Impenitent wrote: blond hair and blue eyes for everyone
Empirical science has been unable as of today to explain the origin of life and consciousness and yet, it intends to steer to a determinism based perspective in which life is a deterministic chemical process and consciousness an illusion.
Eugenics on Nature or synthetic biology is said to be the greatest thing in science in the 21th century. With Eugenics on Nature, science intends to ‘redesign life’. Thus, without ever having been able to explain why life exists, science believes that it can become master of it.
A special on Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019) provides perspective:
Remaking life means automating biology
Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry.
Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
It may not be possible to explain the origin of life using empirical science and it instead may require an explanation using metaphysics, a subject of philosophy that has increasingly lost interest in the past 100 years.
Where are the aliens?
Most people in the modern world view life as something that is owned on an individual level, as something that can be taken with one during space travel. Popular films such as Star Trek and Star Wars have showed a future in which humans travel through space.
Some scientists are wondering however: why is the Solar system and Earth not crowded with alien visitors? Why, after decades of space science, has no hint been found for the existence of extraterrestrial life?
The post-war era is considered to be an ‘anti-philosophy’ era in which philosophy was increasingly placed on a level comparable with that of religions. In a sense, while science originates from philosophy, science has attempted to overcome philosophy and intended to rid itself of any influence of philosophy, which includes morality.
Recently (2021) it was discovered that the farthest distance that an animal, insect or bacteria had traveled in space was the Moon and meanwhile trillions of USD were already invested for a manned mission to Mars in 2030.
Science it’s dogmatic influence on behalf of determinism, the ground upon which science envisions itself to become master of the Universe, has resulted in a such a repression that it was never considered that Earth life may be bound to a region around the Sun.
Philosophy naturally would have posed the following questions:
- Is there at least one clue that Earth life is independent from the Solar system?
- On what basis is it valid to consider that life is like a fire that can be taken with one during space travel?
When life would be bound to a region around a star, it could explain why the Universe is not crowded with alien activity.
Because the origin of life is unknown, it is evident that science intends to use atheism fueled neglect - the stubbornly ignoring of the question 'why' life exists until forced to consider that morality is ought to be applicable - as ground for a 'synthetic biology revolution' in which animal and plant life is rendered meaningless beyond the scope of empirical value.
Eugenics on Nature
Eugenics is an emergent topic in recent years. In 2019 a group of over 11,000 scientists argued that eugenics can be used to reduce world population.
(2020) The eugenics debate isn't over – but we should be wary of people who claim it can reduce world population
Andrew Sabisky, a UK government adviser, recently resigned over comments supporting eugenics. Around the same time, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins—best known for his book The Selfish Gene—provoked controversy when tweeting that while eugenics is morally deplorable, it "would work."
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-eugenics- ... eople.html
(2020) Eugenics is trending. That’s a problem.
Any attempt to reduce world population must focus on reproductive justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... s-problem/
The multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless lumps of matter that can be "done better" by a company and the idea behind it will logically eventually also affect people.
The idea behind eugenics - racial hygiene - that led to the Nazi Holocaust was supported by Universities around the world. It started with an idea that was not naturally defensible and that was thought to require trickery and deceit. It resulted in a demand for people with the capabilities of Nazis.
The famous German Holocaust scholar Ernst Klee has described the situation as follows:
20 years before the Nazi party was founded German psychiatry started with the organized murder of psychiatric patients through starvation diets and they continued until 1949. In America, psychiatry started with mass sterilization programs and similar programs have also taken place in several European countries. The Holocaust began with the murder of more than 300,000 psychiatric patients.Ernst Klee wrote:"The Nazis didn't need psychiatry, it was the other way around, psychiatry needed the Nazis."
Critical American psychiatrist Dr. Peter R. Breggin has researched it for years and says the following about it:
In 2014, New York Times journalist Eric Lichtblau published The Nazis Next Door: How America Became a Safe Haven for Hitler's Men, which showed that more than 10,000 high-ranking Nazis emigrated to the United States after World War II. Their war crimes were quickly forgotten, and some received help and protection from the US government.Dr. Peter R. Breggin wrote:Yet, while the Allied victory had ended the deaths in the concentration camps, the psychiatrists, convinced of their own goodness, had continued their macabre murder task after the war ended. After all, they argued, "euthanasia" was not Hitler's war policy, but a medical policy of organized psychiatry.
The patients were killed for their own good as well as that of the community.
(2020) Is America Starting Down the Path of Nazi Germany?
New York Times columnist Natasha Lennard recently mentioned the following:Wayne Allyn Root, Townhall.com wrote:I cannot express how truly sad writing this op-ed has made me. But I'm a patriotic American. And I'm an American Jew. I have studied the beginnings of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. And I can clearly see parallels with what is happening in America today.
Wayne Allyn Root - bestselling author and nationally syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneal ... y-n2570979
(2020) Forced sterilization of poor women of color
There need be no explicit policy of forced sterilization for a eugenicist system to exist. Normalized neglect and dehumanization are sufficient. These are Trumpian specialties, yes, but as American as apple pie."
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/17/for ... s-history/
Embryo selection may be a modern day example of eugenics that shows how easy the idea is accepted by the short therm self interest perspective of humans.
Parents want their child to be healthy and prosperous. Laying the choice for eugenics with parents could be a scheme for scientists to justify their otherwise morally reprehensible eugenic beliefs and practices. They could piggyback on the back of parents who may have factors in mind such as financial worries, their career opportunities and similar priorities that may not be an optimal influence for human evolution.
The rapidly growing demand for embryo selection shows how easy it is for humans to accept the idea of eugenics.
(2017) China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions about eugenics
https://www.nature.com/news/china-s-emb ... ns-1.22468
Could embryo selection applied for top-down control of genetic evolution be good for the future of humanity? Would it make humanity stronger?
Origin of eugenics ideology
"What is the meaning of life?" is a question that has driven many to atrocities, to themselves and to others. In a wicked attempt to overcome the 'weakness' resulting from the inability to answer the question, some believe that they should live with a gun under their nose.
An often cited quote from Nazi Hermann Göring: "When I hear the word culture, I unlock my gun!"
It is easy to argue that life has no meaning because empirical evidence is impossible.
The implications in the modern era can be seen in science. It is an ideal of science to abolish morality completely.
(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/
Morality is based on 'values' and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
Some recent perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University:
Uniformitarianism: the belief that facts are valid without philosophyNaked Scientist Forum wrote:Philosophy is bunk.
You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.
Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.
Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think - scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.
Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?
When science is practiced autonomously and it intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the 'knowing' of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it apparently is not.
It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).
The idea that facts exist outside the scope of a perspective (that is, that facts are valid without philosophy) has far-reaching implications, including the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.
Atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they (hope to) find stability in life.
The extremity developed by atheism in the form of a dogmatic belief in the facts of science logically results in practices such as eugenics. The desire for a 'easy way out' by people that attempt to escape exploitation of their weakness (read: the inability to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why life exists") would result in corruption to 'acquire qualities' in a way that is immoral.
Conclusion: a flawed idea (a dogma) - the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, or a belief in uniformitarianism - may be at the root of the synthetic biology revolution (Eugenics on Nature).
1) What is your opinion on Eugenics on Nature?
2) Does synthetic biology have a sound theoretical foundation? (note the quote of The Economist: "Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance.")
3) Do you believe that synthetic biology is morally justified? If no/yes: why?
4) Do you believe that synthetic biology will provide advantages for humanity?