ABDUCTIONS, EUGENICS AND THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT
by Adam Whaley

PART 1 of 4.
Genetic Decay.

I would urge everyone to read 'Dysgenics' by Professor Richard Linn,
Oxford University Press (ISBN 0275 949176). It is due to be published
in mid-February and promises to explode on the scene in a massive
series of arguments for and against Eugenics - the study and
implementation of human selective breeding. Essentially, it explains
in no uncertain terms, the enormous investment we have made in human
healthcare has ultimately been a total waste of human resources and
can not be continued without eventual catastrophic consequences. In
short, the Western World has now become fatally addicted to healthcare
and our genome, so weakened by successive generations of artificial
repair, can no longer survive without constant maintenance. We have
been papering over the genetic cracks since Hypocrates and probably
well before that.

Despite a great many advances in the field of genetics, the medical
fraternity is finding it increasingly difficult to cheat the
degradation of our genes and is encountering a growing magnitude of
endemic problems not least of all 'emergent' bacteria and viruses, the
'superbugs', and increasingly frequent cases of immune-deficiency
disorders and toxic allergies. Just around the corner is the spectre
of Infectious Prion Proteins - you may recall we had a preview with
Necrotising Fasceitis, the flesh eating 'bug' that burst to fame in
1995. Now we have the timebomb of CJD and all its horrific variants.
Although many of these 'modern' ailments may prove to have external
causative contributory factors, such as environmental and sociological
pressures, these may also be ultimately traceable to many latent
genetic pre-dispositions towards such diseases. Of course, you may
argue that people live a lot longer and healthier lives these days and
you would be right. The question is could people achieve this without
the intervention of healthcare? The answer - No! For example, if you
take the percentage of the Western population who survive to child
bearing age (say) and then you subtract from this figure the
percentage who would have probably died without the intervention of
healthcare (ever had 'flu, bronchitis, etc etc?), you would be left
with a dismally low proportion compared with similar figures of, say,
one hundred years earlier.  

'Dysgenics' promises to explain everything I have been saying for the
last fifteen years and I use here, my short discourse on Defective
Eyesight to hopefully further illustrate the point:

In our prehistoric past, at a time when good eyesight was critical for
survival, evolution selected naturally in favour of improved vision.
As a direct consequence, the gene for 20/20 vision surfaced through
the gene pool and now stands as the pinnacle of ultimate human visual
acuity. If your vision allowed you to survive and reproduce, then the
gene for good vision would, in all likelihood, be passed on to your
offspring. Conversely, the gene for bad vision was selectively bred
out as those people with bad eyesight were more likely to die before
reaching reproductive age as they stood a greater chance of being
eaten; not being able to hunt or feed effectively or just not being
found reproductively attractive to a potential mate.

Alien Intervention?

As an aside, it is the subject of heated debate amongst the more
forward thinking of our Paleo-Anthropologists as to how sentience, and
consequent emergent intelligence evolved within such a relatively
short time scale. When one considers the blink of an evolutionary eye
in which we seem to have discovered tools, fire, language,
agriculture, art and civilisation the options leave little to consider
other than a ridiculously improbable chance mutation or some form of
outside intervention - Extraterrestrial or Supernatural - take your
pick. It would not have been a particularly improbable 'chance
mutation' given a much longer time scale in the same way as other
complex structures are known to have evolved such as the eye, or
indeed, the primate brain. There is, therefore, a growing body of
evidence which suggests that our DNA may well have been manipulated in
our prehistory and the full and comprehensive analysis of our DNA on
completion of the Human Genome Project may offer some astounding
results. Meanwhile, it may be worth reflecting on the strange fact
that we share more of our DNA with Chimpanzees than Chimpanzees share
with Gorillas, their nearest genetic relatives otherwise! We can
expect to see a few surprises emerging from the so-called 'junk' DNA
as the Human Genome Project gains momentum and the data is correlated
having been collected from all corners of the earth by a huge number
of scientific research institutes. (Multinational Pharmaceutical
Companies!) n.b. I will demonstrate that there may well ultimately be
an unbeliveably sinister motive behind the Human Genome Project and
its connection with my Final Conspiracy Theory in parts 2,3 and 4 of
this essay.

In the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, let us assume
that there was indeed such an intervention and genetic manipulation by
an alien race or races around 12'000 years ago. This may have been the
final conclusion to several stages of manipulation vis-à-vis our
various extinct hominid ancestors. In any event, the newly infused
gene for sentience successfully evolved through the gene pool and with
along with sentience, came intelligence. A chain reaction was
established and as the level of intelligence of human beings increased
we found more and more ingenious ways by which we could cheat natural
selection at its most basic level. (It can be shown that Natural
Selection works, not just on physical organisms but on all things, on
all levels, at all times by shifting up and down through the gears of
both the physical and non-physical realms - a continuum of mind/matter
interaction).

Back to the plot. 'Healthcare' has now reached such absurd
politically-correct levels that we are told life is so precious we
must even try and cheat nature's desperate attempts to jettison an
unviable foetus and to assist the genetically infertile with more and
more outlandish methods of producing further potentially infertile
offspring! Others vociferously try and engage their powers of
self-deception to the maximum and attempt to off-load responsibility
for planned and spontaneous human abortion in the name of a supposedly
caring God. Unfortunately, the more-informed amongst us are now
beginning to realise that we cannot cheat nature in the long run and
that we have shot ourselves well and truly in both feet. There is no
such thing as a free lunch and now is the time that we are having to
pick up the tab - with compound interest!

The effect of acquired intelligence on the quality of our eyesight was
this: After a few million years of hunting and gathering, mankind
'discovered' agriculture. This more-efficient method of survival
became gradually less dependent on good eyesight as hunting and
gathering had previously necessitated. Good eyesight was still
obviously an advantage but it became increasingly less significant as
our methods of food production and distribution improved. An
individual, who perhaps once might have died as a result of defective
eyesight, could now reproduce and pass on the weak gene. Eventually,
we discovered optics and found that by sticking bits of bent glass in
front of our eyes it really didn't matter much whether anyone could
see properly or not, the playing field started to level out. However,
after the discovery of corrective lenses our collective quality of
eyesight took a nose-dive as the availability of glasses eventually
crossed all economic and social boundaries. As long as we could earn a
living, survive and reproduce, the quality of our collective eyesight
could deteriorate quite happily with each successive generation
without any overall undue effect on our general well-being.

Evolutionary Psychologists will tell you there still exists a
deep-rooted innate prejudice against bad eyesight and any child or
teenager who wears glasses will readily confirm this. Adults may not
be quite so brutally honest but I would ask you to consider how many
TV and magazine sales models and actors, beauty contestants or
supermodels (or any of their male equivalents) are publicly seen to
wear glasses - even the advertising literature for eye-wear show the
attractive models wearing glasses with the lenses removed! Again, we
try and cheat natural selection and have relatively recently invented
contact lenses. This has eroded the prejudice still further until
nowadays, the negative prejudice is almost indistinguishable and
allows virtually no sexually selective pressure to help breed out the
defective gene.

Given unlimited funding, the logical conclusion of a gene for
defective eyesight would lead in a direction towards microchip retinal
implants with in-built computer image enhancement; infra-red data
links (or microwave equivalent) to other humans and/or computer
terminals and eventually to a global-vision-databank. Brave New World,
New World Order? Perhaps, but reality steps in and applies the brakes.
The available financial resources for all areas of healthcare are
dwindling rapidly as the demand increases exponentially. As the
population escalates and the raw materials that have fueled the
largesse, consumption and rampant consumerism run out, the loan is
quickly being called in. It will bite first in the lower classes but
ultimately, no one is safe as we have all acquired defective genes due
to us, and most of our recent ancestors, being given a successive
number of 'unnatural' opportunities for survival.

Unfortunately, the remedy of human gene decay is not one of simply
undertaking an intense programme of selective breeding as the damage
has already been done. It would be as futile as attempting to
reassemble a dissolved sugar lump by stirring the teaspoon in reverse!
Given our current level of knowledge, any direct genetic manipulation
would probably result in further disruption in the same way that
throwing a screwdriver into a computer is unlikely to improve its
performance - not impossible, just unlikely. In any event, it would be
an almost impossible task to circumvent the sociological hurdles that
have been placed by well-meaning people as a result of the bad name
Eugenics has been given with the various Nazi connotations and
non-political correctness. An interesting study on attributes of
surviving subjects of the Nazi's 'Pure Aryan Master Race' breeding
programme showed no statistically significant results. This study
focused particularly on matters of intelligence, physical appearance
and achievement but not on health. In any event, the collective health
of the subjects would not appear to have improved significantly within
one generation as improvement or decay becomes evident with a
compounded effect over several generations.

To my mind, it is a great shame that we have probably lost a golden
opportunity to allow our species to survive without a massive
biological and ecological crash being caused. When this occurs (and it
may be sooner than you think), there may be a quantity of survivors
whose numbers might be above the critical mass required to start the
process again but in the Gaian sense, it doesn't really matter if one
among many species goes extinct. It may be of consolation to some that
the demise of the human species will ensure the survival of a great
many others. In any event, nature abhors a vacuum and will quickly
fill the gap. It is now far too late, but I am sure that, with care
and compassion, we could have, perhaps twenty or thirtys years ago,
humanely implemented a successful programme of Eugenics. Not the sort
of Nazi-type fascist propaganda that critics are fond of citing. I
talk of gentle social pressure and effective education being applied.
There could have been a financial penalty system used in conjunction
such as a graduated reduction in social security benefits or of
increased taxation and insurance premiums.

As for healthcare, I do not espouse denying this wonderful medium to
anyone no matter how 'defective' they may be. The answer would simply
have been to passionately dissuade them from breeding. If they had
bred already, then pressure by means of applied social stigma should
have been made on their descendants likewise. Within only a few
generations, the restorative effects would have paid enormous social
dividends on the collective well-being of our species. Importantly,
there would have been a severe reduction in the demands on the
ecosystem. Life would not only have been more healthy but more
financially sound and with greater prospects for wholesome
self-improvement. In short, the world would have been a much nicer
place.

To summarise: As a result of our intelligence we have allowed the
fundamental quality of, not only our collective eyesight, but our
overall physical and mental health to insidiously deteriorate as the
increasing percentage of people needing healthcare in increasingly
larger amounts continues to escalate with each successive generation.
We have been breeding ourselves a massive problem.