I'm not saying all of this will happen. I'm not even saying it might be allowed to happen. I'm just exploring how far the equality dogma would go if it is unopposed. Humans aren't equal enough you see.
During the colonisation of Israel some Jews decided that in their kibbutz they would emancipate women and leave gender inequality behind. Women were expected to take an equal part in what used to be men's work and men were also expected to take on female work.
The female's position in the family was the apparent cause of this inequality, and so the family was abolished. Marriage was replaced with cohabitation, with individuals retaining separate names and identities. Children were separated from adults and lived in nurseries. These nurseries were completely sex blind, having unisex toilets, showers and dressing rooms. Adults were to regard all children as their own and were discouraged from singling out their own offspring.
When this community was studied in 1950 it was held to be a success, but when researchers returned in 1975 they found a radically different way of life.
Marriage returned to its original form with a full ceremony and celebration. Children lived at home with their parents. The division of labour along gender lines had returned. Observations of the children revealed that the girls played at being moms and the boys pretended to be wild animals.
The first resistance to this dogma started when the girls reached puberty and became embarrassed in this sex-blind atmosphere. They actively rebelled and won their privacy.
This all highlights that gender differences are natural and ingrained in people. Differences surfaced even under ideal conditions for the equality dogma. Natural human instincts put a limit on how much equality we can handle. For a more detailed view see here.
Exogenesis, the growing on of embryos and the birth of babies inside machines, is the logical progression of in vitro fertilisation. Once this technology has matured, putting babies back in the womb would be ruled out on health grounds and lower survival rates.
Blended embryos have already been created. In this instance the second mother only contributed mtDNA, and the process to contribute nuclear DNA would be radically different. However, the onward march of technology means that soon it will be entirely possible for a baby to be born to gay parents or from groups. We already have men giving birth and women that are too busy for pregnancy.
So an unopposed equality dogma combined with advanced technology will result in children with unnatural parental combinations being born inside machines.
The original research that created three parent embryos was trying to combat disease. Once this technology is ready to be used it could become widespread, and all genetic diseases could be wiped out.
What exactly constitutes disease? Is deafness a genetic disease? A deaf couple want to use IVF to have a child, however, they want to select FOR deafness, as they consider it part of their culture. They consider themselves a linguistic minority. Their problem is that the government has set standards which won't allow this to happen.
Is ugliness a genetic disease? Isn't it unfair to burden children with it, the equality dogma will go. Further, why not also equalise intelligence and ability. James Watson thinks this is a great idea, and also believes the genes governing intelligence will be found in 5 years. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
Days old babies will be murdered due to their status as a non person. Normal abortions can be used for the accidentally conceived, while genetic manipulation means that diseases that can only be detected post birth will no longer exist.
Baby killing will be used almost exclusively to provide real babies who will become props for paedophiles in sick fetishes, before or after death. The idea of not treating newborn babies as human has been around for some time. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, suggests that children under one month of age are not human and should not be treated as so. (Identity, magazine of the BNP, issue 102 p36)
Child-like android sex dolls may be created to serve fetish needs, but to have any degree of realism they will have to be expensive. Further, the Coolidge effect also applies to dolls which means there would be a demand for many different androids/babies.
Tim Heydon has documented that the BBC has broadcast lesbian lovemaking scenes (Tipping the Velvet), a dog raping a women (Love Soup) and the corpses of viewers' dead relatives (Malcom and Barbra: Loves farewell). Channel 4 has shown scenes of live lovemaking (Sex inspectors) and ran programmes about those that wanted to commit necrophilia (Beyond Love) and bestiality (Animal Passions). Further, a documentary showing a Chinese man eating a dead baby was aired on Channel 4 in 2003. (Identity, issue 102 p36)
There was a time within living memory (1950s) when there were many adults who did not know what a lesbian was. A rumour exists that when it was explained to her, Queen Victoria refused to believe a women could do such a thing.
They may make a U-turn and declare abortion bad. So to make sure abortions are no longer needed and to avoid the horror of unwanted life being brought into the world, they may delete most of a woman's reproductive organs from their DNA. This would go a long way toward closing the sex differences. Remember, this is in an unthinkable world in which cultural marxism receives no opposition at all, at any point.
Everyone would be conceived and born in machines, ensuring perfect children. Those that wish to abuse babies could continue to do so in the shadows, or instead they may be regulated, requiring a license to hold baby making machines - certifying they will dispose of any baby before it gets a week old.
Alternatively, if today's humanists were to protest the baby abuse, after all many people got hysterical when a cat got put in a bin, those with the fetish may feel discriminated against. Or maybe not, as those very same people have been desensitised over abortion. The baby abusers may start to complain of their minority status and fall into ghettos in particularly liberal cities.
Going back to the kibbutz, isn't it inherited discrimination that the girls didn't enjoy that paradise as much as the men? Just because discrimination against women is ingrained in genes doesn't make it right. Why not genetically meddle in how relationships work, increase promiscuity in women and eliminate that patriarchal possessiveness in men. In our broken society marriage doesn't really work. That notion of matrimonial love is a myth. Surely that will improve peoples' happiness?
After all according to liberal dogma marriage is bonded slavery that never worked. As George Bernard Shaw said: "If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?" So we may as well eliminate love. (As quick aside, this was dealt with in, another GBS work, this time Maxims for Revolution "Your word can never be as good as your bond, because your memory can never be as trustworthy as your honour" and G.K. Chesterton's essay, a defence of rash vows.)
Cardinal O-Brien argues that same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. In the kibbutz the parents loved their children, and I doubt those that follow the equality dogma would abolish parental love. Somebody still has to raise those kids, and I doubt anybody wants to erase childhood, even if it were possible.
Altering the way relationships work in the name of equality is farfetched, but machines could also affect relationships. There are love doll brothels http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/only-in-japan-love-doll-brothels-are-bustling.html in Japan, a nation that is predicated to lose 1/3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16787538 of its population by 2060. Robots could be as accessible as internet porn, but feminists would still complain society was sexist.
Experiments have been conducted on an anti-body catalyst, that ultimately reduces levels of the so-called hunger hormone.
Further, many people are predisposed to have a large appetite, these genes could be switched off.
So what we would be left with would be artificially beautiful people, artificially made healthy, with artificially boosted intelligence, having artificial relationships, all watched over, provided for and regulated by the government. No longer a big brother but a new "big daddy".
This won't happen, and would take several generations to occur if anything remotely like it does. Big brother governments across the world are running into serious problems. Only [52%] of university educated White American women voted Obama in 2008, so even those that are stereotypically leftist, are not uniformly Marxist. Resistance to all this in the real world does exist.
On the other hand, if the children of Russia and the West are all murdered on a final crusade against Islam then religion in world affairs would be sidelined (note this is not an argument against opposing Islam). The Chinese have a tiny birth-rate, and as their nation becomes heavily indebted to the world banking system, they may be forced to import Africans, a continent China already has economic ties to. This mixing would kill off any resistance based on native cultures.
People in general will only die for three things, love of God, love of the nation and love of the family. The leftists are deconstructing all three.
Is this Novus Ordo Seclorum, or any part of it, your dystopia or utopia? Would you want Big Daddy to put you in the genetic blender?