基因改造新人種的美麗新世界

Thursday, November 10, 2011

The Brave New World of Genetically Modifying a 'New Human Species'

Human Genome Sequence - Wikimedia Commons
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

If some of the information emerging from the technology, governmental, and academic worlds are any indication, not only is the police state here; the scientific dictatorship is right around the corner. Indeed, if recent comments made by Juan Enriquez are indicative of the coming state merger between technology and genetics, we have much to be concerned about.

For those that are unfamiliar with Enriquez, he may not be the most flashy of the science superstars currently on the scene, but he is not exactly a nobody either. Enriquez was the founding director of the Harvard Business School Life Sciences Project and is currently chairman and CEO of Biotechonomy LLC., a “life sciences research and investment firm” and managing director of Excel Venture Management. He is the author of numerous books, including As The Future Catches You: How Genomics And Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work, Health, and Wealth and The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future.

Enriquez also serves on the boards of Cabot Corporation, The Harvard Medical School Genetics Advisory Council, The Chairman’s International Council of the America’s Society, the Visiting Committee of Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center, Tuft University’s EPIIC, and Harvard Business School’s PAPSAC.


Enriquez is a Harvard graduate himself who has previously served as CEO of Mexico City’s Urban Development Corporation, Coordinator General of Economic Policy and Chief of Staff for Mexico’s Secretary of State. Enriquez also boasts of working closely with Craig Venter, who is generally credited with the mapping of the human genome.

Obviously, Enriquez has established quite the résumé in the academic and business worlds. This, combined with his appearances on the very popular TED conference talks, only add to his qualifications in the field of culture creation which is most likely his role. Indeed, much like the other scientific superstars provided to the public by the culture industry, it appears Mr. Enriquez may be more talented in the area of delivering messages than making discoveries. This is why Enriquez’s comments during the interview with Technology Review’s Emily Singer are somewhat disturbing.

The interview was conducted after Enriquez’s speech at a Technology Review conference where he mentioned that, as described by Singer, “Our newfound ability to write the code of life will profoundly change the world as we know it.” According to Enriquez, because we as humans can engineer both our environment and ourselves, humanity is now breaking the “boundaries” of our own natural existence and development which, of course, is described as “Darwinian evolution,” itself a questionable strand of a highly suspect theory to begin with.

Nevertheless, when asked why he thought there is going to be a new human species, Enriquez responded in typical eugenicist fashion. He said,

The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires.

He goes on to discuss the manner in which humans are already influencing their own “evolution.” He says:

If you turned off the electricity in the United States, you would see millions of people die quickly, because they wouldn’t have asthma medications, respirators, insulin, a whole host of things we invented to prevent people from dying. Eventually, we get to the point where evolution is guided by what we’re engineering. That’s a big deal. Today’s plastic surgery is going to seem tame compared to what’s coming.

Enriquez’s comments in this regard are a bit puzzling if the reader does not fully understand the position from which he is coming. The fact that millions of people are attached to electronic devices on which their lives depend is not a testament to guided or enhanced evolution at all. If anything, this would indicate a move in the opposite direction.

Keep in mind that Enriquez is a Darwinian Evolutionist, so he is keenly aware of the process by which Darwinian evolution allegedly progresses. For that reason, his comments may seem to be a contradiction of his own belief system to some. However, when one reads the rest of the interview, Enriquez’s statement begins to make more sense.

During the course of the short interview, Enriquez makes reference to how the new technology, as it emerges, will change virtually everything in society as we know it.

And he means everything. Not just industries. Not just economic disparity. Everything.

This includes morality itself. In fact, Enriquez even goes so far as to define this shift in morality as the “new ethics.”

Enriquez saves the best for last, however, when he explains how the “new ethics” will come into play.

He says:

The issue of [genetic variation] is a really uncomfortable question, one that for good reason, we have been avoiding since the 1930s and '40s. A lot of the research behind the eugenics movement came out of elite universities in the U.S. It was disastrously misapplied. But you do have to ask, if there are fundamental differences in species like dogs and horses and birds, is it true that there are no significant differences in humans? We are going to have an answer to that question very quickly. If we do, we need to think through an ethical, moral framework to think about questions that go way beyond science.

This statement alone echoes the same mentality that was accepted and promoted during the early half of twentieth century to justify mass sterilization, institutionalization, social segregation, even infanticide.

Although eugenics is now allegedly abhorred by academia and the mainstream media, the fact is that it still plays as much a role in both science and government policy as it ever did. Only the names have changed.

Instead of “eugenics” and “racial hygiene,” the scientific community now promotes “social biology” and “sociobiology.” “Deficient” genes now replace the term “inferior” genes. “Family planning” now replaces “abortion” and “sterilization.”

As quoted above, Enriquez stated that eugenics were disastrously misapplied in the 1930s and 1940s. Although he does not clarify whether he is referring to the American or the German version (or both), we can reasonably assume that he meant that the program was often race-based, as opposed to being based simply on “inferior genetics” across the board. Or, perhaps he is merely referring to the public relations issues that arose from these systems. At this point, it is difficult to determine.

Regardless, he openly questions whether or not some humans are so different from one another that they may be considered an entirely different species. This, in and of itself, is reminiscent of a language used in eugenics campaigns in both Europe and America years ago.

Considering the fact that Enriquez is in favor of the creation of a “new ethics,” this statement alone, if his philosophy gains any traction, is quite concerning.

In light of the increase in propaganda masquerading as science and being peddled by science superstars like Enriquez, there is no doubt the world’s population is being prepped for a eugenics-based future. This time, of course, the system will be assisted by a much more sophisticated technological machine and, thus, a much more efficient system of eugenics. After years of non-stop television, media repetition, and “experts” who tout the benefits of merging man and machine, as well as the cost of inheriting “inferior” genes, there is also little doubt that the world’s population will march into this future willingly.

Although greatly improved in terms of implementation and public perception, we have seen this system before and, unfortunately, what Juan Enriquez labels a “new ethics” may not be very new at all.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/genetically-modifying-new-human-species.html

美防長警告對伊朗動武或產生意料不到後果

香港電台香港電台 – 13分前

美國國防部長帕內塔警告，對伊朗採取軍事行動可能產生「意料不到」後果。

帕內塔在五角大樓表示，對伊朗動武可能不僅無法真正有效遏制伊朗的企圖，更重要的是，還可能對駐紮在當地及周邊地區的美軍帶來嚴重影響。他強調，國際社會應對伊朗實施最嚴厲的制裁。

白宮發言人卡尼表示，國際原子能機構發表的伊朗核問題報告令人警惕，美國將加強向伊朗施壓。

歐盟擬對伊朗實施新制裁最終計劃或下月出台

商業電台 – 39分前

國際原子能機構指責伊朗，仍未放棄發展核武，歐盟官員表示，歐盟可能在幾個星期內，對伊朗實施新的制裁。他說最終的計劃，可能會在下個月一號，提交歐盟各國外長通過。外交消息人士透露，目前有關專家，正在商討一系列方案，難以預料最終的結果。
中國與俄羅斯早前達成共識，呼籲國際社會，通過政治及外交手段，解決伊朗核問題，認為實施新一輪制裁，不利於解決伊朗核問題，強調必須通過對話，化解危機。
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/歐盟擬對伊朗實施新制裁最終計劃或下月出台-033000166.html

料獲美支援 阻核武發展 以色列傳最早聖誕攻伊朗

星島日報星島日報 – 5小時前

(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)英國情報官員警告說，為了阻止伊朗發展核武器，以色列可能最快在今年聖誕節就對伊朗採取軍事行動。伊朗最高領袖則聲稱，伊朗若受到任何攻擊，將全力還擊。

　　英國外交事務大臣夏偉林（William Hague）表示，國際原子能機構（IAEA）對伊朗核野心的評估報告，「全盤否定」了伊朗此前的辯解。消息說，英國政府高層官員的共識認為，以色列可能嘗試「盡快」對伊朗的核設施發動攻擊，而美國將提供物資上的支援。

　　外交部一名高層官員透露，英國內閣官員已獲知會以色列的軍事行動，「最早可能在今年聖誕節，或者是明年年初」。英國官員認為，美國總統奧巴馬會支持以色列這次軍事行動，否則就要冒在明年總統大選中失去美國猶太裔選民支持的風險。

　　伊領袖：將全力還擊

　　《每日郵報》報道，英國國防部的消息證實，近數周來，該部門正制訂應急計畫，以確保英國在決定支持以色列軍事行動後，英方能作出恰當的應對。不過，消息人士排除了英國直接介入的可能。伊朗最高領袖哈梅內伊則於昨日聲稱，伊朗若受到任何攻擊，將全力還擊。

　　夏偉林說，國際原子能機構委員會本月稍後開會時，英國將會呼籲對德黑蘭實施更多制裁。而中國外交部發言人洪磊在周四的例行記者會上表示，中方一貫認為，對話與合作是尋求妥善解決伊朗核問題的唯一有效途徑，施壓、制裁無法從根本上解決問題。

　　俄反對制裁措施

　　國際原子能機構的最新報告指責伊朗曾從事與核爆炸裝置有關的活動，並稱活動可能至今仍在進行。報告公布後，以色列、法國等國表示，應對伊朗實施新一輪更為嚴厲的制裁。

　　但俄羅斯外交部副部長加季洛夫周三說，俄方反對出台新一輪對伊朗的制裁措施，任何針對伊朗的進一步制裁都將被俄方視為企圖推翻伊朗現政權。

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/料獲美支援-阻核武發展-以色列傳最早聖誕攻伊朗-223000955.html

螢火一號勢成垃圾 瀕墜地

明報 – 6小時前

【明報專訊】承載中國首個火星探測器「螢火一號」的俄羅斯探測器因點火失敗而滯留地球軌道已超過一天，俄方稱仍有3天「搶救時間」，可嘗試重啟引擎。但本港太空專家對此表示悲觀，認為錯過變軌時機後，飛往火星的難度將大很多。也有分析指出，螢火一號最終會變成太空垃圾，並可能墜落地球。資料顯示，俄羅斯是火星探測計劃失敗次數最多的國家，專家稱與俄羅斯合作探測火星，本來就「風險很大」。

按計劃，運載「螢火一號」的俄羅斯火星探測器「火衛一——土壤」在發射升空688秒後，與火箭脫離並開啟發動機，此後將通過3次變軌進入地球火星軌道。飛行300天到火星後，「螢火一號」將與「火衛一-土壤」分離，展開中國首次火星探測。但前天早晨升空後，「火衛一——土壤」兩次變軌點火都失敗，目前滯留在距離地表206到340公里的軌道中。

計新軌道需2年 難救急

俄羅斯航天部門稱，按照電池和燃料的存量，應該還有3天時間調整探測器的飛行狀態，但香港科技大學太空研究中心主任陳炯林則較為悲觀，他說，錯過了最佳時間窗口1至2日後，火星位置已經變化，目前必須使用一條全新的地球火星軌道，而計算一條新軌道通常需時2年，想用2天時間補救，難度極大。

有美國專家預料，「螢火一號」將與「火衛一——土壤」一起成為地球軌道上的垃圾，或在茫茫宇宙中消失。也有科學家擔心，探測器可能墜落地球，屆時12噸劇毒的燃料或會造成災難。

12噸劇毒燃料恐釀災難

陳炯林說，火星探測的意外，多數是到了火星才發生，今次在地球軌道上變軌失敗，極為罕見。資料顯示，俄羅斯上一次發射火星探測器是1996年，也是以失敗告終。陳炯林說，俄羅斯與前蘇聯探索火星的成功率僅約五成，遠低於美國的八成，建議中國今後「找更穩陣的合作伙伴」。

陳炯林稱，前蘇聯解體後，俄羅斯頂尖工程師大量流失，人才出現嚴重的斷層。有報道指出，太空工程師的月薪甚至不如莫斯科地鐵司機的一半。他說，事隔多年後，俄羅斯一舉嘗試挑戰火星，屬於「急進」，「即使是鼎盛時期，也是一個很大的挑戰」。

「俄靠不住」 中國快爬頭

中科院國家空間科學中心主任、「螢火一號」工程應用首席科學家吳季此前表示，中國尚未有真正的的深空測控技術，因此需要借助俄羅斯的探測器飛往火星。但陳炯林指出，中俄航天技術差距已不大，超越俄羅斯也「為期不遠」。內地媒體此前報道，中國計劃在2013年獨力發射首顆火星探測衛星。
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/螢火-號勢成垃圾-瀕墜地-212452416.html