• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Dawkins wrong about eugenics?

Ian Osborne said:
How does this contradict Dawkins' argument that eugenics is bad, but because it's immoral, not because it's unfeasible?
Click to expand...

It contradicts his argument that it is feasible, which only works if you're using "eugenics" as a generic word for "directed breeding of any kind or purpose". If we use eugenics as it is actually defined, it can't be feasible; "eugenics" literally means "improved genes"; but humanity's genome cannot be objectively "improved" by selecting for what people in power arbitrarily opine to be "desirable" (or more accurately, "deselecting" based on their ideological model of what is undesirable).

This is what makes Dawkins' own examples so silly. He uses as examples that humans can be bred to "run faster" or "jump higher" - traits that, firstly, to modern humans are utterly useless and pointless biologically, having nothing but subjective entertainment value. They're not improvements, they are completely arbitrary changes. And secondly, traits that bear absolutely no relation to any of the intended "improvements" that those who have historically applied eugenic programs have ever selected for.

Let's stop beating around the bush; eugenics was invented as a way to promote racial purity and dominance. The idea that humanity would be "improved" if a larger percentage of it were (white, European, "pure" German specifically, etc) stems from the premise that (white, European, "pure" German specifically, etc as appropriate) is the best, most advanced type of human.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
number 2 is special pleading and an assumption.

We are animals, which would fall under number 1. What do you mean by 'ordinary'?
Click to expand...


You can claim that we are animals, but what I said was that we aren't ordinary animals that can be controlled the way that you can control populations of dogs, cats or rats.

So you'll have to come up with an actual argument instead of strawmanning.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I'd offer the normal meaning of the phrase which is to contrast something unacceptable with something acceptable.
Click to expand...

That works for me - it's acceptable to argue against eugenics on moral grounds, but not on the basis that it wouldn't work, because it would. Or in other words, the moral and practical arguments are logically separate - you can argue one without arguing the other.

I can't see how we're in disagreement here.

Because you appear to be twisting his words. You have to ignore what he said to think he's in favor of eugenics and that includes his very first tweet.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Are you confusing me with someone else? I've most definitely not made that claim, and nor do I consider Dawkins to be in favour of eugenics. I think we're in furious agreement here.
 
Checkmite said:
Let's stop beating around the bush; eugenics was invented as a way to promote racial purity and dominance. The idea that humanity would be "improved" if a larger percentage of it were (white, European, "pure" German specifically, etc) stems from the premise that (white, European, "pure" German specifically, etc as appropriate) is the best, most advanced type of human.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Dawkins would agree with you here, but you're arguing against the ethics of eugenics. Do you not think the eugenics you outline above are achievable? I'm not asking if they're desirable, or beneficial - are they achievable?
 
Ian Osborne said:
Not at all. Are you confusing me with someone else?
Click to expand...
No, I don't have you confused with Checkmite but you did seem to be supporting his point.

If you go back you will see Checkmite claiming Dawkins made a neutral statement. My point is that the phrasing Dawkins used is meant to express contrast. Usually an extreme contrast even.

Or in other words, the moral and practical arguments are logically separate - you can argue one without arguing the other.
Click to expand...
This is true but it misses an important and very relevant nuance of the phrasing Dawkins used. The phrase doesn't just imply separate, it implies contrasting, sometimes extremely so.
 
dann said:
You can claim that we are animals, but what I said was that we aren't ordinary animals that can be controlled the way that you can control populations of dogs, cats or rats.
So you'll have to come up with an actual argument instead of strawmanning.
Click to expand...
We are animals, do you disagree with that claim? I would assume not, which is why I asked what you meant by 'ordinary' as you seem to be making a distinction around the term 'ordinary', I'm interested in what you mean by that term.
 
p0lka said:
We are animals, do you disagree with that claim? I would assume not, which is why I asked what you meant by 'ordinary' as you seem to be making a distinction around the term 'ordinary', I'm interested in what you mean by that term.
Click to expand...
By "ordinary animal" I assume dann is saying "nonhuman animal". And it's correct - human animals are not nonhuman animals.
 
A nation of beautiful people stronger, faster, and sharp of mind can overcome their enemies and lead mankind into a glorious new age.
 
p0lka said:
We are animals, do you disagree with that claim? I would assume not, which is why I asked what you meant by 'ordinary' as you seem to be making a distinction around the term 'ordinary', I'm interested in what you mean by that term.
Click to expand...
He explained it in the part you highlighted. He means we can't be be controlled like we do other animals. Feel free to argue with that point but I'm pretty sure that's what he means by "not ordinary".
 
arthwollipot said:
By "ordinary animal" I assume dann is saying "nonhuman animal". And it's correct - human animals are not nonhuman animals.
Click to expand...
ok, but how does it follow that "we aren't ordinary animals that can be controlled the way that you can control populations of dogs, cats or rats."?
That's an assumption about some special quality of not being ordinary animals that I don't believe is warranted.
Why couldn't humans be controlled the way that you can control populations of dogs, cats or rats?
It cant just be claimed that we aren't ordinary animals therefore that can't happen.
 
p0lka said:
ok, but how does it follow that "we aren't ordinary animals that can be controlled the way that you can control populations of dogs, cats or rats."?
That's an assumption about some special quality of not being ordinary animals that I don't believe is warranted.
Why couldn't humans be controlled the way that you can control populations of dogs, cats or rats?
It cant just be claimed that we aren't ordinary animals therefore that can't happen.
Click to expand...
I think the implication is that human animals possess a level of self-awareness and wilfulness that means that they would be able to resist such control better than nonhuman animals would. But that's wrong. Populations of human animals are easy to control. Ask any charismatic demagogue.
 
For those saying it works, can someone provide an example of what they would call a successful attempt?
 
I Am The Scum said:
For those saying it works, can someone provide an example of what they would call a successful attempt?
Click to expand...
leKO6uzm.jpg


When it's done on nonhuman animals, we refer to it as "selective breeding".
 
Would anyone who didn't completely miss the context of this conversation like to give it a shot?

Also, having children isn't eugenics.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Would anyone who didn't completely miss the context of this conversation like to give it a shot?
Click to expand...
I've been following the thread quite closely, thanks. If you apply the principle of eugenics to nonhuman animals, it's called selective breeding and it results in domestic breeds of animal, hence dogs are a successful example. Or if you like, if you selectively breed humans, it's called eugenics.

As far as I know, no deliberate eugenic program has been run on human animals for long enough for it to have a significant effect. You'd need to run such a program for several generations at least.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Would anyone who didn't completely miss the context of this conversation like to give it a shot?

Also, having children isn't eugenics.
Click to expand...

Humans are animals like any other. If it's possible to create through inbreeding horribly misshapen and half-formed dog breeds that can hardly breathe, it's possible to do it in people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom