Jewish Fables: Darwinism, Materialism, and other Jewish Fables by E. Michael Jones

Author:E. Michael Jones
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Publisher: Fidelity Press
Published: 2018-03-28T21:00:00+00:00

5

The Gorging Gene

One of Harari’s “fictions,” which involves “the ability to transmit information about things which do not exist at all,” is morality. Just as Darwinism tries to obscure the boundary separating animal communication from human speech, it also tries to come up with a materialistic explanation of morality by reducing it to a function of genetics. Like Professor Dawkins, who believes in a “selfish gene,” Harari believes that a “widely accepted” “gorging gene,” rather than an inability to impose rational or moral control over appetite, is the cause of obesity. People are fat because “The instinct to gorge on high-calorie food was hard-wired into our genes. ... That’s what makes some of us spoon down an entire tub of Ben & Jerry’s when we find one in the freezer and wash it down with a jumbo Coke.”[55]

Since the “instinct to gorge on high-calorie food” is “hard-wired into our genes,” the next question should be “Why isn’t everybody fat?” If we are all biologically programmed to gorge ourselves, why is it that some people eat moderately and some people do not? Why is it that some people are thin and fit and other people are morbidly obese? Does moderation, which is to say, rational control over appetite, have something to do with this? According to Harari, “moderation” or the virtue of temperance qualifies unambiguously as a “fiction,” which is another word for unreal, whereas the “gorging gene” is just as unambiguously a “scientific” fact which is “widely accepted.”

Not surprisingly, the same inability to subject appetite to rational control extends to human sexuality. “Evolutionary psychologists,” we are told,

argue that ancient foraging bands were not composed of nuclear families centred on monogamous couples. Rather, foragers lived in communes devoid of private property, monogamous relationships and even fatherhood. In such a band, a woman could have sex and form intimate bonds with several men (and women) simultaneously, and all of the band’s adults cooperated in parenting its children. Since no man knew definitively which of the children were his, men showed equal concern for all youngsters. Such a social structure is not an Aquarian utopia. It’s well documented among animals, notably our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos.[56]

How do we know that the first humans were promiscuous? Well, because monkeys are. But humans are different from monkeys, aren’t they? No, of course not. Just look at how ancient foraging bands behaved. This is proof that they behaved just like monkeys. The perceptive reader may have noticed a certain circularity in this argument. Neither the fossil record nor archeology provides any evidence for Harari’s theory of human sexuality. Why then does Professor Harari believe that it’s true? Well, because “it’s well documented among animals.” If animals are different from humans, however, the argument immediately collapses.

Harari could, of course, point to the sexual mores of primitive peoples as indicative of how the first humans behaved. In fact, he seems to have consulted anthropologists like Margaret Mead at some point before making his claim that:

A good

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.