Philosophy

Academics Demand Mandatory Chemical Moral Bioenhancement To Make You More Compliant To Coronadoom Restrictions

The New Mandatory Eugenics: Background

We’ve heard a lot over the past decade from ethicists (so-called) and scientists (don’t laugh) who aren’t satisfied with human nature, they are not satisfied at all, and who wish to change it either chemically or surgically.

This new eugenics movement scored its first successes in killing those with Down Syndrome in Iceland (other places, too). This killing is given the happy name of cure. The same methods are used in China, India, and elsewhere, to cure kids who have the wrong sex. It’s not always legal, but it isn’t so illegal it can’t be done.

Some do in-vitro testing of the genetic material of enwombed kids; those with troublesome genes—besides sex, that is—are killed. Many call for an expansion of these cures for sets of genes that are known only to be roughly correlated to certain undesirable traits.

Others hope to modify the “correlated” genes (if we can call them that) before the kids are pushed out of their mothers, though this is largely in the experimental stage.

Do not get the wrong idea. There is nothing per se wrong with eugenics. After all, everybody who mates with one person and not another practices it. If not in general, there may be something wrong with particular eugenic applications. Consider the same cure above for AIDS. It might be difficult to get people to admit they had it in this scheme.

Eugenics, then, isn’t only possible for kids inside their mothers. It can be applied outside, too. We have to be careful with the term, though, because everything at some level can be said to be eugenic or dysgenic. So let’s save eugenics for state-mandated or -approved programs or methods.

We’ve seen many academics who want to inject various chemicals into us. The Journal of Medical Ethics ran a paper on “Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions“, which argued to lace water and grains with lithium to prevent fewer MAGA hats, or something. Lithium in water is also suggested to reduce suicides.

Some academics want to feed us propranolol to reduce racism. The strangest is a short Chinaman who wants to make everybody his stature to reduce global cooling, or warming, or whatever.

Chemical Morality Enhancement

The latest is to suggest “morality pills” to make people more compliant with coronadoom restrictions. An article interviewing academic Parker Crutchfield in The Conversation says “COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual.”

This is false. It does not threaten everyone, and we do not have “all” have to cooperate to lower the chance it harms any individual. If we did, then we would always have to cooperate to lower the chance anything that harms any individual, which is stupid.

Crutchfield disagrees and wants to slip you the needle to make you more compliant to government instruction. Crutchfield’s peer-reviewed paper is “Engendering Moral Post-persons: A Novel Self-help Strategy” forthcoming in Bioethics.

Crutchfield is a utopianist, and begins his paper with the words “Humans are morally deficient in a variety of ways”. Who knew? It isn’t long before he suggests moral deficiency should not be. He suggests chemical means to create “moral transhumans, or moral post-persons”.

These creatures are needed because “we appear to be incapable of responding to climate change in ways that make likely the prevention of suffering that will result.” Now this Crutchfield is, as far as I can tell, ignorant about the physics of climate. He thinks the climate is bad because his fellow academics say it bad, and that is good enough for him. Modern academics are notoriously incurious people and evince strong tribal instincts: it would never do to question his fellow academics on this subject. So he takes it as rote we are doomed to heat death and proposes drugging non-academic humans to make them believe as he does.

It is not only this one academic. He says, and it is true, “The scholarly body of work on moral enhancement is large and growing”, though by scholarly he means academic. The warnings about letting professors off campus have been ignored. We pay the price (here and elsewhere), and will go on paying. The mistake you will make, again, dear reader, is to laugh at this man and dismiss him.

Yet these fellows want to make their experiments compulsory. If we don’t chemically modify certain people, they can “make life for us so miserable that it may not be worth living.” Note the “us”. If enough of “us” graduate and staff government positions, “us” will get their wish.

What makes this a philosophical rather than just an ethical or moral consideration is Crutchfield claims that “moral post-persons” would be “people who are so morally superior to us that they cannot be properly considered human persons.” This is false. Even supposing chemical means existed to make people believe academic theories more strongly, the better believers would still be men. Man is a rational animal. They remain this even if the biological functions associated with rational thought are addled via mandatory chemical or surgical manipulation. The only non-man you can make out of a man is a dead man.

Parts of us can be enhanced or degraded, of course. Following the government rules on nutrition increases fatty tissue. Praying to God boosts morality, but only “up to a point”. Perfection is not ours to have. This is a lesson well taught to us in the Twentieth Century, but it is not one well received in academia.

Another warning: “The moral capacities of moral post-persons are greater than those of mere persons.” Ignoring “post-persons”, there are also disagreements about morality. For instance, some say it’s fine to kill those with Down Syndrome, others say no. In order to be “more” moral the standard of morality has to be fixed, otherwise if these drugging schemes worked we could create armies of moral monsters—like college professors who write papers like this.

Crutchfield does not appear to understand that his chosen morality is not true or that it is subject to dispute. Though he does poll other academics to see what they like, and again, that is good enough for him. This is the Voting Fallacy.

Some readers will believe I am exaggerating or misquoting out of context. So I will let The Crutch, as our man must be affectionately known among fellow academics, have the last word. Here is his Conclusion in its entirety.

I have argued that we should engender moral post-persons, because doing so promotes the interests of mere persons. If moral enhancement is likely to engender moral post-persons, then we should morally enhance mere persons. How this is achieved is another matter. On the one hand, making enhancement compulsory seems more likely to engender more moral postpersons. In turn, the more moral post-persons there are the more the interests of mere persons can be promoted. On the other hand, if every mere person is enhanced to become a moral postperson, then there are no interests of mere persons to promote, because there are no mere persons. It might be that the world in which there are some mere persons is better than the world in which there are only moral post-persons.

Thanks to reader Vince and Marc Morano for the Crutchfield paper.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here

Categories: Philosophy

27 replies »

  1. I am amazed people can actually still write this type of fiction. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to force people to take meds, or lace the water, whatever. PEOPLE ARE PILL-POPPING ROBOTS that love their Abilify, Vraylar, Latuda, Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Riperdal, just to name a few of the most recent antipsychotics that fools willingly injest to “be happy”. (It never occurs to them there are many reasons to BE unhappy and to deal with it, of course. Just pop that pill. Now, with the NEW pill to counter the tardive dyskinia from the old pill, you can really pop away.) Chemical straightjackets are all the rage now. Just watch 20 minutes of daytime TV and see how many options are out there. If you can’t find the information, your 8-year-old will find it for you and tell you to go see your doctor.

    I’m not sure what the difference between using Covid as an excuse to drug the masses and just outright requiring drugging them is, but you can go with that theory if it makes you happier than the pills. Drugging people doesn’t really require a “reason” or “an excuse”.

    Notice the OVERLORDS NEVER need the shots. Interesting, isn’t it? Oh, and we also already have “moral transhumans”. They have been rioting for over 80 days in Portland and burning down cities everywhere. They present Drag Queen story time for toddlers. They mutilate young children who sadly were not born the “right” sex (even when they ordered them in the sex they got). There’s a huge stinking pile of “moral transhumans” out there.

    Drugging people does not enhance morality—it enriches those who declared themselves Gods. Inventing “post persons” to sound more authoritative just makes them sound scary and psychotic. Every evil dictator in history used this technique, either calling themselves superior or choosing a group to be inferior. So the author of the paper is advocating for evil and anarchy. Hope he lives in the war zone of one of the cities populate by his beloved “post persons”.

  2. Great stuff. I love the idea we can become more moral “post-persons” thus more acquiescent to government programs to save ourselves and the planet. And it works for sure. I have been taking metoprolol, similar to propranolol, for years now and am consequently without a speck of racism.

    However, I may have to increase the dose because I still think “climate change” is nothing more than a Commandment of Religious Environmentalism.

  3. Parker Crutchfield should at the least be tarred and feathered and driven away from civilization blindfolded and backwards on a wild horse, and that would be the nice option.

    Any time I see the word “ethics” or “ethicist” I know I’m in for a whopper. Like a lot of upside down things in our time, these “ethics” people exist to circumvent ethics.

  4. This is an example of what Dr. David Grossman described in his book “On Killing”. By addressing only ONE aspect of an issue, we ignore other aspects that seem to come at us with a ‘vengeance’. An example is the DNR (Department of Nazi Regulators, or Department of Natural Resources) making an attempt to regulate the White Tailed Deer Herd in WI. By not understanding that Nature has been practicing with such issues and found that the Gaussian Distribution is required to equilibrate any process because it takes into account the ‘outliers’ that will exist in every situation and then, for this to work it needs to be applied to a very large sample, not taking individuals into consideration. I do not believe you can “Save Everything”!

  5. “COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone…”

    The extent to which a virus with a 99.8% survival rate is being used as an excuse for collective moral and ethical insanity is breathtaking. Will people ever wake up? Judging by the muzzled morons everywhere, probably not. They’ll just obediently wear their muzzles, take their Soma and Murti-Bing, and beg to be injected with dubious vaccines rushed to market by companies indemnified by governments against liability…all in the name of “keeping them safe” from life.

  6. The concept of public health is false. It can be no greater than the sum of its parts. By grouping us into the public health collective, society can rationalize individual sacrifices (the concept of greater good). Public health is leveraged to control us. The health of others does not magically rely upon our own health. Look at the fatties stuffing their faces with Hot Cheetos and Crunchwrap Supremes with their masks tucked under their chins. Our country’s true health crisis is metabolic dysfunction.

  7. For some reason Kurt Vonnegut’s Slapstick comes to mind:

    … the Chinese are making vast leaps forward by miniaturizing themselves and training groups of hundreds to think as one. Eventually, the miniaturization proceeds to the point that they become so small that they cause a plague among those who accidentally inhale them, ultimately destroying Western civilization beyond repair.

  8. Morality and ethics have been the the handmaidens of eugenics and genocide
    for over two centuries now and with the Green New Deal in place we can finally start to address that
    pesky overpopulation problem. Machines and machine learning will soon free us from all those
    useless eaters. (covid-2.0 anyone?) Overpopulation has been the centerpiece for decades of all
    moral arguments up there in the rarefied air of our self appointed ethical stratosphere.

    Imagine if you will a captive population of prisoners you could experiment on by subjecting
    them to any of a number of infectious agents. You know the same group whose organs you’ve been
    harvesting for decades. And from whatever percentage of survivors you then extract convalescent
    plasma to inoculate yourself and your chosen cohorts with. Doesn’t that sound like a great science fiction plot? I’m just curious and spit-balling here but convalescent plasma has been around for almost
    a hundred years now and was reintroduced yesterday like it was a brand new thing. I very much doubt
    the 35% effectiveness range given and suspect it’s much higher just on the basis of all the negative
    google hits the search term brings up. But then you can’t bottle and sell it like a vaccine, and worst of all
    it is all natural.

  9. Opps!
    You know the same group whose organs you’ve been
    harvesting for decades.
    Should be:
    You know the same group whose organs you’ve been
    harvesting for the self appointed ethical stratosphere.

  10. Oh sounds a bit like the nazis putting extra fluoride in the water to apparently make their prisoners more conforming or have more “brain fog” going on. What a bunch of bull.

  11. Parker Crutchfield
    “Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University”

    Moron!!

    I mean, Midwit!

    Sometimes our obsessive need for control over everything is the greatest flaw.

    “Lithium in water is also suggested to reduce suicides.”

    It’s so retarded. You can have a person eat a cargo full of lithium batteries but that won’t prevent them from being suicidal if the condition around them is bad enough.

    Even things like maternal instincts are largely influenced by training, not some stupid chemical that’s in our brain. What do you think mothers teach their daughters? Fathers their sons? How to behave in a societal setting and ultimately a role in a family!

    We all want a Staples Easy button but that’s not how real life works. Perhaps these midwits parrot stupid statements like these because they are pampered and admired without what’s really going on.

    The other day I was watching a video about a bike that was stolen in plain sight in the middle of the day, in a busy city with perhaps a dozen or more people watching the incident. He had an angle grinder and cut the chain while everyone was watching. When one interfered, he threatened him with the angle grinder and eventually was able to run off with the bike.

    Why do you think such people exist? Seeing that he was in his teens, terrible or no parental guidance is likely the reason. But you do not see politicians addressing that do you? No, its almost the opposite with divorce and marriage laws favoring breaking them apart.

    Fix that one part and I can tell you number of suicides will plummet!

  12. This guy Crutchfield writes as if he were an extraterrestrial life form attempting to understand humans. Or someone with a severe brain injury who imagines he is a machine.

  13. Fredo: That is sick. The world is upside down. 1+1 = -1, Black is White, White is Black, wrong is right, and we’re all living in on the back of a giant turtle.

  14. Dave:
    What’s sicker the plasma or organ harvesting? Plasma was
    recently used to successfully treat Ebola, but we need more
    lavishly funded studies and data before we can use it for covid.
    It was used in 1918 to treat the Spanish flu and I’d bet there are
    some that are using it now.

  15. Fredo: There’s the whole part about HCQ as well. Some reports are saying hospitals use it, so its not dangerous as Fauci believes.

    There was a Brazilian study that said it was dangerous but it was using dosage levels much higher than safe levels. Lots of shady things going on.

    I meant sick about the Australian arrest.

  16. David and All, it would be useful to understand that the mechanism for HCQ to work requires it be used early. That relates to the probability that it “PREVENTS” the entry of the virus into the ‘cell’. I get tired of hearing that there has not been adequate testing. Please understand that that class of drugs has been used on over 500,000 American Citizens in Vietnam and the issues mentioned were not a significant issue. This drug is an OTC (Over The Counter) med in a lot of countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, India, Philippines, and any where malaria is present. Adding Zn (zinc) to the combo adds the ‘cidal component. If the dz process has progressed, the use of an “Inhaled Steroid” Budesinide, is much more effective (this is an old and relatively inexpensive medication that has been around for a long time). There is a, yet to be published paper out of TX (The Midland/Odessa area) that supports that as being a much more effective tx than a Vent (Ventilator). I reiterate, the FDA has two (2) levels of medication approval, one for the use in humans and the second for a specific ‘Problem’. The second is more associated with protecting the Drug Company and its patent so the cost of introduction is covered). Unfortunately, this issue seems to get diverted by the “propaganda” on that evil machine called a television. Is the credibility of that machine impressive or what?

  17. From an article by Professor Hadley Arke on the new paganism of environment concerns at:

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2020/08/25/fleeing-to-the-company-of-thomas-browne/

    “But then the question naturally arises: such concern for humans not yet living, when set against the 800,00 living beings destroyed every year in this country in abortions? And yet, the party that now declares itself the party of “light” and hope, against the darkness of the current president and his administration, finds no darkness in its willingness to defend and promote these killings as a deep “right”, which can brook not the slightest restraint.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  18. Let me know when there is a definitive genetic test to identify those humans with the “ruler” complex – those who would force others to invariably comply with their edicts at the expense of individual discretion. I could doubtless be persuaded to support at least one solution to eliminate that trait. I suppose there is a risk of eliminating “leader of the pack” types under the assumption (unproven, to me) that there are situations where that type is critical to pack survival, but I, for one, am more than willing to incur that risk…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *