4. Whose Agenda, Public, or Private?
As was seen
previously, the modern genome race raised profound questions and
implications for ethics and jurisprudence: were specific genes, or
the processes used to map them, patentable? More importantly, were
chimerical, or hybrid life forms, patentable? The last question
assumes even more importance if the
foregoing Sumerian accounts of the origins of mankind are true, for
by any translation — whether those of the O’Briens or more standard
academic translations — mankind is a chimerical, engineered creature.
As such, it is worth
recounting what the four requirements for the grant of a patent are
under modern American law. To be patentable, an invention or
process must:
1. be original;
2. be non-obvious;
3. have a demonstrable function; and,
4. be enabling, i.e., any inventor or engineer should be able to read the patent and be able to reproduce the invention or process it describes.318
It is worth recalling
that the landmark 1980 Supreme Court decision granted Ananda
Chakrabarry a patent on an engineered microbe on the basis that
“Mother Nature may have supplied the ingredients, but Chakrabarry
baked the cake.”319 So long as “the
hand of man” was involved in the engineering, the process — and
even the organism itself, if it was not naturally occurring — was
patentable.
This places the story
of the creation of man as told in the ancient cuneiform tablets
into an interesting light, for if true,
then under the standards of American patent law, the human being as
a hybrid creature would apparently fulfill all four requirements
for a patent. As such, human beings, as chimerical hybrids of two other species, are (1)
original; (2) non-obvious, for they are not the products of nature,
but of “the hand of ‘man’,” (3) were created for a demonstrable
function, i.e., were created to be slaves and serfs of the “gods,”
and (4) they were the result of a process of genetic engineering
that was reproducible “by the hand of man,” and therefore, the
process was “enabling,” allowing any competent genetic engineer to
reduplicate the process.
These implications
compel some speculative questions, for if mankind as currently
constituted is a chimerical creature, a genetically engineered
creature, and moreover, was created for the express purpose of
being a slave to the “gods,” then who owns him? Let us speculate:
if mankind’s original owner-creators
were suddenly to return — right now — to planet Earth, would they
have a legal claim? And would, moreover, they be able to prove it?
Would they attempt to re-assert their old hegemony? And what court
would have legal jurisdiction to hear such a case? Additionally,
one would be faced with two legal claims: (1) that of the returning
“owner-creators,” and (2) that of the course of performance of
humanity since their “departure,” which would legally demonstrate
humanity’s independence and self-governance since their departure.
Humanity would, so to speak, be abandoned property and under new
ownership, namely, itself. Would these owner-creators attempt to
reassert their ownership by demonstrations of force and superior
technology, only to discover that humanity can now “shoot
back”?
Disturbing questions
all, but there is yet another question that looms over them all,
and that is, in the cuneiform accounts of the creation of man, is
his creation that of a private or
“corporate” entity, or a public one? Is the question of “ownership” even
relevant? Given all the argumentation of the preceding pages, our
inclination is to conclude that mankind was created by a private,
corporate entity, and for the service of specific “gods” within the
pantheon, for as has been seen, the establishment of a reliably
accurate, reproducible standard of weights and measures based on
astronomical and geodetic principles, was the work largely of a
private elite, and done for the purposes of the ultimate
establishment of trade. We must conclude, too, that the status of
slavery in early ancient legal codes may be a residue of the
creation of mankind himself.320 All these points
argue for a corporate rather than a
state or governmental elite having been
involved in mankind’s creation.
Whatever else one may
make of the reading of the Kharsag tablets by the O’Briens and
others, one thing stands out as an inevitable consequence of such
interpretations, and that is, that in order for such a genetic
engineering project to have succeeded, the whole modern panoply of
scientific discoveries and technologies associated with the modern
genome project had to have existed in “paleoancient” times as well:
sequencers, microscopes, organic chemistry, the knowledge of the
double helix itself, the techniques of splicing, and, of course, a
complete “genetic map” of the species involved in the hybridization
of man. In short, if the cuneiform tablets are to be believed, then
at least a similar pitch of genetic
science had to exist — if not much greater — in prehistoric times
than exists now.
How, then, would one
go about establishing the truth, or lack thereof, of the
astonishing claims of those tablets? One cannot settle here simply
for reinterpretations of those tablets along the lines of the
O’Briens, for in that case one is assuming what one is proving. One
must have external corroboration. And
that corroboration, by the nature of the case, can only come from
within the modern human genome itself. Is there a “code” within the
genetic code that might suggest that we are indeed the creatures of
such a project begun and executed long ago? Is there a hint of the
“artificiality” of modern man? And if so, who is searching for it,
and why? Are there indeed remains of giants that have been quietly
spirited away? And if so, why?
Here, as they say,
“the plot thickens”...