GM Human Embryo That Will Dramatically Alter The Human Race!

reply to post by mikesingh


Pretty soon we normal humans will be a minority fighting for our rights to survive while these super-humans and cyborgs run a muck... I also postulate there being a Clone Civil Rights movement someday, but if this genetic manipulation and transhumanism really catch on we might never get around to cloning an obedient race of clone-slaves.

I think its all rather frightening. Its a nice thought that these things will be used solely for positive purposes, like curing disease and improving quality and quantity of life, but considering that the greedy super-rich are going to be the ones dictating how this technology gets used I'm guessing we're going to see some frightening abominations against nature as well...

great thread. star and flag for OP.

and BTW, in fact all the matery including us is just a waves of energy.
cheers

We invent stuff that makes us superhuman, we know everything, we can do everything, we become immortal, we can travel wherever in the Universe, and so on. Then what ?

The only think I call "an advancement" is spiritual advancement.Understanding things. An advanced civilization for me is defined by the way people behave among themselves, not by what computers they have.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by pai mei]

Please don't take this as a Religious message as I don't intend it that way.

The fear of this exact concept goes way back in our Human history. In fact it is mentioned twice in the Bible.

Adam and Eve were not evicted from the Garden for eating fruit. They were evicted for gaining too much knowledge.

Genesis 3:5 (King James Version)

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Again when the Tower of Babel was built and Man gained too much knowledge mankind was spread to the ends of the Earth.

Genesis 11
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6And 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.

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Even then it was obviously recognized that one day Mankind could gain too much knowledge and that it must not be allowed to happen. Why? Because we can not be trusted.

We as a Species simply can not be trusted with this kind of ability. The ability to reconstruct ourselves is far beyond anything that should be allowed. If it can be abused or destroy us somebody will abuse this knowledge and eventually it will destroy us.

In a world where such advanced abilities are mixed in with societies barely out of the dark ages and evil Men of all descriptions abound, how could this ability possibly lead to anything other than our own destruction.

If this has been done, it is already to late and it is just a matter of when, not if it will be used to destroy us as a Species.

As we evolve naturally, the boundaries of Nature itself protects us from one Species evolving to the point of its own destruction. We are on the brink but this could be the catalyst to put us over the top.

I have no doubt this is already being done, quietly behind closed doors and likely in a Country were it is perfectly legal right now. Science is no longer limited by the Law as they can simply move to where this can be done legally. If it can be done, it is already to late to stop it.
___________

Side note:

Source Article.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that we use only 10% of our brains. In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain...

...Why Does the Myth Continue?

Somehow, somewhere, someone started this myth and the popular media keep on repeating this false statement (see the figures). Soon, everyone believes the statement regardless of the evidence. I have not been able to track down the exact source of this myth, and I have never seen any scientific data to support it. According to the believers of this myth, if we used more of our brain, then we could perform super memory feats and have other fantastic mental abilities - maybe we could even move objects with a single thought. Again, I do not know of any data that would support any of this.

We are already the product of genetic manipulation.
If the bible had been translated correctly it would have read:
" Let us remakeman in our image."
And since these were not the first "humans" there is that passage that reads: "Go forth and replenish the Earth.
Replenish=fill again

All that so-called "junk DNA" apparently is not being taken seriously enough. At one time the Overlords thought we were an annoyance to them and they did some downgrading of the species - disconnecting the vital DNA so that it was unusable. It just needs to be reconnected and we will automaticly be smarter, stronger and more intelligent.

It really annoys that scientists get restrained by ethics so much, I mean there are experiments that should not be done because they are -well evil, but this isn't one of them.

It's what the Illuminati have been striving to do for so long, to create a man that is like there gods, to create the "New Man". So that they can rule with fierceness over all others.

You know, it probably happened loooong before the Cornell announcement. Classified research runs at least two decades ahead! I think we should start scrutinizing all those young adults out there to see if we can pick them out of the crowd. I mean how valuable would an experiment like that be? Create a couple dozen, and send them off to be raised as normal kids. If you want to study the benefits and consequences associated with mixing super-GE kids into the rest of the population, wouldn't this be the way to do it? Track them for 30 years after and see where they wind up before you decide to release the protocol for public use...

reply to post by daersoulkeeper


You're playing on our fear for manipulation and that's not fair. As conscious beings we only have one way to go and that is up. To scale the tower of Babylon is essentially our condition.

The first step lies in considerably enhancing human longevity.

The second is achieving biological immortality.

The third is the development of new modes of consciousness, which supersede the need for our evolved primordial forms. This is called singularity in contemporary popular culture. A major dilemma at this point is whether or not the conscious entities entering into this singularity actually take on a new form, or if a human individual, for example, does not make it through this transition and merely leaves behind a robotic or electrical image of himself.

The fourth step is in achieving a state of being, which transcends the need for a matter-based storage system of information, thus making the need for a large computer matrix or a brain totally obsolete. This essentially involves the conversion of a desired mode of consciousness (consisting of all preferred abilities, such as memory, vision, information analysis, etc.) into a being composed only of pure energy.

The fifth step is in escaping the physical limits of the universe. This would involve transmitting consciousness in some way across several dimensions of time and space so that as beings composed solely of energy we are not susceptible to the collapse of the universe itself, assuming the universe will ultimately collapse upon itself. Can energy exist without a universe? Maybe it can, in that case this would be the end of our journey and we could live eternally.

A possible sixth step would involve reaching this extra-universal dimension, whereby we would start this process all over again. Of course, this is only required if we assume our universe collapses in the fifth step, or that somehow energy ceases to exist simultaneously with the destruction of the universe.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Welfhard


You said, "It really annoys that scientists get restrained by ethics so much, I mean there are experiments that should not be done because they are -well evil, but this isn't one of them."

I see no evidence that scientists have ever been restrained by ethics. They are restrained by law, due to the ethics of others who are not scientists.

Take a look at the Atomic Bomb and the Hydrogen Bomb projects. In both of those projects there was a chance that the test detonations could destroy the planet, but what the heck? They went ahead anyway.

The first Soviet Hydrogen Bomb destroyed a nearby town. Lucky for the people there that Sakarov did some last minute calculations and determined that the blast would endanger the town. Otherwise those folks would have been test subjects.

I don't suppose that I even have to mention the thousands of US troops who were exposed to various nuclear bomb tests? Some of these had no idea of the risks or even that they were about to be exposed to a nuclear bomb blast.

I'm fine with having a disease free, and longer living body. Throw in some better healing capabilities, I'm there.

I think the 120 year limit is retarded. We are immortal as spirits, and the best bodies we can have are ones that last maybe an average of 75 years. Yuck!

I don't think altering genetics will make us smarter. That's not how it works, but if we can improve the human condition, I would like that.

All that being said, we must approach this ethically and use the technology for the good of all. I mean, the army shouldn't be out to create the ultimate killers or something.

Use the technology and knowledge responsibly.

Troy

reply to post by lunarminer


It bothers me to no end that "scientists" run with these projects and profess good will. I got 100:1 that the embryo was never destroyed.

If we've learned anything its that information about our DNA can and will be used against us in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. Think of all those who have no insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions, now think of Insurance Companies predisposition to deny claims or refuse coverage for those who have the cancer "gene" or the how about the being too short gene. Let's get rid of the Brown or Black gene... and the list goes on. Gattaca was probably the best example of this.

And to say that we can regulate this is beyond comprehension. The dimwits in the DC'ylum haven't a clue about what's right or wrong, ethical or unethical. We only need to look at all the legislation of the last 10 years to know that we'd be in serious trouble. And we won't mention the sexual indiscretions or money issues they've had.

Men or women in power have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted, and nothing they promise will convince me otherwise.

I believe that there is a natural order of things. We're born, we live and hopefully try to make a better world for us and those around us and we die. It's called the human experience.

Imagine being able to live another 30 or 50 yrs? How many Napoleons, Genghis's khans(sp?), Hitlers, Stalins, Bush's or other power grabbing war mongers would we endure.

As for me, no thanks, I'll stick to the human experience and make room for the next person.

I don't believe that humans should try to create other humans in a different way - it can only lead to bad things.

Just my opinion.

By the way, there is a thing called 'over-weaning pride' quoted in Shakespeare and it comes before a fall. I think that these scientists are poised for just this scenario - again, just my opinion.

Originally posted by JohnJetson

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
I really doubt if a superior human species would evolve out of this. In today's world physical strength really does not matter, since we use weapons to fight and dominate.

The real benefit of this genetic engg would be that we could produce a disease resistant and defect free species on earth in the near future.

For example there would be no vision defect in people, no neurological disorder etc. I think this will still remain the realms of medicine.

The most recent episode of UFO Hunters (episode 15) covered this subject. Much of it is speculation, but one retired New Mexico police officer had pictures from a partially mutilated cow that had a humanoid looking fetus inside of it. With the advances we KNOW to have been made in genetic modification, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot more going on that we don't know about.

When you get a story like this it's time to switch the brain on and look at things from a different angle. In this case if anybody was involved in illegal genetic research why would they use a cow , in public "view", as a surrogate? Surely any scientist in this field could keep a surrogate hidden from view, presumably adjacent to the lab where the genetic engineering was being done. Not only that you would need the surrogate wired up to all kinds of machines to monitor progress. Finally the fetus would be removed, dissected and studied not left for a copper to find !?!?!?!?

This story does not pass the common sense test.

reply to post by mikesingh


we will all be killed and replaced with a gm race.

Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.



[edit on Thu Apr 2 2009 by Jbird]

Real good thread going on here...

I only wish to add that the VIRUS is the single largest threat to man's continued dominance on the planet; and viruses MUTATE!

Modify genetics all ya want; the viruses that attack/consume/destroy them will modify themselves to keep up!

Cough!

Ok, people get a grip. People who say we will have too much knowledge and we can't be trusted. Especially when they say God says that we will have to much knowledge. Are so naive. Thats like saying, don't let our kids get past 5th grade, they might learn to be smart evil people. We only want dumb evil people on earth.
2nd, if you take any verse from the Bible, you are already making a serious mistake. Its been translated how many times? It was not written by God, but by Men inspired by God. How many books were changed? Left out? People say we should not play God with Genetics. WHY THE HELL NOT. i'd love to play God. I"d be great. Every female born would have DD breast. If i had the choice, as a father, to have my Doctor manipulate my unborn childs DNA to make him/her a better child. i'd do it in a heart beat. We try so hard to come up with cures for everything. Now we have one cure for it all. As far as worrying about making smarter/more effiecient criminals, we did that already with the invention of the car, gun, cell phone on and on and on.
WAKE UP PEOPLE. lets evolve.

I am going to stop my commentary at the "next step" of genetic engineering of the human species. This an evitable upcoming event, the rest is getting into extreme possible futurist speculation biased by the views of the authours.

Genetic engineering will be pursued first by those with:
1. Money
2. Infertility - therefore they are already predisposed to tinker for a baby
3. An identified genetic disorder
4. A cultural gender bias

The most important point here being, that it will be pursued by people with MONEY to do it. The effects are unlikely to be worldwide.

Unless gene changes are released to the general population on a highly infectious virus, these changes will remain only for those who have money. Guess which one will be the prefered method? The one that makes $$$$$.

The bias of most people writing this stuff is the ASSUMPTION that genetic engineering with create superpeople. It is just as likely to narrow the genepool of the monied families drastically so that they begin to require outside help to propogate another generation.

The middle class will become a proving ground for mixing of both changed and unchanged lines. Those who can manage to scrape together enough to make a few really important changes probably will. Those who are frivilous will take out debt to make frivilious but "faddish" changes.

The poor and "underclasses" will become the bastion of true human genetics, with a slow leakage of genetic transfer from the "changed" peoples. (how many men in the upper class have affairs or pay someone from the "lower" classes for sex. Sex with women who do not have compromised fertility generally.....)

The problem with whole scale changes that will homogenize the upper classes, is that often their is a selective advantage to some of those genes that these doctors and researchers will want to eliminate. There is a selective advantage to sickle cell anemia - with only one copy you are resistant to malaria. This is a GOOD thing if you live in certain areas. Only if you get TWO of the traits does it become sickle cell.

There is a SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE to the seeming "bad" SNP. Or a "bad" set is a stepping stone to a change that is a "good" change. A change back to "normal" may actually be a change that moves your genes away from a "good" change.

For example, there is a mtDNA snp that when the amino acid changes from the "norm" to another amino acid, you get an increase in Parkinson's Disease and invasive breast cancer. But if it changes to a different amino acid than either of those it grants a protective effect against Parkinson's Disease AND confers longevity. When that same change is teamed with one or two other mutations, the longevity effect is effectively more pronounced. Same chromosone sequence - totally different impacts.

The "normalization" would not be the best course of action.

Without a very conservative and honest approach to these changes, the upper class may get themselves wiped out. They've done it before in cultures throughout time by trying to manipulate their genetics through selective familial breeding.

It is entirely possible that in doing these changes and making them faddish, that the upper class will also misunderstand that in destroying their fertility (which they have already been doing) they will make these changes because they are already dabbling and then they will pay someone in the "lower" classes to surrogate their babies.

But nuclear and mtDNA are not EVERYTHING to understand about the development of fetuses. I am certain that this will be ignored. In doing so, the traumatized people having babies for other women will pass along changes that will be deleterious to a fetus. You cannot USE the resources of another woman's body to make a human and think that her body MAKING every part of another human will not impact that child and their life and their children.

Wait for it. It is already happening. India is having babies for monied infertile women in the First World.

India also has a fairly recent - and honestly still existent- acceptance of the non-human human. This will make India one of the places that will accept laws to test our creating humans with massive changes to their DNA. It will be easy to get people to accept these created people as not being worth legal protections due most humans. If not in India (though I suspect very much India will become the main testing ground of it) there are other countries without much oversight so that even if they do have laws it won't mean anything.




[edit on 2009/3/30 by Aeons]

[edit on 2009/3/30 by Aeons]

If there is something that we humans are really good at, it is at messing up. We simply don't seem to have long term vision. It is all about now and here.

That is not strange at all. We were hunters/gatherers/scavengers for millions of years. This type of life does not need to think too much ahead or about all sorts of possible outcomes. It is quite simple, along the lines of: if you want to have meat next season don't kill pregnant animals. If you want more of these plants, than don't take them all. If the environment changes, then change along (eating other things, finding other places to collect food and so on). Relying on the seasons to know what kinds of food will be available.

Central in the lives of hunters/gatherers/scavengers is FOOD now and here (since migrating is also a central part, saving food and thus needing to carry it was not an option). Only after the invention of agriculture about 10.000 years ago, we started to create surplusses of food that could be sold. Which in their turn meant people not devoted to finding food but devoted to other things, like art and science.

We have now the opportunity to mess up things that are more and more complex and long term. As interesting as the genome science may be or indeed is, I simply think we are not the right candidates to use it. Having said this, I certainly think this kind of technology will be used in the future. Time will tell as always.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by QueenofWeird]

[edit on 30-3-2009 by QueenofWeird]

Originally posted by carole9999
reply to post by carole9999

 

I must add that because so many films are within the human meme (with an enormous number of them having to do with tech hybrids/creations as in Battlestar, Magnus, Terminator--I wonder if this is/has been done by a civilization already. Perhaps it is so vivid in our meme because on a soul level we were involved in such. Also, how much of the films "Firestarter", "Soldier" and "The Bourne Identity" are loosely based on fact? I read somewhere that Andy Pero (Project Superman) was actually on the set of "Soldier" while it was being filmed. No way to verify this, perhaps ask Kurt Russell (who hates big government).

Really makes you think...

Gataca, Battlestar, Terminator... None of those stories have what you'd call a "happy ending" for the human race.

I can see us slipping into a very "Gataca-esque" existence as a result of this. In fact, it's hard to imagine anything else. While this concept may accelerate physical evolution, what happens with regard to our spiritual evolution?

If we think there's a huge gap between the upper class and everyone else now, wait until the upper class has substantially higher IQ's, super immune systems, enhanced senses, and far superior physical traits.

Don't let the hype fool you, we're not talking about the evolution of the entire human race. We're talking about the evolution of those who can afford it, and the obsolescence of those who cannot. We will no longer be looked at as just lower class, we'll all actually be lower life-forms, and will be treated as such.

However, I think scientists are probably farther away from this than they think. I mean, I think most of us can agree that that 97% of our DNA that we consider "junk", is not actually "junk". It's there for something, and until we know exactly what it's there fore, we probably ought to not mess with any of it. Say you take a car that made 150 horsepower, and put a 500 horsepower engine in it. You did not touch the transmission, because you didn't know what it was ("junk" dna). Soon as you step on the gas, your 500HP engine obliterates the dinky little transmission, and you're car now goes nowhere.