A perfect genome will have no need for violence, greed, vanity and all the other characteristics which have caused human suffering for so long. So, as we evolve and we need less and less to feed the materialistic reservoirs of our psyche, we will become more comfortable with the global concept of sharing? Once again, this sharing thing is not really new to humanity. We are involved in communal sharing on various scales: in our homes, extended families and even offices, but to be taken to its extreme, we would have to eliminate any form of material reward from the global equation.
This concept must be completely unthinkable to anyone in economics or the financial markets, because as they see it, the world is driven by economics, in other words, money. The only problem is that money makes money and in the end it gets us nowhere. The pursuit of money has been a major driving factor behind many wars. The simple expression ‘the rich get richer and the poor get babies’ is very real and very dangerous for future prospects of human survival, because the babies of the poor become the slaves of global corporations in the modern world.
What used to be brutal wars waged by thousands of men in bloody hand to hand combat in open fields, has been replaced by global terrorism, which is probably more sinister and difficult to guard against. But the largest threat to our survival is ‘economic terrorism’. This relative newcomer to global domination has replaced nuclear superiority and has been waged quietly from behind closed doors of the giant multinationals against the smaller unsuspecting nations. After all, it is much wiser and more profitable to invade a country by taking over its economic assets and owning its wealth and natural resources, than blowing them up first, before you take them over. So, in essence nothing has changed since Alexander the Great or Attila the Hun. Only our methodology has changed. The violent gene is still in all of us. While some of us have learnt to suppress it somehow, possibly through our own evolutionary process, a new more menacing gene has taken centre stage. The greed gene.
If you ask any regular person on the street, they will tell you that they want peace and harmony in the world but many people are still prepared to fight for peace. You have probably seen those T-shirts that say ‘fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity’. You can’t get much closer to the truth than that. But standing firmly juxtaposed to all the violence and greed in the world is a seemingly endless river of goodwill. But because the media have become obsessed with blood, guts and gore, we hardly ever get to hear about the good news in the world. On an average day there is far more good news to cover in the world than there is bad news, but that is not the choice of the editors. This is a very strange aspect of human nature which must have its roots in some macabre genetic dysfunction we do not understand yet. But editors seem to be convinced that ‘good news does not sell’. I have had this debate with a number of TV and radio producers who tend to dismiss my suggestions of ‘good news content’ with large amounts of arrogance, as if they knew exactly what the average man on the street wants to consume in the news. Well, I believe they have become slaves to the violent and greed genes driving our character. They have settled into the safe zone of using violent sensationalism to sell their news. They are not brave enough to push the boundaries of their own genetic makeup and explore the deeper needs of the global society. How much longer will the media survive on feeding us such negative news? How much longer will the average person put up with consuming and digesting the sensationalism dished up to us as ‘crucial’ knowledge without which we could not function?
The amount of goodwill and benevolence that people display on a daily basis is truly staggering, but it largely goes unnoticed in the face of the negative news being shoved down our throats. From Mother Theresa to social workers and volunteers in conflict situations; the Red Cross; the Red Crescent; a multitude of aid organisations and charity institutions; animal rights groups; orphan support groups; soup kitchens; night shelters; a seemingly endless list of NGOs with some cause at heart, there is so much goodwill in the world it is quite simply overwhelming. The concept of sharing seems to be deeply entrenched in human culture. By the time you see a disaster on TV, some international benevolent organisation has already arrived to deal with the situation. One of my favourite quotes is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I always felt that somehow this should be one of the principal philosophies we should subscribe to in our turbulent state of mind. The recognition of good and bad is clearly visible in the eyes of little children when you tell them stories about evil characters, they burst into tears very quickly. Instinctively, they don’t like the bad guys and they want the good to conquer evil. You never really have to explain the difference between good and bad, they seem to instinctively know who the bad guy is and who the good guy is. And yet some grow up choosing a violent path and others do not. Is it social conditioning together with a programmed violent gene that causes some children to grow up into monsters? How can a pure little baby who cries when the evil stepmother raises her voice at Cinderella, turn into a global dictator who does not count his victims by the dozen, but by the million? The fact that there have been peacemakers like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, who have inspired most of the world to engage in dialogue rather than war, has been an inspiring closure to the 20th century. This is all juicy fodder for the preachers of ‘nature vs nurture’ theories. Are we a product of our environment, or are we a product of our DNA programme?
Psychologists have been speculating for years about the triggers for violence among humans. There have been fantastic theories, like the effect of your parents, your friends, your neighbourhood, the climate, disease, the stars and a host of other extrinsic factors that play an important part in our behaviour. That may very well be the case, but they are just the triggers that stimulate the violent gene inside. The chain reaction which follows the stimulation of the violent genes will differ from person to person. This is where it becomes even more complex. If we have been created with a restricted genome, our creator must have done so purposefully. It is clear from the Sumerian tablets that our makers had an advanced knowledge of science and medical procedure. But it does not mean that they, themselves, had a perfect genome. And if we are genetic offshoots from a more advanced ‘human’ species who settled on Earth in the distant past, we must retain parts of their genetic structure. The fact that we have reached the capacity to contemplate these once unimaginable prospects, is a clear sign that there is much more to this fairytale than first meets the uninformed mind. Our level of development in the 21stcentury must be very close to that of the Anunnaki astronauts when they first arrived on Earth. My guess is that in a 100 years or so, we will be ready to absorb the full truth of our ancestry and the authentic origins of the human race. The evidence will be more compelling, the fearful grip of religious dogma will be more fragmented and people will be searching for real answers rather than the mumblings of conservative power-mongers.
The giant gap between the ‘HAVES’ and the ‘HAVE NOTS’ is bigger than ever before. Just compare the giant social chasm separating a rocket scientist who is trying to land a probe on Mars, and the situation of a homeless person contemplating to rob someone for ten bucks. The disparity between humans is staggering. And if we were all born equal, we have certainly done everything in our power to change that. A very disturbing aspect of human nature which must have deep-seated roots somewhere in our genome as well. Are some humans more valuable than others? If our bodies are disposable but our souls are not, should we not do away with the imperfect bodies, keeping only a few on this planet, until such time that a more perfect genetically created body has evolved? At that point we could allow humanity to multiply to their hearts’ content, because their DNA will not allow us to do anything damaging to either the planet or Humankind.
Just look at our insatiable need to explore. We have done quite well in 30 years since the first Viking space probes were launched on a planetary expedition into the depths of our solar system. We have done very well in such a short space of time. We received
photographic images of all our planets, before the probe finally left our solar system and disappeared into deep space en route to distant stars. This obsessive desire to explore and conquer is very strong in our genes and as I point out in other chapters, a quest of humanity since our creation. We can trace it back as far as the Garden of Eden. It all started there, when Adam disobeyed his god and wanted to try a new experience. He just had to know more, explore, push the boundaries, without even knowing why he was doing so. It was very simply a natural response which was dictated to him from deep inside his DNA. Poor guy, the father of all humans and he himself was receiving mixed messages from the very start! No wonder we are all so confused.
Since then, we have a much better understanding of our place in the universe. We now know that we are not the centre of creation, something that I was still taught as a boy in Grade One, and we have had physical interaction with many of the planets around us. So the next step in our quest to conquer, would clearly be settling on another planet. The fortunate thing is that there are no intelligent creatures living on any of the local planets. We would surely be faced with a moral dilemma if we found an advanced creature living on one of them. What would we do? It all depends if the creature was more or less advanced than we are, I suppose. This would play a major role in the way we dealt with them.
So let us imagine that the creatures on Mars are more or less as evolved as we are. The first thing that would happen is our natural instinct for defence would probably kick in. We would display high levels of concern that we may be attacked and colonised by our planetary neighbours. So we would face a number of options. Reach out a hand of friendship; attack; or sit back and wait. It is often said that history has taught us nothing, and this is where we will most likely prove it all over again. In conflict situations, a surprise attack will normally catch your opponent off-guard or even better, unprepared. Pre-emptive strikes are justified based on the pronouncements of people like George W. Bush and many of his disciples. So, we would probably do the latter and forget the lessons from history. Once we have surprised the Martian people and subdued them into subservience, we would occupy them and immediately start to import our global culture. But what culture would it be? American culture of course. After all they are paying most of the costs, so they will have first option to introduce whatever culture they feel fit. What if the USA acts alone in this invasion of Mars and occupies the Martians against the will of the rest of the world? Suddenly we will all be at risk of an attack by a Martian force anytime in the future. Can you see the deeply rooted signs of a violent gene? I know this is just a silly hypothetical example but it is not that far removed from what is happening on Earth! But as far as we know there is no advanced intelligent life on Mars, so the settlement and colonisation would not have such serious consequences, yet. It is however quite probable that this kind of invasion happened here on Earth some 445,000 years ago. We will expose all the evidence left behind on thousands of Sumerian clay tablets. From the annals of human history, we can also deduce that the consequences of invasions can be catastrophic.
Many books have been written on the possibility of human settlement on Mars. Strangely enough it does not seem to be as insurmountable as we originally thought. Knowing the human hunger for exploration we will send explorers to settle on Mars at some stage in the future. Many brilliant minds have been compiling the necessary steps for human life to flourish there. The three most important criteria are: an atmosphere which protects the settlers against cosmic radiation and contains the necessary gases for us to breathe without a support mechanism; water and food. The latest announcement by NASA scientists predicts that we could create a liveable atmosphere within 200 years. There have been brilliant proposals to achieve all of them and it will probably happen in time to come. So let’s just imagine for a moment that if we manage to populate Mars, solve the oxygen and water problems and start active communities on this neighbouring planet, one of the first resources we will need is labour. While robots may be able to perform some of the tasks, human involvement will be unavoidable in the form of actual people who can do all the physical work, which we will need to create a stable sustainable community on Mars. Building structures, reservoirs, roads, mining, food preparation, healthcare and so on.
If we did not face the moral dilemma imposed on us by religion, would we rather wait for a number of years to get some help from Earth, or would we seek a different solution? The journey to Mars takes more than three years at present speeds of space ships and would only be able to deliver a very small number of people. In that case, would we rather consider the possibility of cloning men and women who are properly educated and skilled in the various tasks needed on Mars? Will the same moral rules that prohibit human cloning on Earth also apply on Mars? If we could get the emotion and the religious interference out of the equation, cloning would surely be a realistic option. After all, the babies will be well cared for, educated and protected by the Martian authority. Everything will be provided for them. At a point in the future, when the new Martian humans have matured and are capable of procreating themselves, we would have introduced our family values that we hold so dear on Earth. So you see, cloning does not have to be such a bad thing. It can help us to advance into space, without the constant physical intervention from Earth. It would make the space pioneers self-sufficient and independent. And like a general in a war situation, the general on Mars would most likely decide on the most effective action to deal with the situation, without having to wait for instructions from his leader back home. Will this situation arise on Mars? Maybe… possibly… probably. It all depends on how impressive the advancement in space travel will be in the next two to three decades. If we can break the bonds of gravity, come to understand and use electromagnetic science more effectively; replace archaic combustion power with a new propulsion system, all of this is possible.
The question remains, how will we deal with the labour problem on the new planets we conquer? In this lies the human moral dilemma, which is very closely linked to our own origins and evolution. The human nature that shapes us and our thoughts; the drive for exploration and invention; the shortcomings of our genome and our imminent understanding of it, all play a part. We are so close to seeing the whole story of humanity but there are still some hurdles to cross. It is an incredible story which will liberate us from our moral imprisonment and also free us from the cradle of humanity, planet Earth. All of this is programmed into our DNA, each and every one of us. All we need to do is to exhibit patience and restraint as we decode our human programme and unlock the dormant genes that will liberate our spirits.
Let us go back to Mars. We have now successfully landed, set up a base, and spent a few years – with the help of advanced science – to speed up the development of an atmosphere, generating oxygen from the carbon dioxide trapped under the surface and we’ve even brought up water from the underground ice. We also planted thousands if not millions of trees and other vegetation, like grasses, which include cereal, maize, barley, oats, wheat and more. They all grow well with the fertiliser we created from nitrogen and phosphate, and the irrigation system keeps it all hunky dory. We then face the first dilemma of labour. Suddenly things get out of hand and start to grow and evolve around us on Mars. We have an urgent need for additional manpower. But we soon overcome this dilemma by taking the necessary steps to deal with the situation, and we create a whole army of cloned babies. They are bought up in comfort and loved by their minders and creators, providing everything they need while educating them in the necessary skills they will need to perform specialised functions from the early age of 16. As the years go by we ‘create’ more environmentally-adapted cloned human babies to supply the needs of the Martian expansion. Mating among the cloned adults is strictly prohibited, because of unforeseen physical problems and controlling the numbers of humans in the colony. In fact, the clones were originally created without the sex chromosome to prevent them from multiplying on their own. But after two decades w
e realise that it is quicker to allow the clones to mate among themselves under controlled conditions. A quick genetic procedure allows them to procreate on their own for some years. We teach them the importance of monogamy and chastity and family values. They experience the meaning of parenthood and responsibility for the first time. Suddenly we have a new Martian race of humans who were born of Martian parents and all their experiences are restricted to their Martian history. But these Martians were not created as slaves, but as equal humans. So the community and population on Mars grow and their needs grow along with them. The rare precious metals which are being extracted and shipped back to Earth, become a highly sought-after commodity among Martians and they start to adorn themselves with it as a symbol of their achievement. As time goes by this metal becomes so desirable that it becomes the local currency. Martians everywhere start to trade with this currency so that it begins to affect the supply to mother Earth. Soon after this, the trade with the metal is outlawed and it goes underground. Within a short space of time, a new elite Martian mafia-type organisation emerges which starts to control much of the power, while criminal activity surges. With this sudden arrival of material and monetary desires of the Martians, comes a whole new and most serious dilemma. There are now 12,875 people on Mars and complex social problems start to creep into all spheres of life. The most worrying is the emergence of social classes, skewing the balance of equality. Since this was originally a government-funded expedition, all the people who were enrolled played a vital and integral part in the mission to Mars. They all received the same remuneration, while all their daily needs and requirements on Mars were provided for by the expedition funds. The original team worked smoothly, without any conflict, as they each had a special function to fulfil, and each member was a crucial part of the team. But suddenly this all changed, and a new worker class emerged. Should the worker be treated the same as the first members of the team? Or are they to be regarded as lesser ‘equals’, since they were created for more menial work? And how will they be remunerated? With food, clothing, entertainment, free sporting facilities and other things that will satisfy their needs while they live happily in the growing Martian community? Or do they get given some form of monetary remuneration which is deemed to be proportional to the job they perform? With the one option you will create a ‘Communist’ structure where everyone is equal and expected to contribute towards the benefit of the whole group ; but the other option is to plant the seeds of a capitalist system which comes with its own instant set of problems of greed and ownership. Which is the lesser of the two evils? With the first system it may happen that pretty soon some individuals will start to drag their feet, not performing at their peak and causing dissatisfaction among the other workers who have to make up for their co-worker’s laziness. The other system will create instant class structures where some get richer while the others get disgruntled with their lot. Corruption and greed will permeate the communities with a long list of undesirable social side effects ...
Slave Species of god Page 14