Freedom is obsolete, go with genes

by Jon Rappoport February 18, 2014 www.nomorefakenews.com

Let's start here:

"A study on rats published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology showed that sound waves could be used to [reversibly] reduce sperm counts to levels that ca use infertility in humans...The concept...is now being pursued by researchers at the University of North Carolina who won a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gate s Foundation." - (BBC News/Health, Jan.29, 2012, reported at naturalnews.com).

After Darwin cast his view of evolution upon the waters, a notion that humans we re "naturally selected" bio-machines gained increasing consensus.

If Science could understand how a human was built, it could not only cure illnes s, it could change the inherent pattern of the body and brain. Evolution was mer ely a history of changes in the bio-machine.

Eventually, this position was taken to the full extreme. The Eugenics movement s prang up in America and Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruc tion.

In other words, evolution could be managed through depopulation. Some live, some die, some are genetically enhanced, some are not.

Through movies, through the press, through heavily promoted speculation- "we are on the verge of enormous breakthroughs in genetics"-the population is being pri med for a pseudo-philosophy of selection.

On the one hand we are fed "highly positive" assurances that designer genetics w ill enable the creation of smarter, more talented, stronger, healthier people of the future. On the other hand, we are told that the exigencies of "public healt h care" make it necessary to differentiate between "viable and non-viable" patie nts.

These two threads are woven together, and in the confusion people are giving in, more and more, to the idea of a New Eugenics.

At bottom is the un-debated question: IS A HUMAN A BIO-MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE?

Most academic philosophers will tell you the question itself is meaningless. Tha t's their way of skirting the issue of free will.

And any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

"There are only brains and those brains operate purely by genetic determinism."

And that opens the door to various versions of Eugenics. Because who can object to experiments on machines?

Lee Silver, an enthusiastic molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book , Remaking Eden, about the future of gene science in society. This is how he see s things playing out up the line:

"The GenRich-who account for ten percent of the American population-all carry sy nthetic 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 Ge nRich 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 cur rent human would have for a chimpanzee."

Go into a university department of genetics/molecular biology, or a department o f philosophy, and try to find a real discussion and debate about whether humans have free will, whether the human being is only a bio-machine. Good luck.

Individual freedom has been cut out of the equation.

But no one at the university level deems this a significant or disturbing fact.

Teachers are far more interested in "group values" and "consensus" and the decon struction of all ideas into an analysis of who benefits from having the ideas.

The rearranging of genes in humans has, for some time, been discussed openly in academic journals. The cat is out of the bag. Geneticists, biologists, social sc ientists, bio-ethicists are all weighing in.

And this is quite understandable, because not only do scientists tend to have a sense of their own superior entitlement and intelligence, they believe they're t inkering with (biological) machines. They might not phrase it that way, but that 's what it comes down to.

David King, writing at Human Genetics Alert, states:

"The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of geneti c testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prosp ect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut pre sented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we wan t to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these devel opments are inevitable."

That's the key idea. "There's nothing we can do now. The march of progress is un derway."

King continues:

"One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US g ene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, t o treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes wi ll be 'inadvertently' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well a s in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of th eir body."

But the gene enthusiasts don't care about what happens up the line to the descen dants. It's all part of the grand experiment. Spin the wheel, take a chance. If "we" don't like the outcome, spin the wheel again and see what happens. Eventual ly, we'll get it right.

One of the most enthusiastic proponents of human genetic engineering, Gregory St ock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, has written:

"Even if half the world's species were lost, enormous diversity would still rema in. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they w ill 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 a ctions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future."

And why should individual free will be an obstacle; that's just a superstitious fantasy; freedom was never real; there was always and only The Experiment; natur al selection, intentional selection-what's the difference? Scientific/medical/technological elitists are sitting at the table with many chi ps to play. They're betting that, in the long run, they will win, because they a re touting hypnotically entrancing "imperatives."

And uce hen es,

if by chance, they discover a reliable way sterility and infertility, they will see a who will control the technology? Wide-eyed or calculating operatives who work for the

to utilize gene insertion to prod path to quiet depopulation. And t futurists who teach at universiti hardest-line Globalists?

The current generation of scientists and academics who want to move full speed a head on engineering evolution aren't the old crusty scowling researchers from da ys gone by. They're enthused, they're daring, they look and dress like ex-hippie s who've moved to the suburbs. They're happy sociopaths spreading cheer. And the y talk like software designers operating on the bright cutting edge.

What could go wrong?

And to cement in the argument for engineering humans, there is the ever-popular fairness argument. Professor Julian Savalescu, of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for P ractical Ethics:

"Nature allots all sorts of abilities and talents in a random way. It's not fair , and I don't see why we should let people's lives be determined by the throw of a dice."

Unless throwing a pair of scientific dice results in multiplying catastrophes, o

r the use of workable genetic technology (if it really is workable) raises an un ending roar and riot from millions, even billions of people who claim they're be ing denied their right to be Equal.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who shou ld know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structu res are built to take its place.

These programs, like the genetic engineering of humans, are meant to erase the c onsciousness that freedom is important or even exists.