Well, I’ll be cornswaggled! Richard Dawkins disdains the moral implications of human exceptionalism–for example, he yearns for the discovery of a human/chimp hybrid species that could interbreed with us to “break the species barrier.”But even though he might prefer to tear it down–probably because HE can be seen as supporting religion–Dawkins clearly believes that human exceptionalism is an existential reality.
In 2007, Dawkins strongly asserted in a debate that we are unique and unprecidented in the history of life on the planet, indeed, that we have moral duties and imperatives to escape selfish Darwinian impulses and act in an explicitly ”anti Darwinian” fashion as “earth’s last best hope.” From Dawkins’ opening statement in the New Scientist/Greenpeace Science debate of 2007 (statement full at the YouTube video above):
Far from being the most selfish, exploitative species, Homo sapiens is the only species that has at least the possibility of rebelling against the otherwise universally selfish Darwinian impulse…If any species in the history of life has the possibility of breaking away from short term selfishness and of long term planning for the distant future, it’s our species. We are earth’s last best hope even if we are simultaneously, the species most capable of destroying life on the planet. But when it comes to taking the long view, we are literally unique. Because the long view is not a view that has ever been taken before in whole history of life. If we don’t plan for the future, no other species will…
Wow. That’s pretty darn exceptional. Indeed, I could have said it! In fact, I have, in other words, said precisely that.
But why would we do that? Why would we care? Because we are the earth’s only moral agents. And that means, Dawkins is saying, that we should act morally:
There’s a tension between short term individual welfare and long term group welfare or world welfare. If it were left to the forces of Darwinism alone, in one sense there could be no hope because short term greed is bound to win. There is a hope that lies in the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our massive communal data base…all the knowledge that has built up over the generations, and our forward simulating imaginations. This is what things like the Kyoto Accord and similar initiatives are all about. But to a Darwinist, it is not surprising that it is so hard to get agreement in support of such political initiatives. Darwinism is, unfortunately, not friendly to the value of sustainability, the long term value of life as a whole.
Let us note that only we, the exceptional humans, care about the “long term value of life as a whole.” Only we are capable of so caring and it is our duty, Dawkins seems to be saying, to do so because of our uniqueness:
How can I on the one hand say that we are the product of Darwinian selection, which is incorrigibly short sighted and selfish, yet at the same time say that salvation lies in humanities capacity for looking far ahead? And the answer lies in the fact that brains–although they are themselves the natural product of natural selection–follow their own rules, which can rise above the rules of natural selection. This is obvious in the case of…contraception. Contraception is clearly anti Darwinian. It would be hard to imagine anything more anti Darwinian than deliberately limiting your own reproductive success, yet we do it. The brain is big enough to override the imperative of the selfish genes…
The human brain has been equipped by the natural selection of genes with the power to take its own decision that can override the ultimate goal which were originally used to program it. We can take decisions which are not based on the ultimate Darwinian value of gene survival, but upon other proximate values, such as hedonistic pleasure, or, such as something more noble–something such as sitting down together with the peoples of the world and trying to plan what would be the best future for the whole of the planet. Totally unique. Totally foreign to our evolutionary past…
I have said that although I am a passionate Darwinian, in the academic sense that I believe that Darwinism is the main ingredient in our understanding of our own existence and that of all life…yet, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to human, social, and political affairs and political planning for the world. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. Nature really is ruthless, selfish, greedy. Nature in its Darwinian role of natural selection is not something we should wish to emulate.
I have repeatedly stated that religion is unnecessary to support human exceptionalism. I have repeatedly stated that by whatever means we got here, we alone have at least partially surmounted the Darwinian struggle of tooth and claw, taking us out of–and above–the natural world. I have repeatedly stated that human life is a moral life, a life of difference, a life that matters, a life of unique value, a life that has the greatest value on the planet. Indeed, humans belong on the pedestal precisely because we are the last best hope of earth. And whaddya know: Of all people, Richard Dawkins agrees.
And here’s the bottom line: Dawkins believes human beings are no longer bound by Darwinian imperatives, the consequence of which is to impose moral duties upon us. It seems to me that once our uniquely human duties are accepted, it becomes very hard to deny that we also possess uniquely human rights.
July 28th, 2010 | 1:06 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wesley J. Smith, K Cart. K Cart said: RT @CO2HOG: SHS: Richard Dawkins, Human Exceptionalist!, Calls Us, “Earth’s Last Best Hope” http://bit.ly/bAH1f3 #tcot /Yikes! [...]
July 28th, 2010 | 2:22 am
I think you’re using your own term rather loosely here and conflating “human exceptionalism” with any recognition that humans are intellectually (and hence morally) unique animals. In that second loose sense the vast majority of us are human exceptionalists. It’s simply a description of reality.
Most of the alleged attacks against HE (at least those you have highlighted) have not really sought to deny that we have exceptional abilities (and special duties which flow from these abilities). They have rather sought to encourage the perspective that these unique traits do not place us in a metaphysically distinct category from other animals. We may be the only creatures with moral responsibilities but some of these moral responsibilities are owed to creatures less exceptional than ourselves. Our species interests are not the only ones that matter. Stretching a fraternal hand out to our distant genetic cousins and drawing them into the Big Tent of rights-holders would not diminish us.
These, from your perspective, are attacks on human exceptionalism – but they are entirely consistent with Dawkin’s position. Dawkins iaccepts human exceptionalism only in the very loose sense in which presumably over 90% of humanity (including myself) does. The Wesleyan version (in which, for instance, our rights are based on or maintained by our “uniqueness” rather than on or by those traits which incidentally we appear to uniquely possess) is something else entirely. Or maybe I’ve misunderstood you all this while.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 3:39 am
Raven Chukwu: He seems to go much farther here, though. We are the best hope of earth. We can provide salvation. We can and should mitigate the impact of Darwinian forces. He is issuing a moral calling. That seems much more in my approach. In other work, he has disdained exceptionalism, because he thinks it requires a theistic backing. But I think he demonstrates quite well that he doesn’t. And sure is a powerful example against the idea that we are just another animal in the forest, both factually and morally.
July 28th, 2010 | 12:07 pm
[...] Richard Dawkins, Human Exceptionalist!, Calls Us, “Earth’s Last Best Hope” [...]
July 28th, 2010 | 12:27 pm
Wesley,
None of the sentiments Dawkins expresses here are inconsistent with anything he has previously written or said. They may be inconsistent with how his views are often portrayed by his critics but that is hardly his fault.
When, for instance, has he ever asserted that this weak (and almost universally accepted) version of human exceptionalism (i.e we have special abilities, we have special duties, we alone are capable of rising above Darwinian impulses) requires a theistic backing? Can you provide a single quote or reference in support of this?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Raven: Read his essay in The Great Ape Project. He wants a hybrid species to prove we are not special, and in that essay he chortles, “bishops would bleat.” My point is that Dawkins supports human exceptionalism, whereas many other Darwinists oppose it. So, you should be happy.
July 28th, 2010 | 12:36 pm
[...] More Dawkins’ quotes supporting human exceptionalism and analysis over at Secondhand Smoke. Comments (0) [...]
July 28th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
Bingo.
As an atheist, I was incredibly disappointed when I read The God Delusion, since Dawkins heavily implies that moral behavior is justified by evolutionary dominance. In fact (as I wrote here: http://bit.ly/9kTugq) what is truly exceptional about humans is our ability to be aware of, analyze, and reject evolutionarily successful behaviors.
The infanticide widely practiced by gorillas is not ennobled because it as viable evolutionary strategy, but we recognize that gorillas have no moral standard to judge their actions against. Humans subvert our instincts because we recognize that our actions ought to be moral and that evolution study can only describe our instincts, not judge them.
–Leah @ http://www.unequally-yoked.com
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Thank you very much Leah. As I stated, one need not be religious to believe in human exceptionalism, and apply the ethics of that understanding.
July 28th, 2010 | 2:38 pm
When those involved in the Great Ape Project speak of “a community of equals” they are obviously referring to equality in terms of basic rights (the rights to life, liberty and freedom from torture). They do not claim that the great apes are equally endowed with moral or intellectual capabilities or that these apes have duties which are in any way similar to ours. There is nothing about the project which is in opposition to the thoughts Dawkins has expressed here.
I have actually never heard or read of any prominent evolutionary biologists making claims which even come close to denying the weak form of human exceptionalism which Dawkins endorses here. I have read many articles by critics who assume they do but these always involve misinterpretations of what the scientist actually said. Virtually everyone believes that humans are exceptional in this sense (the Great Ape Project manifesto is, after all, directed at humans because they are the only ones capable of taking up the mantle and fighting in a worthy cause.)
Or maybe I’m mistaken. Have you got a verifiable quote, link or reference which proves otherwise?
[btw, a hybrid species would only show that we are not "metaphysically" special it would not imply that we do not possess special abilities and have a unique role in the animal kingdom. "Bishops would bleat" because some of them are hung up on this presumed ontological separation.]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Read my book, Raven Chukwu. Plenty of advocates say that our unique capacities are the equivalent of the elephant’s trunk and that it is “specieisism” to claim special value on being human.
July 28th, 2010 | 3:32 pm
I will read your book eventually, Wesley (your most recent one anyway) but unfortunately I haven’t got a copy to hand. All I need now is one quote from an evolutionary biologist who says we do not have unique capabilities or duties (and not a reference to one explaining how these result from blind evolutionary processes). A man who says our special intellectual abilities are our “elephant’s trunk” is, unless I am mistaken, admitting that we do have these special abilities.
Just one concrete example (named respondent + damning quotation). That’s all I ask.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Raven: I never said they said we don’t have distinctive attributes, say language. I said that many have opined that these differences are like the hawk’s eyesight, that is, the are morally irrelevant. Here’s a quick example: John Darnton: “For ultimately, if animals and plants are the result of impersonal, immutable forces, she [Darwin's biographer Janet Browne] observes, then ‘the natural world has no moral validity or purpose.’ We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable.” (My emphasis.) http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2005/09/25/the-paradox-of-the-philosophy-of-human-unexceptionalism/ Darnton is not a scientist, but Dawkins is. If we are part of a community of equals with organgutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, etc., that means human exceptionalism is dead.
This is a quote of D’s from my book. Note that Dawkins would very much like to break the species barrier:
“It is sheer luck that this handful of intermediates no longer exist. (‘Luck’ from some points of view; for myself, I should love to meet them.) But for this chance, our laws and our morals would be very different. We need only discover a single survivor, say a relict Australopithecus in the Budongo Forest, and our precious system of norms and ethics could come crashing about our ears. The boundaries with which we segregate our world would be shot to pieces. Racism would blur with speciesism in obdurate and vicious confusion. Apartheid, for those that believe in it, would assume a new and perhaps more urgent import.
July 28th, 2010 | 3:42 pm
Leah,
Nowhere in The God Delusion does Dawkins imply “that moral behaviour is justified by evolutionary dominance”.
I’ve read the book myself and I’m honestly surprised that you came away from it with that impression.
July 28th, 2010 | 3:59 pm
Raven: “They do not claim that the great apes are equally endowed with moral or intellectual capabilities or that these apes have duties which are in any way similar to ours. ”
Well, then we’re not equals, are we? So why refer to a “Community of Equals?”
I’m emphatically in favor of protecting great apes, btw. It’s just that viewpoints like this confuse the issue more than they clarify it, and cause people to suspect a hidden agenda.
July 28th, 2010 | 10:58 pm
God really does have a sense of humor as far as free will is concerned. He even indirectly agreed with Darwin and his followers by the fact that God said that on The Judgement Day, He would place the sheeps on His Right who followed His will and the old goats on His Left to repeat themself all over again cause they think that they really are “IT” but between you and me Wesley, we’re really made in the image of God and happy are those cells who believe “IT” in advance.
Victor your “IT” MAN :)
Peace
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Victor! I’ve missed you. But I hear you. Peace.
July 29th, 2010 | 12:45 am
Wesley,
The conventional evolutionary perspective is that we are ourselves a part of the natural world, produced by amoral natural forces. The forces which spawned us do not themselves have moral purposes but we, the products of that long development, certainly do (in much the same way that we are concerned with aesthetics and our subjective experiences though these things are only of instrumental importance in the evolutionary scheme of things).
You referenced Darwin’s biographer (and not Darwin) and what she wrote was uncontroversial: “We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable”. Note that we are not all “equally dispensable” by our own reckoning, just from the hypothetical perspective of the impersonal forces which spawned us.
The Dawkins quote you provide simply reflects once again his belief that though we may be unique we are not on an ontologically separate pedestal – we were not parachuted into the landscape from above but have slowly evolved (in all our “specialness”) from other creatures and if all our intermediate ancestors were alive today this fact would be apparent to us. This position (and I stress this once again, though I’m sure that the repetition is become tedious does not contradict the opinion he expresses in the video clip).
A biologist who says man is “just another animal” does not necessarily mean that he has no greater abilities or duties or that these abilities are “morally irrelevant” in our eyes. He just seeks to emphasize that we are all ultimately cut from the same biochemical cloth, even if Time has eventually fashioned us into rather different garments. (in much the same way someone who says “Einstein was just another human being” does not necessarily deny his special intellectual gifts though he probably seeks to show that from a purely biological standpoint these gifts are of scant importance).
In summary: I know of no evolutionary biologist (nor of any prominent intellectual of any stripe) who denies weak human exceptionalism (which strictly speaking doesn’t really count as HE i.e we have special qualities and duties, if the world is capable of being saved we are the only ones who can do it etc) though there are several – including Dawkins himself – who deny hard (or what I have been referring to as “Wesleyan”) human exceptionalism (i.e. the difference between humans and other animals is an ontological one of great importance, our rights are dependent merely on our being “human” etc).
This was the distinction I attempted to draw earlier. If you regard the views Dawkins expresses here as endorsing HE then you have either misunderstood him or recently redefined the term.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Let’s leave Darwin out of it. I know it was a biographer, but I quoted it to show where some take the theory in terms of the importance of human life.
Dawkins called us the salvation of the planet. He said we had escaped natural selection and the inherent greed of Darwinian struggle. He said, in essence, that we have moral duties to all life. That is very similar to much of what I state in support of HE.
He did not say this meant we have unique value, but it seems to me, as I noted in the last paragraph of the post–added a little after the first writing as an afterthought–that one (moral duties) leads to the other (unique value, possession of rights). So, I think he was positing some of the foundations for HE. That he might deny the ramifications of that understanding, and indeed, wishes to break the species barrier by supporting the GAP, does not vitiate his acknowledgment that the difference between humans and other species is moral in nature. And from that flows HE.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:02 am
Padraig:
Do not be confused by rhetorical flourishes. When one speaks of people being “equally human” one does not mean that we are similar in all respects. We (as human beings) are not all equally intelligent, beautiful or good – but we consider ourselves equally deserving of rights. The Great Ape Project seeks to extend this brotherhood. The other apes may not be on a par with us intellectually but, some would argue, they are equally deserving of a right to life and a right to freedom from torture.
All quests for “equality” are essentially quests to be regarded as equal in certain limited contexts. They do not involve the denial of individual differences but do require that we regard those difference as irrelevant in those specific contexts. All men, for instance, are equal before the law (at least in theory) but this does not imply that we are all of equal moral standing or that we make equal contributions to society.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:37 am
As much as I disagree with Dawkin’s assessment of religion, he has shown himself to be a morally serious person, especially regarding our treatment of non- human animals.
Human are unique, in the sense that we’re the greatest friend other animals will have, but also, paradoxically, the potential greatest enemy. The latter is reflected in our very selfish destroying of animal habitats, because the latter interfere with our business pursuits.
We tend to treat other animals morally, when we have nothing to lose. But we treat them reprehensibly, when they obstruct our selfish purposes.
The gorilla population, has been amost destroyed because of human pursuits.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 1:47 am
You’re way too hard on us, Bret. The seals eat a lot of salmon, and yet we brought them back from the brink of destruction. We manage environmental systems, and spend a lot of money and time doing it, in part to ensure species survival and protect individual animals. We work hard to create ever more humane means of slaughter and husbandry. We are advancing away from using animal suffering as entertainment, witness the laws against dog fighting and the banning of bull fighting in Catalonia. So, I think people do take the treatment of animals seriously–particularly in the West where we are far more removed from survival issues–including those who believe in animal welfare but not animal rights.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:05 am
I really hate to keep beating this drum but it appears to me that you have a number of misconceptions (or rather, one central misconception) about the views of Darwinists on morality and the value of human life.
The Browne quote is meant to illustrate “where some take the theory” in terms of the importance of human life” but it only shows where you (and people who interpret these things as you do) “take the theory”. No evolutionary biologist would argue that nature’s moral blindness implies that we ought to be morally blind ourselves.
You are surprised that Dawkins calls “for the salvation of the planet”. You are also surprised by the fact that he speaks of our escaping the inherent greed of the Darwinian struggle. My guess is that these revelations leave you “cornswaggled” because you have misinterpreted some of his earlier statements.
Dakwins’ sentiments represent the foundation of HE? Well, by these lights even Peter Singer is an incipient human exceptionalist. Makes the term almost meaningless, doesn’t it?
Duties and rights: One of the problems with claiming that our moral rights derive (or logically follow) from our moral duties is that though we may metaphorically speak of the duties of the human race (in much the same way that Western imperialists once spoke of the White Man’s Burden) these duties are in fact individual. One would then be led to the conclusion that the resulting rights would accrue only to those individuals who may be said to have moral duties (if we are sticking to our “duties implies rights” syllogism). In reality, we generally recognise that the rights a creature possesses are generally independent of any duties that creature may have towards others (witness our stance towards very young children etc etc). This has all been said before, I know – but as Bret as previously pointed out (as part of another thread) you have never demonstrated how rights are even supposed to arise from moral duties (or moral agency or anything of the sort). As far as I’m aware, you have never even attempted to do so. Now there may well be a detailed and logical explanation in the book (so maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt) but from where I sit it appears to be one of those utterings ex cathedra: “An individual has rights if and only if it has moral duties. I have spoken.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 3:20 am
Raven Chukwu, I always thought Darwinists had diverse views on these matters, yet you write of them as homogeneous. I think not.
I don’t want to belabor this, but I think Dawkins tries to have his cake and eat it too by positing human moral duties based on our unique capacity to escape and surmount the Darwinian paradigm, as in other venues, he denies human unique value. It doesn’t compute. He has other ideological agendas other than promoting Darwinism, which I think causes some internal discord. I was corn-swaggled because I was familiar with his GAP advocacy, and had criticized some of his other views here–not his atheism proselytizing, about which I could care less. But I found it quite pleased to see him call humans the earth’s last best hope. Elephants aren’t. Lions aren’t. Dolphins aren’t. We are. And he thinks we “ought” to do so. That is true only of us.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:28 am
What you say, Wesley, is true, but we also have a propensity to continue exploiting animals, if it requires some sacrifice. Case in point, the “food” industry. We could certainly do just fine, in fact, we’d be healthier, without the hamburgers, hotdogs etc. But as much as we love, or want to help animals, we don’t love them THAT much.
Indeed, this is an area, analogous to bull fighting, and whaling. Just as we don’t need the latter two, we don’t need the beef and pork industries. What goes on in these industires, in terms of animal cruelty, is despicible.
We all can agree on that? One does not not have to believe in animal rights, to accept the necessity of banning these businesses. An animal welfare belief system is sufficient to warrant banning them, like it is for banning bull fighting, whaling etc. for those who disagree, it would be interesting to see the argument, that the slaughter of millions of conscious beings does not constitute a violation of animal welfare principles.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:34 am
Wesley,
When it comes to what I have called your central misconception I should think that virtually all Darwinists are united (there are after all only a finite number of them): The fact that we acknowledge the moral blindness of evolution doesn’t mean we feel that humans ought to be morally blind. Darwinists obviously have lots of different views about how evolutionary biology relates to morality and human life but about that one issue they are, as far as I am aware, in agreement.
Valuation is always a context specific activity. Dawkins has never denied the unique value of humans as moral actors in the universe – though he may well have denied their unique value as the recipients of moral action.
We are the earth’s last best hope? As I’ve said before, even Peter Singer would agree with that.
I apologise for being so churlish (and for dragging this out ad nauseum) but these new statements would appear surprising (or newsworthy) only to those who profoundly misunderstand the implications of some of Dawkins’ earlier proclamations. I think this results from a mindset I have alluded to before: the tendency to assume that opponents (or rather advocates for an opposing idea) hold a pernicious
view unless they have explicitly denied it. Dawkins has always, as far as we know, harboured these life-affirming, humanity-valuing sentiments (at least on his adulthood). You recognise that now. A new soldier joins the crusade.
Onward, to total victory!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 9:13 am
What is total victory and what would it look like, Raven?
July 29th, 2010 | 7:30 am
Dawkins calls humans the earth’s last best hope. And humans will be saving the earth from the depredations of? Only humans can prevent the earth from being destroyed by humans. Or rogue asteroids (movie Armageddon), or aliens (move Independence Day).
Is the fact that humans appear (to humans) different from the rest of the natural world the result of natural or supernatural forces? Dawkins, most atheists, most naturalists, most biologists, most scientists would say from natural forces (since there is no evidence whatsoever as such a thing as supernatural forces, except in the movies). First and foremost, man is an animal.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Which is irrelevant to the verity of HE
July 29th, 2010 | 9:08 am
Hi Raven,
I don’t know whether Dawkins believes that morality is related to instincts derived from evolutionary pressures, but in TGD, he frames his discussion of science negating the need for religion that suggests otherwise. He elides the distinction between evolution as an explanation for why certain behaviors are common and evolution as a justification of why certain behaviors are justified. Evolutionary psychology is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Dawkins spends at least a chapter demonstrating how our moral intuitions can be explained by evolutionary pressures. To the best of my memory (I don’t have a copy on hand) he frames this discussion as a rejoinder to theists who claim atheists require God to be moral. I agree with him that atheists can be strongly committed to being moral without God, but I see the discussion of evopsych as entirely orthogonal to this question.
It is our ability to study and question our evolutionary instincts that gives us the ability to act morally. Whether those instincts tend towards the good or the bad is an entirely separate question.
–Leah @ http://www.unequally-yoked.com
July 29th, 2010 | 12:49 pm
Wesley,
Total victory for you, I meant. Everyone on the same team, all recognising the Importance of Being Human.
Leah,
I do have a copy of TGD (fished out for this discussion) and the chapter you refer to is, I think, the seventh: “The Roots of Morality: why are we good.”
In this chapter Dawkins discusses two separate issues (1) Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin? and (2) If there is no God, why be good?
Evolutionary psychology is obviously relevant to the first question and this is the section in which Dawkins mainly refers to it. But he constantly reminds us that “it is important not to mistake the reach of natural selection” (p217). We are influenced by Darwinian “rules of thumb” today, “even where circumstances make them inappropriate to their original functions“(p222). Such rules of thumb, he writes,
Hardly a ringing endorsement of a morality founded on natural selection.
In the section about how we ought to behave in the absence of God, he talks not about evolutionary psychology but about moral philosophy going so far as to write that
Nowhere does he claim that evolutionary psychology ought to provide a basis for morality. It merely describes how our intuitions developed.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:33 pm
Raven: Wunderbar
July 31st, 2010 | 12:47 pm
Wow, so Dawkins wants to genetically engineer a hybrid chimp-human that can interbreed with both species, because he thinks it would prove that Creationism is wrong and topple the church?
First of all, it wouldn’t prove Creationism is wrong. Secondly, we shouldn’t allow anyone to make a chimp-human hybrid or try to break the species barrier. Humans should only mate with other humans, and only the offspring of a human man and human woman is human.
Would a human-chimp hybrid be considered human and have rights and duties equal to me? I don’t think so, I think we would be right to put it to sleep, and to jail the doctors who created it for life.
I am still wondering how you define “Human”, is it by genetics? Would a cloned army of brainwashed automatons be human, or should we kill them ruthlessly (trick question, we kill human armies anyway – but you get my point).
I think “human” should be defined as “offspring of a human man and a human woman”, and that the most basic human right should be to marry another human and create more humans.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact