Having strived to transform global warming into a planetary health emergency, it has now published a screed attacking “commercialism” for killing the planet.
A few days ago, Templeton Foundation's mailer for its online magazine Nautilus pointed to a five-year-old article by University of Washington psychology prof (emeritus) David P. Barash, advocating the creation of a humanzee: “Doing so would be a terrific idea.”
“Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do,” is often good advice. But sometimes what they “say” is precisely what they plan to do. Case in point: A United Nations official named Volker Türk just published a column in Nature—the world’s most prestigious scientific journal—in which he proposes to “protect the right to science” to combat “climate change.”
The word engineering never stops, does it? When radical policies are proposed, the first step is to change the lexicon to make it seem less extreme, even mundane.
The scientific method and the crafting of public policy requires open scientific discourse. But these days, that is in increasingly short supply. The science establishment is more dedicated to stifling those who dissent from policy orthodoxies.
The chronic shortage of organs for transplantation has some bioethicists supporting unethical curatives, such as doing away with the dead-donor rule, allowing organ procurement to be not only paired with euthanasia — already being done in Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands — but also used as a means of euthanasia, and even allowing healthy people to consent to donating their vital organs.
The “international world order” is increasingly radical in its environmental engagement and anti-human in the policies it promotes. In the great cause of “saving the planet,” scientific precepts and empirical analyses are being cast aside in favor of a neo-earth religious mysticism.
Mere legalization of euthanasia is never enough. Eventually, efforts will be made to compel dissenting doctors and institutions to become complicit in the killing of sick patients — even if it violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion.