I'm afraid not.
Printable View
...Is this satire? This is the most dystopian idea I've ever read. I don't know what kind of field "bioethics" is but it sounds like it's dedicated to taking us down a really dark path. This person is unironically presenting medicinal mind control as a solution to the flu's big brother.
I hope this guy is pulling off a career-long Sokal hoax. In either case, anyone who types the following, and publishes it as “research”, is noteworthy in some sense.
Quote:
But there may be ways to administer the moral enhancement to the relevant populations, without those populations knowing about the enhancement. The method of delivery would depend on the mechanism of action of the enhancement, but one possible way of distributing it to the relevant populations is by way of the public water supply. Another way it could be distributed is by packaging it with various vaccines, while eliminating most exceptions. Or perhaps it could be distributed through forced air systems in public buildings, or some combination of these.
There are of course members of the population that don’t use public water, don’t get vaccinated, and don’t visit public buildings. For example, there are many people in rural areas who get all of their water from wells drilled into natural aquifers. These people wouldn’t regularly come into contact with the public water supply. But they would still spend time in public places or get vaccinated, both opportunities to receive the enhancement.
There are still individuals who never use public water, never get vaccinated, and never go out in public. And if the enhancement were only administered through these channels, such individuals would never receive the enhancement. The threat of ultimate harm is greater now than it has been because people now have greater access to information and materials that are capable of triggering ultimate harm, such as advancing technologies or widespread use of fossil fuels. People who refrain from public services may not have widespread access to the information and materials that make ultimate harm a threat. There are large segments of the human population who lack access to utilities, vaccinations, or public services of any kind. And if these are the channels of distribution, then these segments of the population will not receive the enhancement. But these segments of the population aren’t the ones who increase the threat of ultimate harm—they not only lack access to public services, but also to the information and materials that make ultimate harm a threat. In some cases individuals in these segments could travel to places where the information and materials are accessible, but in so doing they would be traveling to a place with, and very likely use, public services, and would receive the enhancement. It’s the bad actor with access to a published recipe for bird flu and the intelligence and infrastructure to produce it or the person who consumes the resources which contribute to climate change that we have to worry about, rather than a member of a recently discovered Amazonian tribe or someone who never engages with the public.
Though the methods of distribution described above occur by way of public utilities or public spaces, there is no implication that the administration of a covert moral enhancement must be a matter of public policy. Governments and bureaucrats are possible administrators, but the argument doesn’t require that a covert program be carried out by any particular individual or group. A covert program would indeed require excellent coordination and control to not only maximize the number of people who receive enhanced moral capacities but also to maintain secrecy. Such coordination is not logically impossible, not metaphysically impossible, and not even practically impossible. It may even be easier to administer than other attempts at secrecy, if the administrators themselves are being enhanced, as their moral motivation to maintain secrecy may be stronger than it otherwise would be. Keeping a covert program covert would be a challenging obstacle. But just because it would be a challenging obstacle doesn’t mean that my argument is unsound.
You can do a state run healthcare system, but then you can’t allow a private option. Otherwise you get a really bad public option and a very expensive private one at the same time. You gotta go full private or full state run, no in in between.
This is known as Facism. It was tried out in the mid 20th century and a number of significant downsides became apparent. Quite a lot of Americans died so the affected countries could get back to being representative democracies, following which things improved a lot. It really blows my mind that anyone would think it's worth another go round that particular carousel.
Just got done with the 1 hour of raw footage from the arrest of George Floyd. Did anyone else watch it, and see anything other than a POS felon overdose on meth and fentanyl under a cop's knee?
Something tells me little Cannon Hinnant isn't going to be given gold casket, and there won't be any protests in his name either.
Satire? Maybe. Definitely potty humor.
UK healthcare...
Why did Mick Jagger come to the US for heart surgery?
I also have some experience with the awesome British medical system, my father was stationed in England from '76-78, I was 7 at the time and I ended up with a cyst on my neck that the socialist piece of shit doctors decided needed to be removed, to this day I still have a huge ugly scar just below my Adam's apple due to the botched removal and leaving the stitches in for too long (my dad ended up removing them because there was a wait list to bring me in and have them removed). So, yeah, I don't need to be lectured about the virtues of socialist medical systems by some over-educated douchebag socialist (HAGhstull), and I'm way beyond the age where I worry about whether or not I'm impressing someone.
Every dystopian SF film has exactly this as a plot element, so the boy is not even that original. Here's the abstract from your link:
Scientists Say Lithium Should Be Added to Drinking Water to Prevent Suicides It improves "community mental health."Quote:
Abstract
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
A different approach to the same problem: Pheromones can help cats and dogs under the same roof get along
These are very dangerous times.