economist gmo eugenics nature synthetic biologyThe 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.


🧬 Eugenics on Nature (GMO)

[ Origin of eugenics ideology ] [ Embryo selection ] [ Arguments against GMO ]

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 he tweeted that while eugenics is morally deplorable, it “would work.” Source: Phys.org (2020) Eugenics is trending. That's a problem. Any attempt to reduce world population must focus on reproductive justice. Source: Washington Post

The multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless bundles 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.”

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.

In 2014, New York Times journalist Eric Lichtblau 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.

(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

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

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.

(2017) China's embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions about eugenics In the West, embryo selection still raises fears about the creation of an elite genetic class, and critics talk of a slippery slope towards eugenics, a word that elicits thoughts of Nazi Germany and racial cleansing. In China, however, eugenics lacks such baggage. The Chinese word for eugenics, yousheng, is used explicitly as a positive in almost all conversations about eugenics. Yousheng is about giving birth to children of better quality. Source: Nature.com (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

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.

Psychiatry is based on determinism (a 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 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, 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.

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 (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

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.

Friedrich NietzscheThe 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

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.


Atheism fueled neglect

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 campaigndios no existe

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

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.


Science as a guiding principle for life?

woman moral compass 170While 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. If the idea is not valid, then that has 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 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 GMO 

GM: science out of control 250The above part of the article is intended to denote that it can be an argument that caution (critical thinking) is required before eugenics on nature (GMO) is practiced, and that GMO has been an unguided practice until now in which companies with a short term financial profit motive are let on the loose ('run dumb').

Further, it is intended to create a basis for questioning the underlying theoretical foundation of eugenics on nature and it hinted that a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the presumed 'laws of Nature' (the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy and thus without morality) can be considered invalid using logical reasoning.


Criticism of the main argument of proponents of GMO: selective breeding has been done for 10,000 years…”

A primary argument of proponents of GMO is that humans have been practicing selective breeding 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 may be 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

With selective breeding, one works with real animals and plants – meaningful beings with a purpose – and a population of millions of individuals. The potential for shaping evolution in that way is limited and the individual animals and plants may be able to overcome problems. Despite this, selective breeding does cause fatal problems due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding.

cow(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

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.

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.


GMO based eugenics

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?


Arguments against GMO:

  1. Argument 1: Eugenics resides on the essence of inbreeding of which it is known that it causes fatal problems.Eugenics promotes weakness on the long term.
  2. Argument 2: The origin of life and morality cannot be factored out.

The use of genetic engineering to remove 'unwanted genes' and diseases from evolution logically promotes weakness due to the principle that overcoming problems results in strength.

The reason is the essentiality of resilience, the ability to overcome unforeseeable problems, not just the ones that can be predicted.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. The fight to overcome the defects or diseases makes a life form stronger in the future. Filtering out genes (eugenics) would be like fleeing instead of overcoming problems and thus logically results in increased weakness over time.

An easy life or offspring with genes linked to social prosperity (financial, career, etc) may not be what is good for longer term evolution.

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.


Morality ignored

When it concerns morality, it would concern the question whether GMO is good for the animals and plants involved.

Why would a human be motivated to explore morality for animals and plants? Or alternatively, why would a human be motivated take moral reasoning in consideration when it concerns the question whether GMO should be applied or not, considering the trillion USD profit motive involved?

When humans would consume an animal or plant anyway, why would it's life stage be worth any more than the value that the animal or plant provides for the human?

In a deterministic world, the animal or plant on the plate is all that one would need to consider.

When determinism isn't valid however, then morality may require to prevent a lack of respect for animals and plants before they enter a human's food plate and thus it would be important to be able to answer the question whether morality for animals and plants can be safely ignored.


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 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.


Morality, like 💗 love, cannot be “Written Down”, 🐿️ animals need you!
© Philosophical.Ventures Inc.oceandump.orgnature-protection.org