Technocracy

The ideological activism of the medical and science journals has not slackened. An editorial in The Lancet (once again) extols redefining climate change as a health issue to allow technocrats to exert greater control over policy — and along the way even extols Greta Thunberg as an exemplar of the cause. From “Climate Change and Health: 10 Years On, What’s Next?”

Health has become a key aspect of climate policy. COP28 had the first official Health Day, elevating health in climate negotiations, and climate laws referencing health rose sharply after 2016. The Countdown has helped to drive that change, growing into a network of regional centres across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Oceania, and Small Island Developing States that produces locally relevant indicators and evidence that have shaped policy and held governments to account.

Despite their efforts, the editorial grouses, things are only getting worse. Blame the usual suspects!

The other week, I discussed a Nature editorial advocating that scientists be required to “register” with the state. That policy, if enacted, would be a step toward establishing a technocratic rule-by-experts system by controlling what would be acceptable scientific discourse and who would be authorized to communicate about such matters. A new proposal, also in Nature, would push the West toward technocracy. The science journal just published a piece urging the U.N. to establish a panel of scientists — the International Panel on Inequality (IPI) — to determine policies involving income and wealth inequality. From “Why We Need an International Panel on Inequality:” The consequences [of wealth disparities] are well established. A growing body of research links higher income inequality Read More ›

Nature — the most prestigious science journal in the world — has editorialized in favor of requiring scientists to register with governments as a condition of participation in the sector. Here’s the context. South Africa has legislation pending that would require scientists to register with a government body or face significant legal consequences. Nature applauds the authoritarian idea. From the editorial (my emphasis): What do engineers, environmental-health officers and health-care workers have in common? These occupations can, in some instances, be practised only by people who have registered with a relevant professional body. This typically requires candidates to pass qualifying exams and adhere to a code of practice that includes sanctions for violations. The process is intended to create the highest standards of quality, Read More ›

Artificial intelligence is transforming medicine, health care, education, scientific research, and nearly every aspect of modern life. But as AI becomes more powerful, one question rises above all the others: What does it mean to be human? In this episode of Bioethics Babe, Arina Grossu Agnew explores Pope Leo XIV’s groundbreaking encyclical Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”) and examines how Catholics, and everyone concerned with human dignity, should think about artificial intelligence. Topics include: The stakes could not be higher.  Technology should always remain the servant of humanity—not its master.   For the latest episodes, episode resources, and general resources, please visit www.bioethicsbabe.com. Please subscribe to my YouTube page:  https://www.youtube.com/@BioethicsBabe Thank you for tuning in!XOXO,Bioethics Babe Follow BB on social media:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BioethicsBabeFacebook: Read More ›

One would have thought that bioethicists and technocrats would learn from the COVID debacle that coerced public health policies can easily become exploding cigars when misapplied, and indeed, ultimately harm the very community cohesion these autocrats claim to champion. But no. A new article in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics urges that we prepare now for more mandates to prevent epidemics due to AMRs (for antimicrobial resistance, such as bacteria evolving, rendering antibiotics less effective) and to fight climate change.

The authors identify various means of persuading the public to comply with favored public health policies. The first is simple suasion, or “normative compliance.”

From “Making the Public Protect Public Health: The Ethics of Promoting Collective Action in Emergencies” (citations omitted):

Normative compliance and moral involvement/commitment: This strategy is to convince people of the importance of assuming responsibility and acting accordingly. When congruent, the commitment of lower-level actors to comply is high. Participants with moral involvement/commitment are loyal to the aims and internalise the goals of the governing authority.