I really didn’t intend to lose track of this for this long but life happens.
1.) I looked around a bit and I see that the name of this blog has been used by others before me so I promise I’m not trying to steal someone’s idea or rip someone off. When I figure out how to change the blog name I will attempt to do so.
2.) The last time I was active on here there was an incident that I was rightly called out on for which I want to apologize here for. I do not intend nor have I ever intended to use this blog to attack any individuals. In my zeal to go after certain concepts I disagreed with and still do I crossed that line and I was wrong to do so. No excuses.
End of housekeeping. :)
On to the business at hand.
This story is making its rounds and caught my attention:
“Why is the scientific world abuzz about an unpublished paper? Because it could permanently change human DNA”
Let me get the obvious statement out of the way: Imagine what’s still classified?
“Although the embryos would be for study only, and not intended for implantation,”
Wow, I feel so much better.
I don’t believe it. Simple as that and especially when we start taking into consideration classified concepts.
It’s common knowledge that anything like this that gets very carefully trickled out to the mainstream is a good 15-20 years behind where things are at and that’s a very conservative figure. I’ve read and heard higher figures from numerous credible sources that are astounding if they are true but I want to keep things as modest as I can. 15-20 years ahead of the streets is still pretty impressive isn’t it?
It’s scary when it comes to something like this.
“The science is moving much faster than the ethics”
An amazing understatement to be sure but it begs the question: What ethics?
This is playing God here and treating DNA like changing coats out of the closet when we still know very little about how it *really* works regardless of what some of these people say. Who do we think we are? Really?
Let me argue out of both sides of my mouth on this because despite my grave concerns about this I know this sort of discussion has come up before and most certainly will again:
What if you have a baby and you identify that it’s going to have (fill in the blank with some dreadful disease here) and you see it coming and you can fix it. What’s wrong with doing that?
Worded like that? Nothing.
I think we know it’s not that simple, though.
Let me make some obvious statements here:
Yes, I want the cure for cancer. Several family members of mine were struck down by it. Yes, I want the cure for Alzheimers. At least one family member was struck down with that. I’m not anti-science and I’m not anti-research if we are responsible and ethical. Believe me, I get it, and I’m all for it when it’s done right. Capisce? :)
I do happen to be in the camp that strongly suspects that the high elites of the world have access to these cures for themselves and their ilk but I digress.
If I were a new parent up at bat and I had that option I won’t lie to you: I’d be sorely tempted to move on it if I had an absolute guarantee it would be perfectly safe. The likelihood would be high that I would do it and I don’t like that.
From there we can quickly into a deeper and more philosophical discussion. If you don’t believe in God you don’t care. If you are an evolutionist you don’t care. This is a no brainer, it’s yes all the way without hesitation and with probably not many limitations.
If you do believe in God and especially if you are a Christian it becomes more complicated.
Here is an example of the kind of discussion that can come up and easily elevate into an argument: “Was that the way God intended that baby to be created for whatever reason and are we interfering with His will/playing God?” vs “if we have the means to make life and better improve it how could God be against that and maybe it’s His will to allow us to go there and fix that.” I probably worded all of that poorly but hopefully you can get the general thrust of both sides of that coin.
That’s a complicated discussion. It’s a discussion we all had better be getting prepared to have at some point sooner than we think because if we are seeing things like this being carefully trickled out into the mainstream on an ever increasing basis then you can be assured that whatever is still classified would make our heads spin.
Bottom line: The future is now.
With the medical advancements come concerns of “designer babies” or a 21st-century version of eugenics.
It’s already here and a done deal. It’s just a question of how long it takes to trickle out into mainstream circles with a certain gradualism which is how everything else has been handled in our technocracy for the last number of decades. If you want to understand exactly how this all works I can’t recommend Patrick Wood’s Technocracy Rising book strongly enough.
Please let me make this clear: I certainly recognize that there are plenty of good and ethical people working in the sciences. I’ve known at least one person for pushing 20 years now… hard to believe… who works in that field that I consider a friend, too. :)
These people will increasingly find themselves potentially in a dilemma at some point in the future where they may have to make some tough choices. Some of them already have.
I think the slippery slope is clear and especially when I see wording like “designer genes” and that magic word: Undesired.
Who defines “undesired” and where is the line in the sand drawn?
As in “undesirables” which takes us right back to Margaret Sanger, the Eugenics movement that never went away but just masked itself and shifted tactics, Hitler, and all the rest of what goes with all of that. It’s nothing new. It’s just coming back out and the pretense is being faded out.
This is eugenics even if it’s benevolent like it would be in the case of “Eradicate that disease out of that baby before it’s born.” Who wouldn’t want to do that? It sounds great!
Who draws the line in the sand, though, and what’s the criteria if all we are is a bunch of random pond scum that evolved off of some rocks after an explosions billions of years ago? Everything is relative and there are no absolutes, right?
Oh wait…”no absolutes” is itself an absolute so back to the old drawing board. We have seen in history what it looks like when that mindset is allowed to make these kinds of choices. The last prominent and easy example of it in recent history is Hitler and Nazi Germany.
When Jesus Christ described the time period leading up to His return as being “like the days of Noah” and “like the days of Lot” He meant exactly that and he made no caveats or exceptions. This is an important study because it absolutely explains so much that is happening now.
Here is an interesting point that gets lost in the discussion sometimes and is certainly worth pondering the context and ramifications: Noah lived for another 300 years AFTER the Flood which is very interesting and suggestive since that takes us right up to Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. Noah was over 900 years old when he died.
I won’t go into in more detail in this piece but I certainly think when we take into account “days of Noah” and consider everything he saw and lived through in his 900 plus years of life it makes perfect sense because we are seeing all of that again ranging from the genetic manipulation concept of Genesis 6 right on through to a unified One World global concept that echoes the Tower of Babel. Different form, same concepts. There truly is “nothing new under the sun.”
It’s amazing that we are in a day and age where concepts and subjects like these aren’t just abstract “what ifs” out of a science fiction movie.
It’s here and it’s now and soon a lot of people…good people…will be making some very strange and tough decisions that one wonders if we were really ever intended to make in the first place.
The time for the conversations is now. Be prepared.
The future is NOW.