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.
Liao suggests “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.
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.
The usefulness of mass drugging as a means of creating a
docile population has also been promulgated through the media, where
the idea of putting lithium in the water supply as a “mood stabilizer” has been afforded serious credence. Other prominent professors and psychiatrists have also called for psychotropic drugs to be added to drinking water.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment