A Womb With A View

There are times when I find trends and patterns in the news that are unavoidable, especially when these trends seem to mesh congruently with what can be called, predictive programming.

Within the “Revelation of the Method,” we can see predictive models used to program and steer the populace into realizing there are many things that are coming to the future which will shock many people.

To ease the blow and to ease public’s guaranteed future shock, writers and producers of media and entertainment are able to insert possible future events in order to steer the zeitgeist or to desensitize the public reaction to things that are uncomfortable.

It can be said that much of our causal engineering today is producing a kind of reverse causality where the future, as nebulous as it appears, is quite literally being created in the present.

That is why it is important to understand what is happening with time and how our masters wish to control it, bend it, and force it to act in another dimension for them. I know all of this sounds crazy but Orwell once said “Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past.”

This phrase can be updated to say that who controls the media controls the past, present and future. The media can report that red is green, that black is white, and the past is the way they say it is.

The media constructs the narrative and reports on the agendas of the elite. They control how you use your time and where you should serve your time and to what purpose or cause deserves your time and concern.

The elite who fore-structure the future are able to introduce new ideas that can be wrapped in a cocoon of disinformation. But over time, the disinformation is slowly whittled away to show the underbelly of truth which may or may not be digested by the public at large.

The truth may be in the process of manifestation and the possibility of retro-causality, where we see the effect happen before the cause. Real science says it is all hypothetical, however, with the aid of television and movies, we can see hyper-reality deliver a form of predictive programming setting us on the path of eschaton.

When reality imitates cinematic fiction, cinema no longer functions as the ‘prosthesis for memory’ but as an intact body for what is to come in the future. Rather than just preserving history, film instead furnishes a syntax and lens through which reality is being fore-structured.

Since the return of the X-Files and the underlying theme in the new series of the genetic bonding of alien and human, my personal studies have turned to extreme genetic engineering. I have realized that in order to soften the blow of the word extreme linked with genetic experimentation, I have now learned a new euphemism, “Synthetic Biology.”

Recent research in genetic engineering and synthetic biology has enabled scientists to artificially redesign life.

This is no longer a product of science fiction and the frightening thing is that genetic mad science has allowed for the redesigning of everything from microbes to people. Whether we are comfortable with it or not, this type of synthetic biology is moving forward at breakneck speed where breakthroughs in synthetic biology are being used to alter human DNA.

This forces us into revaluating what the future of healthcare will be, how synthetic biology affects the gene pool, social and ethical questions about proposals ranging from eugenics directives, reproductive rights, and genetically altering human gut bacteria, to implementing germline editing. This also opens the dialogue with regard to altering human embryos and reproductive cells to produce permanent, hereditary genetic modification of future children and generations.

It may be a bit uncomfortable to learn that there is already discussion about the systemic and commercial incentives to rush newly discovered bio-technologies to market regardless of their social utility and ahead of appropriate, transparent assessment and oversight.

Synthetic biology is paving the way for the technocracy to implement its fragmented utopia of transhuman and genetic lab animals and human mutations.

A loose definition of transhumanism is a point in evolution where man becomes something that is beyond human. Transhumanists see the human body as something that can be improved through science and technology. They also see technology as a means to where we can overcome suffering, aging, loneliness, and involuntary death.

Transhumanist thinkers predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label, Homo Novo.

With the post-Homo Novo human breakthroughs, we are now capable of creating human beings both organic and artificial through a synthesizing of human matter and the use of technological constructs that raise the limits on what we call, human life.

According to a report released by the Nanjing Medical University, in the peer-reviewed journal, Cell Stem Cell, scientists have claimed they have found a way for women to have babies without men by creating artificial sperm.

.
The Chinese team claims they have created healthy mouse babies by injecting laboratory-made sperm into eggs to produce mouse offspring. The scientists claim their stem cell technique could pave the way for new treatments for male fertility.

Advanced synthetic biology is able to now go beyond chimera experimentation and create human sperm from a small sliver of skin. It raises the possibility of babies being born entirely through artificial means, and even the macabre scenario of long-dead men ‘fathering’ children from beyond the grave.

This means that we are at a point in our evolution where human reproduction is not a purely biological process. Imagine making sperm from the DNA of a dead man. Or how about making sperm from the DNA of a child? How would that affect us psychologically, socially and ethically? The process could be done in a lab with machines monitoring the embryo as it grows.

With this technology, it is feasible to get the same result from the stem cells of an aborted fetus. This would mean that if a woman wanted an abortion, she could request the cells of the unborn fetus be salvaged, kept in liquid nitrogen, and then used later when the baby could be born at a more convenient time for the mother. Does this technology now eliminate the murdering of babies in abortion clinics?

This process can also be continued in a lab using a method called, ectogenesis. Ectogenesis is a pregnancy occurring in an artificial environment, from fertilization to birth.

The question is, are we on the road to ectogenesis right now?

The answer is a definite, yes.

In the mid 1990s, Japanese investigators succeeded in maintaining goat fetuses for weeks in a machine containing artificial amniotic fluid. At the same time, the recent decades have seen rapid advancement in neonatal intensive care that is pushing back the minimum gestational age from which human fetuses can be kept alive.

Today, it is possible for a pre-term fetus to survive when removed from the mother at a gestational age of slightly less than 22 weeks. That’s only a little more than halfway through the pregnancy which is normally 40 weeks. And while rescuing an infant delivered at such an early point requires sophisticated, expensive equipment and care, the capability continues to increase.

Just like Huxley’s Brave New World, scientists are saying that within the next 20 years, ectoenesis would account for more than 70 percent of human births.

At the moment, politicians are finding themselves arguing over whether or not a mother has a right to undergo an abortion. These arguments, however, should be updated for the 21st century. Politicians who think ahead should be discussing the ethical practice of the genetic design of children, the use of artificial sperm, and whether or not a mother has a right to clone an aborted fetus and have it grow in an artificial womb through ectogeneisis.

While social conservatives might be receptive about what an artificial uterus might do to the abortion paradigm, make no mistake – they’d probably not be happy that the technology also stands to make it much easier for male gay couples to have babies. All they’d need is an egg donor; no more need for a surrogate mother to take the embryo into her uterus and carry it for 40 weeks.

That’s easier for any gay couple in terms of practicality, waiting periods, and money. The same thing goes for a transgender person wishing to have a child.

The various debates and issues discussed by the politicians running for President have no vision – all of the discussions are about immediate push button issues they can exploit without even thinking about how emerging biotechnologies are enabling researchers and corporations to control and manipulate the basic building blocks of life.

The impacts of these technologies are already rippling through society, as corporations patent our genes and those of other organisms.

Why are these issues avoided while others are beaten like a dead horse?

Not one politician thinks or even discussed what is happening to the future of human life.

They can talk all they want about building walls, immigration, Wall Street, economy and whether or not they are religious or even socialist, but how bold would it be to have a presidential candidate with vision and the ability to introduce to the public the concerns about synthetic biology.

Text – Check out Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis Live Nightly @ http://www.groundzeromedia.org