The limits of science.
Genesis 11:6 (KJV)
“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”
As the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel teaches us, human achievement is limited more by what we shouldn’t do, than by what we can do. The challenge is knowing where, ethically, to draw the line. Without a belief in objective, nonperspectival truth, that can be daunting.
Proper eugenics can be used to eliminate many hereditary diseases by changing the inherited alleles of the genes themselves, permanently altering human D.N.A.. In this way, science can allow us a shortcut in the natural selection process to eliminate harmful adaptive mutations or errors in the replication of cells. Some of those negative effects which don’t become prevalent until after the natural human reproduction age, in fact, aren’t even selected for removal through natural selection. There’s no evolutionarily advantageous impetus for them to be. Many cancers, diabetes, and genetic factors in heart disease, just to name a few, can be virtually eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, in partnership with a healthy change of one’s environmental influences such as reducing refined sugar and UV sunlight exposure. This is what we call ‘artificial selection’.
In a more far-reaching application, eugenics can be used to improve the collective human IQ, as most of intelligence is inherited, making future generations smarter, which is always a good thing. Not doing so will result in unfettered breeding of the lowest common denominator, or the Idiocracy effect. Likewise, people can be made stronger, faster, and, treading onto subjective ground, better looking. While we might not all agree on whether green or blue eyes are nicer, facial symmetry is a universal plus. And, our duty as being caring human beings who put the best interests of our species above the selfish temptation to make more clones of ourselves, however flawed and imperfect they might be, pulls us to strive to improve future generations, to make them, literally, better than ourselves.
From a human evolutionary standpoint, we know that race within our species is a sliding spectrum, with the least evolved of our species still having the most in common, the closer genetic kinship, with the lower primates. Africans, for example, have more in common genetically with bonobos and chimpanzees, than do Europeans, because they are less far removed from them in terms of evolutionary adaptations, relatively speaking. Climactic and other environmental adaptations are responses to long-term external stimuli, including survival pressures, which make certain traits favored in terms of survivability and fecundity. Literally, they help people survive in a given environment long enough to breed and then raise their young to independence.
Those genetic mutations which are the most recent changes due to adaptation are the most recessive, the newest being the most fragile, and are therefore the easiest and quickest to disappear and be subsumed back into the mean, the breeding pool of humanity from which it came, if not re-combined with other very similar alleles from the same adaptive population with the same adaptive traits. In other words, blue and green eyes, and other European, i.e., White, genetic traits are more recessive, being more recently evolved traits, and are more easily lost in the sea of brown eyes of the base population when bred back with them. Of course, we’re not just talking about eye color here, as you may have guessed. Along with hundreds of other physical and biological differences between the races, there also are numerous inherited intellectual and psychological traits which are at stake.
So, eugenics can be used to move humanity as a species away from one end of that sliding spectrum, and towards another. To do this, there are both positive and negative eugenical tools. Positive eugenics, for example, used primarily by Whites, would be the use of condoms or birth control pills. Negative eugenics would be abortion, used primarily by nonWhites. While all of these measures are now voluntary, they haven’t always been, nor must they always remain so, if the best interests of the species as a whole ever again overrides selfish personal ‘freedom’. Sterilization of both males and females in order to prevent the reproduction of certain undesirable genetic traits is another option which has been used successfully throughout the world, especially during the first half of the 20th century.
As we plow through the 21st century now, the anti-scientific and anti-evolutionary movements of egalitarianism, however counter-logical, have placed quantity, disguised as freedom, above quality, termed as evil racism, in their ethical value systems. Eugenics is currently in official disfavor, owing to Communism and Jewish anti-homogeneity having won W.W. II. So, for those who are reading this and wondering who gets to decide what traits should be preserved and advanced, and which are promoted, since we are taking the place of nature and nature’s God in making that otherwise natural selective decision, the answer is simple. The winners always do. The winners define the parameters of accepted ethical practices, and have ever since Aristotle defined the term ‘ethos’ in that manner. They always will.
What may not remain a constant, though, is who those winners are. Things change, inevitably. We might end up back on top. If Whites regain control over their destiny as a people and wisely choose to reinstitute eugenic science, one of the challenges we will face in the long-term will be placing reins on ourselves, since then noone else save the Almighty will be able to. Many of us may agree that it would be ethical to use science to tweak the genes of a homo sapien so that they could breathe methane gas, or survive in a gravity well five times that of Earth’s, for the purpose of future interplanetary colonization, for example, even though any such actions would, by definition, be an act in creation of an entirely new, and by default relatively self-isolating, species of hominid. That might sound far-fetched, but such fine-tuning of the now-mapped human genome might just be a generation or two away, commensurate with the space-faring technology which would make such adaptations advantageous.
Even more controversial than tweaking human genes, however, would be the combining of human and animal DNA. As strange as it may sound, some Salk Institute scientists in California are already doing exactly that. Like the fictional story of The Island of Dr. Moreau, homo sapien and animal hybrids have been created, in laboratory experiments designed to limit human genetic interference in the animal’s brain, i.e., to not make them more intelligent or self-aware, or more human above the neck, so to speak. The justification of this, beyond a sheer scientific “let’s see if we can” spirit, is to produce semi-human organs which could be transplanted in human patients. Along with the concern that the altered animals might have increased intelligence, researchers have been cautioned to not allow the altered semi-human DNA to be passed on to a next generation of animals, in this case, pigs. Due to telegeny, the passing on of DNA by the mother in subsequent births from a prior embryo, that would mean that the animal used for the experiments would have to be sterilized or destroyed after each embryo, live-birthed or not.
Obviously, combining the DNA of different species (ligers and mules aside) to make a new living creature isn’t easy, nor should it be. As the Chinese scientist working on the experiment stated, “Species evolve independently, and many factors dictating the developmental programs might have diverged, which makes it difficult to blend cells from one species to a developing embryo from another,” Wu said. “The larger the evolutionary distance, the more difficult for them to mix.” We know this to be true even on a lesser scale, as mixed-race or hybrid births within our own species can be more problematic than those within a race. That hasn’t stopped the tripping forward of science in La Jolla, however.
But what if the fetters were taken off these experiments? Imagine viable, live births. Would a being born half human and half pig be human? What if it became self-aware, on a human scale, and achieved an IQ of, say, 70 or so, near the average IQ in some nonWhite countries, and the limits of what we consider to be mentally effective, i.e., not intellectually handicapped. Would they be human? What if they were three-quarters human, after two generations of experimentation? Ninety percent human? Would they be considered to have souls, theologically? Could they be granted citizenship, and the right to vote?
There we get to the boundaries, I believe, of acceptable human ethics, because there we get to the boundaries of humanity. This level of genetic manipulation, even if it does use human stem cells, is no longer eugenics, but something else, something new, with which I for one am not entirely comfortable. There is enough controversy over the vagaries of taxonomy as it is, without muddying the waters further. What do you think? Where do you draw the line?
Latest posts by Pastor Paul R. Mullet (see all)
- THE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES - May 6, 2017
- Divine Truth Radio - May 4, 2017
- Trachtenberg: As Jewish community faces challenges, Holocaust-denying professor has no place at NU - May 2, 2017