Quote:
Following that darwinistic logic, Stephen Hawking's parents would have aborted him, if they had checked out their baby's genes...
|
Actually the opposite: For a human nowadays it is more important to be intelligent than to be physically healthy. Our environment favours intelligent people, not healthy but stupid one ...
In any case I wanted to highlight that Skybird's reasoning was based in objective darwinism, but probably on the wrong characteristics -physical health, which is no longer the more relevant one to be adapated to our environment.
I could say that I do not share those darwinistic views, but in fact unlike you I don't see moral implications in Skybird's assertions. It's an objective fact that the human race has nowadays lots of individuals that would have died in other ages -and environments. Yet, I do not agree in that we are countering nature by that, in fact we have just adapted as a race to different conditions. Defects that earlier mattered, do not any longer, and other things are more important. In the intelligence matter we could eventually be doing against nature by helping mentally weak poeple to keep existing, but here is where moral matters step in, and we all accept that it must be this way. Moral is applied over darwinism, we all agree that it is right, so what's the problem? Not willing to realize that we have superceded darwinism due to our moral convictions, and that we must take care to implement the proper corrections via technology and medicine would be stupid. Morals tell you the right decision to do, but do not hide reality, do not mistake both aspects of the same question.