Quote: (10-22-2017 04:13 PM)RiderKnight Wrote:
What I meant was that I couldn't get why all of these redpill people were against genetic engineering. That single thing that he said was the prompt that made me carry the thought further until I came to that conclusion, like Socrates asking the slave questions about the square until the slave could figure the area of the square.
Red Pill at its core means you see the world as it is, not as you want it to be (feminist) or as you'd like it to be (white knight). The Red Pill view of genetic engineering was given a four hundred page treatment in this little book called
Jurassic Park. Human beings are arrogant to the point of self-destruction about how much they actually understand a process they alter. We tend to be very fucking bad at planning for the unforeseen consequences of a change that we make to society or our world at large.
The simplest example of this is feminism. Its
intent was noble enough: make women equal to men. The consequences of its implementation, on the other hand, have been disastrous and suborned wholly to corporate interests: single motherhood, parents both working themselves into the grave, the destruction of the family unit.
Oh, yes, I know the counter-argument: "But humans have always genetically engineered, we've bred animals together for six thousand years, we've created crops that survive much longer and feed the Earth, genetic engineering is no different."
Genetic engineering is to crossbreeding animals or plants as the atomic bomb is to a candle. Fire was arguably the first of our inventions, we should understand it and be able to control it best out of all our creations. After all, we claim to understand it so well: we know what causes fire, what ignites it, what extinguishes it. But fire -- human-caused wildfire in particular -- still kills over three hundred thousand people on this planet every year.
When we mix breeds of animals or plants by normal methods, it's in controlled circumstances and nature itself often provides the failsafe: if the crossbreed is not viable, it dies or is overridden by more adaptable species. Genetic engineering does not have anywhere near as much control over the downstream consequences or long-term understanding of how life works; despite what they tell you, we barely even understand how
single genes operate on an organism; put several genes together to explain a particular biological condition and even a top-flight biologist's brain BSODs; our understanding is nowhere near as strong as they'd have you believe about how genes actually interact with environment.
Even now we still suck at how animals interact with environments. In Australia, what the rabbit, the fox, and the cane toad all have in common is that they were all introduced here ... by educated Western men who thought they understood enough of local conditions to bring in species that had not been on local soil before. In particular the cane toad's impact on Australian ecosystems has been
devastating. Entire species went to the point of being endangered because one animal acted as a biological nuke on the north end of Australia. The cane toad's existence is one of the reasons Australia has one of the toughest, if not
the toughest, quarantine protocols in the world ... because we belatedly realised exactly how subject to unforeseen consequences our ecosystems are.
All of that is way, way before you get to any Jewminati-ish speculation about what genetic engineering could be used for to control people. We barely even control genetic engineering, the odds are on we'd destroy ourselves with it long before we understood it sufficiently to turn us into genetic urban castes.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm