posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:58 PM
what is the single greatest threat to the human race?
is it terrorists? #ing doubtful. Is it tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis? Not even close. Things like this have been happening since the planet had
weather, y'know, and regardless of whatever gargantuan holes we're making in the ozone layer, I still say we're handling them better than we ever
have. How about AIDS? That furious epidemic? We are a promiscuous bunch, are we not? Well, there, buddy, perhaps we are, but I find it hard to imagine
some meager immune system disease leaving much of a dent in the world with as madly as we're reproducing nowadays. So what is the problem? People?
Babies? Overpopulation? Now we're getting somewhere.
let's be serious for a second. We have no natural predators. We haven't been limited by nearby food sources for centuries, for as long as we've had
legitimate transportation. I'm talking Oregon Trail ford-across-the-river type # here, folks. Nothing can stop us. We keep having children, and the
earth really isn't getting any bigger, so we have a problem. What do we do? Impose a one-kid-per-household rule worldwide and slaughter the babies of
families that refuse to comply? #! Come on now! That's not a plan, that's what China did because there is no plan. We need something a little more
concrete, with a little more foresight, and we need it before it's a total #ing emergency. For instance, today.
I'm no expert, but personally, what I imagine must happen in order to avoid complete and utter destruction is a deliberate reworking of our
genetics. We've evolved very specifically for longer than history can record; wired to survive conditions that're simply no longer the case, and
survive we did. Now we're in the peachiest scenario possible, thriving like mother#ers, and evolution has no reason to intervene whatsoever. Yet on a
biological level, we still operate as though some ridiculous miracles were required just to propagate our species. They aren't! We're propagating!
Why exactly are men still engineered to # everything that walks? Why are women naturally inclined to have children? Why the # are we walking around
like zombies at the mercy of our hormones, obeying our most basic impulses for the most basic reasons possible, despite our unparalleled reasoning
capabilities? This is where evolution #ed up.
It's not a crucial mistake, mind you. And why is that? Well, it's like I always say: human beings are granted the luxury of defying nature. It's
what sets us apart from the animals. Not our intelligence, not our walking the # around on two legs, not our double-jointed thumbs. We simply have the
capacity to make realistic decisions. And under normal circumstances, this would be HOLY # fantastic news! Cuz, y'know, if people were unanimously
concerned with the long-term consequences of plopping out some exponentially growing number of kids all over the #in place before the world ends up in
shambles, they could just PRESTO!!! No more impulsive sexual practices. And if science deemed itself fit to do so, it could even eliminate the
superfluous elements of our outdated genetics completely -- quell our hormones, retard our receptivity, etc. -- and we'd no longer be drawn to the
impractical by unexplainable urges; we'd simply function however we wanted to function, unpolluted.
The problem with this line of possibility is pretty severe. Because let's face it: nobody gives a #. People don't give a # if they fall victim to
primitive impulses. As a rule of thumb, they're too busy being concerned with having sex -- OMG SEX FEELS GOOD!!! -- and having children -- I LOVE MY
KIDS!!11 -- to have any #ing foresight and realize, yes, congratulations! You feel this way for absolutely no reason.
so why doesn't science intervene? All it would take is a bit of revision on standard hospital practices to stunt the release of hormones in a
newborn's brain. This can be done with yesterday's technology. And provided the procedure was done correctly, realistically, bizarre side effects
would be null. Yes, it's quite possible men's dicks and balls would end up somewhat smaller. It's quite possible women's breasts would not be so
full and round. I know this is sad, but I think it's an acceptable loss, and I'm sure science -- coming from a strictly logical standpoint -- would
agree with me. Bitches would not be covered in body hair, dudes would not grow titties, and everything would be perfectly #ing fine. So why isn't
this brings me to my point. Science is ultimately bound by ethics. Ethics is a fine line. We can put a vaccine in a human being, but we won't replace
a person's organs with mechanical apparatus immune to the same disease. Why is this? It's because the established view of what it means to be human
is dangerously skewed. To be human does not require one's being bound by natural parameters. In fact, as I mentioned before, it is quite the
opposite. Our ability to defy nature and forge our own evolution -- be it in small ways like abstaining from having children, or in dramatic ways like
imposing altered genes upon the whole of our species -- is the very attribute which defines us as people. Makes sense, right? So why the # is this
ethical standpoint so warped? We're not hurting anybody, are we? What's the problem?
I'll tell you, because yes, I do know the answer. Christianity is the problem. Christianity is the single greatest threat to the human race. Why?
Because America is the greatest power in the world. Do you really think something as drastic as a self-imposed step up the evolutionary ladder could
ever be possible without America's approval? I think not. Do you really think American values will ever stray far from its most popular
interpretation of god's wishes?
# no. Christianity is the foundation of America. America was initially populated so these pilgrim mother#ers would have a place to practice their
religion. The constitution is based on the #ing bible. Regardless of your stance on the matter, it's likely you or your neighbor share many of these
values due simply to social bias and psychological upbringing. Christianity is our entire culture, and offshoots of Christianity -- which include a
majority of prominent faiths, btw -- lead to offshoots, or cousins, of American culture, in more ways than you realize. And for that reason, there are
many who feel similarly about ethics, and specifically, posthumanism, without even understanding why. What does that mean? It probably means we are
The bottom line is this. The bible foretells of end times, in which -- by largely popular interpretation -- a political ruler unites the world,
pushing only forward, eliminating religious sanctions from our development as a species. As the scenario progresses, the mark of the beast is imposed,
preventing all who refuse to align themselves to the cause from attending public functions, having bank accounts, et cetera. They're like fugitives,
and eventually are hunted the # down and exterminated, in the name of change. Personally, this is what I believe must happen. I wouldn't normally
vouch for the killing of however many million people, but look! They're not gonna give up! If we don't wipe them off the face of the planet, they
may very well migrate elsewhere and start an America all over again! Seriously, dude, there is only one possible solution. I just hope it somehow
manages to happen before all of humanity is doomed.