Playing God with Synthetic DNA: A Looming Disaster Fuelled by Globalist Greed, By Brian Simpson

Humanity stands at a crossroads, grappling with a catastrophic fertility crisis that threatens our very survival. Sperm counts have plummeted by 50% since the 1970s, microplastics infiltrate our brains and reproductive fluids, and environmental toxins bombard us daily. Yet, as Michael Snyder warns in his July 7, 2025, Substack post, the scientific community's response, creating "synthetic human DNA" to engineer "designer babies" free of genetic flaws, may be a cure worse than the disease. This audacious attempt to "play God" raises profound ethical questions: Are synthetic humans truly human? Do they possess souls? More critically, it risks catastrophic consequences, driven not by altruism but by corporate interests chasing profits. Without political intervention to halt this reckless experimentation, the pursuit of synthetic genomes could reshape humanity in ways that are neither safe nor moral.

The data is undeniable: humanity faces an existential fertility crisis. Hagai Levine's studies (2017, 2022) document a 50% decline in sperm concentrations in Western countries since the 1970s, with projections suggesting further drops could render most men infertile by 2070. Microplastics, found in 69% of women's follicular fluid and 55% of men's seminal fluid (ESHRE, 2025), are a likely culprit, causing inflammation, DNA damage, and endocrine disruption. A Nature Medicine study (2025) reveals that human brains now contain seven grams of microplastic shards, up 50% since 2016, potentially impairing cognitive and reproductive health. Add to this electromagnetic radiation, pesticide-laden food, and air pollution, and it's clear why Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls this an "existential problem."

This crisis demands solutions, but the rush to synthetic DNA is a leap into uncharted territory. Scientists, as Snyder notes, are developing tools to build complex sections of human DNA and insert them into skin cells, aiming to construct entire synthetic chromosomes. The ultimate goal? A fully synthetic human genome, potentially leading to lab-created humans free of genetic diseases. While the promise of curing autoimmune disorders or heart failure is tantalising, the risks are apocalyptic.

Creating synthetic humans is not a neutral scientific endeavour; it's a Pandora's box. Snyder raises a chilling question: Would such beings be truly human? The absence of a soul, a metaphysical quality that defines humanity for many, is unanswerable by science. Even on practical grounds, the risks are staggering:

Unintended Consequences: The 2010 creation of "Synthia," a synthetic bacterium, proved scientists can build genomes, but scaling this to humans introduces unpredictable genetic errors. A 2023 Nature article warns that synthetic DNA could disrupt cellular functions, potentially causing cancers or developmental disorders.

Loss of Genetic Diversity: Designer babies engineered for "perfection" could narrow the gene pool, reducing resilience to diseases or environmental changes. The Journal of Medical Ethics (2024) argues this could echo the fragility of monoculture crops.

Social Inequality: Synthetic humans, likely accessible only to the wealthy, would exacerbate class divides. Designer babies will create a genetic elite, deepening societal rifts.

Moral Erosion: Normalising synthetic humans risks dehumanising natural ones, potentially justifying eugenics-like policies. Historical experiments, like the Tuskegee trials, show how science can be co-opted for harm when unchecked.

The push for synthetic DNA isn't driven by pure science but by corporate interests. Biotech giants like CRISPR Therapeutics and Moderna, flush with billions from investors, stand to profit massively from genetic engineering. A 2025 Bloomberg report estimates the global gene-editing market will reach $20 billion by 2030, fuelled by demand for "precision medicine." These companies fund research, lobby governments, and shape academic agendas, creating a revolving door between labs and boardrooms. As Snyder suggests, scientists "in the pocket of corporates" face pressure to prioritise profits over ethics.

The Wall Street Journal (2024) notes that biotech firms often downplay risks to secure funding, as seen in early CRISPR trials that caused off-target mutations. Big Pharma's track record, like Vioxx or OxyContin, shows they'll push anything for profit. Without political oversight, these corporations will charge forward, unhindered by moral or safety concerns.

The question of oversight is critical. Who regulates this brave new world? Governments, often swayed by corporate lobbying, lack the impartiality to enforce strict controls. The Guardian (2025) reports that U.S. regulators have fast-tracked gene-editing approvals under industry pressure, while the EU's precautionary approach lags behind. International bodies like the WHO have issued ethical guidelines, but they lack enforcement power, which itself would be dangerous given WHO CCP control. A 2023 Science article warns that global coordination on synthetic biology is "woefully inadequate," risking a regulatory race to the bottom.

Without political intervention, the trajectory is clear: biotech firms will push synthetic humans to market, prioritising shareholder value over humanity's future. The Financial Times (2025) notes that public opposition to genetic engineering is growing, with 60% of Americans in a Pew poll opposing designer babies. Yet, without concerted political action, bans, moratoriums, or public funding for independent oversight, this technology will advance unchecked.

To avert disaster, we need urgent political action:

Global Moratorium: Enact a temporary ban on synthetic human genome research, as proposed by the Lancet (2024), to assess long-term risks.

Independent Oversight: Establish a global, non-corporate body to regulate genetic engineering, free from industry influence.

Public Debate: Fund transparent forums to discuss the ethics of synthetic humans, ensuring diverse voices, religious, philosophical, and scientific, are heard.

Address the Root Crisis: Tackle the fertility crisis through environmental cleanup, reducing microplastics (e.g., banning single-use plastics, per Nature 2025), and researching non-invasive fertility treatments.

The fertility crisis is real, but creating synthetic humans is a reckless response. Driven by globalist corporate greed and enabled by complicit scientists, this technology risks irreversible harm, genetic errors, social division, and the erosion of what it means to be human. As Michael Snyder warns, "playing God never works out well." Political intervention is our only hope to stop this runaway train, ensuring science serves humanity, not corporate profits. We must draw a line before synthetic DNA reshapes our species into something we no longer recognise.

https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/playing-god-as-humanity-faces-a-catastrophic