It Pays to be a Eugenicist
Big money is out there for the brightest minds to shove utilitarianism and the goal of human enhancement down our throats. Australian Professor Julian Savulescu (now in the UK)--who I have seen debate and believe me he is one scary cat--has just picked up an 800 thousand pound grant to begin a eugenics, er neuroethics, center at Oxford. From Bioedge's report: Professor Savulescu said: “Neuroscience studies the brain and mind, and thereby some of the most profound aspects of human existence. In the last decade, advances in imaging and manipulating the brain have raised ethical challenges, particularly about the moral limits of the use of such technology, leading to the new discipline of neuroethics.
So, they make up a new field whole cloth dedicated to destroying universal human equality and the intrinsic worth of merely being human and the money comes pouring in. And with the money and the prestigious academic affiliation comes awesome power to influence young and bright minds who are society's leaders of tomorrow. And, being very bright, they see which way the financial winds are blowing and what they need to believe--or say they believe-in order to climb the ladder of success.
Professor Savulescu has become notorious for arguing that we should genetically enhance the human species by improving IQ, behaviour, mood, character and morality. “Biological manipulation to increase opportunity is ethical,” he once said. If we have an obligation to treat and prevent disease, we have an obligation to try to manipulate these characteristics to give an individual the best opportunity of the best life.” He has even argued that parents have a moral responsibility to select the best children they could have. It will be interesting to see what sort of ideas about brain manipulation will emerge from the well-funded new centre
What chance do you think there would be for someone as bright as Savulescu, and with the same credentials, to receive such major funding and Oxford offices if he held opposite views? Good luck with that and don't call us, we'll call you.
But that's the high academy/foundation nexus today. And these folk are determined to tear down what they consider the ancien regime. And unless "the folk" stand up to it, the forces that be will bulldoze the very concept of universal human rights directly into a landfill--claiming as they go that they are the "enlightened" ones, the "brights."
This is exactly how it was with the first eugenics movement. The people who paid were not the connected but the powerless. And those who urged their sterilization and even killing were at the top of the social/academic/political/legal and even liberal religious heaps.
Bitter? A bit, I admit. Scared? A lot.
Labels: Julian Savulescu. Eugenics.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:05 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
This is a very informative blog – one of the best of its kind. I have gone through all the posts but I have some doubts about some thing. Updates of this blogs are rare. Since blog needs latest info, I humly request the blog master to update this blog when ever gets time.
All other aspects are really Great. I have some own blogs in this subject – on malignancy and malignant cancers or tumors - I shall link this blog from them. I think this blog needs that as this is very informative.
And about complete cure of Cancers and malignant tumors I was simply wondering why common men like me and you can work for this/in this direction? It may be scientist’s subject, but I think we too can provide good contribution to this subject... I could see an informative guide on malignant cancers and the cure of cancer etc from following URL
http://www.helpcure.com/cancer
This site will give you a free cancer- guide which details how to cure cancers by Holistic Treatment – Only useful treatment to cure cancer completely- and also on how to care cancer as well as much information about the cancers
Thanks lot
One instantly is struck the shear circular logic of it all... if brains can be manipulated, then who's to say theirs wasn't already?
Follow the money - that will tell the real story.
Who's actually behind Wellcome?
Must be in their strategic interest to have a population who's brains can be manipulated.
I suspect that if we revive the Francis Galton 19th century style eugenics (with its hints at future manipulations of society), we could easily transition to UBER EUGENECISTS who started killing off (or forcibly sterilizing) their population a mere 28-30 years after Galton's death.
And I know someone will cite "Godwin's Law". But perhaps the reason the Nazis are cited so many times is that maybe their brave new world (less their blatant racism) seems to be resurrected by some...
I forgot to publish the connection (Research Francis Galton online - he too was a brilliant man who MARKETED "eugenics" i.e. the manipulation of the human race to breed the "better" human. Thus guy sounds like his IDEOLOGICAL great great grandson)
The 'E' Word again. I'm afraid that while eugenics almost always carries negative connotations, the meaning behind it is often fuzzy. Does it require government control over reproduction, or would individuals choosing to have the best children possible count? Does choosing Mr/Ms Right for their genes count? Does a ban against incest, for fears it could lead to mutant children, count?
There was an article by Stephen Wilkinson about the use of the word 'eugenics' in the Journal of Medical Ethics last month. Basically, he concludes that is can be a bad word to use because it argues from emotion and not from reason.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.021592
Eugenics is a psychotic mental disorder which causes the afflicted to believe he or she can out-do God.
LET"S FIND A CURE FOR EUGENICS NOW!
you may not survive the 2nd hand effects
These debates over "eugenics" and reproductive technology are quite meaningless, at least in the U.S. The reason is that very little, legally, can be done in the U.S., with regards to this issue.
SCOTUS ruled in 1948 that reproduction is an unfettered right. This ruling was intended to ban all of the forced sterilization of the "unfit" that was going on at the time. Since reprogenetics is simply the logical extension of reproductive rights, any legislative ban on reproductive technology is likely to be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
In the unlikely event that SCOTUS overturned its previous, 1948, decision, the door to forced sterilization of the so-called "unfit" would be opened again.
In other words, you can reproduction as an unlimited right, where anyone can have any kind of kid that they want. Or you can have it completely regulated, where both the designer kids and the "unhealthy" are not allowed to be born. You cannot have one without the other, since both are examples of reproductive freedom.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS is going to reverse its 1948 ruling. So, "debate" on this issue is essentially meaningless.
Kurt: I haven't read that case, and you may be right. But you may be wrong. If the case was about the government not preventing people from reproducing, the facts certainly did not to the issue of using any kind of technology that prospective parents want. Nor, did it speak to the issue of enhancing. Thus, a right to have a child is not the same thing as having a right to the child you want.
If you are right though, all the anti-reproductive cloning rhetoric is just that.
Thanks for the comment.
Professor Savulescu has become notorious for arguing that we should genetically enhance the human species by improving...morality.
Morality? I suppose an improvement in morality would be, in the professor's estimate, increased support for eugenics rather than opposition to it! How convenient for him, as if such a thing were even possible.
Wesley,
The 1948 ruling did not say anything about reproductive technology, as it did not exist at the time. I think inclusiveness of reproductive technology would be assumed, since that would be the most simple interpretation of the ruling (common law is usually driven by the most simple interpretations). Thus, the burden of argument would lie on those who want to specifically exclude reproductive technologies from reproductive freedom, not those who would assume that it is included.
Honestly, I do not see a problem with this issue. The only real issue here is that of access. That is, where the rich can enhance their kids, but the poor cannot. However, I think this problem is self-solving in the long run.
As you are no doubt aware, biotech has its own version of Moore's Law, called Carlson's Curves. This suggests that biomedical technology will be dirt cheap around mid-century, much like electronics are today.
In the mid 80's, cell phones were a status symbol of the wealthy. Today, they are the preferred means of communication of meth addicts. Also, the rih do not have more powerful laptop computers than the rest of us do.
For that matter, today's luxury cars are not that much better than the cheap cars, at least in terms of reliability, compared to 40 years ago since they are all built by robots to exact standards.
I think the same cost/performance progression that has occurred in semiconductors will occur with biotech. As such, I think the biotech divide will become as much of a myth as the so-called digital divide.
Kurt:
Except that learning to clone and engineer will require mass experimentation on embryos and fetuses, not to mention that it could be deemed unethical human experimentation since we would not know about the health of the cloned/engineered baby through his or her life.
I think all the state would have to do is show a rational basis for the law rather than a compelling state interest, given that the earlier case did not even begin to deal with these issues.
But I think even a compelling state interest standard could be met in some of these areas.
Treating human life as an experiment is a pretty big deal.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home