Eugenics on Nature

economist gmo eugenics nature synthetic biologyThe multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company.

A flawed idea (a dogma) – the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism – lays at the root of the synthetic biology revolution or “Eugenics on Nature”.

When it concerns a practice that profoundly disrupts the foundation of Nature and human life, it can be an argument that caution is required before the practice is started and that letting it ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive is not responsible.

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance.

Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019)

The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons.

If plants and animals are to posses of meaningful experience then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as ‘vitality of Nature’ or Nature’s bigger whole (Gaia Philosophy), of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

pant philosophyFrom that perspective, a base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.

Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.

Synthetic biology revolution

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 (GMO) or synthetic biology is said to be the greatest thing in science in the 21th century.

A special on Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019) provides perspective:

economist gmo eugenics nature synthetic biology 200Remaking 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.

Source: The Economist

It may not be possible to explain the origin of life using empirical science. Instead, it 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 displayed 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?

Philosophy suppressed

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.

space catRecently (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:

  1. Is there at least one clue that Earth life is independent from the Solar system?
  2. On what basis is it valid to consider that life is like a fire that can be taken with one during space travel?

Based on these questions, the first thing to test would be whether Earth life can remain alive further away from Earth. Yet, as of 2021 it was never tested because mainstream science intends to steer to a perspective in which life is a deterministic chemical process and consciousness an illusion.

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 – 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.”
Source: Phys.org (PDF backup)

(2020) Eugenics is trending. That’s a problem.
Any attempt to reduce world population must focus on reproductive justice.
Source: Washington Post (PDF backup)

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:

“The Nazis didn’t need psychiatry, it was the other way around, psychiatry needed the Nazis.”

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.

Critical American psychiatrist Dr. Peter R. Breggin has researched it for years and says the following about it:

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.

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.

(2020) Is America Starting Down the Path of Nazi Germany?

wayne allyn root

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.

OPEN YOUR EYES. Study what happened in Nazi Germany during the infamous Kristallnacht. The night of Nov. 9-10, 1938, marked the beginning of the Nazis’ attack on the Jews. Jewish homes and businesses were looted, desecrated and burned while the police and “good people” stood by and watched. Nazis laughed and cheered as books were burned.

Wayne Allyn Root – bestselling author and nationally syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network

Source: Townhall.com (PDF backup)

New York Times columnist Natasha Lennard recently mentioned the following:

natasha lennard(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.”
Source: The Intercept (PDF backup)

Embryo selection

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
Source: Nature.com (PDF backup)

(2017) Eugenics 2.0: We’re at the Dawn of Choosing Our Kids
Will you be among the first parents that pick their kids’ obstinacy? As machine learning unlocks predictions from DNA databases, scientists say parents could have options to select their kids like never before possible.
Source: MIT Technology Review (PDF backup)


Origin of eugenics ideology

The advertisement for the first eugenics congress shows a link with psychiatry or people who believed in it, which can help explain the origin.

eugenics congres flyer promotion

“Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution”

The idea at the foundation of psychiatry, the idea that there is no more to life and the human mind than what can be shown to exist using emperical science (determinism), is the same idea that lays at the basis of eugenics. For a desire to ‘stand above life’ to arise, one has to be convinced that life is meaningless.

Meaning of life

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.

In science the inability to define the meaning of life has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality completely.


GM: science out of control 110(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.
Source: New Scientist (PDF backup)

(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by philosopher 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.
Source: Duke University: New Behaviorism (PDF backup)


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.

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.

It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

Perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University provide an example:

As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.

When science is practiced autonomously and 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 without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without morality).

The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.


Atheism

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.

atheism campaign: no god

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.


Science as a guiding principle for life?

woman moral compass 170While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that facts are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that could have profound implications.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the potential usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with Eugenics on Nature, it could become important.

The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.

Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot logically be a basis for a guiding principle since a guiding principle would concern what is essential for value to be possible (a priori, “before value” or “before the qualia patternness is possible”).


Conclusion

A flawed idea (a dogma) – the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, or a belief in uniformitarianism – lays at the root of the synthetic biology revolution or Eugenics on Nature.

Eugenics would require determinism to be true. The website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso is an indication that the debate is not settled. Synthethic biology is therefor a practice that requires something to be true of which it is evident that it cannot be said that it is true.

When it concerns a practice that profoundly disrupts the foundation of Nature and human life, it can be an argument that caution is required before the practice is started and that letting it ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive is not responsible.

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance.

~ Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019)

The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons.

pant philosophyIf plants and animals are to posses of meaningful experience then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as ‘vitality of Nature’ or Nature’s bigger whole (Gaia Philosophy), of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

From that perspective, a base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.

Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced. A purposeful Natural environment and food source may be a stronger foundation for humanity.