Human Animals?

passwordprotected

Inspired by this comment (post 16581 from Satanus), I dug out a quote from Richard Dawkins;

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

You can read it in context here.

MissingLink

Why not post it in context?

Published on 20 Nov 2006
By Richard Dawkins
IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

I'm not sure what difference the context makes. If humans are merely animals, then killing humans because they do not have the desired breeding qualities will be acceptable. Deciding which human animals can and should breed will also be acceptable. Is taking Hitler's core ideas and moving forward with them, putting a more presentable face on them, ok? What if someone without a silly small moustache was the face of eugenics? What that be ok?

Is reducing humans to the same status as animals, in a world where animals are bred, farmed, killed and used as 'machines', a good thing? Didn't it lead to serious issues previously, such as "ethnic cleansing"?

People are welcome to think that eugenics is a good thing and that social Darwinism should be explored and developed.

I don't happen to agree.

I don't think it's ever acceptable to reduce humans to mere animals.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Notice the use of "moral difference". Was what Hitler tried to accomplish moral or immoral? Or did he just balls it all up for the eugenicists by proving to be too extreme? Should human animals be more gently moved into selective bredding rather than pushed into it with a cattle prod the way Hitler did?

Dawkins isn't afraid to ask the questions that Hitler ballsed up and made politically incorrect. I personally believe that reducing humans to mere breeding commodities (or animals) is immoral.

Midget-Sasquatch

Looking at all the atrocities going on in the world, I'd be happy if all people just started treating each other as good as some people here in North America treat other animals.

Accepting that we're animals doesn't necessarily mean though, that our society should be ruled by Natural Selection. Thats like saying its natural for small pox to kill many people or for spoiled food to make you very sick so lets not bother creating vaccines or preventing food poisoning. Recognizing our ancestral past, and how our behaviours may have evolved should give us more insight into our psychological makeup. Denying this facet of ourselves would rob us of knowledge that could be useful in group dynamics, personal relationships etc.

While we shouldn't have state controlled eugenics programs, there's real benefits to trying to curb deleterious alleles in our common gene pool. I'm for that in humane ways. I don't begrudge people who'd want the opportunity to pass on their "better" traits to their offspring. As long as there's free choice then its as its always been (for the most part). I'm not making light of the fears people have of eugenics gone to the extreme. But we shouldn't demonize the idea of improving and enhancing the overall biology/health of our species. There's always a natural bell curve for different traits like strength and intelligence so there'll always be those on the higher and lower ends. Why not shift the means for all those traits over just a bit?

Satanus

Isn't that the natural conclusion that every evolutionist comes to? Doesn't genetics prove it? You seem to have a large amount of irrational fear. How many evolutionists talk about killing people?

It is true that there are still a lot of people on the planet that don't think twice about killing an animal for nothing. On the other hand, there are quite a few scientific programs that are working to learn about, preserve and reintroduce more animal and plant life on the planet. Personally, i'm not vegetarian, but if i had to kill my food myself, i would probably do it like those pygmies did it in the movie 'the gods must be crazy'. They apologised to the animal, and explained how they and their families needed to eat. Our preying on animals is just another proof that we are also animals.

S

passwordprotected

You seem to have a large amount of irrational fear. How many evolutionists talk about killing people?

Again with the straw man.

How so?
S

This thread isn't about my alleged 'irrational fear', so there's little point trying to address it.

Human Animals?

passwordprotected

Satanus

MissingLink

passwordprotected

Midget-Sasquatch

Satanus

passwordprotected

Satanus

bluecanary

passwordprotected

Share this