2012年3月15日星期四

生物倫理學教授:下毒人口使接受“綠色世界秩序”

生物倫理學教授:下毒人口使接受“綠色世界秩序”
Bioethics Professor: Drug The Population Into Accepting ‘Green World Order’
“Pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism” needed to address climate change
"藥理增強“同情和利他主義”作用,需用以應對氣候變化
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Translation by Autumnson Blog

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.
倫理、政策與環境出版的一篇新論文,認為應給予認真考慮作大量下藥人口中,使他們有更多的環保意識,同時亦提出應用遺傳工程使嬰兒縮小,以減少他們的碳足跡。
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.
在一次與論文大西洋的主要作者採訪,紐約大學生物倫理學教授廖S馬修認為,人類需要受限於“生物醫學修改”,以圖幫助應對氣候變化。
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.
随著他們的邏輯性結論,廖的建議超越任何赫胥黎在“勇敢新世界”中所寫道的,一本1932年的反烏托邦小說關於未來的科學獨裁,尋求用藥物、轉基因操控、和醫藥地誘導人類完成奴性的卑屈。
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.”
表達遺憾碳稅將做不到任何事情來減少二氧化碳排放量,廖建議其它方法包括“藥物地誘導肉類不容忍”,其中人們會服用引發極度噁心的藥物,或貼上會“刺激免疫系統來拒絕常見的牛蛋白質“的膏藥。
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.
為了減少個人的“碳足跡”並確保他們消耗少些,廖提出類似但比中國一孩政策更加靈活的政策引入,其中父母可以選擇有一大個子的孩子,兩個中等體積的孩子或三個小體積的孩子。
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.

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.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bioethics-professor-drug-the-population-into-accepting-green-world-order.html

洩漏的聯合國文件顯露計劃 2012年“綠色世界秩序”

科學的美國人:殺死更多嬰兒去拯救地球

(英鏈) 醫學雜誌:合法化“出生後流產”,“嬰幼兒並不是人”

沒有留言: