Friday, April 21, 2006

It's tempting to wonder what technologies the cryptoterrestrials might possess, aside from their obvious penchant for stealth and misdirection. The "hybridization program" encountered in books on the abduction phenomenon implies an advanced knowledge of genetics. But if "they" are really an unacknowledged aspect of our ourselves, their genetic prowess needn't be in advance of our own. It's likely we're genetically compatible -- certainly an unnerving prospect given the many references to strangely mannered humans seen in the wake of UFO sightings.

In "Sight Unseen," Budd Hopkins ("Missing Time," "Intruders") and wife Carol Rainey argue that interbreeding doesn't rule out the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. By noting recent developments in transgenics, they show that different species can be paired in the laboratory, resulting in chimeras: animals with the traits of two (or more) species, offering support to the notion that ETs could successfully "mate" with us.

In fact, the near-future biotech economy promises a harvest of chimeric species, some exceptionally novel. Within a few years, pigs with human organs may become commonplace back-ups for people needing transplants. Understandably, ethicists are increasingly unsettled by the specter of animals with human-level intelligence. Assuming a geneticist rises to the challenge of becoming a latter-day Dr. Moreau, the medical community will be forced to grapple with the very definition of "human."

The future of "Blade Runner" is highly illustrative. In the film, police officers must track down and kill fugitive "replicants" -- genetically engineered androids intent on bypassing their built-in expiration dates. "Blade Runner's" replicants are flesh-and-blood, and share their genetic heritage with their "creators." While one may argue that they're synthetic and hence mere machines to be utilized, their complex emergent behavior belies any such trite definition.

Hopkins and Rainey maintain that it is indeed possible for aliens to reproduce using human genetic material. While their research is often fascinating, they fail to address the anthropology of the encounter experience. More importantly, in terms of determining whether "they" are from here or come from somewhere else, "Sight Unseen" limits its focus to a mere handful of reports, excluding folkloric evidence that might undermine its arguments. The result, as readers of Hopkins' previous books can imagine, is highly readable but committed to an exclusively extraterrestrial interpretation. (Unable to disprove a negative, I have no choice but to concede that some UFO encounters may originate from space. And it would be the height of arrogance to proclaim that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the Indigenous Hypothesis are mutually exclusive.)

Extrasolar aliens or not, the transgenic angle allows for an illuminating reassessment of the Indigenous Hypothesis. Cryptoterrestrial hybrids may be "replicants" tailored to survival-oriented tasks, such as infiltrating human society. This raises a most interesting question: If close encounters typically involve more human-like CTs, such as the Grays, who's to say there isn't a rogues gallery of progressively stranger beings lurking behind the curtain? We could be dealing with a vast, intricate genome with no obvious "roots." Depending on the specimen, casual scientific examination may give the false impression that a given CT is terrestrial; conversely, it may be hailed as "proof" of extraterrestrial life.

Maybe the CTs comprise a hive-mind, with humanoids at only one end of the spectrum. At the other end we might find more exotic beings, such as the mantis-like "leaders" sometimes seen presiding over abductions. Ultimately, could the CTs be insectile? The prospect is deeply ironic, given humanity's buried fear of the insect world. We're conditioned to accept "bugs" as miniature grotesqueries to be swatted or stepped on. Discovering we're at the mercy of their larger, more capable cousins would be more upsetting than finding that the answer to the CT riddle is "merely" a disenfranchised offshoot of our own species.

In any case, we won't know the true face of our elusive residents unless we undertake a thorough review of "occupant encounters," both in modern ufological literature and in world folklore. Even a superficial reading shows that we're likely dealing with a sister species of incredible tenacity and a chameleon-like sense of invisibility.

But if I'm correct, we mustn't be too enthralled by their abilities. Seen up close, the CTs are more than a little sympathetic, governed by a fear of extinction and determined to persist despite our ever-encroaching global civilization. Their seeming infallibility is a studious pretense triggered, in part, by the advent of the nuclear era. It's no coincidence that the modern UFO era blossomed in the aftermath of the world's most destructive -- and geographically intrusive -- war.

4 comments:

Mac said...

WMB--

I know what you're saying. I probably won't be nearly so "apologetic" in the book.

Having said that, I know very well that my effort isn't going to "prove" anything. It isn't supposed to. What is *is* intended to accomplish is to help revitalize the debate re. UFOs and "aliens," which has reached a theoretical cul-de-sac.

Unless, of course, I'm seen as a latter-day Shaver.

Mac said...

TWilliam--

Yeah, you're right. Maybe I owe Sitchin a mention, even though I think his methodology is misguided at best.

Mac said...

TWilliam,

Someone mentioned Sitchin's "gods" in an earlier post and I said something like: "If they were real, they weren't ET." I stand by that. Maybe they were CTs whose antics were misinterpreted as otherworldly. That makes *much* more sense to me than Sitchin's half-baked cosmogony.

Mac said...

WMB,

I'm retaining the Singularity material from the the book's previous envisioning (titled "The Postbiological Cosmos"). So I'll be touching on this angle as well.