Author Topic: BLTC  (Read 2231 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
« on: October 24, 2010, 09:55:26 AM »
Hello everyone,
the following message was posted on the guestbook but since it is limited to 5,000 characters only i posted the original message and our reply here. Of course you can steel fell free to respond.

Original message:
Have you heard about BLTC Research ( ?
This project was founded and is being run by a vegan, David Pearce.
What are your thoughts about it?

Our reply:
When I first came across with this project a few years ago, I remember reading critiques that were mainly regarding the scientific implausibility but I can’t get into that since I am not familiar with the material. I don’t know enough about genetic engineer or psychopharmacology to claim it is impossible. Another common critique is an economic one basically claiming that a society can’t be productive and sustainable when all the people are happy all the time. A society can’t survive under the related constant chemical influence or the constant pleasure and so the idea will die out very soon. I agree with that but since we don’t desire a sustainable society ourselves and most certainly not a productive society in the way these critics mean, this is not our problem with the project.
Our problem is that for the entire humanity to accept this extremely radical idea it should go through an extremely radical over-all revolution in so many aspects that it is practically impossible even if it is technologically possible.
Humanity should change its entire set of moral, social and religion rules. Who knows better than us as animals liberation activists, how hard it is to change moral perceptions within humans and we try to do it regarding an issue which is much simpler (practically only changing their diet) than one that stands against their most basic beliefs?
How can we seriously expect such a fundamental religion revolution while in 2010 there are serious arguments in the USA’s educational system whether to teach creationism as an equivalent theory as Darwin’s origin of species which by the way the book is still extremely controversial 150 years after it was published and still banned in certain places of the world?
For this project to become real the whole world must become religionless and currently it becomes more and more religious.
Even the so called enlightened counters still maintain harsh arguments over abortions, medical and scientific use of embryos and euthanasia, so how can we seriously expect that such a profound and deep philosophical, emotional and social revolution take place?

A great deal of this project is about drugs and how a constant and systematical use of them can be a solution. Without even getting into the idea itself and its predicted projections but just dealing with its feasibility, we are dealing with a world where although it was proved that marijuana (as they explained themselves in the website is not addictive) for example is very helpful for patients with certain diseases mainly for people who suffer from cancer, it is still totally off limits to even discuss its use for medical treatment in most of the world so how can they seriously suggested that all the people would be dragged all the time when even people who are suffering constantly from a terminal disease are not allowed to ease their pain in their last days?
And speaking of terminal diseases, only in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Oregon and Washington of USA it is legal to euthanize. Only 5 countries and even that is if you consider Oregon and Washington two countries and not part of the USA.
In a world where mercy killing and mercy dragging are so legally rare you can’t legally genetically engineer all the creatures in the world.

And even if as opposed to all that it would happen, clearly it would be a gradual process meaning some countries would start, hoping that the others would follow. You don’t need to know much about history to acknowledge that when one group is stronger than another one which lives in a better area, it is only a matter of time until it would be conquered. What do you think would happen when one country would be genetically dragged and another won’t? The idea would die out along with the more open minded and compassionate people and the world would be left to the more religious, more patriarchal and much more speciesist and less likely to become vegan countries and end up crueler than the current one.

There is even a serious resistance "back home" among people who are mostly non religious, left wingers, environmentalists and some even vegan, who are adherently oppose to any sort of genetic engineering.
So with such a wide range of resistance even from those who are supposed to be supporters but actually against genetic engineering even in tomatoes, there is no chance for better life through chemistry.

Obviously, we personally have even more opposers, but our project doesn’t entail human participation. Don’t get the BLTC wrong, although it is highly radical, creative and unique, it is still a social change idea since a social change is required for its success. And by social change I mean in this particular issue and as mentioned before an extremely radical social, moral and conceptual revolution. If you believe it is possible I should actually ask you to read our manifest and the FAQs which deal with the chances for a social change.

This is our fundamental ethical problem with the project. It still relies on humans’ willingness to cooperate. It still relies on human compassion. It still gives human the chance and the power to decide whether to stop torturing others or not.
Any idea that relies on humans’ compassion is doomed to fail. I don’t say that because I hate humans but because I read the newspaper today. And it looked just like the one I read yesterday. Just a cursory glimpse of history, biology and other species behaviors and character and you don’t really need much more to understand the basic principles of life. We widely dealt with and based this statement in the manifest and FAQ.

So all in all that idea is to convince people to use genetic engineering for their future children which most people are against for religion, natural, free will, human spirit and etc. reasons, because it would be better for them. Doesn’t it sound familiar? Doesn’t it remind you the failure vegan advocacy argument for your own health…?
And the for your own health argument failed although it demands so little of people as opposed to this one who is against many of their current believes, justifiably or not, it would be impossible to change them.

To convince humanity otherwise is as impossible as to convince them to go vegan if not harder and if you are here you probably already know that it is practically impossible.
The only way to engineer all the creatures in the world is by somehow capture and control all of them until they succeed to forcefully engineer them and only then release them to the post Darwinian world. But as far as I know they don’t have a plan to do that and of course it is technically impossible.
Just like veganism advocacy, artificial meat, outlawing exploitation industries and etc. it is a social change method, very sophisticated, breakthrough thinking, inventive and imaginative that I hate to compare it with the others, but it still basically counts on the human society and that’s a dead end. And speaking of dead ends… mutations are of the key elements in the diversity of life and so a key element in the creation of pain and suffering in the first place. Can the wishful engineered paradise world be safe from them? How can they assure that things won’t get back to more or less as they are now? Can this be an argument not to try? Hell no!
Even if the idea would hold a day the amount of suffering that it would save is worth it.  But can this be an argument to try to eliminate genes instead of changing them in order to assure they won’t be changed by mutations or whatever? If you really want to end this hell…Hell yes!


TinyPortal © 2005-2015