Scientist who advocates GMO golden rice also advocates infanticide

But now, in the 21st century, Singer’s true beliefs are being uncovered, as he now advocates for GMO golden rice. Upon further investigation, Singer seems to advocate for infanticide, too.

In a 2002 review titled “The Politics of Transhumanism,” James Hughes sums up Singer’s true beliefs “on the permissibility of euthanizing certain disabled newborns (Kuhse and Singer, 1985).”

Hughes also reveals that Singer “argues, we must employ the new genetic and neurological sciences to identify and modify the aspects of human nature that cause conflict and competition [emphasis added].”

It’s as if Singer believes that he is in charge of the universe and the size and behavior of the population.


About Rob

Come with me if you want to live
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Scientist who advocates GMO golden rice also advocates infanticide

  1. thordaddy says:

    Clearly, the problem with “transhumanism” is two-fold. These zealots neither know what it means to be human and thus lack any understanding of what exactly they are attempting to “transcend” nor do they hold to or have a conception of Perfection. “Transhumanists” are simply radical liberationists under a “scientific” cloak and bona fide anti-Supremacists in general and anti-white Supremacists in particular. They believe they can “perfect man” without any belief in or conception of Perfection, itself. In short, the transhumanist is on a path to self-annihilation.

  2. KO says:

    Give credit where credit is due. Prof. Singer is not a specialist in nutrition or agriculture, but the “Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values.”

  3. Mr. Rational says:

    Singer is an advocate for minimizing human suffering.  Keeping people from going blind due to lack of Vitamin A, and euthanizing defective infants who can’t be helped, are both directly related to that.  For that matter, both are eugenic; trivial vitamin deficiencies don’t meaningfully sort organisms by fitness unless they’re dysfunctional enough to choose a deficient diet.

    • thordaddy says:

      Minimize human suffering relative to what?

      • Mr. Rational says:

        Relative to their life situations without the intervention, of course.  (Please try to keep up.  You’ve been using your own language for so long, you’re having trouble with ours.)

      • thordaddy says:

        How does one keep up with the countless subjective passions of the masses? Once again, we read a character like Singer offering up his own version of “humanitarian” self-annihilation and then some individual who goes by the name Mr. Rational fails to comprehend the duplicity of the agenda. Again, one recognizes that the consequence of an anti-Supremacy ideology results in the failure to appreciate that man WILL NEVER suffer the Perfect Pain that was suffered by the Perfect Man. So a demon like Singer will sell you on a “suffering” that is no more significant than one’s PURELY subjective claim. In fact, Mr. Rational HAS NEVER FELT the suffering of others and never will feel that suffering. He merely surmises as much and then nods in agreement when acts of annihilation commence to “alleviate” one from his “suffering” existence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s