Reply #105: What absolutely amazes me is.... [View All]

[Sal316]

....the defense of what Dawkins said in the name of "science".

Let's look at what he said again, shall we?

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?

No, the time hasn't come. In fact, even posing this question shows that Dawkins is more interested in sounding smarter than he is than in ethics.

The difference between training for something and breeding for something is like night and day.

If a person trains for something, it is a choice. I know sometimes parents foist things on their kids, but it is still a choice and not permanent...children can and do eventually say "no more". Breeding for something implies that those without whatever those traits are less valuable to society. It also eliminates a person's ability to develop into someone unique on their own and turns them into a human "build-a-bear".

One can go back centuries through today and see selective breeding in the worst humanity has offered. It's not confined to the WWII era. Slave owners selectively bred slaves to be physically strong and mentally weak by killing off those who were weak or could read. I wonder if the Dawkins worshipers here would ask "why is that necessarily bad?"

The thought of breeding for traits, or making "designer babies" if you will, disgusts me as a scientist. Additionally, things like this fall under the law of unintended consequences. Just look at what hormone treatments in cattle and GM food has brought. It's altered people's immune systems, had a negative impact on the environment, and, in the case of hormone laden meats, has quickened the pace of human development, particularly in preteen and teenage girls.

So, defend this all you want, whine about "quote mining", explain it away as "well, that's not what he meant"...that's your choice.