Danny,
it seems to me that we basically agree here. It
made a big impression on me when geneticists were able to show that there is no
genetic evidence that supports racism. And it was not just some "crackbrained
scoundrels" who used to believe this - in the early 20th century it was
biological science to believe in large, inherited differences between human
"races". In my country there was an infamous Institute measuring heads and noses
and categorizing people as trash or superior according to this. There was also a
secret sterilization programme - some sixty thousand people were sterilized in
order to improve the breed of the population. They were considered mentally
retarded or otherwise unfit. This programme started out of the "Darwinist" ideas
that were respectable in the 1930's. Of course, these ideas were an obvious
example of Darwinism being misused - but this shows that Darwin's ideas can be
misused not only by a racist mob, but by doctors and politicians. Like you, I
hope that the knowledge from the present genetic research will not be misused
for similar purposes.
But we should watch out - genetic research may not
only abolish prejudices, it may also be used to preserve them. There seems to be
a lot of money being spent in finding more or less credible genetic causes for
psychological or sociological problems, like alcoholism, criminality,
depression, hyperactive children --- They'll probably discover the "unemployment
gene" as well! Many people are so excited about
what the geneticists have found that they tend to believe that genetics is
all we need to understand people.
I hope you didn't think I meant you with that
remark about linguists on crack! I was thinking of an earlier post by Glen,
where he said that Patrick Ryan's Proto-Language was a theory on crack cocaine:
it was such a funny expression and it's been bouncing around in my head for
days...
All the best,
Hakan
- - - -
Yes, as a matter of fact I am. But besides
that, I wasn't *attacking* Darwin
or evolution; I was just stating that
some people have used Darwinian ideas to
promote dangerous causes.
And if the human genome is as revolutionary as it
is, I would expect a
complete overhaul of what we know and what we believe (in
hypothetical
areas as opposed to factual).
Personally, I'm excited about the future
now. And if you're wondering, I do
not take a position of absolute
Biblical literalism. A lot of people in my
culture (Texas, at the
buckle of the "Bible Belt" in America) do hold to a
literal belief in
creation in six days, a young earth (6,000 years old), a
global flood (and
not merely a regional flood), and so on and so on and
so
on...
DaW. (who is not on crack, but is "high" in his own
way)