The EyeOpener- Life & Death: Bioethics as crypto-eugenics

BFP VideoFew in the general public have heard much, if anything at all, about the relatively obscure corner of academia known as bioethics. First emerging as an academic discipline in the late 1960s, bioethics concerns itself with the ethical questions raised by advancing knowledge and technological sophistication in biology, medicine, and the life sciences.

When the discussions of the bioethics community eventually filter down to the level of popular discourse, they often seem like bizarre, science fiction-like scenarios about improbable possibilities.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, exploring the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a priestly academic class toiling in relative obscurity to produce position papers for government advisory boards.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here:

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVD .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. Keep your eyes out for the Summer issue of Ethics, Policy, and Environment (

    Here’s an advance abstract of a paper to be published therein by Matthew Liao (NYU), Anders Sandberg (Oxford), and Rebecca Roache (Oxford)…

    “Human Engineering and Climate Change”

    Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today. There is ample evidence that climate change is likely to affect adversely many aspects of life for all people around the world, and that existing solutions such as geoengineering might be too risky and behavioural and market solutions might not be sufficient to mitigate climate change. In this paper, we consider a new kind of solution to climate change, what we call human engineering, which involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. We argue that human engineering is potentially less risky than geoengineering and that could help behavioural and market solutions succeed in mitigating climate change. We also consider some possible ethical concerns regarding human engineering such as its safety, the implications of human engineering for our children and for the society, and we argue that these concerns can be addressed. Our upshot is that human engineering deserves further consideration in the debate about climate change.

  2. Such is utilitarianism – the greatest “good” (as the “enlightened” see it) for the greatest number… So if our utilitarian calculator tells us we need to “humanely” lobotomize humanity for the good of the planet, then so be it…

    No. There is only one head I wish to see on a platter…

    Bring me the head of Jeremy Bentham:

Speak Your Mind