception.' They 'would have no genetic parents: there would be no living individual—or indeed individual that had ever lived—who could be described as the genetic progenitor of such embryos.'"

Now, let's ponder the not implausible speculative implications. With "no genetic parents" and "orphans at conception" these people could and would effectively be viewed - since they are the obvious products of genetic engineering - as someone's, as some corporation's, property, as a commodity. One can imagine some bank or "foundation fund" sponsoring a commodities exchange and a horrific traffic in human "property" beyond any horror one associates with prior slave traffic. One can imagine wicked people ordering up embryos and babies for whatever horrific practice of old they might wish to revive and practice and their "cremation of care" ceremonies in certain groves where they get together to play, perform ritual mock sacrifices, and plot world domination. Once there are sufficient numbers of such "properties" then the rest of us normal folks will no longer be needed (after all, in spite of all their best efforts, we're not quite property yet).

Now, as if that's not bad enough, there's a "worst case scenario", and that's the one I raised in Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men, and that is, what if the "original owner or owners" who in some scenarios engineered us suddenly shows up and tells the various nutjobs and eugenecists "no you don't, that's our property...."  Well, you take my point I think. It could get messy. Why, "they" and "we" might start shooting at each other. Forget about North Korea and Iran, that's all a sideshow. The last time I looked, those ancient texts that talked in terms of such scenarios also pointed out that the engineers of the time made us far too smart, so smart, in fact, that we were a threat, and had to be dumbed down a bit.

Which brings up the silver lining in this eugenicist dystopia (for that's always what the utopias of the financial oligarchs have turned out to be... think Nazi Germany, Soviet Union here... how'd those work out?). The silver lining has already been explored in any number of science fiction writings and movies: what if the engineered super-solider or special purpose baby doesn't particularly want to be a slave? (and try as they might, I don't think they'll be able to engineer that away). What if in spite of all the nano-implants and injections and drugs and Ewan Cameron-esque "psychic driving" the "new and improved human" proves every bit as recalcitrant to the powers that be as we are, and even more capable of doing something about it?

Worse yet, what if those engineered people got together with the original owner(s) and decided to do something about all of this?

Short answer: I don't think they'll be applying for a research grant from the Rockefailure Brothers' Fund or putting their galactic ducats in the Rottenchild Nimrod Group.

See you on the flip side.