To sum up, Prasad has written a book entitled, Madonna-esquely, Like a Virgin in which she evidently advocates humanity's taking control of and manipulating its own genetic and reproductive future. To be fair to Wilson, Prasad isn't entirely spot-on, as evidenced by her misinformed (or at least highly speculative) theory that the human Y chromosome is on a path toward extinction. (The Y chromosome in ostensibly evolutionarily older organisms like the rhesus macaque also underwent rapid initial degradation but has since stablized.) But I digress.
An excerpt of Wilson's ironic idiocy:
She wants us to drop all our prejudices about sex, sexual difference, reproduction and foetuses, and to allow science to develop in any way it chooses.
‘Why can’t a man be a mother?’ she asks. ‘Why do we care so much about what it means to be a 'mother' rather than to be a 'parent'?
‘By all reasonable estimates, in the near future we will conquer the tyranny of the womb. The question remains if we can also conquer the tyranny of human prejudice, too.’
Of course, she is being contentious so that her spirited book will sell. But Prasad is not a neutral research scientist: she is an out-an-out liberal campaigner in favour of taking research on human embryology and fertilisation as far as it will go.
In her vision of the world, it is only fuddy-duddies who would question why anyone — elderly women, men, you name it — should not become pregnant if they choose to indulge the whim.
She is a brilliant scientist, and I know nothing about her subject. But the greatest problem facing this planet isn’t the slight dip in human fertility in the West. Rather, as any third world charity worker will tell you, it is the vast problem of overpopulation, especially in parts of the world scarcely capable of feeding themselves.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is not that a few selfish older ladies or gay men cannot have babies. It is that the babies who have already been born in vast numbers do not have enough to eat. Prasad’s book provides a very strong example of how scientists can ignore the blindingly obvious in an attempt to brainwash us.
‘Why can’t a man be a mother?’ she asks. ‘Why do we care so much about what it means to be a 'mother' rather than to be a 'parent'?
‘By all reasonable estimates, in the near future we will conquer the tyranny of the womb. The question remains if we can also conquer the tyranny of human prejudice, too.’
Of course, she is being contentious so that her spirited book will sell. But Prasad is not a neutral research scientist: she is an out-an-out liberal campaigner in favour of taking research on human embryology and fertilisation as far as it will go.
In her vision of the world, it is only fuddy-duddies who would question why anyone — elderly women, men, you name it — should not become pregnant if they choose to indulge the whim.
She is a brilliant scientist, and I know nothing about her subject. But the greatest problem facing this planet isn’t the slight dip in human fertility in the West. Rather, as any third world charity worker will tell you, it is the vast problem of overpopulation, especially in parts of the world scarcely capable of feeding themselves.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is not that a few selfish older ladies or gay men cannot have babies. It is that the babies who have already been born in vast numbers do not have enough to eat. Prasad’s book provides a very strong example of how scientists can ignore the blindingly obvious in an attempt to brainwash us.
Would we really have a better world if we had been able to select our children in the way we might choose a pet in a shop? Is there not something healthy and adventurous about accepting what comes?
Is there not something creepy — almost Nazi — about the idea of trying to create for ourselves a perfect child who does not inherit Uncle Sid’s dyspepsia, Aunt Mavis’s wonky teeth, and those weird knees from Charles’s side of the family? Does not the attempt to make babies into designer items remove any of the adventure of being born?
Yet, above all, is there not something sinister and joyless about the notion of going it alone when it comes to reproducing ourselves?
In the old myth about the Garden of Eden, God says that ‘it is not good for man to be alone’. Modern science disagrees. It thinks there is nothing wrong with this.
A generation ago, we watched families breaking up in large numbers for the first time, and the breakdown of marriages. Nearly every observer of society agrees that this was calamitous, especially in the less privileged parts of our cities, where lack of family structure is the major background and cause of crime, psychological dislocation, and anti-social behaviour.
What appears to be a scientific exploration is actually a political tract, saying that we can do without a patriarchal, male-dominated society, do without Dad, without family, without any of the structures which have hitherto shaped the human destiny.
Is there not something creepy — almost Nazi — about the idea of trying to create for ourselves a perfect child who does not inherit Uncle Sid’s dyspepsia, Aunt Mavis’s wonky teeth, and those weird knees from Charles’s side of the family? Does not the attempt to make babies into designer items remove any of the adventure of being born?
Yet, above all, is there not something sinister and joyless about the notion of going it alone when it comes to reproducing ourselves?
In the old myth about the Garden of Eden, God says that ‘it is not good for man to be alone’. Modern science disagrees. It thinks there is nothing wrong with this.
A generation ago, we watched families breaking up in large numbers for the first time, and the breakdown of marriages. Nearly every observer of society agrees that this was calamitous, especially in the less privileged parts of our cities, where lack of family structure is the major background and cause of crime, psychological dislocation, and anti-social behaviour.
What appears to be a scientific exploration is actually a political tract, saying that we can do without a patriarchal, male-dominated society, do without Dad, without family, without any of the structures which have hitherto shaped the human destiny.
I was limited to 1000 characters in my reply on the article, so I had to make it dense. What follows is my 994 character response:
He's kidding, right? He honestly believes that a man is a necessary part of a healthy family as opposed to simply having proper childhood nurturing and support regardless of parental sex or gender? That modern science should be criticized through the lens of a myth and given the same standing as a religious text? That hegemonic male/female dichotomization and marginalization of women is healthy as judged by the fact that their male-dominated families broke apart when women were able to disabuse their sex from their oppressively enforced gender roles? That suffering with a terminal genetic illness is an "adventure"? No, there's not "something healthy and adventurous about accepting what comes"! "What comes" is often war, starvation, disease, and other characteristics of our "patriarchal, male-dominated society... [and] the structures which have hitherto shaped the human destiny". Advocating for the status quo as Wilson has just done is pure sickness. Or, maybe it's just ignorance.
So, contrary to popular belief in the US, Europe is not altogether a teeming cesspool of progressive liberal environazis. Much of Europe is also occupied by conservative bigoted ignoramuses. We're not so different after all, are we?
I'll also add that Prasad does not come off as being "contentious so that her spirited book will sell". She comes off as desiring to explore the full capabilities and possibilities of our humanity in a world that thought half of its population should not even be allowed to vote 100 years ago. You're absolutely right on at least one of your points, Mr. Wilson. You know nothing.
Update 22 August 2012: My comment never appeared under the article, and now it appears that they've barred comments on it altogether. Funny how censorship and ignorance work.
No comments:
Post a Comment