"bioethicists are one of those occupations where they do the exact opposite of the name, that is, push for immoral limitations to ensure we get the most suffering in the world" .... I've noticed this too, not just about race but in general. Why do you think this is?
It happens when demand for (problem) exceeds supply. People go into bioethics believing that there is a large number of unethical researchers wanting to repeat MKUltra, and only the effort of valiant bioethicists is stemming the tide. Then they get in contact with the real researchers, who actually are mostly morally aligned with them and even if not entirely are still equally horrified by the early 20th century experiment.
So there are basically three choices for them: 1) they just accept that they're useless and rubberstamp the already mostly ethical studies, or 2) they learn statistics and other hard(er) science topics so that in addition to checking the ethics, they can work with scientists on how to actually do *good* science, i.e. properly design studies, or 3) they create new problems so that they can solve them.
1) is extremely personally unsatisfying, but easy, so some people do this. 2) is hard but satisfying, so again, some people do this. 3) is easy *and* satisfying, so the strong incentives point in this direction. Though admittedly, most land in the middle between these extreme choices.
They are basically acting out as atheist post-Marxist clerisy. They are simply useful as a political tool. If their livelihood depends on not understanding the argument, why expect them to understand the argument? Not going to change as long as they get funding...
Eugenics is a great in theory but in practice it could be very dangerous if we select at the gene-specific level. That is, we might not want to eliminate entire genes from the population because they cause some undesired trait, as that same gene may confer so benefits. Eugenics is best practiced the good old fashion way: by breeding right.
I, too, periodically read neo-creationist literature on race to see if they have come up with anything new. I have not found anything new yet. I occasionally write reviews of their garbage on Amazon that are a little more blunt than this one. I spent a fair bit of time writing a lengthy review of "Racism, Not Race" by Joe Graves and Arthur Goodman. It survived for a few months and was voted the most helpful review of the book. But eventually, I received an email that my review had been removed for violating Amazon's rules. Which rule(s) I violated was not specified, and it was far from clear from the link they provided.
But I sure as hell don't agree with this statement 'For instance, the co-editor O’Keefe has a chapter attacking the rather benign and kind evangelical Christians.'
This may apply to their take on genetics, but the are anything but benign and kind. They are a large reason for the support of and acquiescence toward Israel from the United States. Huckabee is an excellent example.
I was pointing out your extreme lack of understanding of evangelical Christians. I live in a country where evangelical Christians are very influential; you don't.
"bioethicists are one of those occupations where they do the exact opposite of the name, that is, push for immoral limitations to ensure we get the most suffering in the world" .... I've noticed this too, not just about race but in general. Why do you think this is?
It happens when demand for (problem) exceeds supply. People go into bioethics believing that there is a large number of unethical researchers wanting to repeat MKUltra, and only the effort of valiant bioethicists is stemming the tide. Then they get in contact with the real researchers, who actually are mostly morally aligned with them and even if not entirely are still equally horrified by the early 20th century experiment.
So there are basically three choices for them: 1) they just accept that they're useless and rubberstamp the already mostly ethical studies, or 2) they learn statistics and other hard(er) science topics so that in addition to checking the ethics, they can work with scientists on how to actually do *good* science, i.e. properly design studies, or 3) they create new problems so that they can solve them.
1) is extremely personally unsatisfying, but easy, so some people do this. 2) is hard but satisfying, so again, some people do this. 3) is easy *and* satisfying, so the strong incentives point in this direction. Though admittedly, most land in the middle between these extreme choices.
They are basically acting out as atheist post-Marxist clerisy. They are simply useful as a political tool. If their livelihood depends on not understanding the argument, why expect them to understand the argument? Not going to change as long as they get funding...
Eugenics is a great in theory but in practice it could be very dangerous if we select at the gene-specific level. That is, we might not want to eliminate entire genes from the population because they cause some undesired trait, as that same gene may confer so benefits. Eugenics is best practiced the good old fashion way: by breeding right.
I, too, periodically read neo-creationist literature on race to see if they have come up with anything new. I have not found anything new yet. I occasionally write reviews of their garbage on Amazon that are a little more blunt than this one. I spent a fair bit of time writing a lengthy review of "Racism, Not Race" by Joe Graves and Arthur Goodman. It survived for a few months and was voted the most helpful review of the book. But eventually, I received an email that my review had been removed for violating Amazon's rules. Which rule(s) I violated was not specified, and it was far from clear from the link they provided.
Excellent article.
But I sure as hell don't agree with this statement 'For instance, the co-editor O’Keefe has a chapter attacking the rather benign and kind evangelical Christians.'
This may apply to their take on genetics, but the are anything but benign and kind. They are a large reason for the support of and acquiescence toward Israel from the United States. Huckabee is an excellent example.
You do know that you don't have to make every post about [your hobby horse]?
I was pointing out your extreme lack of understanding of evangelical Christians. I live in a country where evangelical Christians are very influential; you don't.
They've captured all the elite institutions and are of course extremely malignant uncaring people