Our New Federalist Papers
Is there the beginning of a concensus on where we are at regarding biotechnology?
Spartacus wrote today, 7 Jun 2022, about the benefits and risks of the new biotechnology age we are clearly amidst. (Spartacus: if I have misrepresented any of your points, please correct.)
He presents a list of malicious uses, which I won't repeat here. He follows this with the these concerns:
the lack of attention of the military in the malicious uses of the technology
the lack of recent ethical reviews and papers about misusing biotechnology
"the risk that military investment in biotechnology will affect research priorities"
The concern that "military investment into defensive or public health projects might be misinterpreted by other states"
The remainder of the article discusses the lack of ethical (and knowledgeable) regulatory oversight.
He proposes two reasons for this:
1. Regulatory Capture: policy makers will be much more heavily influenced by private biotech companies and other deep pockets than they will by the citizenry impacted by the regulation
2. The Revolving Door: Regulators need complex and deep knowledge that can cross several disciplines in order to make wise decisions. The regulated will hire the regulators, or those identified as potential regulators, indoctrinate them into their corporate culture and ethics, and then, perhaps, release them again into the regulatory environment.
(I need to say here that, though the post seems oriented toward the US or possibly English culture, it is has even more relevance to the international scene, with the flow of culture and ethics into and out of the world health organizations; eg WHO.)
Substack Readers: Have you thought of this? Substack is the modern equivalent of the Federalist Papers: high quality posts that, if collected and used for guidance, could be the foundation for what has to be a reset, a reset as profound as the Constitution. No, the Constitution does not have to be rewritten or even changed. It is the relationship established between the three branches of government that has to be reaffirmed and reformed. On an international level, countries have deeply varied cultures and ethics, and worldviews. What is the US/Western World policies given the events of the last 10 or more years?
Spartacus deserves a place at the table as a writer of the 2022 New Federalist Papers.
So does Dr. Malone. His June 6 article on Science versus Scientism (Part 1) is a worth addition to the Federalist Papers, though, personally, I would add more context and structure to his description of Scientism and integrate that with my definition of new PostModernism. Dr. Malone's article begins with that famous exchange between Chuckie Todd and Fauci:
"It’s very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. Because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science. Sometimes those things were inconvenient truths for people, and there was pushback against me."
The article then quotes substantial sections of an opinion piece by Everett Piper, published in the Washington Times, April 18, 2021. Dr. Malone subtitles this section as "Scientific 'progress' unrestrained by sacred principles is fraught with dangers."
Piper quotes G. K Chesterton in the article. Chesterton was a Christian and "sacred principles" would then refer to Christian principles.
In the early 1900s, G.K. Chesterton spoke of the unavoidable consequences of worshipping science above the sacred. Observing that the naturalists of his day were only too willing to turn their science into a philosophy and then impose their new religion upon all of culture with near fanatic zeal, Chesterton said, “I never said a word against eminent men of science. What I complain of is a vague, popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one.”
Recognizing that science could never presume to compete in the moral arena, Chesterton went further. “To mix science up with philosophy is only to produce a philosophy that has lost all its ideal value and a science that has lost all its practical value. It is for my private physician to tell me whether this or that food will kill me. It is for my private philosopher to tell me whether I ought to be killed.”
Chesterton knew science could answer the questions of mathematics and medicine, but he was likewise keenly aware it had little to say about meaning and morality. He warned that scientific “progress” unrestrained by sacred principles was fraught with dangers.
This is confirmed in the next passage cited by Dr. Malone, which is from C. S. Lewis. "C.S. Lewis also spoke of Western society’s diminishment of God’s created order while elevating personal power to fill the chaotic void. Predicting the rise of what he and others labeled “scientism,” Lewis warned of a dystopia where public policy and even moral and religious beliefs would be dictated by oligarchs only too eager to assume the role of our new cultural high priests.”
Hmmm. Sound familiar. In my own substack, I introduced this same concept, but divided the social classes into four, spliting the oligarchs from the hihg priests. It is giving too much credit to the oligarchs. They are followers, Minotaurs being tied at the nose by the high priests.
Dr. Malone then quotes Trevor Thomas, who quotes C. S. Lewis thus:
[T]he new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value… I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in."
I believe our democracy, federal form of government, and the balanced three branches of government model are uniquely vulnerable to those who claim "Science."
Dr. Malone then presents evidence on the collusion between the clericy (media, "scholars", scientists) to control the message and thus the serfs, while gaslighting and canceling the yeomen. They literally shaped the worldview of the serfs, changing their belief system, using their "science" as the golden rule.
It should be clear that the science being discussed is not that of the scientific method, which encourages conflict, etc. (I believe Dr. Malone will cover this in Part II of his series.) Some people have called the "science" as being "political science." I don't think it is even that. It is more appropriately called psy ops, with the word "science" being used as the magic elixir.
A final comment. I seriously entertain the possibility that the regulators and the politicians don't have the skill or knowledge to regulate or make good policy. They are literally dumb from a wisdom viewpoint. They succumb to the temptations of power, their worldview moves toward the new PostModern, and they fall into the deep state tar pit. Is it possible, in this world, to assure the regulators don't become the regulated and aren't fatally tempted to the dark side? Must we outlaw certain technologies to protect humanity? How do we enforce it? How can religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian religion fit in, since it seems to be the only relevant solution? Do you have any other consistent worldview that would work?
[Spartacus: if I have misrepresented any of your points, please correct.]
No need to worry that you got it wrong. This is pretty much exactly what I meant by it, yes. And you are correct that a lot of my articles are written largely from an American perspective and represent my own cultural biases in that regard. However, I'm seeing this same pattern everywhere, globally.
We are being commanded by our governments to place our faith in national institutions that have been superseded by supranational institutions, or hollowed out and stripped of their ability to regulate anything at all. Scientism goes hand-in-hand with technocracy and corporatocracy. They all enable each other in a synergistic way; private industry, in the aggregate, provides a huge portion of R&D funding that scientists rely on, so scientists end up politically-motivated and disinterested in truth if it risks cutting off their funding. The Government research funding sources are closely associated with private industry and private research institutes, too. The NIH, FDA, USDA, and the pharmaceutical giants and agribusinesses are all joined at the hip, just like the Pentagon and their think tanks are joined at the hip with the defense industry, and how the Federal Reserve is joined at the hip with private banks. Basically, the distinctions between the private and public sectors are blurring to an upsetting degree, to the point where there aren't any checks on corporate power any longer.