Lanterns: Cloning Humans for Spare Parts


Cloning Humans for Spare Parts

“A special point has been reached in the distant future. And in this era, there exists a special group of mental beings. Although these beings can trace their ancestry back to homo sapiens, they are as different from humans as humans are from the primitive worms with tiny brains that first crawled along the earth’s surface….It is difficult to find the words to describe the enhanced attributes of this special people. ‘Intelligence’ does not do justice to their cognitive abilities. ‘Knowledge’ does not explain the depth of both their understanding of the universe and their own consciousness. ‘Power’ is not strong enough to describe the control they have over technologies that can be used to shape the universe in which they live.” (Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, by Lee M. Silvers, Avon Books, New York, 1997, pg. 249, 250) (Emphasis mine)

In 1988, Joseph Fletcher, perhaps one of the most influential men in regards to the so-called “science of bioethics,” who is regarded as the “patriarch of bioethics,” predicted that a change in our species would evolve that is so drastic and radical in nature, that he coined its coming, as “Homo autofabricus.” But this evolutionary change would not come in the slow and gradual processes, accumulated over thousands of years, as would be predicted by the Uniformitarian evolutionary model.

These radical changes would reach previously unfathomed levels of transformation, within only a few decades. It is as if evolution would have been placed in hyperdrive fast forward speed.

“The Harvard University professor and ‘patriarch of bioethics’ predicted that biotechnology will lead to a transformation of culture ‘of such radical nature’ that life scientists will one day become more powerful agents of social change than ‘Presidents and Parliaments and Pentagons’.

How will such awesome power be exercised? Using the tool of genetic screening, biotechnologists will exert ‘quality control’ over our progeny, a process that Fletcher hoped would permit society to weed out disabled people and those deemed inferior. “There is no such thing as a right to bring crippled children into the world’, Fletcher bluntly declared barely forty years after a shocked world learned that German Doctors had euthanized tens of thousands of disabled infants during World War II. ‘If we choose family size, we should also choose family health…If the State is morally justified in repelling an unwelcome invader… why shouldn’t the family be protected from an idiot or terribly diseased sibling?’

The state’s right to excise an imperfect child, as if it were no more than a tumor, was only the beginning of the radical policies that Fletcher yearned to see implemented. He was eager for bioscientists to master the skills required to create ‘superior people’ through applied genetic enhancement, and he believed that humans have an obligation to become quite literally, self-designing: or in the Latinism he devised, Homo autofabricus

Not only did he extol a radical eugenics philosophy in which biotechnologists would be permitted to shuffle human genes like a deck of playing cards, but he advocated the manufacture of a slave caste of “man/animal hybrids,’ the moral equivalent of Huxley’s fictional Epsilons.

  ‘Chimeras [part human/part animal] or parahumans might legitimately be fashioned to do dangerous or demeaning jobs. As it is now, low grade work is shoved off on moronic and retarded individuals, the victims of uncontrolled reproduction. Should we not program such workers thoughtfully instead of accidentally, by means of hybridization?’” (Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World, by Wesley J. Smith, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2004, pg. 19, 20) (Emphasis mine)

You might say, “You are sensationalizing, these are hypothetical futuristic scenarios, they will never happen in the United States.” Think again! On October 5 of 2000, as we entered into our Third Millennia after Christ, our world crossed over into a dark moment of history that few know about. In a biotech consortium, a research breakthrough was announced that sends shivers up my spine every time I think of it. Joseph Bottum, the books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard wrote back in 2000:

It was revealed that biotechnology researchers had successfully created a hybrid of a human being and a pig. A man-pig. A pig-man. The reality is so unspeakable, the words themselves don’t want to go together.”

The Australian company Stem Cell Sciences, in conjunction with the American company Biotransplant, successfully created a pig-human-“Chimera” hybrid by inserting a human somatic fetal cell into the egg of a pig. Theoretically, the embryo that resulted could have been implanted either in a human or a pig. Make no mistake; we are well on the way to the future posthuman race and the creation of a hybrid slave caste that will serve to maintain the “Genetic Elite.”

Our modern advancements in science have allowed us to transplant organs with increasing success. However, it is estimated that some 16 people in Europe and some 22 people in the U.S. die every day while waiting to receive an organ that does not become available. A few years ago, scientists believed that using an artificial scaffold they might be able to create organs with stem cells called progenitor cells, which have the innate ability to form into different kinds of tissue, but as it turns out, creating an actual functioning organ was much more difficult then anticipated.

Sixteen years after the article ‘The Pig-Man Cometh’ was written, the focus has turned to creating a chimera that can host the organ’s development within them, which scientists would then harvest at the end of the gestation period. In 2016, Scientific American published an article written by Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, entitled ‘Human Organs From Animal Bodies.’ Apparently, the bioethics of the industry has moved further along their evolutionary path into accepting this as normal.

The procedure begins with a genetic tool that acts as a scissor to cut out a wanted gene from the pig embryo. The gene is called CRISPR/Cas9, and it targets the Pdx1 gene in the embryo, which is responsible for triggering the growth of the pancreas. The pancreas is of course where the beta cells in the Islets of Langerhans create the insulin that allows us to use glucose in our metabolism. People with diabetes have malfunctioning beta cells, so the harvesting of the pancreas can provide a very profitable market niche.

Once the CRISPR tool removes the pig’s Pdx1 gene, the fertilized egg is allowed to grow into the blastocyst. The cells divide over and over again until reaching the blastocyst stage, which is when the differentiative process begins that turns certain cells into their predesigned organs. At this point, the scientists inject into the blastocyst human stem cells containing the missing Pdx1 gene, which will then replace the pig’s gene. The blastocyst is now a chimeric animal composed of pig and human genes. The goal is to grow a human pancreas or any other organ inside the pig’s body.

They then implant the chimeric blastocyst into a surrogate sow and allow it to develop to term. Pigs gestate for four months. But humans take nine months to mature, so scientists hope to develop ways to trick the organ into growing faster.

“My colleagues and I believe that it may be possible to grow organs- made entirely, or almost entirely-, of human cells- in an animals such as a pig or cow. The resulting animal would be a chimera- a creature that combines the parts of two different species, much like the mythical griffin, which sports the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion. Our dream is to create a chimera by injecting human stem cells into carefully prepared animal embryos so that when they become fully grown, they contain some organs made up of human cells. After sacrificing the animal we would then harvest the single heart, liver, or kidney made up of human cells and give it to a person in need of the transplant.” (Scientific American, article by Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, entitled “Human Organs From Animal Bodies,” November 2016, pg. 34)

Experiments in mice conducted for the purpose of growing rat organs have proved quite successful, but the difference between a rat and a mouse is not the same as the difference between a human and a pig or a human and a cow. In the diagram illustrating the six stepped process in the Scientific American article, there is a small box in the very center of the diagram written, unlike all the other comments displayed in dark ink, in a very light shade that is almost unreadable. It states: “During development, some of the human cells may infiltrate other areas besides the pancreas, which could sometimes be undesirable.”

Now, that is the understatement of the year. The truth is that these human stem cells may migrate into either sperm cells or eggs, which could cause the chimera to reproduce a “half-human-half-pig” chimera. There is also a danger of that happening with the surrogate sow. Another danger is a human cell migrating into the nerve cells and creating a hybrid creature with a human brain and a human conscience. If you think I am sensationalizing, then hear it from their words:

“There are additional concerns, however, that are specific to this technology. Truly naïve stem cells, as I have said, can give rise to any kind of tissue. But we must pay special attention to three types- nerves, sperm and eggs- because humanizing these tissues in animals could give rise to creatures that no one wants to create.

Imagine the human nightmare, for example, if enough human nerves populated a pig’s brain that it became capable of higher-level reasoning… Although it is a long shot, there is always the chance that some of the human stem cells we implant could migrate to the niche that gives rise to the reproductive system instead of staying in the desired niche that yields the desired organ. The result would be animals that produced sperm or eggs that are virtually identical to those found in people. Allowing these animals to breed would lead to the ethically disastrous case in which a fully human fetus (the result of a humanized sperm from one pig fertilizing a humanized egg from another) starts growing inside a farm animal.” (Scientific American, article by Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, entitled “Human Organs From Animal Bodies,” November 2016, pg. 37)

While growing a fully human being in a farm animal is, in my mind quite undesirable, it is not just because the child will be without parents, but also because it can have unknown influences that are unintended. The role of proteins specific to other animals can have significant changes to the human being. However, the idea of socially engineering society to accept a half human and half pig animal is in my mind just another step in the direction of the powerful to eventually breed a class of beings that could be harvested for their organs. What is to stop the elite in a godless system from farming humans for their organs?

Our new century will witness a new arms race. We are living in the very dawn of the “Genetics Arms Race.” Just as in the last century the fear of falling behind and becoming vulnerable to another nations’ nuclear technological advantage spurred the nuclear proliferation between the super-powers, genetics will become the new arm’s race of this century.

“Bioengineering may be able to physically {and intellectually} improve man across the entire spectrum of our functions-yielding extraordinary economic, as well as strategic advantages. (Neanderthal man was a magnificently successful, early man. But when he met the more intelligent Cro Magnon man, he quickly went extinct.)

Of course, mistakes will be made. Island of Dr. Moreau-like monsters may well be formed. God may punish a people who presume to tinker with his handiwork. But as the Chinese push forward, hell-bent for industrial levels of genetic manipulation and cloning, supported by the massive bioengineering research they are now beginning to fund, American voters and congressmen will have to balance their strong ethical and religious revulsion of cloning against the dangers of being surpassed by a gene-manipulated super-race.” (Tony Blankley, “Cloning and the Chinese”,, September 24, 2003- Tony Blankley is the Washington Times editorial page editor)

The time will quickly come when the rich will be able to translate their economic prowess into a clear genetic advantage in their progeny. And the new class of “genetically rich” humans will be so far superior to the naturals that they will not be able to compete intellectually or physically on an even level. If this is allowed, then it does not take a rocket scientist to see that eventually, the naturals will become extinct.

Not only, however, will the natural man be unable to penetrate the upper echelons of the elite; they will also be outclassed in the lower echelons of the new caste system. The genetically programmed Chimera-human-animal hybrids, specially designed for manual labor, will undoubtedly replace them, as the lower slave caste.

Long before Fletcher peddled his “ethical” views of the future “perfect society,” Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics movement proposed that a national I.Q test be given, and all those who scored inferior should be neutered so they could not procreate and impede the evolutionary ascent of man by “infecting” the genetic pool of humanity with their “inferior” genes. You might again say, “Well, this will never happen in the United States.” Think again! It already did!

In his brilliant history of the American Eugenics movement, “War Against the Weak,” Edwin Black documents and chronicles this dark chapter of our American history. By the early 1900’s, as a direct result of the rise in popularity of the evolutionary paradigm amongst the educators and philosophers, most members of the American upper class had wholeheartedly embraced the philosophy of the Eugenics movement.

Its proponents were well financed by such, as the Carnegie Institute. This greatly facilitated the dissemination of their pernicious egalitarian doctrines. And, as a consequence, this pseudo-scientific philosophy was thoroughly popularized, throughout all levels of society.


“‘They were supported by the best universities in America, endorsed by the brightest thinkers, financed by the richest capitalists.’

…early eugenicists like Charles Benedict Davenport vigorously promoted ‘negative eugenics’, aimed at ‘redirecting human evolution’ by legally preventing- by means of forced sterilizations- the ‘unfit’ from reproducing. Toward this end, Black points out, ‘esteemed professors, elite universities, industrialists, and government officials, relying on biological rationales, unleashed a sterilization pogrom to cleanse the gene pool of the ‘feebleminded, the pauper class, the inebriate, criminals of all descriptions, including petty criminals, …epileptics, the insane, the constitutionally weak, … those predisposed to specific diseases, the deformed, and those with defective sense organs, that is, the deaf, blind, and mute’.

By 1910, ‘ eugenics was one of the most frequently referred topics in the Reader’s Guide to Periodic Literature.In its boom years in the 1920’s, eugenics became a serious, scientifically supported and influential social and political movement. Courses in eugenics were taught in more than 350 American universities and colleges, leading to widespread and popular acceptance of its pernicious tenets. It was endorsed by more than 90% of the high school biology textbooks. Eugenicist societies formed to promulgate and discuss the theory and academic eugenics journals sprouted. What is more, philanthropic foundations embraced the movement, financing research and policy initiatives. Many of the most notable political, cultural, and arts figures of the era believed in it- including Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, Clarence Darrow, Helen Keller and Margaret Sanger- and their opinions could only reinforce the movements popularity.

Eugenics reached hurricane strength after the US Supreme Court sanctioned forced sterilization as a public good in 1927. About 6,000 eugenic sterilizations took place in the United States between 1907 and 1927. By 1940, the number had climbed to nearly 36,000. By the time the practice ended in this country in the early 1970s, nearly 70,000 of our fellow Americans had undergone the operation, all under the mandate of law.” (Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World, by Wesley J. Smith, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2004, pg. 107) (Emphasis mine)

Had it not been for the negative press, which the Nazi concentration camps had given the natural outcome of this horrendous philosophical presupposition, we would have been living in a much different and more radical world today. But make no mistake. That day is coming, nonetheless. Those who exhibit negative behavior patterns that are not pragmatically useful to the elite in power will be annihilated. Those who pose, or are perceived to pose, a threat to the homeostasis of the political state will be deemed expendable elements, which must be surgically removed from the body, like a cancerous agent for the benefit and the health of the whole.

Is this really the direction we want our society to go? What if believing in God is considered abnormal behavior? What if rejecting the syncretic religion of the global government is considered intolerant and divisive behavior that must be eradicated?

Written by Henry Patino

0 Responses

leave a reply

login to reply to thread