Gefährliche Tatsachen - und ihre DiskussionIn dem Nachwort zu einem Buch, in dem 109 bekannte Wissenschaftler aus dem Bereich der sogenannten "Dritten Kultur" (John Brockman) sich Gedanken darüber machen, was sie selbst für "gefährliche Ideen" halten, werden jene Worte von Richard Dawkins veröffentlicht, die schon vor etwa einem halben Jahr in einer Vorveröffentlichung für Aufsehen gesorgt hatten. (Edge) In ihnen macht Dawkins sich Gedanken über moderne "Eugenik":
.... Are there any dangerous ideas that are conspicuously under-represented in this book? I have two suggestions, both of which can be spun into either the 'is' or the 'ought' box. First, I noticed only fleeting references to eugenics, and they were disparaging. In the 1920s and 30s, scientists from the political left as well as right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous — though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, even under the license granted by a book like this, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change. Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular.
The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed and dogs for herding skill, why on earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'These are not one-dimentional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs, and never stopped anybody in practice. I wonder whether, sixty years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what is the moral difference between breeding for musical ability, and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or, why is it acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers, but not breed them? I can think of some answers, and they are good ones which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
"Sinkt die durchschnittliche Intelligenz des Westens?"
Und auch Steven Pinker, der die Titel-Frage des Buches aufgeworfen hatte, wirft im Vorwort für das Buch viele ähnlich-gelagerte Fragen auf, bei denen es vor allem auch um angeborene Unterschiede bei Menschen und Menschengruppen geht. Aber auch um viele andere Fragen. Im folgenden eine Auswahl:
Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? (...)Are Ashkenazi Jews, on average, smarter than gentiles because their ancestors were selected for the shrewdness needed in money lending? (...) Do African American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? (...) Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? (...) Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? (...) Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?
Und er schreibt dann weiter:
By "dangerous ideas" I don't have in mind harmful technologies, like those behind weapons of mass destruction, or evil ideologies, like those of racist, fascist, or other fanatical cults. I have in mind statements of fact or policy that are defended with evidence and argument by serious scientists and thinkers but which are felt to challenge the collective decency of an age.
Wissenschaftler sollen die Diskussion nicht unterdrücken
Und gegen Ende des Vorworts macht er sich - im Grunde - vor allem über Wissenschafts-Blogs Gedanken, wenn er schreibt:
Though I am more sympathetic to the argument that important ideas be aired than to the argument that they should sometimes be suppressed, I think it is a debate we need to have. Whether we like it or not, science has a habit of turning up discomfiting thoughts, and the Internet has a habit of blowing their cover. Tragically, there are few signs that the debates will happen in the place where we might most expect it: academia. Though academics owe the extraordinary perquisite of tenure to the ideal of encouraging free inquiry and the evaluation of unpopular ideas, all too often academics are the first to try to quash them.
Das sind schwerwiegende Sätze. Durch dieses Buch werden sich also wohl auch weiterhin bestimmte Grundgesetze der Welt, auch der akademischen Welt nicht von heute auf morgen ändern. Es wird weiterhin so bleiben, wie es schon die "Bild"-Zeitung sagte: "Jede Wahrheit braucht einen Mutigen, der sie ausspricht." Es gibt viele, auch von der "Bild"-Zeitung genannte Mutige, die ihren Mut mit dem Leben oder mit schweren Beeinträchtigungen in ihrem Leben bezahlt haben. Solche Menschen bleiben auch weiterhin Vorbild.
In einem Vorwort, das Konrad Lorenz mal für ein Buch geschrieben hatte, zitierte er den schönen Satz, an den es gut ist, sich häufig zu erinnern: "Jede neue Wahrheit beginnt ihren Weg als Ketzerei und beendet ihn als Orthodoxie." (T.H. Huxley).
.... Are there any dangerous ideas that are conspicuously under-represented in this book? I have two suggestions, both of which can be spun into either the 'is' or the 'ought' box. First, I noticed only fleeting references to eugenics, and they were disparaging. In the 1920s and 30s, scientists from the political left as well as right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous — though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, even under the license granted by a book like this, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change. Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular.
The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed and dogs for herding skill, why on earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'These are not one-dimentional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs, and never stopped anybody in practice. I wonder whether, sixty years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what is the moral difference between breeding for musical ability, and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or, why is it acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers, but not breed them? I can think of some answers, and they are good ones which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
"Sinkt die durchschnittliche Intelligenz des Westens?"
Und auch Steven Pinker, der die Titel-Frage des Buches aufgeworfen hatte, wirft im Vorwort für das Buch viele ähnlich-gelagerte Fragen auf, bei denen es vor allem auch um angeborene Unterschiede bei Menschen und Menschengruppen geht. Aber auch um viele andere Fragen. Im folgenden eine Auswahl:
Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? (...)Are Ashkenazi Jews, on average, smarter than gentiles because their ancestors were selected for the shrewdness needed in money lending? (...) Do African American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? (...) Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? (...) Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? (...) Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?
Und er schreibt dann weiter:
By "dangerous ideas" I don't have in mind harmful technologies, like those behind weapons of mass destruction, or evil ideologies, like those of racist, fascist, or other fanatical cults. I have in mind statements of fact or policy that are defended with evidence and argument by serious scientists and thinkers but which are felt to challenge the collective decency of an age.
Wissenschaftler sollen die Diskussion nicht unterdrücken
Und gegen Ende des Vorworts macht er sich - im Grunde - vor allem über Wissenschafts-Blogs Gedanken, wenn er schreibt:
Though I am more sympathetic to the argument that important ideas be aired than to the argument that they should sometimes be suppressed, I think it is a debate we need to have. Whether we like it or not, science has a habit of turning up discomfiting thoughts, and the Internet has a habit of blowing their cover. Tragically, there are few signs that the debates will happen in the place where we might most expect it: academia. Though academics owe the extraordinary perquisite of tenure to the ideal of encouraging free inquiry and the evaluation of unpopular ideas, all too often academics are the first to try to quash them.
Das sind schwerwiegende Sätze. Durch dieses Buch werden sich also wohl auch weiterhin bestimmte Grundgesetze der Welt, auch der akademischen Welt nicht von heute auf morgen ändern. Es wird weiterhin so bleiben, wie es schon die "Bild"-Zeitung sagte: "Jede Wahrheit braucht einen Mutigen, der sie ausspricht." Es gibt viele, auch von der "Bild"-Zeitung genannte Mutige, die ihren Mut mit dem Leben oder mit schweren Beeinträchtigungen in ihrem Leben bezahlt haben. Solche Menschen bleiben auch weiterhin Vorbild.
In einem Vorwort, das Konrad Lorenz mal für ein Buch geschrieben hatte, zitierte er den schönen Satz, an den es gut ist, sich häufig zu erinnern: "Jede neue Wahrheit beginnt ihren Weg als Ketzerei und beendet ihn als Orthodoxie." (T.H. Huxley).
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen