January 09, 2009
Richard Dawkins speculates about a human-chimp hybrid
James Randerson in The Guardian:
In a late response to Edge.org's annual New Year challenge to the world's leading thinkers, Prof Richard Dawkins has submitted his entry. Edge.org asked scientists, philosophers, artists and journalists "What will change everything?"
Dawkins – author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion – muses on the effect of breaking down the barrier between humans and animals, perhaps by the creation of a chimera in a lab or a "successful hybridisation between a human and a chimpanzee".
Here's what he had to say.
Our ethics and our politics assume, largely without question or serious discussion, that the division between human and 'animal' is absolute. 'Pro-life', to take just one example, is a potent political badge, associated with a gamut of ethical issues such as opposition to abortion and euthanasia.
What it really means is pro-human-life. Abortion clinic bombers are not known for their veganism, nor do Roman Catholics show any particular reluctance to have their suffering pets 'put to sleep'. In the minds of many confused people, a single-celled human zygote, which has no nerves and cannot suffer, is infinitely sacred, simply because it is 'human'. No other cells enjoy this exalted status.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 03:27 AM | Permalink
Comments
Dawkins' grasp of Darwin is far superior to his grasp of mass psychology; he's laying the foundation for a socio-political backlash that could send us back to the Middle Ages...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Jan 9, 2009 5:50:22 AM
As Hitchens might say, "It's enough to make a cat laugh."
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Jan 9, 2009 6:25:53 AM
Mostly cross-posted at GU:
Why is it conceivable, at least by many, that in the lab human and chimpanzee genetic material might be combined, but not an in-the-lab combining of optimal human genetic components? Or and especially an in-and-out-of the lab program like that.
Breeding down the herarchy - yes. Breeding up the herarchy - no.
Or in farmyard terms, why is it okay to consider breeding half-human half-chimps, but not breeding angels? Wouldn't that be more exciting?
Angels in the sense of some schedule of optimum human attributes, bred forward as with any other breeding program's specific goals?
Except that half-human half-chimps won't replace their superiors will they?
Many readers will see the human-chimp combo, essentially breeding down from the human, as interesting and scientifically furthering, but will get uneasy at the prospect of breeding up from the human.
We seem to have a consensus as to the inferior - the animal, the simple, the primitive - and we can contemplate messing around with that; but the idea of messing around in the other direction sets off a resonance of moral outrage, or profound insecurity, or both.
Posted by: roy belmont | Jan 9, 2009 3:03:34 PM
Steven: I'm not sure what you mean by "socio-political backlash" - do you mean a neo-eugenics movement, or an ignorant backlash against science because of an overblown fear of same? But I think you're right about Dawkins' cluelessness. I can't remember the photographer's name, but s/he did a book of portraits of chimps and gorillas that does more to break the human/animal barrier than rehashing the plots of a B-grade scifi flick...
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Jan 9, 2009 3:45:46 PM
I was disappointed with Dawkins' essay. It was essentially a retread of concepts and arguments made in Lee M Silver's book Challenging Nature.
Posted by: doyle | Jan 9, 2009 4:44:45 PM
Famous psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre, once remarked: "I've known so many important people, that I begin to feel important myself"
When you substitute God with your own image, as Dawkins seems to do, the narcissistic impulse is to feel omniscient, omnipotent and infallible.
Is this a joke on Freud's Moses and Monoteism? or (worse) is it for real?
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 9, 2009 7:46:55 PM
Vick:
I mean that Dawkins is pushing too hard and too far with tone-deaf rhetoric here. The grotesque monkey/human hybrid *image* alone (I can see the posters and viral CGI ads already) is a potent gift to any anti-Science, Frankenstein-citing demagogue who cares to exploit it. What's the long-term goal of Dawkins' project? I perceive an intelligence at cross-purposes with itself.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Jan 10, 2009 10:35:42 AM
He seems to exhibit a little inner thrill at the prospect of the death of anthropocentric bio-ethics.
Is that his goal? Quite possibly. Not necessarily for any good that would come of it (fake open/close sarcasm tags optionally inserted by the readers imagination), but perhaps only for the victory over the desires of the God-fearing.
A little frisson of enjoyment with no regard for the suffering that would be caused. Nice guy, eh? Starting to look a little daft though. Every picture tells a story.
Posted by: Carlos | Jan 10, 2009 11:53:23 PM
Felix:
Yes, belief in God really keeps narcissism and arrogance in check, as can be easily verified by having a conversation with any Christian Fundamentalist in the U.S. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Pepito | Jan 11, 2009 1:06:44 PM
Daniel Dennett, another "ego driven maniac" (at least the perspective of our religious, superstition based friends) is giving a lecture at Stanford tomorrow (open to the public).
I will be attending, and can give primary information on his ignorance, reliance on reason, science and reality for his interpretation reality.
There is a rumor that this is when Jesus will finally come back to Earth, and take the selected up to be with the Psychopathic Space Daddy.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 11, 2009 1:43:48 PM
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/dennett/
The Evolution of ‘Why’ as the Key to Free Will
Please do report back. I didn't see any indication on the site that they posted recordings of their lecture series (find out?) Dennet's philosophical suppositions in this realm are always fascinating, even though they generally don't really rely on hard science but are nonetheless very inventive "what ifs" that seem simple, plausible and lovely, even if they might tend to limit thought about more unlikely explanations.
Posted by: Carlos | Jan 11, 2009 4:59:07 PM
Carlos-
I will report back. I have really enjoyed Stanford as a source for lectures.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM
Pepito
With your name, you should be able to understand me if you access www.monografias.com and read two, of over 300, of my articles:
Una reseña acerca del narcisismo patológico y
La estatua de Satán…
About whether I believe or not in God, that’s a private issue for me, and for me alone to know…
Fundamentalist? Not me!
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 11, 2009 8:42:28 PM
I'm not calling YOU a Fundamentalist, Felix. I'm just objecting to your assertion that 'substituting God with your own image' (isn't that a typical religious argument against atheism?) leads to narcissism. I haven't met anybody more narcissistic than those people that think that 'God' is with them.
Posted by: Pepito | Jan 11, 2009 10:50:58 PM
Pepito, how is it narcissistic to be a fundamentalist, either in the clinical sense, or in the sense of the social usage? Even if your point is that literal-minded faith is a form of grandiosity, the typical narcissistic disturbances that are so hellish on personal relationships are probably not more common among fundies than among the rest of us, do you think?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 12, 2009 12:18:28 AM
A statistiscal study should be made, Elatia. I can only offer you anecdotical accounts, but I think I'm onto something here. Believing God is on their side makes fundies feel they are better than the average 'sinner', no matter how much they profess their humility. Most fundamentalists I know actually think that way. On the other hand, I haven't met that many narcissistic atheists, and I doubt their narcissism and arrogance are caused by their lack of belief in any deity.
Posted by: Pepito | Jan 12, 2009 10:03:33 AM
Freud regards religion as a compulsive neurosis. I see at as a mental health problem, compounded by meme infection on a immune deficient host, whose lack of curiosity and intelligence have diminished their immunity.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 12, 2009 10:41:18 AM
Dave, WOW!
I will not say you that you hardly understand Freud, because that'll make you a "heretic."
Just it'll help you to know that your understanding of many things is impressive, but of psychoanalysis is meager.
Thus, the allure of psychoanalytic interpretations... by those who should know better… is nil.
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 12, 2009 12:44:16 PM
WOW!
Dave, you are a most illustrious member of the 3QD community.
Freud does not agree with you on these matters. But, in all honesty, I do not either. But I'' continue to admire you, just the same.
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 12, 2009 12:56:48 PM
Post a comment