Some weeks back, the trail of sexual revolution again caught a fish, this time, a big one. One capable of pulling down the media space and getting a rather huge attention of even the most staunchly conservative in the land. The sex robot it is. It is a progress for humanity, chanted the said acclaimed progressives. No it is a rapid decline to hades, dissented the opposition in the house. As usual, the tenseness of the whole climate's passed. Another issue is on the front burner.
Much as very few hasn't subject both of their position to much analysis, each subtly taking sides with their background ideology, I much don't feel obliged to argue through somewhat analytical means to drive home my socially conservative point. So, be not dismay if I present a logical implication devoid of processes.
Richard Dawkins, the imminent biologist wrote in page 133 of his book, Out of Eden: ....."DNA neither knows nor care, DNA just is, and we dance to its music'
His thought closely resonates the thought of Protagoras on the relativity of truth: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." It's obvious that Dawkins very much teaches the needlessness of ascribing values on man since they aren't as valuable as supposed. And his grounding of this fact, if one may call it so, is rather sarcastic than brute. It is like saying "machine language just is, no origin nor design'. No one make that claim and return with a pat in the back, especially where you have a gathering of computer geniuses. Such a claim automatically wins for some persons scorning remarks.
It would be a good thing if Dawkins statement here is taking for what it is worth. Perhaps, none of us would have the gut to pass historical judgement on Hitler with any such deplorable appellations as ascribed to him today, for what his DNA pushed him to do, that he did. We can make the same argument for all sort of persons perceived as criminals from all walks of life. Think of making such a case for terrorists, rapists, or kidnappers, and criminals of varying offenses. I think it would make sense to in such a case hold the state responsible for punishing people for what they can't do without. You don't punish a psychotic for psychosis(He simply needs psychological help. Now, that comparison isn't all that perfect). That'd be a ground imperial wickedness, why then punish a man for who he simply is. But the case of a psychotic may still be correctable. Sadly, the same may not be said of that of the terrorists or rapist if they simply were biogenetic product of nature. You don't punish people for being who they are, you do for who they are supposed to be that they aren't. Now, I'm not sure I'm making sense with this. Anyway!
Erhhm! Let me digress.
If persons of both sexes are just product of DNA, what does it matter if he were substituted with a sexy robot, doll, dildo, or a vibrator if the robot can serve much the same purpose as a beautiful girl or a handsome guy. And what if those robots are even much more effective than him/her. Wouldn't it be preferable to just clinge to the effective and do away with our "parochial sentiments'?
Well well, I am not sure it makes any difference if progress pushed some persons towards genetically modifying animals in as to be able to sexually relate with them. All that matter after all would be to get gratifications satisfied in so far as it doesn't hamper the right of any other person except the one seeking the gratifications.
What does it matter if next generation historians asks why the previous generation derive so much pleasure in being obsessed with sex that it has to now redefine what it means to "fall in love'. Does the kind of questions an unusually curious generation would ask as to WHY we make a machine in the likes of men/women just as to obey the biddings of dopamine to donate spermazoa to a robot that neither see nor understands it's uses, except it is made to do. It becomes frightening how the word of Chesterton is becoming more truer than before. The sage said, "there will come a time when a madman would have to mount up and address so called intelligent people how that 2+2 equates 4.
I am ashamed that undue rationalization is giving stupidity a new voice. A friend recently lamented in an article how that we now have to put up defenses for rather glaring fact that, man is a man and woman is a woman. My worry is why one would have to write an article as this just as to show that objects are objects and human being is human being. And sex with human isn't the same as that with an object. There would be no point writing this some years ago. But, human is progressing as they say. Whatever this new styling is, it is worth pondering about.
We discuss our faith and life of Christ Jesus
1 post • Page 1 of 1