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.
Source: Natural News, by L.J. Devon, June 03, 2014
In the eyes of some professors and scientists, genetically modified foods can be an open door toward transhumanism — believing that mankind can break through current physical limitations by genetically altering food, offspring and the environment.
Could this really be an ulterior motive in the minds of professors who advocate genetically modified organisms?
How might GMO-influenced transhumanism destroy what is natural and eclectic, as manipulations of life and environment restrict the diversity of agriculture and people, eliminating the “flaws” of nature, while discarding the “unfit.”
Princeton Professor advocates GMO golden rice and infanticide
After investigating the beliefs and sentiment of Princeton Professor Peter Singer, it seems there may be an ulterior plot behind biotechnology and the genetic manipulation of nature. This plot revolves around control and may even encourage infanticide.
In a new article, Singer pretends to be reasonable and skeptical…
View original post 156 more words