“Pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism” needed to address climate change
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment argues that serious consideration should be given to mass drugging the population to make them more environmentally conscious while also proposing that babies should be genetically engineered to be smaller in order to reduce their carbon footprints.
In an interview with The Atlantic the lead author of the paper, New York University bioethics professor S. Matthew Liao, argues that humans need to be be subjected to “biomedical modifications” in order to help combat climate change.
Followed to their logical conclusion, Liao’s proposals outstrip anything Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World, a 1932 dystopian novel about a future scientific dictatorship that seeks to drug, genetically manipulate, and medically induce humanity into complete slavish subservience.
Expressing regret that carbon taxes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, Liao suggests other methods, including “pharmacologically induced meat intolerance” where people would take drugs which would trigger extreme nausea or wear patches that would “stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins.”
In order to reduce an individual’s “carbon footprint” and make sure they consume less, Liao suggests that a policy similar but more flexible to China’s one child policy be introduced, where parents can choose between having one large child, two medium sized children or three small children.
This would be accomplished by “preimplantation genetic diagnosis,” where embryos would be implanted based on height, or by using “drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height.”
Asked if genetic manipulation of babies is ethical or fair, Liao responds by citing the need to address “climate change” as the more pressing moral concern.
Liao subsequently suggests that drugging the public could positively influence their “will” to donate money to charities like Oxfam, which support the global warming agenda, by means of “pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism”.
“For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check,” says Liao.
Of course, by the same token drugs could be used to make someone more inclined to do anything. Depending on what authority is in control, this basically represents an opportunity to chemically castrate free will.
Liao makes it clear at the end of the interview that the pharmaceutical industry is enthusiastic about the potential financial windfall from “biomedical modifications”.
“I recently gave a talk about this paper at Yale and there was a man in the audience who worked for a pharmaceuticals company; he seemed to think there might be a huge market for modifications like this,” he states.
The Atlantic’s Ross Andersen fails to denounce Liao’s ideas for precisely what they represent – the tools of a hardcore scientific dictatorship wrapped in a trendy, liberal, touchy-feely package.
The authors of the paper emphasize that all of this would be “voluntary” and not coercive. However, as we have seen with the vaccine agenda, parents who try to protect their children from dangerous inoculations, or whatever particular medical trend is in vogue, face consequences almost equivalent to if vaccinations were compulsory, since the state and the medical establishment engages in harassment and hands out punishments to the same degree.
Liao’s advocacy for pharmacological “enhancement” of the population is by no means the first time it has been mooted. As far back as 1977, current White House science czar John P. Holdren wrote in his book Ecoscience that the population should be sterilized with infertility drugs to help save the planet.
This marks the second time in a matter of weeks that the shockingly non-ethical recommendations of bio-ethicists have made the headlines. The previous controversy centered around a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics which argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible.