It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Human animal hybridization, are the risks worth the possible gains?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+17 more 
posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:45 PM
After years of seeing threads pop up (normally in the breaking news section) about human animal hybrids of whatever type and seeing other threads related to the subject in other forums I have decided to put together a thread entailing all the info I can find on the subject. Oddly enough though many of the threads I remember reading and have even linked in the past to other threads are not showing up in a search (I credit that and people not using the search for so many threads being submitted on the same thing). Yes, I see the irony of my starting another thread on the subject, but mine is more of a compilation of the past stuff in one area.

Recently a few states have taken initiative to move toward outlawing the creation of human animal hybrids. Arizona just passed their version of one that was passed in Louisiana in 2009.

First, the idea of half-human half animal has been in the minds of people for ages. I would say the beginning of time but I do not believe that to be true. I do though believe that from the beginning of time man has wanted to exhibit some of the characteristics of certain animals. Certainly the idea of creating a half human half animal has been in the minds of people in recent centuries. One simply needs to look toward the book The Island of Dr. Moreau that was written in 1896 by H.G. Wells. Also a movie was produced in 1977 and 1996 based on the book written.

Another movie on the subject released in 1973 was the movie Sssssss.

Both are in the list of my favorite movies out there. Both also relate to the idea of mixing man with animal. Another new movie just gracing the silver screen is the movie Splice (as with the others this movie seems to interest me to a degree).

On the big screen and even in book or just the fantasy of the mind this is an interesting concept, certainly one that would intrigue most people. On a realistic note though it opens up the possibilities that in many ways could be very damaging to life as we know it. The damage to the life of the creatures created by such Frankenstein-ish science could be just as horrifying.

I think the movies in a way touch on the basics of just a few of the problems but leave a lot to be desired for the most part. For instance in recent years there has been seemingly an increase in the fear of cross species spread of disease. The creation of animal human hybrids will certainly open up a far greater possibility of such an occurrence to come about. This might also be in such a devastating form that the cure might not be found and the destruction of humankind could come as a result (though depending on your beliefs this might not be the direct result, simply the result allowed by a greater power).
A second issue not touched on for the most part is that of rights. I believe that every human has God given rights that should not be trampled by others. If such creatures were to be created by science there would certainly need to be a reason, not just a “because we can”. What rights would these creatures inherit because of their human side? Would they inherit their own set of rights? Would they be equal or lesser beings? Should they have rights equal to that of animals instead of humans? With these questions comes the question of who gets to decide what these creatures get?

Having opened things up some let’s take a look at some of the hybrids that are being created at this time, that we know of.

Here we see that in the U.K. hybrid research was approved because…

Prime Minister Brown has said he believes scientists seeking to use human-animal hybrid embryos to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are on a moral mission to improve and possibly save millions of lives

So forgetting the issues involved with the embryo and stem cell research let’s look at some other reasons they want to do this.

By allowing hybrid embryo experiments, British officials hope to maintain the U.K.'s reputation as a leading center for stem cell research.
British scientists say the country's progressive environment has led to many firsts, such as the first test-tube baby and the world's first cloned animal.

So in truth it has less to do with who they might be able to help and more to do with their own pride (being prideful happens to be a plague on humankind). What has being prideful given us to date aside from tragedy?

Luckily a few there do realize this and even have spoken out about it.

But opposition Conservative lawmaker Edward Leigh, who tabled an amendment seeking to ban the practice, said the technique was a step too far for science.
"In many ways we are like children playing with land mines without any concept of the dangers of the technology that we are handling," he said in the House of Commons.

The good news in this article is that they say the embryos would not be allowed to develop longer than 14 days. Supposedly this is about the shortage of normal human embryos and nothing more. Thankfully these (at least with the information we are given) will never be allowed to grow into some weird monstrosity that someone could take advantage of in whatever way they chose.
One has to wonder though how this might help why just normal animal stem cells would not? Is there some DNA “concoction” that comes from this that is not available any other way? Certainly the DNA would differ from a human embryo or an animal embryo, but could the difference be that much? As mentioned in the article we also have to wonder would this lead to genetically modifying humans. After all designer babies are the latest and greatest of ideas. Right? What is right and what is wrong? How far is too far? Who gets to decide the answer to these questions?

One more part mentioned in the article relates not only to people but to the hybrids as well.

These are cases where parents seek to have a child with specific nondiseased characteristics so that he or she can donate tissues or organs to a diseased older sibling.

Who gives anyone the right to force another to “donate” any of their own tissue to help another? Is it really donation if it is a forced choice? Yes, people should be willing to donate and help others but this brings up an issue of “forcible donation” or in layman’s terms stealing.

Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.
In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.

Supposedly in 2003 was the first time when animal and human cells were fused successfully. This I find doubtful. As we know (or at least speculate on) plenty happens behind the scenes that we the “commoner” will never hear of. It is certain though the experimentation started years prior to this and in my own opinion decades before this.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.

Again this pops into question. If we need more humanlike animals why are we even making the hybrids?

"Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their will—not just be part of an argument—if that leads to a ban or moratorium. … they are stopping research that would save human lives," he said.

What? Wait…..did they not just say that they preferred more humanlike animals? If that is the case, how can it be stopping the saving of human lives? Where is their proof that this might save human lives? How can they say that it is going to one way or another without proof? Why not state that it might possibly save human lives? It seems to be a play on emotions as well. But when saying this it seems they are forgetting how they just talked about using the creature for testing or for stealing their parts.

Also let’s look up at the previous quote from the article. The “testing of drugs or growing of spare parts” is definitely an issue. I believe we have enough problems with testing things on many animals that are subjected to nothing more than torture. Now we might just grow some poor creatures just to harvest their parts? That goes back to the stealing or forced donations as another way to say it.

Is this the start of a new group seen as less than important than other people? After all they will be part human, to what degree might vary though. If they have any part of human to them should they not be allowed their rights as well? Or should they be seen as a subspecies that is not as important? Would normal animals also be seen as being on a higher degree of importance than a hybrid?

This seems reminiscent of a lord and those below him. Even more so it has a ring of an elite view of those who are deemed less important than they themselves are. It might be that they creatures will be viewed as nothing more than slaves, peasants, beasts of burden, and replaceable pieces of flesh. Would these creatures be given jobs that are considered less than safe for humans is allowed to grow into adulthood? Would they be forced to labor away as children even?

Once again a voice I agree with that is outspoken.

"We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility," said Cheshire, a member of Christian Medical and Dental Associations. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."

The best part about the human animal hybrid argument is just listening to the words those involved are saying. On one point they say we should allow it without question on another they say things like this…

UK researchers say they have created embryos and stem cells using human cells and the egg cells of cows. But they say such experiments will not lead to hybrid human-animal babies, or even to direct medical therapies.

Again (yes I will restate some questions more than once in this post/thread) if it is not going to help, why are we doing it? The only thing that seems to remotely come to light is that “because we can” thing, simply human pride.

"Cells grown using animal eggs cannot be used to treat patients on safety grounds but they will help bring nearer the day when new stem cell therapies are available."
So using normal human or animal embryos cannot give the same data?

Somehow I sort of doubt this part.

There is no possibility of creating a human that is part-animal, according to the researchers. They say the animal egg only acts as a shell for the human DNA.

Maybe this is what they are telling us but somehow I think that they have found a way to possibly make it work. I could be wrong on this, but time has proven that governments hide things from their citizens.

After reading the last article they seemed to stress that this could not help and would not help with stem cell research. Yet here we have another article that seems to say the opposite.

Britain's first human-animal hybrid embryos have been created, forming a crucial first step, scientists believe, towards a supply of stem cells that could be used to investigate debilitating and so far untreatable conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and motor neurone disease.

As we will see those “in the know” really prove they know nothing more than that they can do it and how to make it work. They seemingly have no idea of any outcome nor do they seem to care in the least.

“At the moment we don’t know if the nuclear transfer process works well enough in humans to create useful embryonic stem cells. We need to carry out many tests to establish this and, as animal eggs are freely available, it makes sense to use these. Stem-cell research promises huge potential medical advantages and we believe we will be working towards our ultimate goal of developing new patient therapies.”

Okay so why is it again that we must combine human and animal to create a hybrid? The thing though that struck me the most in this one is this part.

Some experts claim that hybrids, because they are not 100 per cent human, are outside the law under which the HFEA was established.
These are the people that frighten me the most. If it was ever allowed to go full term and everything worked as planned, where would there creatures fall in the eyes of this type of person? Certainly, this is the viewpoint of more than a few of those ruling the goings on in the world around us. These are the elitist peoples who are willing to crush anyone or anything who stands in the way of them having whatever they wish.

As with some previous reports, this one states that the percentage of human animals is 99% human and 1% animal. This is according to some reports I am not sure all of them are at this level of course I am sure they try differing percentages of each.

The world's first human clone of an adult has now been made, by an American biotechnology company in Massachusetts, Advanced Cell Technology. They took a cell from Dr Jose Cibelli, a research scientist and combined it with a cows egg from which the genes had already been removed. (News November 1998)
The genes activated and the egg began to divide in the normal way up to the 32 cell stage at which it was destroyed. If the clone had been allowed to continue beyond implantation it would have developed as Dr Cibelli's identical twin. Technically 1% of the human clone genes would have belonged to the cow - the mitochondria genes. Mitochondria are power generators in the cytoplasm of the cell. They grow and divide inside cells and are passed on from one generation to another. They are present in sperm and eggs. Judging by the successful growth of the combined human-cow clone creation it appears that cow mitochondria may well be compatible with human embryonic development.

Also as stated before they are destroyed at the 32 cell stage. But it seems there is nothing other than that destruction stopping the embryo from growing into something completely different. But from the quote we can see another issue that is brought about by the sort of research. Here they are calling it a human clone, which for the most part is nearly accurate. At the same time though the others we read about could claim that they are not human and should not be protected as such.

Looking at this from a normal persons outside view one can easily see how things could turn dark very quickly. It takes little imagination to figure out what might take place if we ever allow human and animal hybrids to grow fully into a viable creature. One only needs to look at the daily news to imagine how such a creature could be used and mistreated. There are no laws protecting such a creature if it were to ever come into being (if there are not some now).

"In the history of humankind, animals and human species have been separated," MacKellar said. "In this kind of procedure, you are mixing at a very intimate level animal eggs and human chromosomes, and you may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans and animals. If that happens, it might also undermine human dignity and human rights."
Consumer health advocate Mike Adams, author of "The Ten Most Important Technologies for Humanity," said the researchers' proposal equates to "mad scientist experiments," and creating a human-cow hybrid embryo is much like opening Pandora's Box.
"Combining the life seeds of animals and humans is an invitation for unanticipated disasters, and it is a serious violation of fundamental medical ethics," Adams said.

One thing is certain. There are those who still have some common sense about them. I hope that there will continue to be those who look at possible severe outcomes from such research. I believe though in time this sort of person will either be out right ignored or crushed by the mighty corporation of science that will overtake humankind’s sensibilities.

Clearly even though some are disgusted by the idea and troubled to the core, they will continue to push this strange idea despite the fact.

As I continued my search into the stem cell linkage and the hybrids or “cybrids” as the scientists have named them I still find many saying that they will not get stem cells from the embryos grown. According to many of the articles they embryos just will not develop no matter if they were to be let go on their own.

The researchers conclude that although mitochondrial DNA in the cybrid eggs can direct the initial division, it doesn't produce the signals to fully reprogram the nucleus. As a result, Lanza is sceptical that cybrids will ever be a usable source of therapeutic ESCs.

Despite the reoccurring evidence that it just would not work out (by their words) I have to wonder how true this is. I also have to wonder what percentage of human DNA they are talking about. Is it the same for 99% human DNA as it is for say 40% human DNA?

If this is just a case of learning about growing stem cells and such, why do they need to be “cybrids” why not learn from just animal stem cells? From what I have read, it is not different (aside from the cybrids not forming correctly).

Done right, the process starts the egg growing and dividing as if it had been fertilized by a sperm, but the resulting embryo carries mostly the DNA of the donor.
"The idea was to simply to plunk a patient's DNA into an empty cow or rabbit egg -- and presto -- you reprogram the DNA back into a stem cell," Lanza said in a telephone interview.
But teams that have tried to do this have always ended up with what looks like a cell dividing over and over to become an embryo, but which eventually fizzles out.
"For the last decade, we've carried out literally hundreds of experiments trying to create patient-specific stem cells using animal eggs," Lanza said.

Although the human-animal hybrids looked normal under the microscope, they were genetically flawed, meaning they may be of little use to medicine or science.

Now of course we will dive a little into the other aspects that the hybrid testing has brought up issues in. Such as human cloning. As mentioned in a few of the links above they described the hybrids as human clones because they were literally 99% human. When that idea comes up one has to ask what rights they would have or what rights a clone would have.

If developed in a lab the a clone might not come under public scrutiny or even be known about until it was too late if at all.

Lanza’s team inserted human cell nuclei into hollowed-out egg cells from both humans and animals, then stimulated them into development, a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), or more informally, cloning. When compared to a normal human embryo produced through in vitro fertilization, the animal-human hybrids didn’t develop normally, but the human-human cloned embryos displayed many of the genetic characteristics of healthy development.

Read More

The worrying thing though is how long this all has been going on before we hear about it. Some could say we only hear about it after they have had much success and never hear of all the times it failed because that would make for boring news. Other times though we hear of massive failure simply because that makes for good/bad news as well. Despite what the average scientist it telling the media though one has to wonder what government scientists are doing in secret.

The procedure is illegal in the United States, but a global ban proposed in the United Nations fell apart after the U.S. insisted that therapeutic cloning be banned as well.
"Virtually every country agreed, but President Bush held it hostage," said Lanza.
President Barack Obama has promised to overturn President Bush’s moratorium on federal funding of most embryonic stem cell research.
Lanza hopes he will abandon Bush’s position at the U.N. as well.
"Reproductive cloning is unsafe and unethical," he said. "This raises the urgency that those laws need to be passed."

The question remains how long before the following occurs?

Finally, about that human cloning: in the same study, Lanza notes that a human nucleus inserted into a different human’s egg cell appears to develop normally. “We show for the first time that the same genes turned on in normal human embryos are the same genes turned on in human clones” [Wired News], he says. If Lanza’s study holds up to further scrutiny, it will mean that there are no technical barriers to therapeutic or reproductive cloning. Which means, some experts say, that it’s just a matter of time before someone tries to make a genetic copy of themselves.

Not only have they straight up cloned humans (though they were destroyed) they are altering the genetics of animals as well and creating freakish hybrids in the animals as well. Some of them might have some use and all of them while interesting some are also a bit too freakish and I am unsure of the point in their creation aside from that standard of “because we can”.

The result is a goat……that looks like a goat, acts like a goat, BUT produces milk which contains proteins which, when treated, produce a very close imitation of the valuable spider silk.
I can see the use in this sort of thing. At the same time I wonder about possible disease that might come about and destroy either spiders or goats. What if some of these goats escape somehow? What could the dangerous possibilities be in the case of escape?

Scientists have for the first time spun synthetic spider silk fibres with properties approaching the real thing, paving the way for their use in artificial tendons, medical sutures, biodegradable fishing lines, soft body armour and a host of other applications.

As I said some things make no sense other than doing it just to do it.

Thanks to advances in genetic modification, bizarre cross-species beasts are not just found in science fiction novels any longer. Now fluorescent cats, spider goats, human/pig hybrids and other incredibly weird creatures have actually been created by our scientists.

I have to wonder on the point of glow in the dark animals. Has science become nothing more than a novelty trick to be done at parties?

All of those images are real, but how long before we have this?

The pigs are transgenic, created by adding genetic material from jellyfish into a normal pig embryo.

Other researchers are working on developing glow-in-the-dark hair mousse, ink and cake frosting. There is even preliminary research under way to produce glow-in-the-dark beer and champagne.

BEIJING - A cloned pig whose genes were altered to make it glow fluorescent green has passed on the trait to its young, a development that could lead to the future breeding of pigs for human transplant organs, a Chinese university reported.

As mentioned above human cloning is certainly a concern if we look t the percentage of human genetics in a cybrid. Not only that, but also the likelihood of cloning in general and the ramifications that might come along with such procedures.

Cloning aside this sort of genetics opens up the doors to so many other possibilities. Such as designer babies. We have all heard about it at one time or another I am sure. It sounds nice does it not, being able to decide that you child might not have to suffer some illness or be plagued with some sort of handicap?
Nevertheless, let us think about this for a moment. Does this idea not sound a bit elitist making it seem as if the handicapped are of a lesser being than “normal” people? There is a saying that goes “what does not kill you will only make you stronger”, I believe in this statement with a passion. The life I have had and the strengths I have gained from that life make me the person I am today and I feel better for it. That being said at times I wonder what it would have been like to have missed out on some of the more difficult times of my life.

What if the child uses their disabilities to achieve greatness? One that might need to spend a great deal of time indoors might become the next genius that finds a cure to the latest disease. Then again they might grow to be a self loathing lump of flesh that has an anger toward the rest of the world that can come and go as they please.

But what if the designer babies issue goes further than fixing things that could be wrong? What if we start creating “super children”? Children not capable of leaping tall buildings but children that will live double the life span of what we do today. Those same children would then have their own children that will have a life span even longer as well. The population would explode the Earth’s resources would quickly vanish leaving the planet in an apocalyptic wasteland.

Maybe instead of children that will live extra long life spans we can create the “perfect race”. Hitler’s dreams could yet be recognized. We could effectively wipe out any skin color that is chosen with such technology.

Will you go for the brown hair or blond? Would you prefer tall or short? Funny or clever? Girl or boy? And do you want them to be a muscle-bound sports hero? Or a slender and intelligent book worm?

Hayes said his organization supported the use of embryo screening to help prevent the passing on of serious diseases and disorders like Cystic Fibrosis, but is wary of other technologies and how genetic screening and alteration can be misused.
"We support the use of that to allow couples at risk to have healthy children. But for non-medical, cosmetic purposes, we believe this would undermine humanity and create a techno-eugenic rat race," Hayes said.

I am not the only one thinking about it, and I guarantee neither are the scientists. We might be able to control what goes on in the lab much of the time, but not all of the time. Money talks to a great deal of people. The morals of each person differ even from slight amounts to grand distances.

In fact, if gene therapy lives up to its promise, parents may someday be able to go beyond weeding out undesirable traits and start actually inserting the genes they want--perhaps even genes that have been crafted in a lab.

Gone might be the days that a couple holds each other in a passionate embrace and uses the bonding love they have to create their own beautiful bundle of joy despite any risks that come with that. Soon to come the days of a sterile lab environment that involves none of that. A sign I believe that we are moving away from the compassion of others toward a sterile bland environment of low emotions.

Last year, a California company said it could screen for hair and skin color, but soon retracted the claim amid a firestorm of protest. (Research like this has prompted Pope Benedict to condemn “the obsessive search for the perfect child.”)

Is that what it might really be about, a search for the perfect child? What if this is just being shown to the masses for certain reasons to gain support for its usage. Then such usage will later be limited to certain people or even certain types. This could end up being about religion, race, or anything else they chose. Could this be nothing more than a deceiving tool by the powers that be and the elite member that walk the earth?

"I would predict that by next year, we will have determined sex with 100 percent certainty on a baby, and we will have determined eye color with about an 80 percent accuracy rate," said fertility specialist Dr. Jeff Steinberg, director of Fertility Institute.

Hello elitist, hello Nazi. Here is you perfect child, welcome to the brave new world. Say good bye to those “less than attractive” red heads, say good bye to those “God awful freckles” that some find rather cute and attractive, say good bye to whatever you wish, the perfect child is just a click away.

Dear Dr Moreau,
I want to wake up now please.
Tell me the whole thing is only a movie. . .
or that genetically engineered foods
and animals are only in my mind.
Nice thought in my mind. Please let me wake up and this is nothing more than a movie, or even just a strange dream, as I am prone to those anyway. Sadly, though that is not to be so. I believe I have coved many of the fears and possibilities that could come with such testing. Some of the outcomes might be well worth the venture. Certainly though in my mind the cybrids do not fit into that category.

I am not totally against the use of some of the technologies to cure disease and help the betterment of humanity. However, that betterment has differing definitions depending on the person being asked. What would the world be like today if Hitler had this sort of technology? Even if the war had still ended, the same imagine the possibilities that might have been walking the planet with us now. Would they have been locked in a lab and studied? I am sure they would. I also believe this would be a violation of the creatures’ rights.

While I am sure there are those who will agree/disagree with at least some degree of what I have said I am interested in seeing what others have to say about this as well. Below are additional links pertaining to the subjects at hand. I urge everyone to check out each of those links as well as those provided throughout the rest of the posting. health/news/2007/05/hiv_mouse


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:03 PM
I estimated the characters wrong in that post.
The missing pictures are these.
From the movie Splice.


All of those images are real, but how long before we have this?

The four missing links below are… health/news/2007/05/hiv_mouse

I wanted the post to be complete


[edit on 6/5/10 by Raist]

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:13 PM
Why not add the above to the discussion that already started here:

Spliced Human-Animal Hybrids Banned by Ohio, now US Considers

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by dzonatas

Because I have been working on this thread for days. This is a compilation of the past threads that have been started. Also that thread is about Ohio’s law, this deals with a wider range.

You are more than welcome to add comments to this thread though.

Edit to add: Besides if you read this thread it touches on more than just the hybridization. It touches on the related issues that go along with it.


[edit on 6/5/10 by Raist]

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:30 PM
all I can say is that not to mix different animals, or to mix people and animals is the very first commandment given by god in the bible (after the fall).

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:13 PM
My answer to the question in the title of this thread is an unequivocal and resounding, "H3LL NO!"
Having said that, I have no doubt whatsoever that it is already being done.
I have two words..."Pandora's Box"

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:25 PM
As long as there is money to be made, eg:free slave labour,
or a military advantage, then it will be done and more than likely already has been,
Great thread s&f read most will read rest later..

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by WashMoreFeet

I have to agree with it being done. From the articles linked, they state that the cybrids will not grow past 32 cells. They simply say they will not work. Of course these scientists could be lying or it could be that they are not working directly for one of the governments around the world.

I believe that there are some chances of such creatures being alive as we speak. If not cybrids at the very least I believe there are clones humans living in this world and they are toys/slaves whatever to those who created them.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by virgom129

I agree to this point as well. Not only that, but also that money talks. Meaning someone might not be out to make money at the start but if offered enough by someone in power they could very well go against their better judgment and morals (though they would be weak morals).

There are those in the world that certainly would shell out some large amounts of cash to have whatever they chose.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by Raist

Yep, the movie "The Island" springs to mind...

What would the RICH pay for something like that???

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:42 PM
THis thread is superbly done. Great work.

But I hate the idea of this. In fact I'm appalled by it. My inner "this is inherently wrong", bells are ringing loudly!

Yep. This is inherently wrong. On so many levels.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by virgom129

I have not seen that movie, I will have to see what it is about.

I really believe that the movie The Island of Dr. Moreau has a degree of reality to it. There is certainly a chance that such a thing does exist.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by Raist

Not to go on All-Fours; that is the Law. Are we not men? Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not men? Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not men? Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not men? Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not men?

There is a great deal more truth to Dr. Moreau and his attempt to create the perfect slave than is PC to admit. The Elite Rich have always practiced genetic breeding of themselves. The rich,smart and beautiful always choose those characteristics in others.

But why is necessary to make it so complicated? By simply breeding the top few percent of men with the best characteristics,high IQ,talents,health,etc to the rest of the women it should in theory be possible in less than ten generations create a society where everyone is a beautiful healthy talented genius. 130 IQ + 70 IQ = 100 IQ, Certainly that is not something the NWO wants.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by RRokkyy]

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Thank you.

I certainly must be hearing the same bells you are.

They even come out and say it is not necessary to do. They say the cybrids will not last past a 32 cell split (their words). I think there is a conspiracy here for sure. Why push an issue that is a guaranteed fail? If you can learn nothing from it that you cannot learn from another test why do it? I believe there are many issues pushing this from behind the scenes. One of the biggest is the “just because we can”.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by Raist

Yeah check it out...Whos to say its not already happening?
I wont tell you the storyline,,,

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by RRokkyy

“You gotta whip it, whip it good.”
Sorry, Devo will never die.

I think you bring up a good point about the perfect slave. A disturbing part about that though is that many female/child slaves have been raped by controlling owners. Not every slave has, but certainly, the numbers are high. You can even see proof of this in the times of this when slavery was popular in the U.S.

I think they have chosen this method to push because they can get away from the possibilities of genetic mishaps caused by nature. Sadly though I think they are pushing something that could bring about a greater disaster though disease as well as the rights issues.

What about designer babies cropping up? How long before we have the perfect pure humans running about? Maybe some of TPTB are already derived from this type of technology.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by virgom129


I'll certainly check it out.

Though you could have told me a bit about it


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by Raist

lol, The link is the review, tells you better than I could

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by virgom129

Yeah I found that out. lol

I will have to watch it. It seems somewhat reminiscent of The Island of Dr. Moreau, in that the inhabitants are so isolated.

That movie though seems to have its own storyline after that though. The character that sees the moth and starts “to think outside the box” intrigues me. It is funny how they say the company can only make adults and not babies. If that were the case in real life, we could be in great danger due to the fact that they would create endless supplies of soldiers for war.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:15 PM
I can't remember who said but, but here is one opinion on these matters and goes something like this:

If we do not grant human rights to animals who possess human DNA, then we risk a world of Human slaves who possess only the slightest bit of animal DNA and have no rights because of it.

*At some point in our future we are are going to have to ask ourselves; should this one be sent to the lab? or to kindergarten?

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in