Anyoen that allows this is not right in the head in my opinion, microchips can munipulate genetics these days and then some...
Masonic lodges across North America are
setting up programs to inject all children with a body ID microchip.
The Masonic program is called the Comprehensive Masonic Chip
remeber when i was called a kook for talking about this issue
see what i mean by most people are ignorant?
Casey Walker: Will you describe how you came to realize the significance of
developments in human genetic manipulation and why you consider public
involvement a matter of urgency?
Rich Hayes: As part of my dissertation studies at Berkeley I wanted to
learn about the new human genetic technologies and their social
implications. I did course work in genetics and began attending conferences.
I was stunned by what I discovered. We are very close to crossing
technological thresholds that would change forever what it means to be a
human being. The most consequential of these involve the modification of the
genes that get passed to our children. In addition, there's human cloning,
artificial human chromosomes, bovine/human embryos, "reconstructed" embryos
using genes from three adults, and more. It sounds like science fiction, but
These technologies are being developed right now in university and
corporate labs, and neither policy makers nor the general public have any
idea of what's going on. These technologies are being promoted by an
influential network of scientists and others who truly believe that they are
about to usher in a new, techno-eugenic epoch for human life on earth. They
look forward to a world in which parents design their children quite
literally by selecting genes from a catalog. This would change everything we
understand about what it means to be a parent, a child, a family, or a
member of the human community. We'd come to see people as artifacts,
collections of parts assembled to achieve a particular result determined by
someone else. Once we start genetically engineering our children, how would
anything less than the "best" be considered acceptable? Once we start, where
do we stop?
Until recently these sorts of questions could be dismissed as
speculative and far-fetched, but no longer. Last year a major conference was
held at UCLA to promote the idea of how wonderful it's going to be when we
can manipulate our children's genes and finally "seize control of human
evolution." One thousand people attended and press coverage was extensive.
Just a few months later, one of the noted scientists at the conference
submitted the first proposal to begin experiments involving the modification
of heritable genes. Things are moving very fast.
Mind you, some of these technologies hold great promise to relieve
suffering and prevent disease. But we can draw bright lines to separate
benign applications from those that are likely to set the world on a
slippery slope to a horrific future.
Will you describe current genetic engineering technologies and those lines
you believe can be drawn?
Sure. First, what's a gene? A gene is a string of chemicals that codes
for and enables production of a particular protein, and proteins are the
building blocks of our entire bodies. Genetic engineering is the process of
adding, deleting, or modifying specific genes in a living cell. If your lung
cells, for example, are missing a gene that produces an essential protein,
you can use genetic engineering to try to acquire that gene. To do this you
attach copies of the needed gene to harmless viruses, and let the viruses
penetrate the cell walls and nuclear membranes of your lung cells. The
needed genes are released into cell nuclei, incorporated into
chromosomes-which are just long strings of genes-and, hopefully, begin
producing the needed protein. That's genetic engineering.
However, an important distinction must be made between "therapy,"
which refers to gene modifications intended to address a medical condition,
and "enhancement," which refers to modifications intended to improve some
aspect of normal appearance or performance. Treating or preventing sickle
cell anemia or cystic fibrosis would be therapy. Attempting to modify
stature, agility, cognition, personality, or life span of a healthy person
would be "enhancement."
A second important distinction must be made between gene modifications
that have an impact solely on a single person and those that have an impact
on a person's children and subsequent descendants. This is the distinction
between "somatic" and "germline" genetic manipulation. Somatic manipulation
seeks to change the genetic makeup of particular body (somatic) cells that
comprise our organs-lungs, brain, bone, and so forth. Changes in somatic
cells are not passed on to one's children. Germline genetic manipulation
changes the sex cells-that is, the sperm and egg, or "germ" cells-whose sole
function is to pass a set of genes to the next generation.
The critical question-perhaps the most critical ever posed in human
history-is, where do we draw the line? Somatic gene therapy for individuals
in medical need is already being tested, and few find it ethically
objectionable. Somatic gene enhancement of people without medical conditions
raises more concerns. Some somatic enhancements may be no more controversial
than rhinoplasty, while others may be profoundly dangerous or otherwise
unacceptable. But the effects of somatic enhancements are limited to a
single person, so the risk to future generations is nil.
By far the most important issues concern germline engineering.
Advocates of germline engineering invariably appeal to our compassionate
desire to prevent the suffering often associated with heritable disease, but
they're not putting all their cards on the table. Couples who believe they
are at risk of transmitting a serious disease can already employ the far
simpler technique of pre-implantation screening to ensure that their
children are free of the condition. In this procedure, a number of
fertilized eggs are created in vitro-that is, in a petrie dish-and are
tested to see which ones are free of the disease causing gene. Only these
are implanted. Any child subsequently born will be free of the disease, as
will all of that child's descendants. The current aggressive push for
germline therapy makes no sense, unless the real intent is to pave the way
for germline enhancement, designer babies, and the technological
reconfiguration of human biology.