Research Document 6

The following document was filed by J.S. Cambry (ABD), bioethics student on January 10, 2423

Ethical Conundrums in the B Trade

By Marcus Zambrano

Published: October 2, 2402

RD 6.1The new arena being built in Charlotte is nearing completion. The Visitors’ Bureau has stated (most recently in last Friday’s press release) that it will not only revitalize the city’s tourism sector but will also add to Charlotte’s already renowned beauty. This final statement is hard to deny. Positioned in the vicinity of the botanical gardens, built of glass and chrome, it makes a startling addition to the skyline. Its 6,000 seats make it the largest of its kind, but the designer, Mariana Ambrose, promises there won’t be a bad seat in the house stating that “all visitors will be treated to an unparalleled viewing experience.”

Increased tourism, more jobs, improved aesthetics—seems like a pretty good deal. If only it weren’t built on the undeniable immorality of the trade in Subgroup B humans.

Those supporting this trade will deny its immorality and will go on to tell you that this trade has become the primary and best means of recreating a connection between As and Bs that was severed years ago by the meddling of genetic engineers. This supposed benefit “outweighs any of the problems” that researchers, biologists, and sociologists have raised in the past few years.

What they won’t tell you is that the trade in Subgroup B humans is marked by contradiction. These proponents claim the only Subgroup B children brought into captivity are those who have been abandoned or orphaned. (They actually go even further to argue that the whole trade started twelve years ago as a means of rescuing children following Severe Storm J, the worst of a series of storms that hit the plains in 2390 and 2391.) So, according to those supporting this trade, no Subgroup B is captured who is attached to a high-functioning family unit. But knowing what we do about our less genetically blessed brethren, this means that no children should ever be brought in except RD 6.2following a violent storm. Further, the child’s entire family must be entirely decimated since we know that alloparenting and adoption are not only common but nearly pervasive in B communities. For Subgroup B humans, the stability of the family is paramount. This is not to say that there are never any altercations among family groups, but the bonds established in these groups are indissoluble. In fact, according to the more recent study by Clark and Niall, the only occasions for leaving the family group are marriage or death.

Given what we know about Subgroup B familial structures and behaviors, how can these proponents of the trade in Subgroup Bs rationalize the increasing number of children sent to our cities in the past five years—a period that has seen a significant decline in storm activity? Perhaps the proponents were hoping that we weren’t paying attention to weather reports. Otherwise, it would be obvious to almost anyone that these children are being viciously seized from their families and brought into our cities to perform for the sake of our own amusement—so we can gawk at the strange and awkward gargantuans who less than 350 years ago, were exactly the same as us. It would be obvious that the companies who are benefitting from this trade are motivated by greed. But according to their spokespeople, the shows are nothing more than an attempt to bring the two parts of humanity back together, to breed a sense of oneness and understanding, to educate people on those individuals who comprise our workforce so that we and our children can see these individuals as valuable and vital. Well, if that’s really the goal, then why do they have these children (and, increasingly, young adults) riding around arenas on specially designed hoverboards with their trainers balanced on their shoulders?

If the proponents of the B trade want to bring the truly orphaned children into our cities, fine. But this move should be for the purpose of educating these individuals and helping them gain the skills they would not otherwise learn—since, as we know, their education occurs entirely within their family units—prior to reintroducing them to their natural homes. Asking these children to do anything more, especially in the guise of promoting tolerance, is morally reprehensible.

RD 6.3RD 6.4

Marcus Zambrano is an associate professor of sociology at American National University. He is the author of “Split Humanity: The Genetic Class Wars” and, most recently, “Captive Humanity.”

Previous Chapter:  Research Document 5

Next Chapter:  UChicago Messages, Subject: L. Keith Papers


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s