The multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless bundles 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 synthetic biology 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 financial profit motive is not responsible.

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) 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.

The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019)

The idea that plants and animals are meaningless bundles 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.

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.

History of eugenics

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.

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.”

[Show video]

A video report by Holocaust scholar Ernst Klee.

“Diagnose and Exterminate”

(1938) Exterminaton of life unworthy of life (Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) Source: Psychiatry professor Alfred Hoche

Twenty 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 (Euthanasia by Starvation in Psychiatry 1914-1949). 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 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.

[Expand text (show more details)]

The psychiatric eradication program was not a hidden, secret scandal of psychiatry—at least not in the beginning. It was organized in a series of national meetings and workshops by leading professors of psychiatry and directors of psychiatric hospitals. So-called euthanasia forms were distributed among the hospitals and each death was then given final approval in Berlin by a committee of the country's leading psychiatrists.

In January 1940, patients were transferred to six special extermination centers with a staff of psychiatrists. At the end of 1941, the program was clandestinely outraged by Hitler's lack of enthusiasm, but by then between 100,000 and 200,000 German psychiatric patients had already been murdered. Since then, individual institutions, such as the one in Kaufbeuren, have continued on their own initiative, even taking in new patients for the purpose of killing them. At the end of the war, many large institutions were completely empty and estimates from various war tribunals, including that of Nuremberg, range from 250,000 to 300,000 dead, mostly patients of psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally handicapped.

Psychiatrist Frederic Wertham, by no means a radical critic of his craft, deserves credit for being the first to describe the role of psychiatry in Nazi Germany: …

“The tragic thing is, the psychiatrists didn't need a warrant. They acted on their own initiative. They did not carry out a death sentence handed down by someone else. They were the legislators who set the rules for deciding who should die; they were the administrators who worked out the procedures, supplied patients and places, and determined the methods of killing; they pronounced a sentence of life or death in each individual case; they were the executioners who carried out the sentences or – without being forced to do so – handed over their patients to be murdered in other institutions; they guided the slow dying and often watched it.”

The bond between Hitler and psychiatrists was so close that much of Mein Kampf literally corresponds to the language and tone of the major international journals and psychiatric textbooks of the period. To quote some of many such passages in Mein Kampf:

“To demand that the feeble-minded be prevented from producing equally feeble-minded progeny is a demand made for the purest of reasons and, if carried out systematically, represents the most humane act of mankind…”

“Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unworthy should not let their suffering continue in the bodies of their children…”

“Preventing the ability and opportunity to procreate in the physically degenerate and mentally ill… would not only liberate humanity from an immense misfortune, but also lead to a recovery that seems hardly conceivable today.”

After taking power, Hitler gained support from psychiatrists and social scientists from all over the world. Many articles in the world's leading medical journals studied and praised Hitler's eugenic legislation and policies.

The patients were killed for their own good as well as that of the community.

(1938) Exterminaton of life unworthy of life (Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) Source: Psychiatry professor Alfred Hoche

The advertisement for the first eugenics congress shows a link with psychiatry. Psychiatry is based on determinism (the belief that there is no free will) and the idea that mind originates in the brain causally. The flyer for the first eugenics congress shows how the brain causally explains mind.

“Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution”

Eugenics today

In 2014, New York Times journalist Eric Lichtblau - winner of two Pulitzer Prizes in journalism - published the book 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.

A blog by Wayne Allyn Root, bestselling author and nationally syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network, provides a perspective on recent societal developments.

(2020) Is America Starting Down the Path of Nazi Germany? 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. Source: Townhall.com

New York Times columnist Natasha Lennard recently mentioned the following:

(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

Embryo selection

Embryo selection is a modern day example of eugenics that shows how easy the idea is accepted by the short term 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.

Eugenics and morality

“What is the meaning of life?” is a question that has driven many to atrocities, against themselves and against 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.

(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

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, UK provide an example: 

Philosophy is bunk.

[Show more quotes]

…

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?

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 scientific fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.

It means that there is a dogmatic 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.

Rejecting morality fueled by 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.

The fanatism 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 an 'easy way out' by people that attempt to escape religious exploitation of their weakness that results from the inability to answer the “Why” question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”), results in corruption to 'acquire qualities' in a way that is immoral.

Hitler's motive

While personal hate might be the reason that groups of people such as the Jews were included in the originally psychiatric eradication program, the rise of the Nazi's followed a strong demand for breaking with morality (and therewith religions) by psychiatry as a honourable branch of a greater international scientific establishment that sought to break free from moral constraints on behalf of the deemed 'greater good' scientific progress.

Psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin:

The bond between Hitler and psychiatrists was so close that much of Mein Kampf literally corresponds to the language and tone of the major international journals and psychiatric textbooks of the period.

After taking power, Hitler gained support from psychiatrists and social scientists from all over the world. Many articles in the world's leading medical journals studied and praised Hitler's eugenic legislation and policies.

The ideal of science to abolish morality and the consequent ideas propagated as a greater good for humanity by a scientific establishment is hard to challenge for individual people. It would require 'philosophy beyond science' to do so and science was in its infancy and fighting its way into the world by suppressing philosophy and religions, which was shown in the earlier cited quote of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars).

This might explain why in that dark time before the Holocaust morality was stand to lose ground in the face of an international scientific establishment that was reaching its heights. The rise of science resulted in an attempt to shed humanity of morality.

Science as a guiding principle for life?

While repeatability of science provides 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 whether the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, is accurate on a fundamental level.

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

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 or “before value”).

Arguments against Eugenics

A primary argument of proponents of GMO is that humans have been practicing selective breeding for 10,000 years.

“selective breeding has been done for 10,000 years…”

The cited special about synthetic biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019) used that argument as the first argument. The special started with the following:

Humans have been turning biology to their own purposes for more than 10,000 years…

Selective breeding is a form of eugenics.

With eugenics, one is moving 'towards an ultimate state' as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That is opposite of what is considered healthy in Nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

A quote by a philosopher in a discussion about eugenics:

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone

utopia

-Imp

Eugenics resides on the essence of inbreeding which is known to cause fatal problems.

Cows provide an example.

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding.

(2021) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction Chad Dechow – an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics – and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If cows were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species. Source: Quartz

“It's pretty much one big inbred family,” says Leslie B. Hansen, a cow expert and professor at the University of Minnesota. Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, cow fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking.

With genetic engineering, artificial intelligence based automation and exponential growth, changes for an intended result can be applied on a massive scale, directly affecting millions of animals and plants at once.

The situation is quite different from selective breeding and the idea of the field synthetic biology is that the result of the whole endeavor will be that science will 'master life' and can create and control evolution of species in real time, as an 'engineering approach'.

It can be seen in the quote from the special in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019):

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.

Can life have well defined standard parts for science to master and 'redesign' life?

Conclusion

It is logically good to intend to prevent disease. Perhaps there are good use-cases for eugenics when certain fundamental questions are addressed and kept in awareness. As it appears however, the idea that the human can 'master' life itself is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism (the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy and thus without morality), which could result in disastrous flaws in evolution.

It may be best to serve life instead of trying to stand above it.

“An attempt to stand above life, as being life, logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.”

The principle of eugenics resides on the essence of inbreeding of which it is known that it causes fatal problems.

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 synthetic biology 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 financial profit motive is not responsible.

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) 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.

The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019)

The idea that plants and animals are meaningless bundles 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.

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.