After a brief pause attributable to a perceived ‘peace’ (defined
primarily as the absence of organized violence), a new conflict
would emerge as a new generation gravitationally assumes the
roles of the SS and the SW. The cycle would continue. The SS
would continue to equate 'tolerance' with equality while the SW
would sense empowerment through possession of strength just
past the point where the pursuit of non-violent resolution is
perceived as necessary or even beneficial.
Irrespective to perceived benefit, any form of "assisted evolution" created by artificial
means (eg cloning, genetic engineering) would bring cataclysmic consequences to all
Gestalt evolutionary processes will one day unite the understandings
of science and religion. It will be a convergence naturally occurring
through recognition that both seek meaningful enhancement- inclusive
and transcendent- to the material/physical realms.... Until that time,
both will continue to confuse the influence of the other as contradictory,
antagonistic and detrimental to a discipline- confused as a discipline-
and generally mistakenly beheld as fully autonomous from the other.
At times it would seem there is some sense of anticipated reward
affiliated with the party able to 'get there' first. Meanwhile the primary
feature of distinction appears that one approach is endorsed by a
loving god, the other is not...
As it pertains to "take one" evolution, both religion and science often
propose approaches leading to identical outcome...(As in a
'Total-annihilation' type of outcome). Unchecked science would
destroy humanity as-we-know-it, while religion 'one-ups' to include
the planet and all living things. It is this version to which a god would
find worth the expended time and effort.
The quest for human equality (surely the stated intent of any endeavor to artificially
cultivate a better human) finds both genesis and residence in the cooperative interface
between disparate individuals and entities. The process is fluid, dynamic, and
imprecise…amenable to the artistic application of law; imperiled by the reckless
impositions of science.
Strong-Strong vs Strong-Weak
Whether through violence or economic exploitation the
'cultivated strong' would become 'the strong-strong' (SS) and
the weak would become "the strong-weak' (SW). The cultivated
SW may well exceed the strength of the once non-augmented
‘strong’ (now the SS) but ‘the rules have changed’ (but then
again not)…The SS would eventually prevail but not until the
SW inflicted and experienced devastation to all involved.
As it pertains to 'Applied-Science' the distinction between amelioration of disease and
the cultivation of strength best equates to the notion of 'Channeling' vs. 'Meddling'. The
post-birth human has the opportunity for adaptation in response to the traits of
congenital inheritance- there is time and space to make the necessary adjustments
through the processes 'trial-and-error'.
The prenatal human does not have this luxury and in the realm of
genetic manipulation, all interventions represent some form of a
'preemptive strike' (likely sold as a 'welcome liberator'). It is a strike for
which the there is no 'Universal' consistent response nor, can the
long-term consequences ever be known with certainty.
After a brief pause attributable to a perceived peace (defined primarily as the absence of organized violence), a new conflict would emerge as a new generation gravitationally assumes the roles of the SS and the SW...