Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 2:37 am

Theory and Bioethics
First published Tue May 18, 2010

As a species of practical ethics, bioethics exhibits a complex and contested relationship to philosophical theory. On the one hand, many who teach and write in this interdisciplinary field are philosophers who naturally believe that their specific contribution to the field—their “expertise,” if you will—consists in the application of distinctly philosophical methods, including various kinds of ethical theory, to practical problems arising in biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health. But on the other hand, many who work in the area of bioethics, including many philosophers, are highly skeptical of the so-called “applied ethics” model of moral reasoning, in which exemplars of high theory (e.g., consequentialist utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, rights-based theories, natural law, etc.) are directly “applied” to practical problems. Indeed, most philosophically-inclined contributors to the bioethics literature have eschewed high moral theory in favor of various modes of moral reasoning falling on a spectrum between the strong particularism of various strains of casuistry or narrative ethics, on one end, and the mid-level norms of the enormously influential “principlism” of Beauchamp and Childress, on the other (Beauchamp and Childress, 2009).[1] According to philosophers Robert K. Fullinwider (2008) and Will Kymlicka (1996), bioethics in the public domain can and should go about its business as a species of ethical reflection independently of any reliance upon high-flying ethical theory.

This article explores the controversy concerning the role of philosophical theory for practical ethics in general and bioethics in particular. The main body of this entry dialectically canvasses the respective claims for “high theory,” for particularistic “anti-theory,” and for various species of “mid-level” theorizing in between these extremes. A discursive taxonomy of the kinds of philosophical theories deployed in practical ethics—i.e., metaethical, normative, metaphysical—is provided in a supplement.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theory-bioethics/

...

any real SCIENCE so far? or is it junk psuedo-science and twisted philosphy?
dunno....let's keep looking. i reckon there's a lot riding on it.

and we have to hope the philosophers are benevolent, ya?

what fields will we see them in?

"the application of distinctly philosophical methods, including various kinds of ethical theory, to practical problems arising in biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health"

oh....they said their philosophizing is to be applied to PROBLEMS ARISING in biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health

WHAT KIND OF 'PROBLEMS'? could they mean PUBLIC RELATIONS problems?

lets keep those fields in mind....they are the very same fields the eugenicists control.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 2:57 am

bi·o·eth·ics


n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the ethical and moral implications of new biological discoveries and biomedical advances, as in the fields of genetic engineering and drug research.
bioethics [ˌbaɪəʊˈɛθɪks]

n
(Philosophy) (functioning as singular) the study of ethical problems arising from biological research and its applications in such fields as organ transplantation, genetic engineering, or artificial insemination
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 3:01 am

Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour

Posted by Yara Tercero-Parker, BEI Intern April 8, 2011

[Guardian]- A pill to enhance moral behaviour, a treatment for racist thoughts, a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries – these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field.

Drugs such as Prozac that alter a patient’s mental state already have an impact on moral behaviour, but scientists predict that future medical advances may allow much more sophisticated manipulations.

The field is in its infancy, but “it’s very far from being science fiction”, said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

“Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate,” he said. “There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression.”

Researchers have become very interested in developing biomedical technologies capable of intervening in the biological processes that affect moral behaviour and moral thinking, according to Dr Tom Douglas, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre. “It is a very hot area of scientific study right now.”

He is co-author of Enhancing Human Capacities, published on Monday, which includes a chapter on moral enhancement.

Drugs that affect our moral thinking and behaviour already exist, but we tend not to think of them in that way. [Prozac] lowers aggression and bitterness against environment and so could be said to make people more agreeable. Or Oxytocin, the so-called love hormone … increases feelings of social bonding and empathy while reducing anxiety,” he said.

“Scientists will develop more of these drugs and create new ways of taking drugs we already know about. We can already, for example, take prescribed doses of Oxytocin as a nasal spray,” he said.

But would pharmacologically-induced altruism, for example, amount to genuine moral behaviour? Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner, said: “We can change people’s emotional responses but quite whether that improves their moral behaviour is not something science can answer.”

He also admitted that it was unlikely people would “rush to take a pill that would make them morally better.

“Becoming more trusting, nicer, less aggressive and less violent can make you more vulnerable to exploitation,” he said. “On the other hand, it could improve your relationships or help your career.”

Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply, but he suggests that if administered widely they might help humanity to tackle global issues.

“Relating to the plight of people on other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature,” he said. “This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations.”

Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said.

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2011/04/08/manipulating-morals-scientists-target-drugs-that-improve-behaviour/

...

okay?
you were advocating this earlier.

let's go back to the Huxleys for a moment.

oh....and i guess this is how their dialectical devices (public relations/preparation) work:

"with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field."
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 3:15 am

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

-- Aldous Huxley



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

so that's enough for the moment.
do read up on uncle aldous oscar. tell me if he and his family & friends have your best interests at heart.

tell me if they have any power. tell me if their 'dreams' are coming true.
tell me if they are sane.

then we'll talk about who they really are....

(that is, if you admit we have a problem: if you don't admit it, i'm done i 'spose ).

nite.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 11:34 am

Oscar: you said:

"many atheists, including myself believe that morality may (even will likely) become better with philosophical, technological and cultural advancements."

and you agreed that the following was representative of the kind/method of 'improvement' you and other atheists hope to see:

Neuroscience of Morality
Principal Researchers: Prof. J. Savulescu, Prof. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Prof. N. Levy, Prof. B. Fulford.

Further Researchers: Dr N. Shea, Dr B. Foddy.
In the last decade, neuroscientists and psychologists have produced a substantial body of empirical evidence which challenges established views of morality and rationality.
neuroethics.ox.ac.uk/research/area_4

this is a press release from the same Oxford Bioethics group, on the identical issue you approved of:

Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour

Posted by Yara Tercero-Parker, BEI Intern April 8, 2011

[Guardian]- A pill to enhance moral behaviour, a treatment for racist thoughts, a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries – these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field.

Drugs such as Prozac that alter a patient’s mental state already have an impact on moral behaviour, but scientists predict that future medical advances may allow much more sophisticated manipulations.

The field is in its infancy, but “it’s very far from being science fiction”, said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

“Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate,” he said. “There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression.”

Researchers have become very interested in developing biomedical technologies capable of intervening in the biological processes that affect moral behaviour and moral thinking, according to Dr Tom Douglas, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre. “It is a very hot area of scientific study right now.”

He is co-author of Enhancing Human Capacities, published on Monday, which includes a chapter on moral enhancement.

Drugs that affect our moral thinking and behaviour already exist, but we tend not to think of them in that way. [Prozac] lowers aggression and bitterness against environment and so could be said to make people more agreeable. Or Oxytocin, the so-called love hormone … increases feelings of social bonding and empathy while reducing anxiety,” he said.

“Scientists will develop more of these drugs and create new ways of taking drugs we already know about. We can already, for example, take prescribed doses of Oxytocin as a nasal spray,” he said.

But would pharmacologically-induced altruism, for example, amount to genuine moral behaviour? Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner, said: “We can change people’s emotional responses but quite whether that improves their moral behaviour is not something science can answer.”

He also admitted that it was unlikely people would “rush to take a pill that would make them morally better.

“Becoming more trusting, nicer, less aggressive and less violent can make you more vulnerable to exploitation,” he said. “On the other hand, it could improve your relationships or help your career.”

Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply, but he suggests that if administered widely they might help humanity to tackle global issues.

“Relating to the plight of people on other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature,” he said. “This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations.”

Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said.

bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2011/04/08/manipulating-morals-scientists-target-drugs-that-improve-behaviour/

i showed you the history; goals; prominence and power of globalist eugenicists, i.e: Aldous Huxley:

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

Aldous Huxley

.....

Qs:
are the ideas and goals of these people extremist?
does their plan seem sinister to you?
am i an extremist for documenting them and asking you for your opinion?
are the people advancing the plan described by Huxley moral and trustworthy?

should immoral and untrustworthy people be encouraged to 'advance' the 'morality' of billions of human beings "by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods"?

given my understanding of the issue, should i assume to be moral and trustworthy someone who says:

"many atheists, including myself believe that morality may (even will likely) become better with philosophical, technological and cultural advancements."
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 12:29 pm

Oscar: assuming you intend to even marginally address the above post, i'll continue on to the Oxford Bioethics group, and consider whether the world's leading Bioethics 'experts' are in fact atheists.

please give me your assessment of that question.
(i will continue on to other assertions made by the experts in this article).
if you're discontinuing this discussion please be kind enough to notify me....thanks oscar: zone.



World’s leading expert on Jewish medical ethics, Professor Avraham Steinberg, speaks at Oxford Chabad Society

Oxford Chabad Society collaborated this week with the Ethox Centre, a bioethics research centre in the University of Oxford’s Department of Public Health, to host a high profile lecture by the world’s leading expert on Jewish medical ethics, Professor Avraham Steinberg, at the David Slager Jewish student centre.

Professor Steinberg, an Israel Prize Laureate and author of the acclaimed Encyclopaedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, spoke to about 50 people on the Jewish perspectives regarding some of the most cutting edge scientific implementations in the field of medicine today, including stem cell research, pre-implantation genetic diagnoses (PGD), gender selection and human enhancement.

In a lecture outlining the scientific process of Stem Cell research, he explained that some of the most controversial issues in medical ethics today hinge on the debate on the definition of beginning of life. He explained that birth is the ultimate and universally accepted definition of the beginning of life. However, there could be numerous possible stages in the development of the fetus when one can define the beginning of life, starting with conception. If life begins at conception, as some religions believe, then the mixing of the sperm with the egg creating a blastocyst (early embryo) constitutes a life and may therefore not be destroyed even in order to save a life.

He pointed out, however, the Jewish view is there is not a single point during fetal development when life begins but rather it progresses gradually in a process that endows the embryo with more and more rights until birth when it becomes a full human being. Prof. Steinberg maintains that, based on an interesting dialogue in the Talmud, ensoulment per se is also not a relevant issue in Judaism regarding ethics.

He thus explained that the Jewish view on stem cell research is generally permissive, since an embryo in such an early stage of development (4-5 days post conception) does not represent a human being, and therefore does not constitute the killing of one life to save another, which would be categorically prohibited in Judaism. Moreover, Judaism distinguishes between an embryo who is in the womb of a woman vs an embryo in a lab dish outside a womb. The latter certainly is not defined as a human being since he requires an additional act (transplantation into a womb) before even having the potential chance to develop into a human being.

Currently there are millions of frozen fertilised eggs world-wide who no one is claiming, and which have no chance whatsoever to ever become a human being.

Explaining the important of Jewish medical ethics today, Professor Steinberg made it clear that, in his view, despite his scientific background, the definition of life is not a scientific issue and therefore science can not solve this problem. It is primarily a moral and religious issue that depends on the cultural or religious background one comes from. Judaism therefore has a profound voice in this debate.

Regarding, the terminology ‘playing G-d’, he refuted it as an issue in Jewish medical ethics. The term ‘playing G-d’ only refers to an action ex-nihilo, bringing something into existence from nothing. This is something humans are unable to do and is indeed relegated to G-d. What human beings can do is to take something that exists and change its form or enhance it. When man builds a table, for example, this is what one is doing, taking wood and forming a table. Or when treating pneumonia with antibiotics or transplanting a new organ to a patient – these are permissible human acts, using the intelligence that G-d gave human beings to improve the well-being of Man.

The same thing is, from a Jewish point of view, when taking existing sperm and egg from a couple who exist and create an embryo through IVF treatment. It is human beings acting in their remit, as long as it is done for the betterment of humankind.

Prof. Steinberg, who serves as senior paediatric neurologist at Shaare Tzedek Hospital, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said proudly that his department has assisted the birth of over a hundred healthy children through IVF and PGD to families with very serious genetic diseases.

Furthermore, he revealed, his department allowed for the formation of an embryo through IVF allowing for the birth of a child in order to provide a bone marrow transplant to save the life of a sibling.

He indicated that this might be viewed as controversial because not much research has been done on the impact on such a child who was born only in order to save someone else’s life.

Prof. Stenberg, however, justified this procedure by suggesting that he hoped that not only would the child not be loved less than an ordinary child, but much more since he had been an essential medium that saved the life of their other child.

Prof. Steinberg pointed out some ethical dilemmas that have emerged due the availability of the PGD technology: Sex selection, late-onset diseases, choosing physical and behavioural characters and others.

The event was chaired by Rabbi Eli Brackman, director of the Oxford Chabad Society, who has been pioneering the study of Jewish medical ethics with students at the University of Oxford over the last few years, as part of the Oxford Chabad Society programme of lectures in Oxford. Rabbi Brackman mentioned that Judaism has an important contribution to make to the rapidly developing area of medical ethics and hopes this event will pave the way for further integrating Jewish medical ethics at institutions like Oxford and around the UK.

Introductions were given by an impressive line-up of academics and experts on practical ethics at the University of Oxford. The first introduction was given by Charles Foster, Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford and Research Associate at the Ethox Centre, University of Oxford. Mr. Foster, who was instrumental in the collaboration of the Chabad Society with the Ethox Centre for this event, is a barrister who practices almost exclusively in medical law and has held research positions in anaesthesia and comparative anatomy. He was also a fellow at the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and research assistant to Aharon Barak, former President of the Supreme Court of Israel.

He acknowledged the contribution of Jewish medical ethics to his own thinking and writing, noting that modern academic progress often involves or consists of disinterring ancient and forgotten truths. 'For me,' he said, 'Jewish philosophy has often been the key that has opened the door to rooms full of great intellectual treasures.' He commented that one of the many important bequests of Jewish medical ethics has been to expose the folly of medical atomism - treating the patient as an entity unconnected to the nexus of relationships in which he exists. 'Modern medicine increasingly recognises that proper diagnosis is diagnosis of the relational ills that afflict the patient, and that proper treatment is treatment not just of the patient but of the entire context in which the patient exists. These things are heralded as revolutionary, yet halacha has known them for millennia.'

An introduction was also given by Prof. Julian Savulescu, a recognised world leader in practical ethics, who holds the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford and Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics within the Faculty of Philosophy.

Closing remarks were delivered by Dr. Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics within the Faculty of Philosophy. Dr. Kahane said that he appreciated how the teachings of Judaism of thousands of years can be used for offering clarity and views pertaining to ethical issues regarding cutting edge scientific technology in today’s society.

http://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/1223543/jewish/Professor-Abraham-Steinberg.htm

Closing remarks were delivered by Dr. Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics within the Faculty of Philosophy. Dr. Kahane said that he appreciated how the teachings of Judaism of thousands of years can be used for offering clarity and views pertaining to ethical issues regarding cutting edge scientific technology in today’s society.

......

The field is in its infancy, but "it's very far from being science fiction", said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/04/morality-drugs-improve-ethical-behaviour

...
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 12:43 pm

"...In a lecture outlining the scientific process of Stem Cell research, he explained that some of the most controversial issues in medical ethics today hinge on the debate on the definition of beginning of life.

...He explained that birth is the ultimate and universally accepted definition of the beginning of life.

...However, there could be numerous possible stages in the development of the fetus when one can define the beginning of life, starting with conception. If life begins at conception, as some religions believe, then the mixing of the sperm with the egg creating a blastocyst (early embryo) constitutes a life and may therefore not be destroyed even in order to save a life.

...He pointed out, however, the Jewish view is there is not a single point during fetal development when life begins but rather it progresses gradually in a process that endows the embryo with more and more rights until birth when it becomes a full human being.

....Prof. Steinberg maintains that, based on an interesting dialogue in the Talmud, ensoulment per se is also not a relevant issue in Judaism regarding ethics...."

~

Oscar:
would you care to generally express your personal view on the assertions made in this portion of the article in question?

specifically : "birth is the ultimate and universally accepted definition of the beginning of life."

would you agree that:

1) birth is the beginning of life
2) birth is the universally accepted definition of the beginning of life

do you agree that this appears to be primarily a religious as opposed to 'scientific' debate, according to the Oxford Bioethics group?:

"Explaining the important of Jewish medical ethics today, Professor Steinberg made it clear that, in his view, despite his scientific background, the definition of life is not a scientific issue and therefore science can not solve this problem. It is primarily a moral and religious issue that depends on the cultural or religious background one comes from."
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 1:03 pm

zone wrote:

lol!



what would constitute a reasonable association? lol.
keep your disclaimer if it makes you feel better oscar.

let's take a little trip into the world of Bioethics (i.e: the people we looked at earlier concerning the technological evolution/advancement of morality).

Bioethics is just the new name for Eugenics

here's a short bit from a simple document you can (and should) read in 15 minutes. pay attention to the names oscar - it makes everything else fall into place much easier.

for example: notice the Huxleys and the Darwins (you know. Charles? evolution and such?Rolling Eyes )...and others you'll recognize.

remember that those guys were the Royal Society (the 'science' big-wigs, and Freemasons - and NASA). they also set up the United Nations etc.

~


Eugenics

Introduction to Eugenics


The principal manifestations of eugenics are racism and abortion; eugenics is the basis for "scientific racism" and laid the foundation for legalizing abortion. It is the driving force behind euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and embryo and fetal research. It is the driving force in global population policy, which is a key element in American foreign policy. It is the force driving much of the environmentalist movement, welfare policy, welfare reform, and health care. It is found in anthropology, sociology, psychology—all the social sciences. It is reflected in much American literature, especially science fiction. So it is worth some study.

DEFINITION


Eugenics is the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The word was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton believed that the proper evolution of the human race was thwarted by philanthropic outreach to the poor: misguided charity encouraged the "unfit" to bear more children. This upset the mechanism of natural selection. Hence, the human race needed a kind of artificial selection, which he called "eugenics," from Greek for good birth. Galton wanted eugenics to develop from a science to a policy and finally into a religion.1


A Study . . .



Galton defined eugenics as "the science of improvement of the human race germ plasm through better breeding." He also said: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally." This definition was used for years on the cover of the Eugenics Review, a journal published by the Eugenics Education Society (later simply the Eugenics Society).


A Program . . .




The American Journal of Eugenics 2 in 1906 called eugenics a "science," but also noted that the Century Dictionary defined it as "the doctrine of Progress, or Evolution, especially in the human race, through improved conditions in the relations of the sexes."
In 1970, I. I. Gottesman, an American Eugenics Society director, defined it actively: "The essence of evolution is natural selection; the essence of eugenics is the replacement of 'natural' selection by conscious, premeditated, or artificial selection in the hope of speeding up the evolution of 'desirable' characteristics and the elimination of undesirable ones."


A Religion . . .



Galton's suggestion that eugenics should function as a religion was ehoed by George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel and others.3 A pungent assertion of the religious character of eugenics comes from Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a member of the Eugenics Society: "We must face the fact that now, in this year of grace, the great majority of human beings are substandard: they are undernourished, or ill, or condemned to a ceaseless struggle for bare existence; they are imprisoned in ignorance or superstition. We must see to it that life is no longer a hell paved with unrealized opportunity. In this light, the highest and most sacred duty of man is seen as the proper utilization of the untapped resources of human beings."
"I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion." Huxley continued, "For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism. The word 'religion' is often used restrictively to mean belief in gods; but I am not using it in this sense...I am using it in a broader sense, to denote an overall relation between man and his destiny, and one involving his deepest feelings, including his sense of what is sacred. In this broad sense, evolutionary humanism, it seems to me, is capable of becoming the germ of a new religion, not necessarily supplanting existing religions but supplementing them."4
The Population Council, one of the new eugenics organizations that emerged after World War II, no longer spoke of eugenics as a religion, but launched "studies relating to the social, ethical and moral dimensions" of population studies, recognizing that these questions involved matters "of a cultural, moral and spiritual nature."5 The new field of bioethics is a response to issues raised by eugenics.6 Bioethics is based on situation ethics, which was developed largely by Joseph Fletcher, a member of the American Eugenics Society. In 1973, Daniel Callahan, a prominent Catholic dissenter and a member of the American Eugenics Society, outlined the new field in the first issue of Hastings Center Studies.7 ...

http://www.all.org/abac/eugen02.htm

see the rest of the document and its easy to follow up.

...

okay.
so....how scientific does this newsletter look?

anything occultish about it?







"After 24 years in production, Lucifer ceased publication in 1907 and become the more scholarly American Journal of Eugenics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_the_Lightbearer


more 'scholarly'?
so we went from a rag named after satan, to a 'more scholarly' eugenics movement...which became todays bioethics.

its the very same people running the very same foundations, with the very same agenda.

comments so far?


Alright, after reading the wiki article about the "Lucifer the light bearer publication" I dont see that it was named explicitly because it supported some sort of satanic agenda. It is true that Lucifer is also an ancient name for Venus meaning light bearer or bringer of light. However I dont think that its plausible that Moses Harman could have possibly been unaware of the more common association of the name Lucifer with the Christian concept of Satan, so I think its reasonable to assume that it was named at the very least to be intentionally provocative. As far as I've been able to gather (wiki sources, and Google search) the publication was focused primarily on anarchist issues, and does appear to be anti-religious as apposed to simply anti-christian. I am unaware of any Satanic rites or rituals, calls to follow Satan, or even acknowledgement that Satan is a real being in the publication. So, while I understand that you feel that the content of the publication works to advance the agenda of Satan, I'm not convinced that the creator of the publication actually even believed in Satan. Understand these are just my thought after reading this initial post and I'll weigh this evidence along with the following posts.

as far as the eugenics is bioethics, at this point its simply an assertion that you've made at the end of a post about eugenics. However I don't rule out the idea that bioethics and eugenics have some parallels, as they do cover many of the same issues the same issues, however I'm not certain of they are philosophically similar in some very important ways, and i'm not certain that they reach the same conclusions in general.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 1:17 pm

zone wrote:
Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour

.....said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

....according to Dr Tom Douglas, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre. “It is a very hot area of scientific study right now.”

....Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner....

Wellcome Trust
The Wellcome Trust was established in 1936 as an independent charity funding research to improve human and animal health. It has an endowment of around £13.9 billion' [1] Now in its 76th year[2], the aim of the Trust is to "achieve extraordinary improvements in health by supporting the brightest minds", and in addition to funding biomedical research it supports the public understanding of science.

The Trust has been described by the Financial Times as the United Kingdom's largest provider of non govermental funding for scientific research and one of the largest providers in the world . [3] In the field of medical research, it is the world's second largest private funder after Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. [4]

The Trust was established to administer the fortune of the American-born pharmaceutical magnate Sir Henry Wellcome.[5] Its income was derived from what was originally called Burroughs Wellcome, later renamed in the UK as the Wellcome Foundation Ltd.[6] In 1986, the trust sold 25% of Wellcome plc stock to the public. Overseen by incoming Director of Finance Ian Macgregor, this marked the beginning of a period of financial growth that saw the Trust's value increase by almost £14bn in 14 years, as their interests moved beyond the bounds of the pharmaceutical industry.[7]

In 1995, the trust divested itself of any interest in pharmaceuticals by selling all remaining stock to Glaxo plc, the company's historic British rival, creating GlaxoWellcome plc. In 2000, the Wellcome name disappeared from the drug business altogether when GlaxoWellcome merged with SmithKline Beecham, to form GlaxoSmithKline plc.

wiki
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 1:23 pm

zone wrote:Eugenics society

A eugenics society is a society formed to promote the idea of eugenics. In particular, the two best-known were the British Eugenics Society and the American Eugenics Society, though smaller ones were also at universities such as the Cambridge Eugenics Society. Many prominent people were members of these societies, though with the discrediting of the idea of eugenics, most of them disbanded or at least shrank in size.[citation needed]

Such societies generally worked to lobby for eugenic policies or to fund eugenics research projects or publications. The Human Betterment Foundation in Pasadena, California, for example, distributed materials on compulsory sterilization in the state, with the hope of encouraging other states and countries to adopt similar laws.

wiki

The Galton Institute is a learned society based in the United Kingdom. Its aims are "to promote the public understanding of human heredity and to facilitate informed debate about the ethical issues raised by advances in reproductive technology".[1]

It was founded in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society, becoming the Eugenics Society in 1926 (often known as the British Eugenics Society to distinguish it from others), with the aim of promoting eugenics. It was based near Brockwell Park, Lambeth in London. It changed its name to the Galton Institute in 1989.

wiki


The new eugenics

“Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” - Frederick Osborn

Since the founding of eugenics, the movement has changed, but it has retained its core goals over the years. Thomas H. Campbell of the University of California believes that the eugenics model of Galton is outdated and impractical, as do many other scientists. Instead of relying on breeding “better humans,” without the intervention of technology, many scientists believe that technological means should be employed to further our “evolution.” With the rise of advanced scientific technologies, the ability to alter the genetic code of living organisms, and the augmentation of human bodies has become a reality. Some individuals who are involved with the modern eugenics movement see the rise of these capabilities as an opportunity to create or alter human beings to acquire the most “desirable traits” and rid humanity of traits deemed “undesirable”.

Is there a link between eugenics and the Human Genome Project? If so, what does this mean for future generations?

During the 34 years (1910-1944) the Eugenics Records Office was active, it collected information on specific human traits in what was called The Trait Book. Also collected was information on “Pedigree” families and their specific traits. Today, the Human Genome project is in effect carrying on what the Eugenics Records Office could only dream of.

James Watson, who began the initial research for the Human Genome Project, directed the operation from 1988-1992. Watson then served as director at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and would eventually become president of the Laboratory in 1994. Watson’s beliefs about the betterment of mankind mirror those of past eugenics leaders.

Watson is quoted as saying at a 1998 UCLA conference that,

“I mean, sure, we have great respect for the human species …. But evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we’ve got a perfect genome and there’s some sanctity to it, I’d just like to know where that idea comes from. It’s utter silliness. And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we do it?”

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2007/08/eugenics-moves-to-the-twenty-first-century/



The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) is a private, non-profit institution with research programs focusing on cancer, neurobiology, plant genetics, genomics and bioinformatics. The Laboratory has a broad educational mission, including the recently established Watson School of Biological Sciences (founded in 1998). It currently employs over 400 scientists. Over its history eight Nobel laureates have worked at the laboratory.

The laboratory began its history in 1890 as an extension of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences; in 1904, the Carnegie Institution of Washington established the Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor on the site. In 1921, the station was reorganized as the Carnegie Institution Department of Genetics.[2]

From 1910 to 1940, the laboratory was also the home of the Eugenics Record Office of biologist Charles B. Davenport and his assistant Harry H. Laughlin, two prominent American eugenicists of the period....

wiki



okay?
so can we agree that the eugenics people are still active and well funded?
can we agree that they have hidden their activities and agendas in plain view?

let me know. then we'll just quickly make the "Bioethics" link, and carry on.

(btw oscar - did you really think mankind was 'evolving' into a better 'species'?)

Yes, we can agree that believers and supporters of eugenics still exist, I dont know how well funded they are and I dont believe you have put forth any evidence about their finances. The human genome project is well funded, but the idea that its a eugenics project is tenuous at best. Obviously the data collected by the HGP is invaluable to eugenicists, but it invaluable pretty much anyone in the field of biology or medicine. I dont find it difficult to believe that eugenicists would have supported and possibly worked to see the genome project completed, but this does not make it a eugenics project. let me draw another parallel, in the Geo thread Rick was talking about Data that will be gathered by the SDSS on a type of celestial body. Now this new Data could be used to confirm or at least support the Geo position. Now, because many Geo researchers and believers presumably (and reasonably) support the gathering of this Data and in fact could find it extremely useful, does this mean that SDSS is a geocentric/biblical astronomy project? Would it mean it was part of the Geo agenda if a Geo supporter worked for SDSS?

zone wrote:
(btw oscar - did you really think mankind was 'evolving' into a better 'species'?)

I dont understand the question or how it relates to your post.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 1:27 pm

oscarkipling wrote:
Alright, after reading the wiki article about the "Lucifer the light bearer publication" I dont see that it was named explicitly because it supported some sort of satanic agenda. It is true that Lucifer is also an ancient name for Venus meaning light bearer or bringer of light. However I dont think that its plausible that Moses Harman could have possibly been unaware of the more common association of the name Lucifer with the Christian concept of Satan, so I think its reasonable to assume that it was named at the very least to be intentionally provocative. As far as I've been able to gather (wiki sources, and Google search) the publication was focused primarily on anarchist issues, and does appear to be anti-religious as apposed to simply anti-christian. I am unaware of any Satanic rites or rituals, calls to follow Satan, or even acknowledgement that Satan is a real being in the publication. So, while I understand that you feel that the content of the publication works to advance the agenda of Satan, I'm not convinced that the creator of the publication actually even believed in Satan. Understand these are just my thought after reading this initial post and I'll weigh this evidence along with the following posts.

oscar:
though i appreciate your aknowledgment of the 'provocative' occult nature of the NAME of the publication, i'm not concerned with whether or not you think the creator of the publication believed in satan, venus, anarchy or the easter bunny.

the point was that "Lucifer ceased publication in 1907 and become the more scholarly American Journal of Eugenics."

(and really oscar, i'm not much impressed with feigned ignorance concerning the predominance of occult organizations embedded in the 'scientific' community. it doesn't help your intellectual credibility much, and this is a rather serious issue)

oscarkipling wrote:
as far as the eugenics is bioethics, at this point its simply an assertion that you've made at the end of a post about eugenics. However I don't rule out the idea that bioethics and eugenics have some parallels, as they do cover many of the same issues the same issues, however I'm not certain of they are philosophically similar in some very important ways, and i'm not certain that they reach the same conclusions in general.

serious?
*yawn*
mmm....well, i'll go a little longer.

i don't know how a bright fellow like you has zero knowledge of any of this. in fact, i doubt it much. i think you're being less than honest.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 1:41 pm

oscarkipling wrote:
Yes, we can agree that believers and supporters of eugenics still exist, I dont know how well funded they are and I dont believe you have put forth any evidence about their finances. The human genome project is well funded, but the idea that its a eugenics project is tenuous at best. Obviously the data collected by the HGP is invaluable to eugenicists, but it invaluable pretty much anyone in the field of biology or medicine. I dont find it difficult to believe that eugenicists would have supported and possibly worked to see the genome project completed, but this does not make it a eugenics project.

i asked you to notice the names, and names of foundations.
too much of a mental strain to make the simple connections oscar?

how odd that there is no surprise or emotion expressed by you (who supposedly did not even suspect eugenicists were active and in positions of power and authority)

frankly i find this disturbing. but to each his own.

oscarkipling wrote:
let me draw another parallel, in the Geo thread Rick was talking about Data that will be gathered by the SDSS on a type of celestial body. Now this new Data could be used to confirm or at least support the Geo position. Now, because many Geo researchers and believers presumably (and reasonably) support the gathering of this Data and in fact could find it extremely useful, does this mean that SDSS is a geocentric/biblical astronomy project? Would it mean it was part of the Geo agenda if a Geo supporter worked for SDSS? .

this is laughable.

ok i'll play: DISCLAIMER -

i am not and do not assert that everyone involved in any field is part of a cabal to advance a sinister global agenda involving domination and killing off of the majority of humanity.

i assert most of the people working in the fields we're discussing are just going to work everyday, doing what they have been taught to do.

i assert that the number in that cabal is relativity TINY. i also assert that the cabal controls the vast proportion of the world's WEALTH and has virtually unlimited resources to use to advance that agenda.

okay?

now:

oscarkipling wrote:
Yes, we can agree that believers and supporters of eugenics still exist.

do you approve of eugenics?


Last edited by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 1:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 1:42 pm

zone wrote:Theory and Bioethics
First published Tue May 18, 2010

As a species of practical ethics, bioethics exhibits a complex and contested relationship to philosophical theory. On the one hand, many who teach and write in this interdisciplinary field are philosophers who naturally believe that their specific contribution to the field—their “expertise,” if you will—consists in the application of distinctly philosophical methods, including various kinds of ethical theory, to practical problems arising in biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health. But on the other hand, many who work in the area of bioethics, including many philosophers, are highly skeptical of the so-called “applied ethics” model of moral reasoning, in which exemplars of high theory (e.g., consequentialist utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, rights-based theories, natural law, etc.) are directly “applied” to practical problems. Indeed, most philosophically-inclined contributors to the bioethics literature have eschewed high moral theory in favor of various modes of moral reasoning falling on a spectrum between the strong particularism of various strains of casuistry or narrative ethics, on one end, and the mid-level norms of the enormously influential “principlism” of Beauchamp and Childress, on the other (Beauchamp and Childress, 2009).[1] According to philosophers Robert K. Fullinwider (2008) and Will Kymlicka (1996), bioethics in the public domain can and should go about its business as a species of ethical reflection independently of any reliance upon high-flying ethical theory.

This article explores the controversy concerning the role of philosophical theory for practical ethics in general and bioethics in particular. The main body of this entry dialectically canvasses the respective claims for “high theory,” for particularistic “anti-theory,” and for various species of “mid-level” theorizing in between these extremes. A discursive taxonomy of the kinds of philosophical theories deployed in practical ethics—i.e., metaethical, normative, metaphysical—is provided in a supplement.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theory-bioethics/

...

any real SCIENCE so far? or is it junk psuedo-science and twisted philosphy?
dunno....let's keep looking. i reckon there's a lot riding on it.

and we have to hope the philosophers are benevolent, ya?

what fields will we see them in?

"the application of distinctly philosophical methods, including various kinds of ethical theory, to practical problems arising in biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health"

oh....they said their philosophizing is to be applied to PROBLEMS ARISING in biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health

WHAT KIND OF 'PROBLEMS'? could they mean PUBLIC RELATIONS problems?

lets keep those fields in mind....they are the very same fields the eugenicists control.


I dont know what ever gave you the impression that I believe that bioethics was not essentially a philosophical endeavor. While it can be informed by empirical fact and scientific investigation ethics are in essence philosophical, and bioethics in some sense is meant to be an interface between biological sciences and ethics.

Wehn they refer to problems, yes I do believe that some of those problems will be public relations problems, and how to present issues. this is not the entire scope of bioethics though, as it would also deal with issues like the standards and conditions when doing trials for new pharmaceuticals, growing organs in laboratories, cloning, gene therapy, and the ethical use of antibiotics or heck even aspirin.

as i said before bioethics and eugenics do indeed cover many of the same issues, but I have yet to see evidence that eugenicists "control" any particular field or fields, nor have you shown that bioethics is simply eugenics renamed.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 1:43 pm

zone wrote:bi·o·eth·ics


n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the ethical and moral implications of new biological discoveries and biomedical advances, as in the fields of genetic engineering and drug research.
bioethics [ˌbaɪəʊˈɛθɪks]

n
(Philosophy) (functioning as singular) the study of ethical problems arising from biological research and its applications in such fields as organ transplantation, genetic engineering, or artificial insemination

this I entirely agree with.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 1:46 pm

zone wrote:Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour

Posted by Yara Tercero-Parker, BEI Intern April 8, 2011

[Guardian]- A pill to enhance moral behaviour, a treatment for racist thoughts, a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries – these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field.

Drugs such as Prozac that alter a patient’s mental state already have an impact on moral behaviour, but scientists predict that future medical advances may allow much more sophisticated manipulations.

The field is in its infancy, but “it’s very far from being science fiction”, said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

“Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate,” he said. “There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression.”

Researchers have become very interested in developing biomedical technologies capable of intervening in the biological processes that affect moral behaviour and moral thinking, according to Dr Tom Douglas, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre. “It is a very hot area of scientific study right now.”

He is co-author of Enhancing Human Capacities, published on Monday, which includes a chapter on moral enhancement.

Drugs that affect our moral thinking and behaviour already exist, but we tend not to think of them in that way. [Prozac] lowers aggression and bitterness against environment and so could be said to make people more agreeable. Or Oxytocin, the so-called love hormone … increases feelings of social bonding and empathy while reducing anxiety,” he said.

“Scientists will develop more of these drugs and create new ways of taking drugs we already know about. We can already, for example, take prescribed doses of Oxytocin as a nasal spray,” he said.

But would pharmacologically-induced altruism, for example, amount to genuine moral behaviour? Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner, said: “We can change people’s emotional responses but quite whether that improves their moral behaviour is not something science can answer.”

He also admitted that it was unlikely people would “rush to take a pill that would make them morally better.

“Becoming more trusting, nicer, less aggressive and less violent can make you more vulnerable to exploitation,” he said. “On the other hand, it could improve your relationships or help your career.”

Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply, but he suggests that if administered widely they might help humanity to tackle global issues.

“Relating to the plight of people on other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature,” he said. “This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations.”

Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said.

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2011/04/08/manipulating-morals-scientists-target-drugs-that-improve-behaviour/

...

okay?
you were advocating this earlier.

let's go back to the Huxleys for a moment.

oh....and i guess this is how their dialectical devices (public relations/preparation) work:

"with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field."

yes, I do believe that these types of therapies and medications can improve society.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 1:52 pm

oscarkipling wrote:

yes, I do believe that these types of therapies and medications can improve society.

alright.
the fact that you're not REPULSED by the language, arrogance and evil expressed in that article tells me all i need to know.

goodbye oscar.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 1:54 pm

zone wrote:"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

-- Aldous Huxley



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

so that's enough for the moment.
do read up on uncle aldous oscar. tell me if he and his family & friends have your best interests at heart.

tell me if they have any power. tell me if their 'dreams' are coming true.
tell me if they are sane.

then we'll talk about who they really are....

(that is, if you admit we have a problem: if you don't admit it, i'm done i 'spose ).

nite.

Well I do believe Mr.Huxley was talking about a pathological case of pharmaceutically based populous control. I cant say that i know that this was a dream or goal of his, but if you are asking if I also think that its a possible future, then I suppose its plausible.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 2:00 pm

ya....you're one of them.
Doc pegged you.

see ya.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 2:21 pm

zone wrote:Oscar: you said:

"many atheists, including myself believe that morality may (even will likely) become better with philosophical, technological and cultural advancements."

and you agreed that the following was representative of the kind/method of 'improvement' you and other atheists hope to see:

Neuroscience of Morality
Principal Researchers: Prof. J. Savulescu, Prof. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Prof. N. Levy, Prof. B. Fulford.

Further Researchers: Dr N. Shea, Dr B. Foddy.
In the last decade, neuroscientists and psychologists have produced a substantial body of empirical evidence which challenges established views of morality and rationality.
neuroethics.ox.ac.uk/research/area_4

this is a press release from the same Oxford Bioethics group, on the identical issue you approved of:

Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour

Posted by Yara Tercero-Parker, BEI Intern April 8, 2011

[Guardian]- A pill to enhance moral behaviour, a treatment for racist thoughts, a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries – these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field.

Drugs such as Prozac that alter a patient’s mental state already have an impact on moral behaviour, but scientists predict that future medical advances may allow much more sophisticated manipulations.

The field is in its infancy, but “it’s very far from being science fiction”, said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

“Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate,” he said. “There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression.”

Researchers have become very interested in developing biomedical technologies capable of intervening in the biological processes that affect moral behaviour and moral thinking, according to Dr Tom Douglas, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre. “It is a very hot area of scientific study right now.”

He is co-author of Enhancing Human Capacities, published on Monday, which includes a chapter on moral enhancement.

Drugs that affect our moral thinking and behaviour already exist, but we tend not to think of them in that way. [Prozac] lowers aggression and bitterness against environment and so could be said to make people more agreeable. Or Oxytocin, the so-called love hormone … increases feelings of social bonding and empathy while reducing anxiety,” he said.

“Scientists will develop more of these drugs and create new ways of taking drugs we already know about. We can already, for example, take prescribed doses of Oxytocin as a nasal spray,” he said.

But would pharmacologically-induced altruism, for example, amount to genuine moral behaviour? Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner, said: “We can change people’s emotional responses but quite whether that improves their moral behaviour is not something science can answer.”

He also admitted that it was unlikely people would “rush to take a pill that would make them morally better.

“Becoming more trusting, nicer, less aggressive and less violent can make you more vulnerable to exploitation,” he said. “On the other hand, it could improve your relationships or help your career.”

Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply, but he suggests that if administered widely they might help humanity to tackle global issues.

“Relating to the plight of people on other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature,” he said. “This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations.”

Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said.

bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2011/04/08/manipulating-morals-scientists-target-drugs-that-improve-behaviour/

i showed you the history; goals; prominence and power of globalist eugenicists, i.e: Aldous Huxley:

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

Aldous Huxley

.....

Qs:
are the ideas and goals of these people extremist?

Well, there is a seed of an idea here, that is using pharms to influence moral behavior. I do not believe at this point there is a clear strategy as to how it could be implemented in an intelligent and moral way. It is extreme in the sense that morality in a pill could go really wrong and might change people fundamentally in ways that we dont yet understand, but the idea of being able to put a child molester on medication that would make their desire to not hurt people stronger than their desire to rape children has obvious advantages. I think that there is probably a way to use drug's or therapies like this in a moral way, in a non abusive way, but yeah its pretty extreme.


zone wrote:
does their plan seem sinister to you?

No, the plan doesn't seem sinister, but it also doesn't seem like an entirely complete plan. Its more or ess a series of ways in which such drugs might be able to help humanity, but i still believe that even once these drugs and therapies are developed to a degree that they are safe and consistent, there are questions of when they should be used, and we need to think about the implications of widespread involuntary use, and whether or not criminals should be forced to use it. Another thing to think about is what could we put in place to minimize its abuse, and implementation by people that mean to use it to harm people.

zone wrote:
am i an extremist for documenting them and asking you for your opinion?

No, I dont think so. I dont think that you're irrational, but the evidence for your connections isn't very solid imo.. that being said I think its completely reasonable to research and think about these possibilities.

zone wrote:
are the people advancing the plan described by Huxley moral and trustworthy?

well, I dont think that you have shown that the people developing these drugs and therapies are doing it in order to control the entire world with it, although it was suggested that a possible use would be world harmony. Which I think is perfectly fine to consider although, I dont think its very practical. I dont know if they are moral or not, but these drugs could be used for good or for evil.


zone wrote:
should immoral and untrustworthy people be encouraged to 'advance' the 'morality' of billions of human beings "by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods"?

No

zone wrote:
given my understanding of the issue, should i assume to be moral and trustworthy someone who says:

"many atheists, including myself believe that morality may (even will likely) become better with philosophical, technological and cultural advancements."

I dont think you should assume whether a person is moral or not based on those few sentences.


Last edited by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 3:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 2:24 pm

zone wrote:
alright.
the fact that you're not REPULSED by the language, arrogance and evil expressed in that article tells me all i need to know.

goodbye oscar.

zone wrote:ya....you're one of them.
Doc pegged you.

see ya.

I didn't see these until just now...alright well I guess you've made up your mind about me too. thanks for taking the time to share your ideas. goodbye.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by zone on Wed May 02, 2012 3:21 pm

oscarkipling wrote:
I dont think you should assume whether a person is moral or not based on those few sentences.

i didn't.

i carefully weighed your moral response to the information provided.

i showed you who is in the driver's seat of the bioethics agenda.

you don't care. in fact, your tactic is to paint me as extremist and irrational....ill-informed.

that's immoral.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by Strangelove on Wed May 02, 2012 3:54 pm

Oscar no doubt doesnt think that any of these biotechnologies would ever be abused by the powers that be.

Say....I dunno....for example...if they decided to use this stuff on..like...EVERYONE...rather than just child molesters.

Oscar....a microchip implant inserted into child molesters body to modify behaviour...yes or no?

[groan]

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 4:21 pm

zone wrote:

i didn't.

i carefully weighed your moral response to the information provided.

i showed you who is in the driver's seat of the bioethics agenda.

you don't care. in fact, your tactic is to paint me as extremist and irrational....ill-informed.

that's immoral.

I said

"No, I dont think so. I dont think that you're irrational, but
the evidence for your connections isn't very solid imo.. that being said
I think its completely reasonable to research and think about these
possibilities. "

the irrational part was a typo, I corrected it. I stated an opinion that I didn't feel that the evidence you had presented so far was very strong linking eugenics and bioethics as the same thing. I also said that I didn't think that your view was extremist and that it was reasonable to consider pharmaceuticals being used as population control as a possibility. Now, I dont really see how this is painting you as an extremist and i was willing to look at more information as you presented it...i had no idea that this was all the evidence you had to support the assertion, but at the point of the reply I didn't feel that what you presented was enough to convince me that bioethics and eugenics were the same thing. Anyway, if it seemed like i was painting you as an extremist on this issue I apologize that was not my intention, but i'm not going to lie and say that I found the evidence so far to be rock solid, so for that assessment I am not sorry at all.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by Strangelove on Wed May 02, 2012 4:27 pm

Oscar is permanently 'unconvinced'.

Stock answer.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 4:32 pm

Strangelove wrote:Oscar no doubt doesnt think that any of these biotechnologies would ever be abused by the powers that be.

Say....I dunno....for example...if they decided to use this stuff on..like...EVERYONE...rather than just child molesters.

Oscar....a microchip implant inserted into child molesters body to modify behaviour...yes or no?

[groan]

geeze I've already said multiple times in my responses that it could be disastrous, and could be used as a means to control the population. I simply dont see that it will be with any certainty, or that bioethics demands that it be used in such a manner.

to your question, I would much prefer if a child molest could simply have a microchip implanted in his head that would make him not want to molest anymore, but wouldnt destroy them as a person. To be entirely honest i'd be fine if a child molester found jesus and stopped molesting because jesus helped him, I just dont want people molesting children. same thing with homicidal sociopaths, and other dangerous people that would otherwise either kill and maim and steal with impunity, or fill up prisons, or in some places be executed. If they can be productive citizens then i think its definitely worth pursuing a way to curtail that behavior in as safe and ethical a way as possible. I do not think that it microchips or pharms should be used as political tools or weapons or anything of the sort, just like i dont think that religion should be used as a weapon or a political tool, they all should be used to help people be better if they can be. so the simple answer is, I hope yes it would be a possibility that could really be a way to help people, although I'm not convinced that it wouldn't turn out to be a horrible thing that destroys lives.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by Strangelove on Wed May 02, 2012 4:35 pm

oscarkipling wrote:geeze I've already said multiple times in my responses that it could be disastrous, and could be used as a means to control the population. I simply dont see that it will be with any certainty, or that bioethics demands that it be used in such a manner.

to your question, I would much prefer if a child molest could simply have a microchip implanted in his head that would make him not want to molest anymore, but wouldnt destroy them as a person. To be entirely honest i'd be fine if a child molester found jesus and stopped molesting because jesus helped him, I just dont want people molesting children. same thing with homicidal sociopaths, and other dangerous people that would otherwise either kill and maim and steal with impunity, or fill up prisons, or in some places be executed. If they can be productive citizens then i think its definitely worth pursuing a way to curtail that behavior in as safe and ethical a way as possible. I do not think that it microchips or pharms should be used as political tools or weapons or anything of the sort, just like i dont think that religion should be used as a weapon or a political tool, they all should be used to help people be better if they can be. so the simple answer is, I hope yes it would be a possibility that could really be a way to help people, although I'm not convinced that it wouldn't turn out to be a horrible thing that destroys lives.

Stock answer.

Is that fence comfortable oscar?

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 4:36 pm

Strangelove wrote:Oscar is permanently 'unconvinced'.

Stock answer.

I'm unconvinced by your assertion that my unconvinced status is permanent.

that was a joke.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by Strangelove on Wed May 02, 2012 4:39 pm

oscarkipling wrote:I'm unconvinced by your assertion that my unconvinced status is permanent.

that was a joke.

Neutral

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by oscarkipling on Wed May 02, 2012 4:39 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Stock answer.

Is that fence comfortable oscar?

hmm, can I try to convince you of something and see how long it takes for you to become convinced?
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by Strangelove on Wed May 02, 2012 4:45 pm

oscarkipling wrote:hmm, can I try to convince you of something and see how long it takes for you to consider the evidence?

Sure, start a thread if you like.

You won't see me riding a fence on any subject.

Because I have a benchmark for absolute truth.

I guess in your universe of reltivism things are alot more difficult to slap a 'right or wrong' label on.

Pity for you. Politcal correctness is the same as socialism. They come from the same playbook. Happy Mayday (Loyalty/labour/communist.....call it what ya want day)

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum