Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,570 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 21156

Posts: 60

My Comments: 375

User Comments: 820

Photos: 4

Friends: 18

Following: 0

Followers: 4

Points: 1419

Last Online: 2538 days ago



No Recent Visitors

The Dark Side Of Biotech Just Got Even Darker

Added: Thursday, October 24th 2013 at 12:00pm by boggart-eft


"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." ~ Albert Einstein


If you ignore the attribution of the quote above, it could be dismissed as the complain of another conspiracy theorist, a global warming 'denier' or an  anti-GMO protester (someone like me for example) waving a Stop Monsanto placard. The name Albert Einstein, the scientist representing the very epitome of Western rationality and the triumph of secularism and logic over superstition. Einstein is often cited as an example of the pinnacle of human accomplishment by the very sociopathic science freaks he warns us against.

Perhaps Einstein was reflecting on the inevitable conflict of the so-called "technological imperative"--whatever can be done, will be done, versus the human imperative.  Fundamentally amoral and irrational economic and political forces drive science and technology's frenetic advance, tainting everything it touches with greed for profit and everything it touches  power. And worst of all by some kind of bizarre, accelerated natural selection, the majority of modern scientists are so autistic as to lack any moral compass. Thus, "because we can" is the only justification for even the most inhuman atrocities they would inflict on us. Things like involuntary cannibalism for example.  

Driven by wannabe - God complexes and the unshakeable belief that science can always improve upon nature, in the name of over hyped, ‘potentially life-saving’ biotech innovations, they blur the line between humane and inhumane. And when sociopathic, solipsistic scientists are involved, once the line is crossed there is no going back.

Bio pollution from engineered genes GMO for example, is virtually impossible to control after it escapes into the biosphere; you can’t “recall” a defective gene like you can a defective appliance. And let us remind ourselves what genetic engineering does. It is not just a process to speed up evolution as the biotech community dishonestly plead, genetic engineering involves removing genetic material from a cell to prevent the natural process that will destroy the cell when genes from another species are introduced. It is the creation of something that could never exist in nature, something that nature would abort. Genetic engineering is the science of creating monsters.

Once the genetic pollution is in place it is beyond control, all we can do is kill the host creature. There is no way to remove from our bodies a dangerous virus introduced in a vaccine (e.g. simian virus #40 [SV40] that contaminated millions of first-generation polio vaccines).

Once we have crossed a certain line – be it theft,lying, watching pornography, etc. it is difficult not to progress, a few sweets from the local shop, what a thrill when we get away with it, comics, books or small appliances from superstores, cars and so on, or how about viewing pictures of nudity and simulated sex, real sex, extreme sex, fetishism, S & M, ritual humiliation, sexual violence; the paths of progression are well trodden. Such is the human condition. And this is why we must be aware of the ethical implications of new technologies, whose developments must be open to public scrutiny so that group morality may control what is acceptable.

The Scientific Community Moves To Embrace Embryo Cloning for Medical Purposes

Few people are aware that the cloning of human embryos for ‘therapeutic purposes’ was made legal in the UK in January, 2001 through an amendment to the Human Embryology Act.[i]  Not long after, in August 2004, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) approved the first license for cloning human embryos in the UK. Other E U nations have legalised similar activities.   Media reports at the time which alleged the legal changes would result in the use of cloned human embryos to create "spare body parts" were met with the usual rabid hostility from the science community and the progessive left.

In an article published in 2000 titled, "<a href="http://cbhd.org/content/biotech-cannibalism">Biotech Cannabalism</a>, C. Ben Mitchell, PhD summed up the pro-cloning movement by quoting a proponent’s justification: “If you could use tissue from human embryos to save hundreds of lives, there must be a moral imperative to do it.” Mitchell disagrees, countering: "Creating a human being for the purposes of killing that person for another human being’s health, sounds an awfully lot like cannibalism, only worse."

Now Dr. Mitchell might be too religious for some. I am not religious, I don't even like describing myself as an atheist because atheists are behaving more and more like members of some nutty cult. And I am not against abortion with appropriated medical control although I find the for profit abortion industry of the USA distasteful. Cloning for spare part surgery however is in my view an affront to human dignity, scientists would reduce us to the level of factory farmed animals. Do we want to end our days being bodged up with spare parts to keep us going for a few more months like some clapped out old car? I am very much an advocate of natural life and part of natural life is death. Deal with it.

Cannibalism is considered by all advanced societies to be the ultimate expression of uncivilized or barbaric behavior, it is intrinsic to many of the Western world’s most prized biotech and medical innovations. And having witnessed the BSE (Mad Cow Disease) epidemic that to the best of anyone's knowledge was caused by the inclusion of bovine brain and nerve tissue in cattle feed, who knows what horrors involuntary cannibalism may unleash in the future.

More info on Biotech Cannibalism
Vaccines Secret Ingredient


Monsanto's Toxic Monstrosities Kill And Maim Thousands In Argentina
Why Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) can Never Be Safe
UK Government Agency Faked Vaccine Safety Data To Sell HPV Virus Against Non Existent cervical Cancer Threat
Vaccine fascists Losing The Fight To Force Vaccines On Parents
Alien In My Bed
Black Hat Biotech Beyond The Law?

User Comments

I would not be adverse to them growing just a liver or a heart in a test tube but I would strongly object if they removed the items from an intact human being.

They problem they can't get over that stops hearts, livers etc. being grown in test tubes is things don't grow very well unless there is contact with a brain / nervous system and a circulatory system to deliver nutrients and oxygen.

Yes, I know.  That's why they have taken to growing human ears on the sides of mice.  I saw one in a documentary once.  It was gross.  And I can only wonder what that did to the life of the mouse.  Wouldn't it make more sense to grow the ear on the person who needed it?

Let me play the devil's advocate so to speak: If man is a product of intelligent design, then how do you divide what is natural, and what is not? If the planet was created, or prepared for us to inhabit, then who is to say that the object of man's progress is not to "improve upon nature," but to evolved as self-developed beings?

who is to say that the object of man's progress is not to "improve upon nature,"?

That is where the will of the majority and group morality comes in.

I would answer that there is no such thing as "group morality." The group might decide to lynch the innocent, or assuage their own guilt by by granting someone else's charity so they don't have to deal with it themselves. Morality is personal, but the group only reacts to whatever pressure is exerted against it.

So then let me rephrase in the form of a statement: When children are given water colors and paper, it is not to improve the art of painting; it is to expand the minds and ability of the children.

Likewise, perhaps in the "belief that science can always improve upon nature," the object is not to improve on nature at all, but to expand the knowledge and ability of man to discover the universe and evolve within it.

If God exists as an architect of the universe, it would follow that we are given the ability to think and reason so that we will think and reason. If the origin of man is in Darwinian evolution, then eventually destroying our own world is equally natural but less significant than collapsing stars.

Group morality is the basis of all morality. For sure we have individual morals but they are shaped by the cultural values of the society we live in.

I got into a ridiculous argument once with a pro choice fanatic after I had blogged on the issue of prosecutors in the UK turning a blind eye to private abortion clinics performing gender selection abortions for people of certain ethicities and religions.

I wanted to know why the politically correct left thought British law should not apply to all british citizens and residents equally. My opponent wanted to shift the argument to a "womans right to choose." but what woman would, without coercion, choose to abort girl babies.

So the group morality frames the law and individual morality shapes decisions within it.

As for science expanding our knowledge and understanding, it seems to me that every scientific advance answers nothing but only reveals more questions which shows how very limited our knowledge and underststanding really is.

In the end we get back to Socrates, the first western philosopher that we know of. his technique was to keep questioning every fact and every belief and thus sooner or later discover the assumption or fallacy behind it.


I'm enjoying this conversation Ian, but I want to make sure you understand I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but wish only to continue in the spirit of what I call folding words. Moreover, I don't want others to mistake our conversation as hostile, which it could never be.

Continuing our conversation, I do disagree with your assertion that "group morality is the basis of all morality." I contend that group morality not only leads to no morality at all, but the two words, 'group' and 'morality' are at their root, incompatible. I would consider what you are applying as group morality, would be better defined as group think (or groupthink), which is an entirely different animal.

The reason I am so adamant on this is that what you've actually touched on is at the very core of collectivism vs. individualism. In other words, the group by definition is only capable of prescribing compliance (without regard to morals) as opposed to free agency where morality is manifest. Relying on the group for moral value falls naturally to the political structure of collectivism, while individual morality rises to republicanism. The difference seems subtle but in the first, the collective dictates to the people while in the latter, the people license, or more importantly, limit the authority (dictates) of the collective.

In his book, History of the Conquest of Peru (1847), William Prescott said, “...a philosopher of a later time, warmed by the contemplation of the picture—which his own fancy had colored—of public prosperity and private happiness under the rule of the Incas, pronounces ‘the moral man in Peru far superior to the European.’ Yet such results are scarcely reconcilable with the theory of the government I have attempted to analyze. Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously prescribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct.”

Morals, the etymology of which arguable means “good,” is foreign to the group concept, unless you are willing to concede that killing-out certain species is good, or it's a good idea to eliminate those of our own species with contagious diseases, or with habits that run contrary to the good of the hive, such as those inclined to laziness, gluttony, substance abuse, or sexual behavior with high negatives and no potential for species propagation such as homosexuality.

I believe your analogy that a “woman would, without coercion, choose to abort girl babies,” is fatally flawed. The natural condition by design of Natures God, whether you believe that design to be intelligent architecture or natural selection, is that mothers absent influence of society (the group) defend their children with their lives.

It is only when they are conditioned to desire children of a certain gender, or a child who is perfect, or to have no children because a child would interfere with their career or interrupt their leisure or sex life that the natural yearnings of motherhood are forsaken. Therefore, the fact abortion exists as an institution at all defies the veracity of any group morality (good) unless you agree with the group that killing babies for convenience sake is a good thing.

On the issue of science, I’ll just say that Socrates was very wrong unless the argument can be sustained that flushing toilets, refrigerating food, and libraries that carry forth the knowledge of men like Socrates for the consideration of future generations are bad things. All discovery is science and science itself is nature itself.

In closing, even though our perspectives vary, any post that provokes thought as this one has is a great post Ian. Thanks very much for tolerating my views, as flawed as they might be.

Time is short at the moment so I'll get back. One quick point however,
"your analogy that a “woman would, without coercion, choose to abort girl babies,” is fatally flawed"

I forgot a question mark which blurred my meaning a bit but what I asked was " what woman would, without coercion, choose to abort girl babies."

So really we are of the same mind on that point. Nature (or design) predisposes a mother to protect her offspring so the group morality in UK law is going with nature (although nature is never clear cut, I'll expand on that tomorrow).

Yes, I see your point. Reading it again, I think you were actually clear enough, it was my mistake. Sorry about that. I look forward to your further comment Ian, thanks!

I haven't forgotten, been a bit bogged down

Yeah, I saw that. I also remember a BBC TV drama series (based on science fact ) back in the early 1970s, Doomwatch, in which the directions science was heading back then were brought to light and questioned.

It's surprising how many of the things (cloning, human - animal hybrids, mind control) causing concern were on the agenda back then but were kept secret due to the fear of a public outcry.

The majority have been conditioned to accept it over the years. In the 1960s I had a T shirt, it had a picture of a weedy little bureaucrat with a clipboard, backed up by two Judge Dredd type  military men with automatic rifles. The little guy is pointing and saying "You must never question authority."

I feel we are moving towars that kind of society.

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.