Tag Archives: bioethics


Should animals other than humans be given rights?

For the survival of future generations and a healthy environment it might be wise not to reduce the size of wilderness and it is smart to even expand it. Wilderness may become a life saving healthy source of food when technology irresponsibly destroys the health of domesticated animals and plants used as a food source.

Factory farming of domesticated animals should probably be outlawed as cruel and unusual punishment for animals because it causes pain and suffering which is not advisable to introduce into the food chain. Factory farming is unhealthy in the long run because disease and genetically unfavorable mutations are introduced needing antibiotics and other artificial chemicals to maintain health. All these disadvantages are passed on to the humans and pets consuming the food which can be disastrous for overall health in the long duration.

Should we edit our children’s genomes?

If a fetus has a debilitating disease such as Down’s syndrome an abortion of the fetus is the best and most efficient response which prevents the unnecessary burden on the family and society if the parents can’t afford the cost of maintaining an undesirable mutant.

Enhancing a child’s ability with genes that improve memory or intelligence in general, improve the health of the child, and improve physical coordination or looks in general should be conditionally permitted. Since the long duration potential bad effects of gene manipulation are unknown it may be wise for the prospective parents to have to set up an escrow account of a million dollars or more in case the gene alteration results in mental or physical handicaps later in life. Society should not be burdened with genetic mutants which can potentially need monetary support from society if the parents can’t afford to fully pay for the genetic mistakes which they choose unwittingly.

Should we make everyone “normal”?

Chemicals in pill form and genetic alteration can make someone less aggressive, more empathetic, and less dominant and more forgiving.

Pills are already given to aggressive violent criminals in jail and many psychoactive pills prescribed by psychotherapists also make someone less aggressive and more docile. The real question is whether the government should force everyone to medicate themselves so that they are not so aggressive. If done this could result in a docile society unable to rebel against an unjust government and tyranny would become almost absolute on into the foreseeable future.

If individual parents make a choice to have genetically more docile empathetic children then if they can afford it they should be given the right to do so. Eugenics carried out to an extreme by the government was a disaster in Nazi Germany so I don’t think it is a good idea to make offspring more docile or more superior with a government mandate for all.

I don’t like the equality mindset of “normal” to begin with because it stirs up visions of cloned normal humans all looking alike and behaving the same. One of the great strengths of humans is that there is so much genetic diversity which makes humans less vulnerable to total destruction by contagious terminal diseases and makes life interesting with varied looks, varied personalities, and varied abilities in humans. The world would be a very boring place if everyone in the world was “normal”, whatever that really means.

Should we abandon privacy online?

In an age when international drug dealers and criminals frequent the internet it is logical to police the internet for these illegal fraud and scam artists to the maximum. If that means losing your personal internet privacy is the cost then so be it. If you are afraid that your posted illegal drug habits, alcoholism problems, promiscuity, profanity, immorality, thievery, verbal abuse, health problems, etc. will cause future employment problems or insurance rate increases then it will be a just punishment for your transgressions.

If you are leading an illegal life then you should be smart enough not to post your activities on the internet in the first place. I sort of foresee a time when every law abiding citizen will be vetted before they have internet rights in the first place. There is far too much fake information and fake news on the internet today which needs a remedy soon or the internet will become pure insecure chaos.

If you are rich and in positions of authority then you will have or can afford a relatively secure encryption to communicate relatively sensitive corporate and personal information which will not be as vulnerable to criminal observation or theft. For the common human, let’s face it, there is no information which they possess which will be a violation of national security so what they post is their responsibility and they should post responsibly.

Will this make you vulnerable to ruthless advertising ad intrusions into your life? Probably yes, but with time there will be web services which will minimize your exposure to ruthless ads from retailers and other service providers.

If you want to keep secrets then don’t post them on the internet in the first place!

Should we give robots the right to kill?

If you phrase this question into should robots be given the right to kill, maim, or incapacitate humans then the question is really what kind of humans and under what conditions? It is entirely possible that robots could replace swat teams to some extent and non lethally maim or incapacitate all the armed criminal gang members in a hideout.

Where there is a question of kidnappers holding innocent hostages but the identity of the kidnappers is known a robot may be used to save as many hostages as possible and maim or incapacitate the armed kidnappers, preferably with non lethal means.

Robot soldiers going after known terrorists or armed enemy military humans in a secluded jungle or well protected areas is also a valid possibility.

Yes, there is also the possibility of armed police officer robots chasing and apprehending fleeing criminals in a non lethal way. As long as these police officers were not given lethal arms then I would be in favor of it.

Finally robots could be used to kill or harvest invasive animal and plant species in the wilderness with surgical accuracy and probably more efficiently than human hunters and harvesters.

Yes, intelligent robots could be programmed to confront most armed criminals and enemy military soldiers but not in all situations and the right to actually kill but not maim or incapacitate a human should be postponed to very far into the future when robots will be considered to be intelligent and moral enough.

Should we let synthetic lifeforms loose?

It is now possible to genetically engineer microbes and animals and the question is should these new forms be let into the wild or environment? With microbes you could probably say that genetically engineering deadly or contagious strains like e coli bacteria, etc. could have devastating eventual effects on human populations if they were to be released into the environment. Even genetically modified fish released into the oceans could have bad serious long duration impacts such as mass displacement or destruction of natural species.

Genetically modified corn or GMO’s have already polluted organic farmlands and the wilderness could similarly be polluted with other GMO plant life displacing indigenous populations.

Human long duration health is the primary issue and if microbe, animal, or plant life can potentially harm human health then synthetic lifeforms are a serious danger and steps should be taken to ensure that they are not released into the environment.

As a general precaution all genetically modified food for human or domesticated animal consumption should be labeled as such so humans have a right to choose between an organic version and a genetically modified one. I doubt that the US has the wisdom or balls to pass such legislation due to big agribusiness political clout but it is a vital step to ensure the long duration health of the human population worldwide.

Should there be population control?

Western promiscuity, robotization, income inequality, and a relatively easy life are ensuring the destruction of family life and severe reduction in the population. Poverty in third world countries is controlling population to some extent but perhaps birth control measures should be propagandized more and serious attempts at world population control should be made.

The earth has finite resources which pollute the more that they are utilized, so human population growth should definitely be curtailed and any reduction in human population anywhere is a good thing for the planet in the long duration.


Genetic manipulation is a strong scientific tool to use for good or bad purposes. Theoretically whatever can be used for good can also be used for bad purposes so the future will be plagued with bad uses also. In the long duration, most of humanity will probably survive the bad effects but the environment could potentially be very adversely affected.

If humanity does not survive in the long duration then it may not be such a bad thing because the other remaining lifeforms on earth will be liberated from human intrusion and pollution. Nature is a deceptive and ruthless predator and if humans go too far in their genetic manipulation and pollution they will be punished with death in one form or another.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4600 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.


If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!



I am suggesting that biological enhancements or genetic deviations from the norm will only perhaps have long duration effects on human morality which is fundamentally learned and not inborn. Whether you are healthy, attractive, smart, and intelligent or unhealthy, repulsive, and rather ignorant your morality should basically be the same. In nonemergency situations- don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t lie, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery if married, and don’t murder.


Some have argued that genetic enhancements could potentially lead to an elite ruling class of gifted individuals who will rule over humans from generation to generation- a genetic aristocracy. Concepts such as humility and a genetic reproductive indeterminacy will no longer exist or be tolerated. The rich and talented will get even richer and more talented and the rest will merely be looked upon as indentured servants or slaves.


Today we have the rich and not so talented ruling over us and the results are not very pretty. Wilderness and wildlife is being destroyed at an alarming rate as most humans in this world are little less than consuming, eating, and reproducing machines polluting the environment and contributing very little to the actual progress of humanity and creative achievement. History repeats itself because the basic genetic material is the same for humans and every generation is born with violent, destructive, irresponsible, selfish tendencies which have to be civilized in some way to avoid utter chaos and social disintegration.


Yes, theoretically you could conceivably breed less violent, less destructive, less irresponsible, and less selfish humans but realistically the more violent, more destructive, more irresponsible, and more selfish would probably rule over the more peaceful humans anyway in the long duration.


Artificial intelligent machines or AI, robots, and computer software is even beginning to dwarf the intelligent capacity of genius humans so we really should be keeping pace genetically so that machines don’t become too smart for humans to be able to handle or live in symbiosis with. Yes, most humans are lousy parents and not very smart so machines or robots of the future will probably take over most of the parenting tasks and raise offspring to function morally in the world of the future.


That said let us briefly investigate the short and long duration potential of genetic human enhancement. Human genetic enhancement is really an experiment which can go terribly wrong. Enhance a human with better looks, more strength, taller height, certain hair, eye, and skin color and the results may be very unhealthy humans with debilitating diseases, shorter lifespans, skeletal abnormalities, allergies, and mental defects.


Judging by human breeding of animals such as cats, dogs, and livestock based on such minimal criteria as looks, speed, size, and fat content there have been a lot of new varieties created with terrible health problems such as urinary, breeding, and skeletal abnormalities which make them undesirable in the long duration.


Animal breeding is mostly a disaster in the long duration so it seems that human genetic selections will also be plagued with health problems. Perhaps one way to insure human genetic experiments from going bad and costing society an arm and a leg for maintenance would be to have to set up a monetary escrow of about a million dollars or so to take care of human genetic health abnormalities.


To genetically modify humans for strength, such as weight lifters, speed, such as runners, and height, such as basketball players and high jumpers, it seems that they would have a huge advantage over naturally conceived humans and some may consider this an unfair advantage. I don’t. You could probably divide up humans into genetically enhanced ones and those naturally born. The genetically enhanced ones could be something like a super freak show of human extremes. But once again an obscenely muscular weight lifter would probably not be very healthy in the long duration and would die a premature death.


Human genetic selection based on looks could result in a large percentage of the population looking like attractive celebrities but frankly once there was an abundance of good looking humans then they could become rather boring to look at, especially if they were celebrity clones.


Enhancing intelligence is more problematic unless you are talking about cloning genius humans. There are so many geniuses who are socially dysfunctional and stick out like sore thumbs in society. In society where tribalism and the herd instinct is so dominant I sincerely wonder whether a society of geniuses would be able to function and interact with normal or common human beings without living a life of effete isolated snobbism.




In the short duration the problem of genetic enhancement is not a moral one but it is a serious health question. There is no guarantee that a genetic enhancement will be healthy in the long duration so some insurance measures will have to be instituted with laws pertaining to genetic enhancements.


In the long duration genetic enhancement may lead to specialized humans very good at intellectual pursuits and/or sports activities. Whether genetic manipulation will lead to an elite ruling class is debatable but if it does then we will have a worldwide aristocracy which will rule into the distant future. Democracy is slowly dying almost everywhere so it seems that a genetic aristocracy will continue to rule the earth on into the distant future as it does today to some extent already.


What we need most in this world is a universal secular moral code taught to all impressionable young minds so that offspring are indoctrinated with moral behavior or how to interact relatively peacefully with other humans, even worldwide. All the genetic enhancement in the world will not help humanity if we ignore a necessary moral upbringing for all. Yes, a consensus will be necessary because morality currently differs from culture to culture worldwide. More important than genetic enhancement is a secular morality which almost anyone can agree with anywhere in the world. Mission impossible? I hope not because our future survival depends on it.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4500 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.


If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!



This article will try to address the considerations necessary in reproduction which is not done the natural or traditional way with coital sex. Call it test tube babies if you want but ultimately it is the quest for an ideal child with all the desirable traits or characteristics which a married couple envision or desire in their minds.

Genetic parents who are married and have sex the natural way should only be screened for severe health problems which their natural offspring could inherit. This can be done by consulting a licensed physician who can call for all the necessary testing. If it is mandatory testing then it is a mandate by the government and should be codified law.

In vitro or technology assisted fertilization should consider three basic variables. The 3 issues or variables in technology assisted reproduction are having quality moral parents, getting quality children, and raising children in a quality environment.

It is sometimes debatable what quality humans and a quality environment really means. Who determines or judges what a quality human or quality environment is? Is it the married couple, is it a physician, is it a social or family counselor, is it a licensed fertility clinic or reproductive organization, is it the government, or does it depend on some or all of the 5 possibilities depending on the circumstances?

In an ideal world when questioning quality it is essentially trying to guarantee that parents are free of genetic severe diseases and are financially, mentally, and morally able to raise responsible healthy offspring or children.

If the parents are not financially, morally, and mentally competent then government welfare may be needed at some point in the future to support one or both spouses and their offspring or children. Bad choices often means government intervention or support at taxpayer’s expense so the reality is that “experts” will have to come up with quality standards and legislators will have to make the appropriate laws. For example as one extreme, not insisting on quality reproduction can result in three generations of imbeciles which I don’t think any rational citizen would want in society.

Government laws about human quality run the risk of a national eugenics program designed to minimize bad quality humans and is subject to bias, corruption, and oppression which is undesirable. General guideline laws or standards are best.

For example, a law can state that all technology assisted fertilization must involve a licensed fertility reproductive organization which has licensed physicians and licensed social or family counselors. The law may also state what minimum requirements a licensed physician, licensed social or family counselor, and licensed reproductive organization must have in reproductive procedures.

When using a reproductive institution, quality humans is the ideal in child selection or “adoptions” but we have to accept the fact that some parents will select desirable offspring with an emphasis on looks rather than health and IQ which are the hidden desirable characteristics far more important than physical appearance.

Humans having non parental genetic material in a child must hire a third party such as a reproductive institution which has physicians and social or family counselors to help determine the approximate health, financial, physical, moral, and mental competence of the role model parents, the donors of sperm and/or ovaries, and potential children. What this means is that thorough genetic testing must be done to screen for potential severe genetic disabilities or diseases for the genetic donors of sperm or ovaries, male and female.

There is also the possibility of surrogate mothers who gestate sperm and ovary from donors or just use a sperm donor and provide their own genetic material and then gestate or conceive a fully developed fetus. With surrogate mothers there is also the need for them to eat nutritious food, nutritious drinks and not take drugs of any kind during the pregnancy which may include smoking. Recommended also is that surrogates have successfully naturally conceived at least one offspring of their own.

Through contract there must be provisions on what happens if the designated parents die or if the pregnancy does not go to full term. Who will do the advocated breast feeding or use mother’s milk and what adoption agency will be used if both legal parents die during the pregnancy?

Social counselors must certify that the legal parents who get the surrogate child are relatively healthy, financially, physically, morally, and mentally capable of raising the child, and not plagued with severe addictions to drugs and other severe bad habits.

It will soon be possible to alter the genetic makeup of natural offspring with DNA splicing and reconnecting minus an undesirable gene and plus a desirable gene. This will in effect be a GMO or genetically modified offspring and the long duration health consequences will often be unknown. Should the government permit this with humans or should it be a matter of parental choice and risk?

I personally believe it should be a matter of personal choice without government intervention unless certain GMO offspring start to develop severe health handicaps later in life.

Since reproductive technology is getting more complex and expensive with time some may argue that quality offspring or children will mostly be created for rich humans and that ultimately there will be an elite ruling class of genetically superior humans. I do not fear this because ultimately the price of the reproductive technology will come down and even the middle class will be able to afford the reproductive procedures in the long duration.

Worldwide the rich are getting richer and the rest remain relatively poor. Democratic Republics may ultimately give way to Aristocracies and in that case history will just repeat itself. We will have ruling families again worldwide and a different form of government based mostly on genetics and not so much based on genetics and merit.

Whatever the future course for reproductive technology, I think that the most important ingredient should be total transparency. The identity, genetic makeup, and social status and history of all sperm and ovary donors should become private and then public records in cases of bankruptcy so that donors can be traced or found if diseases appear in their offspring due to genetic defects, an irresponsible lifestyle, or laboratory dangerous procedures or negligence. There will be legal suits brought against reproductive organizations for diseased or sick children and there should be a right to access all information relevant to the suit including the identities of the donors.

There is also a moral component and some may object that modern reproductive technology is really selling babies to the highest bidder. It is possible to envision some rich married humans contracting to have babies created for them which they then give up for adoption to an even higher bidder. If there is total transparency in adoption agencies and reproduction institutions then this kind of baby selling could be detected and terminated.

There is some truth that parental genetic offspring are to some extent psychologically more rewarding because you can feel pride in the fact that your children look like you to some extent and do not present rearing challenges which are overwhelming. You can envision a poor couple who adopts a gifted child which they then have a hard time controlling and raising in a moral way in perhaps a poor neighborhood with a lot of peer pressure against smart children.

Licensed social or family counselors are important in pointing out to potential parents the drawbacks to having exceptionally bright children that don’t look like the parents. Not having enough money to raise children is another environmental factor which is so important for the benefit of the child so a social or family counselor should screen married couples who want superior children but are economically challenged.

Screening of parents is fundamentally so important because parents really should be as moral as possible, healthy, and financially responsible. This screening is no guarantee that the parents will love their “adopted” children without their genetic makeup but it is an important start.

As always, reproductive technology is advancing so quickly that old moral attitudes or traditions are being challenged and laws must be changed to reflect the new morality. Call reproductive technology a human experiment which will alter the way that we think about humanity perhaps morally and qualitatively.

Reproductive technology is an experiment which is creating much joy in human lives with some rare exceptions and the good thing is that with transparency, if the experiment gets out of hand then just changes can be made to make the experiment more just and practical.

What seems like a social experiment today will probably be social accepted fact in the long duration. I personally see mostly good things coming out of reproductive technology with the possible exception of GMO humans which can potentially produce some terrifying results if handled irresponsibly. You may object to human experimentation as being immoral but I feel that it is OK if sufficient financial escrows are set up to deal with the unfortunate experimental mistakes which are bound to happen sooner or later so that taxpayers do not have to pay for the mistakes through the government.


There are some on moral grounds who object to lesbian married couples and homosexual married couples adopting or having children with their genetic input. I think that married heterosexual couples are the ideal choice for parents but if you have quality moral gays, quality children, and a quality environment then you could argue that it is still in the best interest of the child in a modern world where families are breaking up and increasingly scarce whether it is a gay or natural happy family situation.

There are increasingly more ways that a human can reproduce through technological reproduction. I prefer the natural way with natural sex to conceive a child but there are many couples who can’t or shouldn’t conceive naturally or are not happy with their genetic makeup or their lack of talent. Reproductive technology gives these married moral responsible couples the opportunity to have children which they can then go on to love, care for, and be proud of.

If you want further details on the ethics of reproductive technology go to the edX course by Harvard: hls4x  Bioethics: The Law, Medicine, and Ethics of Reproductive Technologies and Genetics.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4500 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.


If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!