Replies

There is so much wrong with this.

They start with the assumption that compulsory bioenhancement is for the public good. But who determines that? Did some guy in an authoritative position with investments in bioenhancement firms make the decision? In a free society, the public should make an informed decision what is in the public good.
Why is it compulsory at all? It can be in the public good and not be compulsory. If it's so great won't the vast majority of the public embrace it? But if it is new technology, if there are high incidences of adverse events, shouldn't it be publicly vetted. Making something compulsory should have to pass an extremely high bar.
Doing anything "covertly" has risks. What if something goes wrong. The individual who was enhanced doesn't know something was done to them and therefore can't relate the two. They can't make an informed decision about their own health because information was covertly hidden from them.
To be covert, you have to keep it secret. That means not only individuals won't know something was done to them, but likely their doctors aren't going to know. Because if you tell all the doctors then some of them are going to go public. Now you've violated your doctor's freedom of speech. Or you have kept both doctor and patient in the dark about what was done to the patient. Unacceptable.
Science has been wrong about a great many things. Consider that science was removing parts they considered to be "vestigial" only to find out that those parts did serve important functions and they had caused needless pain and suffering. Just take a look at the food pyramid, where the public was told to eat lots and lots of carbs resulting in an epidemic of obesity and metabolic disorders. Given science's record compulsory should be an absolute last resort or never.
Just how cavalier are we going to be about tossing aside an individual's rights over his own body? Sure we're talking today in the middle of a highly contagious pandemic. But where do you draw the line. If things are done covertly, might they have decided that public administration of thalidomide was in the public interest? Or something else that proves equally deadly? Maybe statin drugs that deplete one's Co-Q10? Statins are very popular with doctors, but how many doctors even know to prescribe Co-Q10 with them? Some people are allergic to vitamin C. Are the "covert administrators" going to be held liable for knowing a patients complete medical history if they get something wrong? You've got drug interactions. You could have overdoses occurring because the patient is not informed.

*** There is so much wrong with this.

They start with the assumption that compulsory bioenhancement is for the public good. But who determines that? ***

That would be someone like Lord Fauci who tells us to do for our own good. Remember don’t do your own research. That’s dangerous!

The only reason you inflict something one someone covertlynis for nefarious reasons.

You are correct. If it’s truly for people’s good, they will see it and know it. They are not as stupid as TPTB think. And so it’s up to the people themselves to decide what’s best for themselves and if they agree, they will embrace it and there will be no need to covertly inflict it on them against their will.