Freedom is obsolete, go with genesJon Rappoport A study on rats published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology showed that sound waves could be used to [reversibly] reduce sperm counts to levels that cause infertility in humansThe conceptis now being pursued by researchers at the University of North Carolina who won a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (BBC News/Health, Jan.29, 2012, reported at naturalnews.com). After Darwin cast his view of evolution upon the waters, a notion that humans were naturally selected bio-machines gained increasing consensus. If Science could understand how a human was built, it could not only cure illness, it could change the inherent pattern of the body and brain. Evolution was merely a history of changes in the bio-machine. Eventually, this position was taken to the full extreme. The Eugenics movement sprang up in America and Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruction. In other words, evolution could be managed through depopulation. Some live, some die, some are genetically enhanced, some are not. Through movies, through the press, through heavily promoted speculation we are on the verge of enormous breakthroughs in geneticsthe population is being primed for a pseudo-philosophy of selection. On the one hand we are fed highly positive assurances that designer genetics will enable the creation of smarter, more talented, stronger, healthier people of the future. On the other hand, we are told that the exigencies of public health care make it necessary to differentiate between viable and non-viable patients. At bottom is the un-debated question: IS A HUMAN A BIO-MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE? Most academic philosophers will tell you the question itself is meaningless. Thats their way of skirting the issue of free will. And any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity. There are only brains and those brains operate purely by genetic determinism. And that opens the door to various versions of Eugenics. Because who can object to experiments on machines? Lee Silver, an enthusiastic molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden, about the future of gene science in society. This is how he sees things playing out up the line: The GenRichwho account for ten percent of the American populationall carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class . Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee. Go into a university department of genetics/molecular biology, or a department of philosophy, and try to find a real discussion and debate about whether humans have free will, whether the human being is only a bio-machine. Good luck. Individual freedom has been cut out of the equation. But no one at the university level deems this a significant or disturbing fact. Teachers are far more interested in group values and consensus and the deconstruction of all ideas into an analysis of who benefits from having the ideas. The rearranging of genes in humans has, for some time, been discussed openly in academic journals. The cat is out of the bag. Geneticists, biologists, social scientists, bio-ethicists are all weighing in. And this is quite understandable, because not only do scientists tend to have a sense of their own superior entitlement and intelligence, they believe theyre tinkering with (biological) machines. They might not phrase it that way, but thats what it comes down to. David King, writing at Human Genetics Alert, states: The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable. Thats the key idea. Theres nothing we can do now. The march of progress is underway. King continues: One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Andersons proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be inadvertently altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body. But the gene enthusiasts dont care about what happens up the line to the descendants. Its all part of the grand experiment. Spin the wheel, take a chance. If we dont like the outcome, spin the wheel again and see what happens. Eventually, well get it right. One of the most enthusiastic proponents of human genetic engineering, Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, has written: Even if half the worlds species were lost, enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new formssome biological, some technological, some a combination of the twoburst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future. And why should individual free will be an obstacle; thats just a superstitious fantasy; freedom was never real; there was always and only The Experiment; natural selection, intentional selectionwhats the difference? Scientific/medical/technological elitists are sitting at the table with many chips to play. Theyre betting that, in the long run, they will win, because they are touting hypnotically entrancing imperatives. And if by chance, they discover a reliable way to utilize gene insertion to produce sterility and infertility, they will see a path to quiet depopulation. And then who will control the technology? Wide-eyed futurists who teach at universities, or calculating operatives who work for the hardest-line Globalists? The current generation of scientists and academics who want to move full speed ahead on engineering evolution arent the old crusty scowling researchers from days gone by. Theyre enthused, theyre daring, they look and dress like ex-hippies whove moved to the suburbs. Theyre happy sociopaths spreading cheer. And they talk like software designers operating on the bright cutting edge. What could go wrong? And to cement in the argument for engineering humans, there is the ever-popular fairness argument. Professor Julian Savalescu, of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics: Nature allots all sorts of abilities and talents in a random way. Its not fair, and I dont see why we should let peoples lives be determined by the throw of a dice. Unless throwing a pair of scientific dice results in multiplying catastrophes, or the use of workable genetic technology (if it really is workable) raises an unending roar and riot from millions, even billions of people who claim theyre being denied their right to be Equal. When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. These programs, like the genetic engineering of humans, are meant to erase the consciousness that freedom is important or even exists. Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com 