Diversity über alles: Harvard scientist proposes creating an entire race of Neanderthals
Alex B. writes:
Declaring that he is ready and able to clone Neanderthals, George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard School of Medicine, tells his true motivation and main goal:Here is the story, from The Telegraph:
‘I can create Neanderthal baby, I just need willing woman’LA writes:
I doubt Prof. Church will have any difficulty finding a woman willing to serve as surrogate mother to the first cloned Neanderthal baby. Consider the number of white women in the contemporary world who, for the sake of liberal fashion, are eager to bear a child with a black man and thus create another Obama. How much more fashionable would it be to give birth to a Neanderthal child! Such a woman could trump all her liberal sisters.LA continues:
Another thought. H.G. Wells, the apostle of scientific progressivism, proposed that the human race be guided and governed by a committee of scientists. If Wells, who died in 1946, had somehow heard of Church’s plan, he would have said in horror, “That is not what I meant, not what I meant at all.” For one thing, Wells believed in a Single, Rationally Led, Politically Unified Humanity. The notion of diversity pursued as an end in itself would have horrified him. He was an old Leftist. George Church is a new Leftist.
What if it turns out that Neanderthal-Americans vote overwhelmingly Republican—will the Harvard professor retain his enthusiasm for cloning them?Alex B. replies:
The real buzzkill will be if Neanderthal-Americans demonstrate a significantly lower propensity to violence and higher average IQ and social achievement than a certain other diverse group. The comparison would be unbearable.LA replies:
If that turned out to be the case, then the Neanderthals would instantly cease being touted as a “diverse” group and be seen as part of the White Power. After all, weren’t the Neanderthals the first Europeans?January 21
Jim Kalb writes:
As always, the question arises why ever more radical diversity is so unquestionably wonderful. One possibility: diversity makes it much easier for a coherent group of smart people who know what they want to run things. Low diversity introduces the specter of racist populism, a world run by stupid uneducated prejudiced crackers who have the force and mindless self-confidence to do the sort of thing people like that want to do instead of what Harvard scientists want them to do. What could possibly be worse?Sage McLaughlin writes:
Imagine the unblinking, ideologically-induced idiocy required to make the claim that, “The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity.” [emphasis mine.]Alex B. writes:
“The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity.” George Church’s statement is truly profound in its consequences. It implies that as long as society has high diversity, or is working toward achieving it, nothing else matters. There can be rampant crime, terrorism, antagonism between all groups composing the society, chaos, destruction, and suffering—but if these are merely side effects of having high diversity, they don’t matter because the white liberals who unleashed all this on society have achieved their nirvana of atonement.Daniel S. writes:
George Church’s comments about diversity reminded me of those made some years ago by General George Casey after the Fort Hood jihad attack. For the modern liberal, diversity has become a totalitarian ideology in which any steps must be taken to assure its manifestation and ascendancy. It matters not that the push for diversity leads to weird, amoral science fiction-style cloning experiments or worse yet, numerous people being murdered by terrorists. All that matters is that diversity prevails.Robert B. writes:
I have to agree with Mr. Kalb on this one. The elite of the Left are educated people. They certainly know enough about history to know that without Europe, its peoples and their culture, the world would be very backward. The Left, therefore, know that European civilization, cut off from the rest of the world for nearly 1,000 years due to Islam’s control of the Mediterranean Sea, developed the world’s most advanced civilization without any diversity whatsoever. That civilization, homogenous and complete within itself, then went on to conquer most of the world and spread its culture and religion throughout the world. In its homelands, the civilization continued to advance at a breathtaking rate—easily and completely dwarfing the rest of the world’s “accomplishments.” The Left believe that all men and women are exactly the same, none is any different or any better than any other. Therefore, if you want to take it down, you must infiltrate it with other, dysfunctional peoples and their cultures. In so doing, the focus shifts from the old, highly successful culture, to the new, dysfunctional cultures. Dealing with the dysfunction requires that all available resources be consumed on their behalf.Alex B. writes:
Drudge has now picked up on the story but the Daily Mail article he links makes no mention of the scientist’s diversity motivation. In fact, it cites the paragraph from The Telegraph story in which he talks about his diversity goal but cuts the citation immediately before that goal is mentioned.Jake F. writes:
Regarding Neanderthal cloning, Professor Church said, “The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity.”LA replies:
That’s not a contradiction. To be “good,” diversity must first pass the test of liberalism. Liberalism is of course a higher value than useful Darwinian selection.Ben S. writes:
Objections aside, I have little reason yet to believe that Prof. Church’s claim is more than braggadocio. After all, if he can derive Neanderthals from modern man, he can derive wooly mammoths from elephants, since there are much better DNA samples available from mammoths than from Neanderthals, and the regulatory obstacles would be far less. Either the technology is not there yet, or Prof. Church is more interested in publicity than in science.
It doesn’t matter whether Church thinks the cloning of Neanderthals can really be done. His statement expresses what he would like to do, if he could do it, and includes one of the the most extreme statements of liberalism any of us have ever seen: “The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity.” Meaning that diversity is the only good for society.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 20, 2013 09:41 PM | Send