by David L. Perry, Ph.D.
Khosla wrote, "We will really have to struggle in the next 100 years (though by 2100 this issue will be completely resolved) with the
issue of what is a 'human being.'"
As Lee Silver points out in his book, Remaking
Eden,
our ability to alter the human genome does indicate that we'll have
to rethink the meaning of "human being."
"Since we will have clones, we will have the technology for eternal life . . . "
But that's simply not true. If I were cloned, my clone would be my (nearly) identical twin, but he would have his own
mind/soul. It might be very much like my mind/soul, but it would not
be identical to mine. I would still experience life through my body
only.
Of course, people do speak of "living on" in afigurative sense through their children, and perhaps they will come
to say that about their clones as well. But a belief in eternal life
implies that we will continue to have conscious experience even after
our bodies stop working.
". . . we will have the ability to duplicate every aspect of the human being to the point where even the closest relations of the 'original
human' will be not be able to distinguish between the original and
the 'Xerox copy.'"
_______________
IT'S ALL ABOUT NANOTECHNOLOGY
If you think you are just being targeted and not being used for CIA/ Military Intelligence covert criminal operations they are desperate to get hold of all the targets they can for research and development of nanotechnology. Hazel O'Leary said under President Clinton that 500,000 unwitting Americans were used for military testing purposes during a 40-year period. It's probably a 100 times that these days. My body is filled with the stuff, and I'm not alone.
"Most European and Asian countries have nanotech projects integrated within other military projects. Sweden and the USA have dedicated nanotechnology defence research projects. According to Nanowerk, the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) spends well over 30% of all federal investment dollars in nanotechnology. In 2006, estimated DoD nanotechnology expenditures will be $436m. About $1m will be spent on risk-related research." That's high risk unwitting human subject research... is there any question as to why they do not go before an Institutional Review Board? Who knows what the figure is in the year 2010 for DOD nanotechnology research and expenditures..
Comments