"Whether or not we can breed for certain traits, should we do it? It
would require a government wise enough to know which traits to select,
knowledgeable enough to know how to implement the breeding, and
intrusive enough to encourage or coerce people's most intimate
decisions. Few people in a democracy would grant their government that
kind of power even if it did promise a better society in the future.
The costs in freedom to individuals and in possible abuse by authorities
are unacceptable" -- From The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker
How's about the following hypothetical discussion?
Me: "I want to have children with no religious genes, Doctor. As a
prospective parent, I deserve my kind of child. My atheism derives from
a strong moral sense, an almost insane hatred for those who hurt others,
and thus for a God who stands by and does nothing while the worst
imaginable things happen to innocent creatures. And from my extreme
analytical leanings, that require that I cross-verify every claim with
all of my knowledge. Einstein had a powerful sense of morality and was
strongly analytical. If you deny me a child with these same
characteristics, aren't you disallowing the possibility of any future
Einsteins?"
Dr: "I'm sorry, son. Of course we have identified all of the religious
genes. We know them in their intricate detail. We could design you a
child without religion, but the law doesn't allow that. The law says
all children must be designed to have freedom of choice, that they must
be created with a normal capacity for religious belief. That is, after
all, what we must have in a democracy where the majority of people
believe in a supreme being. How would you like it if we let religious
people select for extreme piety, for no analytical skills, for a moral
sense that approved of a God who, by his passivity, demonstrated none of
your moral sense?"
.
|
