Get Over Your Genes

You may have heard about the girl who is going to get a transplanted womb from her mother. Personally, the story just pisses me off.

No, I don’t think We Have Gone Too Far or This Technology Will Destroy The World. She’s not going to stop being human, the baby won’t be a monster, and the fact that it’s her mother’s womb is not that fucking weird. It’s just an organ, OK? It’s hardware, like a RAM chip or a hard drive. And it’s awesome that our technology is evolving so that we can get better and better at transplanting organs.

In fact, transplanting organs is fantastic. It’s one of those technologies we should be investing our billions in, instead of using them to destroy the lives of others (or allowing a few lunatics to hoard them). And you know what would be even better? Artificial organs. And anyone who tells me that a person with an artificial heart or liver or lung is “not fully human anymore” is a fucking idiot who can fuck right off. I really have no patience for this technophobic pseudo-mystical mumbo-jumbo.

But here’s a question: why the hell does this girl need a new womb? It’s not like a heart or a liver or a lung – she doesn’t need it to survive, or to maintain a high quality of life. Those are legitimate goals. But is it really all that fucking important that her child’s DNA share a certain similarity to her own? Is that what parenthood comes down to? Is it worth risking that her child inherits the same condition just so that a few genes can be passed on?

In other words, if you’re so desperate to have a child – and that is perfectly understandable – then adopt.

I’m not kidding. There are thousands upon thousands of children in the world who have no parents. They are just as capable of love and happiness as anyone else. They’re not, to use a despicable phrase, damaged goods. They’re just children in need of parents.

And screw the people who say “it’s not the same.” It’s not the same because you don’t want it to be the same. An adopted child who is treated with love will love its parents as much as a child who happens to have been in the mother’s womb. There is no difference. That’s not an opinion, that’s the truth – as thousands upon thousands of cases around the world show. Meanwhile, most cases of rape and abuse come from inside families. Having a penis and a vagina does not make you into suitable parents – love and caring and commitment and patience do that.

How self-centered do you have to be to insist that your child must carry your DNA, must come from your womb – to put another child, possibly carrying the same genetic disorder as you are, into this world, when there are so many who need a home. Is anything which is not physically yours so repulsive that you’ve got to go this far out of your way to create something pure?

It’s all bullshit, anyway. The child is not a copy of you, and neither are you one being. Your DNA is similar, not identical; that’s why sexual reproduction exists in the first place. So, in short: being biologically related to your child is essentially irrelevant. It doesn’t affect your emotional closeness, it doesn’t affect your ability to teach and inspire, it’s irrelevant to human evolution, and it has no significance apart from entirely fictional ideas of “having the same blood.”

And in the end we’re all related, anyway – me, you, a gorilla, an earthworm.

I know several people who are adopted or who have adopted. They do not have “issues.” They are, in fact, some of the sweetest and nicest people I’ve ever met. I’m sure there are also adopted children who are unhappy, just like there are happy and unhappy biological children. It’s got nothing to do with their macromolecules; it’s got everything to do with love.

Now, I don’t hate this girl for getting the womb transplant. She’s just an individual, acting in the ways that her environment has taught her to believe in; it’s those unscientific and philosophically idiotic ways of thinking that I’m opposed to. We’ve got to start looking beyond these ancient clichés. Our genes are part of who we are and how we exist in the world, but they’re not everything – in fact, in these great civilizations that we have built, they are less important than they have ever been in our history. And that’s a good thing – that’s a great thing. The human struggle has always been to create a world in which our minds can be more free from the limitations of the physical. Love is one of the highest expressions of that struggle. So let’s recognize that, and get over our fucking genes.

Leave a comment

57 Comments

  1. Great, in that case the system works perfectly! Poverty for all!

    You really have nothing to complain about – the world is perfect. Everyone is poor, the inferior are punished, wars weed out the physically weak… what else do you want? You’re living in paradise.

  2. Well the way I see it you are the one living in a paradise. You can steal, rape, extort, or become a serial murderer and torture people in your basement all the while doing nothing wrong. Social-economics made you do it and no one is responsible for their actions.

  3. There is a difference between moral responsibility and socio-economic causality.

  4. I would agree with that, but still social economics cannot be said to cause every single thing.

    But that is one of the main reasons I try to reject society and money, so that nobody but myself is to blame for my actions; Cannot blame society if you are not in it, or at least not in it as much as is humanly possible in this day and age.

  5. But that is one of the main reasons I try to reject society and money, so that nobody but myself is to blame for my actions; Cannot blame society if you are not in it, or at least not in it as much as is humanly possible in this day and age.

    And yet you are here, using the most advanced social communication medium on the planet, in contact not only with the society of your country, but with the whole world.

    Besides, you cannot be outside society. You always exist in context. Even if you try to move away from what you consider to be the establishment, you’re still moving in relation to society. You’re always a social being, always part of human civilization.

  6. But i am sure that you agree that a large part of the social economical factors can be attributed to the need to acquire and spend currency.

    And assuming someone cut the power, water, internet, and phones lines; Removed the mail box and blocked their driveway and then never left that they would be completely cut off from society.

    So it seems like a possible thing to be.

  7. But i am sure that you agree that a large part of the social economical factors can be attributed to the need to acquire and spend currency.

    No, I would attribute these factors to the unequal distribution of resources/currency/rights.

    And assuming someone cut the power, water, internet, and phones lines; Removed the mail box and blocked their driveway and then never left that they would be completely cut off from society.

    They might be cut off from information, but from society? They’d still be in their house (built by others), they’d still be in their neighbourhood, in their country, on this planet. The actions of others would still affect them, from the slightest (noise on the street) to the largest (global warming). They’d still use language to think. And choosing not to use something does not remove you from existing in relation to it – after all, by saying “I will not use the internet” you are still positioning yourself in regards to the internet.

    The world is here and we’re in it. There’s no escaping that.

    Einstein pretty much hits it on the head in “Why Socialism?”:

    I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

    The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.