Peter Singer is making up his "facts", to fit his ideology, when he
talks about Alzenheimers. People with it most certainly do know they
have a problem, and they do suffer. Shame on "New Scientist" magazine
for not calling him on it.
When I was an architecture student in the "energy crisis" years of the
mid-70's, (studying energy conservation and solar energy), I used to buy
"New Scientist" whenever they had an article on energy. Back then, I
was impressed by the magazine's competency and if not exactly a
"progressive" outlook, at least a forward-looking editorial outlook.
Many years later, the Jan. 8, 2000 issue interview (AKA shallow "puff
piece") with Peter Singer, shows a total deterioration of editorial
quality.
As I wrote to the magazine, Peter Singer's unchallenged ubiquity in the
mass media, represents the triumph of professional "connections", over
real ethics and common decency.
His new statement (or, new to me, at least) about the "ethics" of
actually plainly unethical medical experiments, sounds like he doesn't
know that the Nazis lost the war. Singer is not only an extremist
right-wing ideologue, but he also briefly reveals himself in this
interview, as a total crackpot.
Again, the "New Scientist" did not call him on it, at all. Shame on
"New Scientist" for giving him a free ride.
We need to not only speak truth & human rights to Peter Singer, we need
to protest the lack of editorial standards at "New Scientist".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|