What we think of our transgenic destiny
On February 19, 2009, Special Envoy devoted a report entitled "an endless dream" to the humanity of the future, whose performance and longevity would be increased tenfold by the prowess of genetics and nanotechnologies. In the last scenes of this film, filmed at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris in July 2008, an "obscure little group" appears to interrupt a conference. We learn nothing from him except that he is
violent et
undemocratic. Let's move on to the alleged violence, refuted by the very images of the documentary. The important thing is to remember why it is in the name of a possible democracy that we have denounced, as we will continue to do, the totalitarian claims of genetics.
In this conference sympathetically entitled "transgenic man: an infinity, possibilities", J.-C. Weil and M. Radman exposed their work: inducing in mice, and later in humans, genetic mutations allowing to delay the onset of cancer and extend the length of human life far beyond a hundred years.
Far from being
a simple debate of ideas, as the journalist said, this conference was a presentation of the research currently being carried out by the main French scientific institutes. These experiments are funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of euros by public funds and biotechnology companies. It is therefore not a question of ideas, but of very concrete achievements which determine how we would like to make us live tomorrow. The striking force of biotechnology seems to be fairly well demonstrated by the powerlessness to which all those who oppose the diffusion of genetically modified plants in the natural environment and in food are reduced.
In short, if genetic research did not have such a power of action on the world via the active support of the State and their immediate valorization by the biotechnology firms, if they were not financed by our taxes, if it had been, therefore, a simple philosophical debate, we might not have bothered ourselves.
Let's put this conference in context. It is now proven that the damage caused to our living environment by the industry induces an epidemic of cancers, allergies and new diseases. The scientific institution, far from wondering about the causes of these ailments, endeavors to tinker with humans to adapt them to their pathogenic environment. Do not panic, ladies and gentlemen, we have the solution to all your problems, the ultimate synthesis, the end of history:
transgenic man. Already, the abundant laboratory production of transgenic animals is used, among other things, to study what mutations will have to undergo humans to coexist with radioactivity, chemical and electromagnetic pollution, etc.
Besides, it is not only a question of adapting the human being, but of improving it. By erasing some of its "faults" (said the speakers that day), such as that of not living beyond a hundred years. Then, through the pre-implantation diagnosis, to make sure that he does not suffer from tares. Then, to increase its "performances", according to the criteria in force. This is what the geneticist Daniel Cohen, well placed, like Weil and Radman, says in scientific institutions:
"I believe in the possibility of a new conscious and provoked human biological evolution, because I have difficulty seeing homo sapiens (...) patiently and modestly waiting for the emergence of a new human species by the anachronistic ways of selection natural. " The biotechnology industry is well positioned to derive maximum benefit from the work of these Darwinists in a hurry ... to become truly eugenicists.
Many biologists have a bad habit of confusing the evolution of species with that of science. For them, biology naturally takes over from the millennial evolution of living things. And since this evolution is "natural", challenging it makes no sense. This is precisely what Miroslav Radman says in this report, when he comments on our intervention:
"If there had been this fear of change at the start of life, today there would only be bacteria". An emblematic remark of the naive arrogance of geneticists, who take themselves for the concessionaires of an adventure started 3,5 billion years ago. Considering what industrial science has managed to do with the planet in just a few decades, uncontrollable processes that it started in nature at the very moment when it claimed to control it, we think that it is at the very least reasonable to oppose this research. And this, before a committee of wise men chaired by
the same do not duly supervise the fait accompli and certify it as ethical.
We are not afraid of change. For the good reason that what genetics offers today is not change, but the continuation of the world as it goes, worse: unmanageable pollution, the increasing objectification of individuals, the replacement of politics by technical pseudo-imperatives. When industrial capitalism promises longevity and health, we would be tempted not to believe it and to judge on paper. Moreover, in a world where the genetic file spreads peacefully, the promises of longevity quickly become feats of alienation. We therefore say that the real change, in reverse of the radiant tomorrows promised by biotech, lies in our political capacity to combine the flaws of each other to produce dignity and autonomy.
Oblomoff Group.
Text in pdf:
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... p7Stjk.pdf