Reckless Scientists in Communist China Treat Human Beings Like Commodities

Reckless Scientists in Communist China Treat Human Beings Like Commodities May 23, 2015

Rush in and do gene modifications because their ideology regards humans as nothing more than unusually clever piece of meat to be subjected to the caprice of human will, pride and greed:

The resulting embryos were a total mess. After applying CRISPR to 86 embryos, 54 of the surviving 71 embryos were genetically tested. Only 28 spliced successfully, and only a fraction of them contained the replacement genetic material. What’s more, the researchers found a surprising number of unintended mutations. The scientists decided to stop the experiment at this stage.

Forget everything else that is happening in the world. This is the cloud no bigger than a man’s hand that forebodes the real crisis facing our civilization. We are moving into Brave New World territory, when the powerful will be able to manufacture human beings to spec–and will be able to claim that–as product of manufacturing–their rights are subordinate to the rights of the manufacturer.

This, among many other things–including the manufacture of humanoids deprived of full brain development and various other degrading “modifications” to the genome useful to manufacturer–is all possible once fallen man with his itch to own, exploit, and enslave gets his mitts on the technology.

Gene science can, to be sure, used to the glory of God too. But nothing about this story suggests that the people doing this are thinking about that. They are thinking about power, profit, popularity, and prizes.

"Mark 16;15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"I suggest you start discriminating between anecdotal evidence and history, and I also suggest you ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'll tell you another weakness you have. You tend to overreact to criticism of or ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • kirthigdon

    Once a fellow Catholic admonished me, saying “the abuse of something is no argument against that thing’s right use.” I forget the exact topic we were discussing – something about the Charismatic Movement. There seems to me to be a right use for gene modification/replacement in human beings. Many genetic disorders and propensities to illness could be eliminated. But would a right use also be to enhance intelligence, strength, beauty, or add special capabilities? Or does the very great potential for abuse mean that even right use of the technology should be morally avoided if not legally outlawed? I really don’t know the answer to these questions, but they definitely have to be dealt with.

    Kirt Higdon

    • W. Randolph Steele

      Here’s a likely scenario: prenatal testing shows your child has a genetic problem,but, with a little tweak here and there, we can fix it and oh, by the way, for an extra $50K you kid gets into Harvard. How many parents do think will turn that down?
      BTW, I AM color blind as are 4 of my 5 brothers and I also have “visual-spacial” deficits that occurred during my mothers pregnancy(and NO she did nothing during it to cause this). As a result, while I have above average intelligence,I’ve had a lot of difficulties in school and I don’t drive after several accidents that were My fault. I didn’t even know any of this until I was 42 and was forced by certain circumstances to undergo am 8 battery of tests. When I went in to discuss the results with the Chairman of the Dept of Neurology at our local medical school, I was asked”When you were in school, did your teachers say that you could a lot better in school?” I answered,”yes, How did you know?” She slid the results across the desk to me and said”It’s all right here”. For the first time, I felt validated and my life made sense. Still, I’ve always wondered just how much BETTER my life could’ve been had there been a way to discover and fix these problems. It’s why, I am somewhat sympathetic to to this stuff.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      There would be two parts to consider: moral means of researching and exploring gene modification, which wouldn’t include research that creates and discards human embryos, and then moral uses.

    • We don’t know how to reliably insert genes without unintended negative consequences in plants and animals. Doing it embryonically is even more difficult to get right (as we don’t entirely understand tissue differentiation). The correct sequence is easy enough to see, learn how to do this stuff in simple animals. Learn how to do it in human organs so we can print up a fixed pancreas and cure diabetes. Learn how to do it within the human body so we can rewrite without operations. Only then would embryonic fixes be responsible. Jumping straight to the last step is reckless, cruel, and not very good science (or engineering).

  • Social insects. Naked mole rats (look them up). Homo sapiens.

    4,4,4,2:

    PULL OUT THIS ARROW

    Christ says follow Me but they demur

    He must follow us to where we go,

    The hillock of the pleasures we
    prefer

    Where Christ is pain and pleasure vertigo

    Everything we want is what we get,

    There is no opposition to our
    dreams,

    The Savior’s insubstantial
    silhouette

    A shadow on the wall of our
    museums

    God must follow us for we will not

    Countenance rebuff or be delayed,

    And if He will not follow He is
    naught,

    God not Adam balked and disobeyed

    He refuses so we will depart,

    Pull out this flaming arrow from
    my heart

    Pavel

    May
    22, 2015

  • Everybody needs to watch and read more science fiction. Universal conclusion: this NEVER ends well.

    • Yersinia pestis

      I don’t know to what extent we should base our decisions purely on science fiction—which is not to say it should have no influence at all—but if you think genetic engineering of humans “never ends well” in science fiction then your exposure clearly isn’t broad enough.

      In Warhammer 40k the effect is ostensibly beneficial—it is quite possible that the Xeno could not be kept at bay otherwise. The same goes for eugenics in Dune and even one of the frigging Power Rangers seasons has GE working out quite well for the good protagonists.

  • Li Xuepeng

    Author fails to realize that this technology, if and when perfected (which may not be for decades, if ever), would significantly improve humanity. Hospitals and clinics could potentially edit for aesthetics, intelligence, strength, longevity, other desirable traits. Undesirable traits, such as susceptibility to disease, down’s syndrome, autism, and the like could be edited out.

    Francis Collins, CHRISTIAN director of the NIH (where most funding for genetics research in the US comes from), banned funding for this kind of research just a few weeks ago.

    http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04292015_statement_gene_editing_technologies.htm

    “However, NIH will not fund any use of gene-editing technologies in
    human embryos. The concept of altering the human germline in embryos
    for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many
    different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a
    line that should not be crossed.”

    This is a shame, because China is unlikely to do the same. Yes, there will mutations, abortions, aberrations. Sacrifices must be made to become stronger as a species. How could we so willingly shun a technology that promises to artificially accelerate our evolution to the next level of humanity? “You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet,” as the saying goes. Taking the hits and negative repercussions now will avoid the spawning of more useless biomass in the future, most of which (the severely autistic and retarded) are sustained solely at the state’s expense, which is a blatant mismanagement of tax and human resources. Maybe if everyone was beautiful, I wouldn’t be derided because of my appearance and relegated to watching porn alone in my room on Friday nights. Maybe if everyone was intelligent, some of the Chinese kids at my school wouldn’t have to illegally consume Ritalin or Adderall or other prescription drugs intended to treat those with ADD or ADHD in order to pull off the 14-hour study sessions in our library.

    Is such an archaic religious position on behalf of the US government towards literally life-altering science just another symptom of the decline of America and the rise of China? I sincerely believe that it is. US has a very prestigious scientific establishment, but I am seriously considering returning to China once I complete my studies here. The arbitrary curtailment of valid avenues of inquiry sickens, angers, and threatens myself and my friends, some of whom are currently studying biotech at the Master’s level. Science that could one day save lives and lead us all to brighter future is being repressed, just like in the USSR.

    Progress above all. Human intelligence is the greatest good and most powerful force for human progress that exists in the universe. To so willfully step away from artificially evolving our intelligence is the height of foolishness. America will pay a serious price for depriving itself of this technology; I can only hope my country doesn’t do the same.

    • MT

      The ends don’t justify the means.
      Do you really want fallen humans determining who’s good enough to live?

    • jroberts548
    • JM1001

      I’m having a hard time determining if this is satire. It would certainly make for a great piece on the Onion, illustrating the absurdity of eugenics thinking and putting human value merely in utilitarian terms.

      But maybe this isn’t satire… The fact that I can’t really tell just goes to show how far we have fallen already.

      • Dan F.

        My understanding is that the Chinese government has a significant number of people who have the responsibility to reply to Internet criticism of the PRC of which I think Li Xuepeng may be a member.

        • Yersinia pestis

          Well I’m an American of Iranian descent and though I don’t approve of everything the PRC does I applaud their decision to start manipulating human embryos like this. Indeed, once the process is perfected, the rest of the world will have to catch up and then we can see this technology being used for less legalistic purposes than we would expect of China.

      • You might want to google 50 cent army/50 cent party.

        • Yersinia pestis

          The only way anyone will ever support eugenics is if they’re paid to do so

          • You really ought to look up history. Eugenics was quite popular with progressives in both parties.

            • Yersinia pestis

              I hope there’s a point to this something along the lines of how it isn’t actually possible to enhance traits like intelligence and strength among humans with genetic engineering—both of which can and have been done with other mammals:

              http://www.reuters.com/article/health-brains-idUSL5N10O2W720150814

              http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/28/world/china-mutant-dogs-genetic-engineering/

              Otherwise I’m afraid I don’t really care.

              • My point was solely that your predictions of eugenics’ popularity doesn’t actually match lived history.

                • Yersinia pestis

                  “Lived history” since the late 1970s has seen the germline of numerous organisms modified successfully. Additionally, gene therapy is a reality already. If you have some cause to think these Chinese researchers will not eventually succeed in their task and that the rest of the world will not be forced to follow suit because of this mighty advantage, I’d like to hear it. And if I’m ultimately wrong, I will buy you a Coke.

    • Alma Peregrina

      Are you the one being sacrificed to “improve humanity”?
      If not, then I’m not interested in your opinion. “Improving humanity” by sacrificing humans isn’t improving humanity at all, quite the opposite.

      • Yersinia pestis

        I disagree with Li Xuepeng here but largely only for this reason: it is quite possible that genetic engineering will usher in the posthuman era, at which point your human standards for what is good or bad cease to apply altogether.

    • I’m writing this on the off chance that you’re not a paid shill in the 50 cent army. One of the reasons you’re wrong is that it is perfectly reasonable for us to suspect your membership.

      Who is qualified to determine, a priori, what genetic changes are progress? Eugenics as practiced by humans on plants and animals always involves culling the defective, either by outright killing them or by eliminating their ability to pass on their inferior genes. Go talk to a veterinarian about the many false starts and errors in such longstanding efforts like dog breeding, or perhaps you might consider “the chicken of tomorrow” contest applied to humanity.

      The massive death toll from maoism will be as nothing compared to the deaths coming from eugenics.

      • Yersinia pestis

        “Who is qualified to determine, a priori, what genetic changes are progress?”

        A better question is who is qualified to determine that extant human sociobiology isn’t repugnant?

        • Fine hobby horse you have there. I’m sure you’ll get lots of use out of it. I think I’ll stick with mine.
          B-)

          • Yersinia pestis

            I grew up in what was and still is basically a ghetto area where hearing small arms fire at night was not uncommon—usually handguns but from time to time something a little more heavy—and from early childhood on I learned to see most people as having very little value in fact.

            None of this is to say of course that I see (white) wealthy people as much better though. There usually isn’t much difference between “n—r rich” and just “rich” in general. Just vain, self-aggrandizing people who care little about knowledge or being virtuous in general.

            Fortunately the means to change all of this are coming and I seriously doubt any efforts to restrain it will succeed.

            • I’m sorry to read that. You were robbed of so much. I have to disagree with you. Life is valuable. Wealth is a tool to more powerfully achieve what you want done. The rich have a bell curve just like everybody else on non-money characteristics such as virtue and love of knowledge. That you haven’t met them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The good ones tend to be very quiet in my experience. If you haven’t read it, take a look at a book called the millionaire next door. The popular conception of US rich is very different from the actual reality.

              • Yersinia pestis

                The biosphere can’t even sustain geometric economic growth year after year. That’s preposterous. The sooner human sociobiology is gutted of conspicuous consumption and the like, the better.

                • Ah, now I’m not feeling so bad. Have fun with your Mao suit and leave the rest of humanity alone.

                  • Yersinia pestis

                    You mean Plato suit because Plato was, to my knowledge, the first to advocate eugenics.

                    And, no, I’m not going to leave the rest of humanity alone as long as they keep entertaining this perpetual motion machine fantasy they have for the world economy.

  • Gunnar Thalweg

    Truly frightening stuff. More and more I hear ethical justifications that are just shocking. Remove Christianity and you get demons instead.

  • Petey

    careful now, if they really were communists they wouldn’t be treating people like commodities. that’s for capitalists. which tells you something about the PRC.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Once the replicants arrive, the Blade Runners won’t be far behind.