domdit.com

Bioethics: Covertly Architecting Your Future (Totally Safe and Effective!)

Bioethics is the multi-disciplinary study of ethical issues related to health. At first glance, it appears to be a philosophical and ethical pursuit for the betterment of man-kind, exploring the best and most moral means of medical intervention and public health. The intersection of philosophy with the medical sciences would seem to be the perfect set of checks and balances when it comes to providing ethical treatment to humans without exploitation. These “essential scholars” (scare/sarcasm quotes) inform medical professionals, policy makers, environmentalists on what is best for you.

In reality, these academics vie to shift the overton window towards an ever darkening dystopian world one peer reviewed paper at a time. Their topics range from the promotion of covert behavior modification on the public at large to logically justifying post-birth abortions. These articles are published in “distinguished” academic journals as logical proofs for the most horrendous disregard for humanity. The theses of these articles are so unbelievable that I honestly burst out laughing every time when I hear their logical conclusions. Here is an example of one of those conclusions from chief dweeb Parker Crutchfield in his article–published in Wiley bioethics journal–“Beneficial Bloodsucking”:

  1. Eating meat is morally wrong.
  2. If (1), then eating meat makes people morally worse and makes the world a worse place.
  3. So, people would be morally better and the world would be a less bad place if people didn’t eat meat.
  4. If an act makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place than it would otherwise be, then that act is morally obligatory. (Corollary of consequentialism)
  5. Promoting tickborne AGS (Alpha-Gal Syndrome) makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place.
  6. So, promoting tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

Here we see Parker Crutchfield argue for the promotion of releasing ticks with Alpha-Gal Syndrome–a potentially life-threatening allergy to red meat and other mammalian products that develops from being bitten by certain ticks–because he believes that eating meat is morally wrong. This guy admits he eats red meat by the way.

So how can people actually make these absurd and radical arguments. Furthermore why are they being published in “trust the experts!”, peer-reviewed, infallible, academic journals? As we will see further down, losers like Parker Crutchfield do not actually care about humans or bioethics (lmao); these people are: (1) Having fun making logically air-tight absurd arguments for their colleagues, they probably think of these arguments as academic crossword puzzles for their friends to try and solve (Reductio Ad Absurdum); and more nefariously (2) slightly shifting the overton window towards the dystopian reality they have rationalized in their mind. It is easy for a policy maker who has any sense of morality (do these people exist?) to recoil at infecting a population with a life-threatening allergy, but then turn around and levy higher taxes on people who enjoy a steak once a week for dinner for the sake of the environment or to lessen the suffering of cattle; as this would be the lesser of two evils. We all already know politicians do not care about us, so shifting the overton window towards demonic outcomes is a simple endeavor for these dorks who can only survive in their position if they produce article after meaningless article.

What is worse, in a time of mass-panic, like we have seen in the recent past, the overton window explodes, allowing for martial-law like operations to take place. HEADLINE: “bioethicists have deemed mandatory reception of experimental drugs for the populating a requirement due to new and exciting life threatening virus!” 95% of the population has no idea what peer-review actually is, they have never read a bioethics paper in their life, so they line up outside of Walgreens to do their part in the battle for our democracy. “I just want to go to the bar and have a drink with my friends, and if I need this piece of paper from the government to allow me to do that, I guess that is just what I have to do.” “I only took the first round of shots, just so I could keep my job.” Okay! So let’s take a deeper dive into some of the man-made horrors that you will be lining up for next.

I am going to continue to pick on Crutchfield throughout this post. In his article “The Memory Remains: Reciprocity and Veteran Super Soldiers”, the looming possibility of biomedically enhancing soldiers into super soldiers via ocular enhancements, auditory enhancements, neural enhancements of the brain, etc, is presumed to be in effect by 2050. While the sacrifice of all soldiers is acknowledged, a bio-enhanced soldier, he justifiably argues, would require greater sacrifice as they risk their lives just by attempting to become a super soldier “in virtue of the presumption that the process of becoming a super soldier is more dangerous…” due to the experimental nature of the procedures. Furthermore, for the super soldiers that do survive, they may look back on their past actions as not their own, thus seeing their time in war as “inauthentic”, risking being “saddled with memories associated to extraordinary things they have seen” in the case of an ocular enhancement. He goes on to talk about other scenarios in which the life of a super-soldier would be more traumatic than a regular soldier; and I think that is a totally normal conclusion to come to.

Now, if you were a bioethicist, what would your rational response to super soldiers be? I assume it would be something like: “Therefore we should stop the military from creating super soldiers through some sort of treaty like we have with nuclear weapons” or something like that. Well, that is why you are not a bioethics professor! Parker argues that one of the most just outcomes for the super-soldier would be for the government to administer to them memory manipulation technologies (MMTs). In his ideal world, the MMT would completely erase all problematic memories from the super soldier entirely: “But there is at least one reason to think they will be most effective at returning autonomy to veteran super soldiers if they erase, or undermine in some other way, the semantic or imagistic content of the memories, rather than merely blunting the emotional content, for example. Super soldier’s loss of autonomy is presumably a byproduct not of negative emotions associated with the memory, but of the knowledge of what has happened to them.”

I can only laugh at this line of thinking. It is so devoid of humanity that I can only read these articles as if they are satire, or perhaps a plot of a Philip K Dick novel. While his argument may hold logical weight, it is completely devoid of what any normal human being would consider ethics.

Let’s move on to a better-known bioethics paper: “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Yeah you read that correctly, these people “claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.” So let’s parse that a bit: not only are they claiming it is ethical to kill a baby outside of the womb regardless of its health, they also desire to remove any humanity from the child by refusing to call it euthanasia as that would imply the child even had “interest” to begin with. They justify this by claiming the moral status of an infant is equivalent to a fetus and neither can be considered a “person”; and it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing the newborn from becoming a “person” as it is not a person in the first place. Obviously as a Catholic, I believe what these people call a “fetus” to have full personhood, complete with a soul. But I do not think you need to be religious to share the sentiment that after-birth abortion cannot be ethical. If you do think it is ethical, write all about it in the comments below. Don’t forget to hit subscribe.

In the conclusion of their article they make sure to state that they have no time-limit on post-birth abortions as it would be up to a neurologists and psychologists to determine whether or not the child was developed enough to have attained personhood. Current mainstream medical literature seems to promote the idea that our brains are not fully developed until our mid-twenties. I am sure we are only a few peer-reviewed journal articles away from justifying the abortion of a recent college grad who took on too much debt for a useless education. But the real question is, why would anyone even write something like this. One thing the university teaches is that “everything is political,” it is obvious these people want to shift the overton window towards a more abortion friendly reality; post-birth or not. (Just a friendly reminder, the overwhelming majority of abortions are done out of convenience and not due to rape or complications of pregnancy. (Here is the source for you people who still worship at the altar of Scientism)

Okay, last article, and I am going with another Crutchfield special because I genuinely dislike this guy: “Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should Be Covert”. Moral Bioenhancement is the “practice of indluencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations or dispositions.” Moral Bioenhancement, Crutchfield argues, is necessary to “prevent human harm” and ought to be handled by the government in a covert manner, without public knowledge. This is a matter of public health, obviously. If there were some sort of dangerous virus going around, it would be imperative for the government to bioenhance us to accept whatever form of treatment they deem safe and effective, regardless of what freedoms it may strip from us. Furthermore, this must not be done overtly, as if one were to know they were being propagandized, the propaganda ceases to work. The goverment must covertly edit our behavior and thought processes to achieve their goal of safety.

The justification of covert modification of a population’s behavior is the final piece of the puzzle towards the complete dystopian nightmare these freaks yap about on a daily basis. And regardless if all of this is just an academic exercise, it is obvious that these tactics either have been or could be used against us in order to achieve whatever the current goal of those with institutional capital is.

While I will not argue that these academics ought not have the right to publish these papers (muh freedom of speech), I do think it is imperative that we audit their peer-reviewed papers as omens of possible timelines we may find ourselves in in the near future. It is of the utmost importance that you educate yourself (do your own research) on what the experts actually say, as the propaganda arm of the government may just be citing a bioethicist’s reductio ad absurdum musings the next time they tell you what is the best method to save democracy or whatever. Furthermore, we should audit where these bioethicist’s get their funding and which journals publish them. It is only through the examination of the experts that we may be able to identify a potentially dangerous covert operation being carried out against us in the name of public safety.

You can find all (most?) of Parker Crutchfield’s articles here

Webrings

domdit.com


Games
sokobanya NEW!
asteroids
pong

My Band


Solo Music


Webrings

Bioethics: Covertly Architecting Your Future (Totally Safe and Effective!)

Bioethics is the multi-disciplinary study of ethical issues related to health. At first glance, it appears to be a philosophical and ethical pursuit for the betterment of man-kind, exploring the best and most moral means of medical intervention and public health. The intersection of philosophy with the medical sciences would seem to be the perfect set of checks and balances when it comes to providing ethical treatment to humans without exploitation. These “essential scholars” (scare/sarcasm quotes) inform medical professionals, policy makers, environmentalists on what is best for you.

In reality, these academics vie to shift the overton window towards an ever darkening dystopian world one peer reviewed paper at a time. Their topics range from the promotion of covert behavior modification on the public at large to logically justifying post-birth abortions. These articles are published in “distinguished” academic journals as logical proofs for the most horrendous disregard for humanity. The theses of these articles are so unbelievable that I honestly burst out laughing every time when I hear their logical conclusions. Here is an example of one of those conclusions from chief dweeb Parker Crutchfield in his article–published in Wiley bioethics journal–“Beneficial Bloodsucking”:

  1. Eating meat is morally wrong.
  2. If (1), then eating meat makes people morally worse and makes the world a worse place.
  3. So, people would be morally better and the world would be a less bad place if people didn’t eat meat.
  4. If an act makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place than it would otherwise be, then that act is morally obligatory. (Corollary of consequentialism)
  5. Promoting tickborne AGS (Alpha-Gal Syndrome) makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place.
  6. So, promoting tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

Here we see Parker Crutchfield argue for the promotion of releasing ticks with Alpha-Gal Syndrome–a potentially life-threatening allergy to red meat and other mammalian products that develops from being bitten by certain ticks–because he believes that eating meat is morally wrong. This guy admits he eats red meat by the way.

So how can people actually make these absurd and radical arguments. Furthermore why are they being published in “trust the experts!”, peer-reviewed, infallible, academic journals? As we will see further down, losers like Parker Crutchfield do not actually care about humans or bioethics (lmao); these people are: (1) Having fun making logically air-tight absurd arguments for their colleagues, they probably think of these arguments as academic crossword puzzles for their friends to try and solve (Reductio Ad Absurdum); and more nefariously (2) slightly shifting the overton window towards the dystopian reality they have rationalized in their mind. It is easy for a policy maker who has any sense of morality (do these people exist?) to recoil at infecting a population with a life-threatening allergy, but then turn around and levy higher taxes on people who enjoy a steak once a week for dinner for the sake of the environment or to lessen the suffering of cattle; as this would be the lesser of two evils. We all already know politicians do not care about us, so shifting the overton window towards demonic outcomes is a simple endeavor for these dorks who can only survive in their position if they produce article after meaningless article.

What is worse, in a time of mass-panic, like we have seen in the recent past, the overton window explodes, allowing for martial-law like operations to take place. HEADLINE: “bioethicists have deemed mandatory reception of experimental drugs for the populating a requirement due to new and exciting life threatening virus!” 95% of the population has no idea what peer-review actually is, they have never read a bioethics paper in their life, so they line up outside of Walgreens to do their part in the battle for our democracy. “I just want to go to the bar and have a drink with my friends, and if I need this piece of paper from the government to allow me to do that, I guess that is just what I have to do.” “I only took the first round of shots, just so I could keep my job.” Okay! So let’s take a deeper dive into some of the man-made horrors that you will be lining up for next.

I am going to continue to pick on Crutchfield throughout this post. In his article “The Memory Remains: Reciprocity and Veteran Super Soldiers”, the looming possibility of biomedically enhancing soldiers into super soldiers via ocular enhancements, auditory enhancements, neural enhancements of the brain, etc, is presumed to be in effect by 2050. While the sacrifice of all soldiers is acknowledged, a bio-enhanced soldier, he justifiably argues, would require greater sacrifice as they risk their lives just by attempting to become a super soldier “in virtue of the presumption that the process of becoming a super soldier is more dangerous…” due to the experimental nature of the procedures. Furthermore, for the super soldiers that do survive, they may look back on their past actions as not their own, thus seeing their time in war as “inauthentic”, risking being “saddled with memories associated to extraordinary things they have seen” in the case of an ocular enhancement. He goes on to talk about other scenarios in which the life of a super-soldier would be more traumatic than a regular soldier; and I think that is a totally normal conclusion to come to.

Now, if you were a bioethicist, what would your rational response to super soldiers be? I assume it would be something like: “Therefore we should stop the military from creating super soldiers through some sort of treaty like we have with nuclear weapons” or something like that. Well, that is why you are not a bioethics professor! Parker argues that one of the most just outcomes for the super-soldier would be for the government to administer to them memory manipulation technologies (MMTs). In his ideal world, the MMT would completely erase all problematic memories from the super soldier entirely: “But there is at least one reason to think they will be most effective at returning autonomy to veteran super soldiers if they erase, or undermine in some other way, the semantic or imagistic content of the memories, rather than merely blunting the emotional content, for example. Super soldier’s loss of autonomy is presumably a byproduct not of negative emotions associated with the memory, but of the knowledge of what has happened to them.”

I can only laugh at this line of thinking. It is so devoid of humanity that I can only read these articles as if they are satire, or perhaps a plot of a Philip K Dick novel. While his argument may hold logical weight, it is completely devoid of what any normal human being would consider ethics.

Let’s move on to a better-known bioethics paper: “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Yeah you read that correctly, these people “claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.” So let’s parse that a bit: not only are they claiming it is ethical to kill a baby outside of the womb regardless of its health, they also desire to remove any humanity from the child by refusing to call it euthanasia as that would imply the child even had “interest” to begin with. They justify this by claiming the moral status of an infant is equivalent to a fetus and neither can be considered a “person”; and it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing the newborn from becoming a “person” as it is not a person in the first place. Obviously as a Catholic, I believe what these people call a “fetus” to have full personhood, complete with a soul. But I do not think you need to be religious to share the sentiment that after-birth abortion cannot be ethical. If you do think it is ethical, write all about it in the comments below. Don’t forget to hit subscribe.

In the conclusion of their article they make sure to state that they have no time-limit on post-birth abortions as it would be up to a neurologists and psychologists to determine whether or not the child was developed enough to have attained personhood. Current mainstream medical literature seems to promote the idea that our brains are not fully developed until our mid-twenties. I am sure we are only a few peer-reviewed journal articles away from justifying the abortion of a recent college grad who took on too much debt for a useless education. But the real question is, why would anyone even write something like this. One thing the university teaches is that “everything is political,” it is obvious these people want to shift the overton window towards a more abortion friendly reality; post-birth or not. (Just a friendly reminder, the overwhelming majority of abortions are done out of convenience and not due to rape or complications of pregnancy. (Here is the source for you people who still worship at the altar of Scientism)

Okay, last article, and I am going with another Crutchfield special because I genuinely dislike this guy: “Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should Be Covert”. Moral Bioenhancement is the “practice of indluencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations or dispositions.” Moral Bioenhancement, Crutchfield argues, is necessary to “prevent human harm” and ought to be handled by the government in a covert manner, without public knowledge. This is a matter of public health, obviously. If there were some sort of dangerous virus going around, it would be imperative for the government to bioenhance us to accept whatever form of treatment they deem safe and effective, regardless of what freedoms it may strip from us. Furthermore, this must not be done overtly, as if one were to know they were being propagandized, the propaganda ceases to work. The goverment must covertly edit our behavior and thought processes to achieve their goal of safety.

The justification of covert modification of a population’s behavior is the final piece of the puzzle towards the complete dystopian nightmare these freaks yap about on a daily basis. And regardless if all of this is just an academic exercise, it is obvious that these tactics either have been or could be used against us in order to achieve whatever the current goal of those with institutional capital is.

While I will not argue that these academics ought not have the right to publish these papers (muh freedom of speech), I do think it is imperative that we audit their peer-reviewed papers as omens of possible timelines we may find ourselves in in the near future. It is of the utmost importance that you educate yourself (do your own research) on what the experts actually say, as the propaganda arm of the government may just be citing a bioethicist’s reductio ad absurdum musings the next time they tell you what is the best method to save democracy or whatever. Furthermore, we should audit where these bioethicist’s get their funding and which journals publish them. It is only through the examination of the experts that we may be able to identify a potentially dangerous covert operation being carried out against us in the name of public safety.

You can find all (most?) of Parker Crutchfield’s articles here