This story is unavailable.

At its core, this report and The New Atlantis are most definitely biased with a conservative agenda. Where is the physical evidence? Where is their scientific proof? I don’t want to hear about your “beliefs” Beliefs are for religions/ faiths… Show me the facts. ….I’m still waiting….. still nothing to offer? Hah, I thought as much.

From Wiki…

Writing for the National Review in a 2003 column, the conservative author Stanley Kurtz described The New Atlantis as influential on thinking about science and technology.[64][dead link][65]

Richard John Neuhaus, late editor of the conservative journal First Things, wrote that The New Atlantis is “as good a publication as there is for the intelligent exploration of questions in bioethics and projections — promising, ominous, and fantastical — about the human future,”[66] and a writer in The American Conservative described the journal as a source “of fresh ideas on the Right.”[67] National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg described The New Atlantis as “a new and interesting magazine” that “seems to be trying to carve out the space for the government to stop the more offensive aspects of biotechnology.”[68]

By contrast, the liberal bioethicist Jonathan D. Moreno has said that the journal offers “a very dark vision” about science and technology, but that it “makes an important point about the need to worry about the ends as well as means in science”[69] and that its “writers were young, smart, and had a good understanding of the political process and the making of public policy.”[8] Bioethicist Ruth Macklin criticized The New Atlantis as representative of a conservative movement in bioethics that is “mean-spirited, mystical, and emotional” and that “claims insight into ultimate truth yet disavows reason.”[9]

The journal has particularly gained a reputation among the transhumanist movement for its criticism of human enhancement. James Hughes, a techno-progressivist and at times director of organizations such as the World Transhumanist Association and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, notes that the journal “has published influential attacks on artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, biotechnology, reproductive technology, and life extension.” Natasha Vita-More has described it as a “journal known as a ring of bioconservatives bent on opposing the cyberculture,” while the Extropy Institute has called it “a high-powered rallying point for the neo-Luddites.”[70]

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.