“Bioethics: Evolution as a Principle of Nature” by Herbert F. Matare, Malibu, California,

“Bioethics: Evolution as a Principle of Nature” by Herbert F. Matare, Malibu, California, Mankind Quarterly, Fall/Winter 2006, Volume XLVII numbers 1&2.

[Following are excerpts from the above article without comment until the end—Matt Nuenke]

With the development of the human brain and its concomitant wider understanding of nature and its laws, a somewhat new level of feedback from entity to nature has arisen. With its wide scope and understanding of nature’s laws, the human brain can interfere with the natural process of eliminating regressive qualities by extinction….

Will humanity finally use all of its energy just to exist, or will a reasonable control of the birthrate and quality enable a progressive scientific and technical evolution? It is time to plan for a future where humanity has the leisure to increase fundamentally its knowledge of nature and enjoy life instead of succumbing under the yoke of sheer numbers. Ethics, defined as a set of moral principles for behavior in the context of human interaction, has undergone many changes in reaction to changes in external or environmental conditions….

Today, religious and political differences continue to rise to the surface, making life deplorable for many in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, and ignorance fettered by religious fundamentalism shows that a large part of the world’s population is still unfit to participate in a science-based world….

[J. Monad] calls the mixture of Judeo-Christian moral codes and the present code of “human rights” a repugnant utilitarianism that should be replaced by a new “ethics of cognition”….

A test by amniocentesis or otherwise concluding that a fetus will be born a cripple for life should make an abortion a necessity: for such a birth will only result in a life of misery for both child and parents. In such cases, abortion is highly ethical….

[A]n advanced science of contraception and eugenics can help to establish new rules for survival with dignity and hope for a new generation. There has been much discussion about ethics in the creation of people. The creation of happy children and the avoidance of conceiving miserable ones is called symmetry….

A recent genethics analysis argued that the moral status of future people is a serious problem, involving the just savings principle — that is, capital, natural resources, technology, environmental and aesthetic values, scientific knowledge, cultural heritage, and historical records. All these savings, it is maintained, should be passed on to the next generation. No word is said about future generations’ ability to survive. Future generations should be in a position to build on a sound cultural and scientific foundation and thus must be capable and healthy….

But now a transreligious goal is clearly visible and must replace the myriad clans, cults and religions. If we go as far as to say that a world with human beings is neither more nor less valuable than a world without human beings, we become nihilists and so completely negate the value of human achievement in understanding the world around us. This negation might be correct for the flora and fauna, but it should not be so for human culture and science. Although creationism states that there is value as such: “and God saw… it was good,” more developed thinking postulates that only the cultural development and scientific endeavor of humans can justify existence. The Simple sanctity of life thesis will finally lead to the biblical Armageddon In The form of mass starvation….

Here we must firmly state that humanity can derive real value from its status of understanding of the cosmos and its status in sciences and art. To maintain such value and to build on it means forward-looking procreation. The new generation must be better equipped for scientific work than the older one….

[Knowing that] IQ is basically gene-defined, society at large is less interested in undue growth of the pool of unskilled laborers than in the growth of those parts of society with a higher probability to supply the future inventors, scientists, thinkers, reformers and pragmatists. The missing Archimedean anchor for a pure genesis must in this context be the moral law of humanity to develop into a higher state of consciousness of itself. Life is not worth living just because outer circumstances are suitable for life. Life is worth living when it contributes to progress in civilization, culture, science and self-understanding.

The liberal attitude, to leave matters to the genetic roulette and have society care for the unfit, is unethical from an evolutionary point of view….

The Newborn should be able to continue the valuable heritage of mankind’s achievements in the scientific-cultural domain….

As such we have the duty to transfer the best genetic combination to the new generation….

Global socialism under the aegis of the United Nations will not succeed in transforming all of humankind into a homogeneous mass of progressive people. Choices have to be made in accordance with the natural laws of survival and extinction. This will happen. Without planned action, this will happen simply because nature does not support inconsequential and illogical behavior….

An evolutionary ethic is one that is objective, being based on the measurable laws of nature around us and our understanding, now and in the future. In other words, we have an obligation not simply to preserve the species, but to continue and enlarge the science-based portion of humanity. The idea that the survival of the human species is not a moral issue but is only an issue of genetic continuity is negative. It is moral to care for the survival of the best of human qualities and the tangible results of human culture and science. Morality should not make evolution in the mere biological sense its goal. Only if evolution is directed toward the end of a higher cultural and scientific development of humankind can we connect evolution and morality….

The question of who can decide which group or school of thought will make the best contributions is answerable in the same way that peer review is exercised across the spectrum of the sciences….

The definition of a more sound ethic has to reside in the good a person does to further society’s ability to overcome human frailties and limitations – that is, to enhance the survival chances of posterity by providing further generations with the cultural and genetic ability to further advance humanity’s understanding of nature, of life and the cosmos….

To this we now add respect for the achievements of a science-based humanity, progress in understanding the world around us, and human potential for adaptation to and protection of the environment on which human life is dependant. In this definition, all philosophical discussions of the past concerning the difference between animal morality or altruism and human action altruism are moot….

For humanity at this juncture, the problem is how to restrict quantity and improve quality. When we look at the level of understanding that prevails in the Third World, we see an immediate danger of a fallback to the level prevailing some thousand years back, but with much greater human misery. When philosophers talk about the quality of life, they seem to talk about the usual living standard but not with respect to the individual’s ability to take part in the scientific-technical and cultural life. We have to understand that a growing part of the working population will have to be skilled, as production will be increasingly automated….

No reasonable argument can be raised against a planned interference. The notion that a genetically screened or modified person has an uncertain moral status is a baseless construct. A positive result or the intention of a positive result is moral. Moreover, fear of a monopoly on genethical power is typical and historically has always been found in connection with human interference with nature in general. Such power can be misused, but if correctly managed it can also be of the highest value. Here we include the testing of future parents’ DNA of gametes, zygotes, fetal tissue, and so on….

We do not want to create a “superhuman being,” but we should nevertheless all strive to have descendants who are eugenically, intellectually and morally superior to ourselves. The new knowledge of the genetic construct of man will lead to a need to make value judgments that focus on the quality of human life and also on the effect on society at large. Kitcher (1996) describes how continued reproductive freedom may lead to social disaster. The successful part of humanity has to spend increasing amounts for those who are genetically deprived. This includes also those with a below average IQ….

Kant’s definition of humanity as “the end [or goal] of the real existence of nature” must be redefined to mean that only a humanity progressing to higher levels of science and culture can give meaning to the real world. It must be a human goal to help organic life avoid, or at least postpone for as long as possible, the regular mass extinctions that have been part of the history of this planet….[End of excerpts.]

The above excerpts propose an ethical system that lends itself to Salter’s “On Genetic Interests.” Attacks on race realists is effective only because society has accepted that through redistribution of wealth, all humanity will pass through the demographic transition, and the world’s population will stabilize; in addition to, blind faith that there are no differences in cognitive ability between races.

To this, race realists have to put forth their own ethical system that states that only those humans who can advance science and culture, along with promoting kin, has any value. We are more interested in “genetic conservation” than “environmental conservation” because knowledge is far superior to wealth redistribution—we owe nothing to those who are essentially parasites. That it is viable to hold a purely scientific ethical system that can displace all others is just a matter of choice. The above article is supported by a rapid advance in the understanding of behavioral moral systems (see Hauser’s “Moral Minds,” 2006, to be reviewed later).

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, December 18, 2006 at 07:47 PM in
Comments (17) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Castro Makes Donation to Midwestern Public School’s Cafeteria Salad Dressing

Previous entry: Ground Hog day