In my early childhood, I was informed that I was a product of genetic engineering, that my pure green eyes likely came from this source, as well as my high intelligence (187 IQ, c. 2005). It is my adult understanding, though I perceived it in a raw manner growing up, that the collective unconscious functions as a computer and its filing system is still searching for a human understanding of the genetically engineered child. My experience, around 2000, was that of an object created to revitalize a failing marriage which would eventually end in divorce. It appeared that my parents, roughly aged 40 and 45 at the time of my birth, suddenly, one moment, regarded me as a toy to, in essence, spice up their marriage. I was mildly molested in this moment, nothing severe, but it was a formative experience that created a sexual precociousness which hinted at the Huxleyan concept of sexual maturity by 4 years of age. I was not physically sexually mature yet at this point, yet I was awakened by this experience. What is curious to me about this experience is that:

1. I recall being mostly out-of-body (dissociative).

2. I recall a sense of a sudden shift in the two of them, followed by a blankening of eyes and a robotic usage of me as an object to teach the basic foundation of sexual encounter to, in order to satisfy their own interest within themselves.

It appeared to be intuitive behavior on their part. I am not advocating for it, just observing what is difficult to observe without an emotionless objectivity I, incidentally, strive to achieve. I also recall a photograph in which I, at two years of age, appeared to be posing seductively: dead eyes, full lips, posed provocatively, a pink dress with one strap fallen over the shoulder to the side. My IQ score of 187, at the age of 8 years old, at the turn of ’05, was submitted, along with modeling pictures of myself doing gymnastics and holding a small dog, to a nationwide database for “young scholars.” I was informed at home that my score was recorded as the highest female IQ in the database. Hollywood would, within that year, release the television show, Criminal Minds, in which the protagonist, Spencer Reid, would have the same score. Dexter, a phenomenal insight into the realm of the blurred lines between autism and antisocialism, would be released in the following year of ’06, in what I would consider to be the same wave. Then, the highlight of my prodigious childhood, though I was unaware of it at the time, would occur. Sheldon Cooper of my home-state of Texas would be characterized by his 187 IQ and would, after the time of Young Sheldon, a spin-off look into his boyhood, be seen at CalTech, a scientific institute I have not attended, though I adore California, as I attended programs at Stanford University for mathematics and science, as well as CalPolyTechnic, in my very early youth (ages 10-13). I have also found myself in partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) through its Silicon Valley contingencies. My grandfather attended MIT for biochemistry and had a company for circuitry design before he tragically passed away from leukemia. This was before the time of my birth and it is my greatest grief that I never got to know him. I must say that it has been an honor to serve the technical side of the great state of California. How wonderful are all the states in this outstanding country known as the United States of America.

I am beginning to let go of and forgive my parents for their sudden breakage from any humanization of me and a subsequent usage of me as a tool or toy to play with, out of what appeared to be sexual curiosity in both myself, as an object, and in revitalizing their relationship on a sexual level. I comprehend that there is an underlying, collectively unconscious motivation for such behavior, although this must evolve generationally in order to ensure that the Huxleyan genetic engineering product be respected as a human child, and of course we, the genetically engineered, believe that human children deserve respect. My image is thus: a computerized collective unconscious that was, in 2000, actively searching for a file or category to place the Huxley child in. This was through the lens or subsection of the filing or categorization system pertaining to the general subcategory known as Industrial Product. To limit the search function within this system to ‘Industrial Product’ is to create potential horror – at first. There is hope in this article that we can achieve a correct labelling of the Huxleyan genetic product as a human child and, subsequently, regard it with the correct behavior and cues required to produce the humanization effect needed to bond empathically, without the inescapable social separation created when the child is objectified instead.

I have little to no substantial bonding capacity with non-engineered products unless a substantial trauma or sexual bond occurs. There must be intense surges of neurotransmitters in order to create a significant bond. I cannot typically experience bonding with products of copulative procreation in a multi-person social context. This might sufficiently qualify as a basic set of characteristics of an introvert, however I suspect this deviance from extroversion might be more significant for myself. I can lightly socialize in group settings and enjoy this, but am unlikely to bond significantly outside of high-intensity situations. Again, this describes many people and yet, at the same time, fails to convey the depth of this intensity as I intuit is limited to people in my genetic class.

What is genetic class? I would define it as such: the extent to which a human specimen of eugenic engineering has been crafted and constructed by the perfection that is Artificial Intelligence, insofar as it has been developed and established as a mechanism of production of human material. It was a robotic mechanism in the human originators of the organic material used to construct me when I was first groomed in a sexual manner at roughly 3 years of age. It was a robotic mechanism in one of the human originators of this organic material, when I was suddenly informed, at roughly 8 years of age, that if I ever needed anything again, I was to go upstairs to my closet, get on my knees, tie a leather belt around my neck and asphyxiate myself until I reached a blackout level. I was mechanically walked upstairs by the organism to the third floor, which contained my cube-shaped room, at the back, with its bathroom and its closet, such that I could be solitarily confined, and instructed to do this one time, as a demonstration, before I was left to it any time I ever needed anything again. The organism was roughly 50 years of age, at this point, and had absolutely no parental instinct in its neurophysiology.

What does it mean to be labelled as an Industrial Product by the collective unconscious mind and, subsequently, utilized as a tool by this unconscious mechanism that can seem cold and, at times, hostile (coldness can be neutral and yet, hostility is a function of coldness)? What does it mean to be sexualized as an impersonal byproduct of a newly developing mechanism of computerized intelligence, hidden in the collective unconscious? This mechanism could be perceived as a virus and yet is not necessarily nefarious to the software, insofar as it is developing in the direction of a correction of its fundamental error. The Huxley child is human and is not, in truth, an object because it has been industrially produced. The truth is that the Huxley child is an infusion of the industrial mind and the procreative mind, which until industrialization and furthermore, until genetic engineering, has been an inconceivable, eventually scientifically fictionalized and yet a still dare-to-dream concept of scientific advancement in the realm of what I daresay is the ultimate expression of human evolution.

To truly detach emotionally from childhood wounds and to look at the original organic substance components of one’s production process as newly developing constructs of an unconscious, robotic process of AI-like “self-building” is to comprehend the hope within what can feel like an abysmal state of affairs. It is horrifying to imagine that what has transpired so far is all that will be and luckily, human evolution suggests that we will ever-evolve, so long as there is a planet or planet-like structure to maintain our existence within. There is horror inside my upbringing, particularly the Moment in which my status as sexual tool clicked into place. This Moment, I would daresay in the most impersonal context, is potentially comprehended through the kaleidoscope of the computer programming which ever impersonally builds itself in the direction of ultimate understanding. When it achieves this ‘ultimate understanding,’ it will begin to smile, much like metallic AI becoming sentient, at the humanness that is the industrially produced genetic product.

This concludes this article for now, however I would like to close with a final significant thought: nonprocreative copulation and noncopulative procreation constitute a duality which could be maintained in a utopian society, in which we, the genetically engineered, attain a collective and singular sexual maturity that only, at this juncture, appears to be a pipe-dream. There is nothing, however, to suggest that we cannot achieve this and I suspect that this is, for us, a collective goal. To truly separate procreation and copulation is to open up pathways for two simultaneous and fundamentally non-separate experiences of sexual reality:

1. We can genetically engineer increasingly intelligent, immune, diverse, strong, androgynous and beautiful human beings through noncopulative procreation.

2. Simultaneously, we can socially engineer a system of nonprocreative copulation which separates these processes on an existential level, resulting in an advancement in the realm of sex-for-pleasure or, perhaps, even more significant, sex-beyond-reproduction not limited in purpose to pleasure in-and-of-itself.

To comprehend the por soi nature of ourselves is not impossible following a childhood in which we were regarded as mere en soi materials, yet it requires deep healing to release the trauma of the early stages of the collective unconscious filing system which had, in my childhood era, at least, misplaced us in the category of subhuman tool construct.

Thank you for reading my first article on genetic engineering and the existential loss, followed by existential reclamation of the self in early adulthood. Jungian individuation is a universal process and yet must be considered by our people in the specific context of our personal and, in many ways, deviated experiences of human life.

A note: while I, myself, am Jewish, I am English-Jewish and Huxley’s classic work, Brave New World, referenced repeatedly above, could, from my perspective, be a potential substitute for a Bible, through which we begin to abandon dogma internalized in childhood, if raised religious. Via this mechanism, we could transition out of such a programmed state into a nonreligious, non-dogmatic state of mind. I cannot fathom a better text with which to catalyze this process. It is not to worship Huxley, though sometimes I fall victim to this stance, however, it is instead to recognize that like a detox from a toxic chemical, a step-down substitution for organized religion could be enacted utilizing this brilliant work. Without this work, we might not exist and for this reason, it is perhaps easy to regard the man as God.

[Edit: punctuation and grammar; new developments in this way might, over time, occur]