Just Because We Can...

NASA recently announced that a capsule from the Osiris-Rex spacecraft had landed in Utah. The capsule contained debris collected from the asteroid Bennu. For us science-fiction nerds, the scenario is all too reminiscent of the plot from Michael Crichton’s The Andromeda Strain. Our government assures us that precautions against contamination are in place. Which begs the question, precautions against what? If we don’t know what we protecting ourselves against, how would we know our protections are effective? Certainly, there is much to be gained from an analysis of the asteroid’s material, but is it worth the risk? Why not study this extraterrestrial material in space? 

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

It’s a saying that’s become more significant with our ever increasing technical and industrial capabilities. Several examples come to mind: The creation of the atomic bomb. Gain-of-function research. News articles that raise the hairs on the back of your neck, i.e., stories involving reanimating dead flesh. Gee, what could go wrong? It’s as if the scientists involved have ignored the warnings of every zombie movie ever filmed. Then comes a story about the Chinese growing human tissue inside pig uteruses. Hello, Island of Dr. Moreau calling.

When Kaye Booth asked me to contribute a story to the WordCrafter Press horror anthology, Midnight Roost I had the perfect concept to explore: “Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should,” as in human inception and gestation in artificial wombs, to incubate what are known as “bag babies.” The so-called benefits of this development include “freeing women from the tyranny of pregnancy,” allowing parents to customize the genes of their baby, and giving the government the opportunity to control demographics to enact state policies. With bag babies, the government can control population growth without the pesky need for humans getting it on. Two examples warning us about the dangers of industrial-scale human incubation came to mind: Brave New World, and The Matrix.

I wrote "Immediate Intervention" to discuss several themes addressing bag babies. The first is that human development is very complicated and nuanced. We know about the importance of an emotional connection between a mother and the infant while in the womb. When the baby is born, its prefrontal cortex is undeveloped and the brain is a blank slate. As the baby matures, what becomes evident is the empathetic connection between the infant and mother, then infant and father, then infant and others. This connection depends on environmental influences upon the baby in the womb, things like the mother’s heartbeat, her warmth, her emotional state, the projection of good vibes from mother to child. Some of this may sound esoteric but we know that babies born in emotionally toxic environments will become emotionally toxic people. 

How then to replicate a nurturing environment for the baby in an artificial womb? Certainly, a fetus incubator could replicate heart beats and use soothing stimuli to mimic a human host mother. But would that be enough? Wouldn’t such a loss of the child-mother bond bring the risk of babies not developing a sense of empathy? What would be the fallout of that?

In my story, this lack of empathy results in an inability to establish meaningful emotional connections, which in turn would lead to isolation, a sense of chronic loneliness, then depression. And from that, a proclivity to suicide.

The other theme would be one of, who am I? What am I? Who are my real parents? The DNA donors? Or the mother—the incubator? Would there be a sense of spiritual estrangement, that rather than feel part of the human continuum stretching back through prehistory, you see yourself as a fleshy widget, a product of commerce, another cog in the government’s machinery? 

This leads to the question, who do you belong to? Presently, as a child, you belong to your parents until the age of emancipation. What happens if the state has sole responsibility over you and you’re seen as a replaceable component of the system? If the state had the authority to birth you, could they not have the sole authority to terminate you?

With this, the elements for a good horror story fell into place. That the mother who bore you is the same monster who will devour you.

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

Conspiracy Theory Z

While the big news from the UK this weekend was their Brexit, what got buried was this other report where the British--in partnership with India--have initiated serious medical research into reanimating the dead. When I mentioned this article to my youngest son, he jerked upright and gave me a look. You're kidding, right? 

My sentiments exactly. Apparently the eggheads behind this experiment have ignored centuries of literature and decades of cinema where raising the dead was a really bad idea. Every possible consequence has been explored and none were good. Admittedly, there is Jesus raising Lazarus of Bethany, and Jesus himself returning from the grave for the Resurrection. But to depict either instance as the appearance of zombies would probably get you crucified.

Reanimating the dead is always step one in a major doomsday scenario. So why do it? My writer brain starts working the angles and given my distrust for the government--which only seems to get more evil as it gets bigger--here goes:

Reanimating the dead has already happened. The one percenters who control the government and their Dr. Strangelove minions have determined that the only real solution to climate change, pollution, water shortages, over crowding, and traffic gridlock is population control: read that as thinning out the masses. And a zombie outbreak is their solution. These recent stories are them trickling out the facts so that when the big news hits--we've reanimated the dead!--everyone shrugs.

The plot thickens. In zombie movies, there are three preferred weapons for killing the undead: flame throwers, big knives, and guns--particularly rapid-fire weapons like the dreaded assault rifles. Flame throwers are hard to find, but knives and guns are prevalent, especially here in the US. Over in Britain, the government first got rid of their guns and is now hard at work taking knives away from the populace. It's true. "Zombie-killer knives" have been specifically outlawed. On this side of the pond, we have an anti-gun faction funded by billionaires who are hard at work trying to convince the American public that we don't need--shouldn't have--assault rifles, your best defense against zombies. Meanwhile, these rich guys are surrounded by armed guards, and I bet you'll find plenty of high-capacity, rapid-fire guns under their jackets and inside their armored limousines.

So you ask, what about the mass shootings? That's what people are really objecting to. Yes, of course. But first, let us wade deeper to the conspiracy waters. None of the mass shooters who used an "assault rifle" was unknown to the authorities. The FBI investigated Omar Mateen twice and gave him a pass. You can google the others and see what you find. It's as if someone is using a false flag to sow hysteria over assault rifles in an effort to support laws to get them out of the public's hands.

Granted, I'm connecting some blurry dots, but you see a pattern.

No knives. No guns. Add zombies. You do the math.