Dawkins supports eugenics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I am able to select the best sperm and eggs from me and my partner in order to ensure that my child will be as intelligent as possible and musically inclined, is that eugenics and is it morally wrong.

If I am planning to adopt and I chose as parents, two people whose characteristics I especially admire, is that eugenics and is it morally wrong.

...[text shortened]... n to share some of her characteristics that I admire, is that eugenics and is it morally wrong.

One of my sperm, currently resident in my left testicle, can already perform differential calculus and play the violin. Please send details of any eggs you may have that have special abilities.

Thankyou

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]herein lies the rub: eugenics is perfectly consistent with a materialistic evolutionary perspective.

So, your contention here is that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent (encounters no logical contradiction) with a perspective that espouses 1. support for the (descriptive) claim that all things that actually exist are material ...[text shortened]... ugenics and that we discuss the topic objectively. You have some problem with that?[/b]

Look, if you're trying to imply that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent with any perspective that happens to support both materialism and evolutionary theory, then you're just patently wrong. Obviously, the claim that eugenics is morally permissible is inconsistent with a perspective that supports materialism; evolutionary theory; and the claim that eugenics is morally impermissible.

Obviously... but where do you derive your "moral impermissibility" without invoking the fallacy -- you can neither condone nor reject the same?

No. You're equivocating here on the term 'useful'. In evolutionary theory, this term would be a descriptive one, applied based on descriptive criteria (related to fitness, fecundity, reproductive success, etc.) that are largely applied posteriorly. In eugenics, "useful trait" is obviously used in a completely different (normative) sense.

I don't think so... in both cases it would be the characteristic best suited for survival (irrespective of whether it's applied posteriorly/anteriorly) -- evolutionary science is useful for its predictive ability, no?

You're also just demonstrating willful ignorance toward Dawkins' actual point.

Really? Let's go through it, shall we:

Eugenics May Not Be Bad

Hmmm... subtle sarcasm? Gentle comedy? I don't think so. I'll take this one at face value.

IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Uh... okay... Hitler is to blame for the prejudice against any meaningful discussion of eugenics. Fine.

"Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The specter of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible.

Yep. He's specifically saying here that it's fallacious to argue that one can't[/b] employ eugenics.

But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, [i]why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'these are not one-dimensional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice. (emphasis mine)

Uh... maybe Dawkins is the type who means the opposite of what he says, but he's certainly implying with this rhetorical question that "if we can do it with animals, why can't we do it with humans -- surely we are one and the same".

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

More of the same: "forget Hitler; is there really any reason why we can't?"

Such a pity he doesn't go into the reasons which would persuade him. I don't know LJ, it's bleeding through the canvas... you just don't want to see it. Do you have a different take on this?

What he IS supporting here is the idea that we strip away the topical baggage that is not relevant to the premise of eugenics and that we discuss the topic objectively. You have some problem with that?

No... depending on what you mean by "objectively"? Do you mean an ethically emasculated "scientific" discussion?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I can't find it either. Halitose gave me the following link, but it only shows the same text in full that he posted in the first post:

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php

Halitose, is this the full article?

Halitose, is this the full article?

Unfortunately, that's all I've got...

Originally posted by Nordlys
Sheesh, you had me worried there for a moment.

😀 Note to self: tone down the sarcasm.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Halitose, is this the full article?

Unfortunately, that's all I've got...[/b]

The Sunday Herald is not noted for its balanced approach.

Who is proposing eugenics? anyone? Is this a straw-man?

I can think of a number of examples of famous sportsmen fathering children who go on to excel in the same sport. It begs the question 'nature vs nuture'.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Who is proposing eugenics? anyone? Is this a straw-man?

Here's a more balanced article (no Dawkins):
http://www.geneticengineering.org/eugenics/jack-a-palmer.html

It's clear that "new eugenics" is another term for genetic engineering. I'd venture to suggest that is what Dawkins has in mind, rather than a recipe for a master race or what have you. What's the real issue here?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are those moral objections or just questions about possibilities? Why is leaving the choice of child qualities up to random chance better in your opinion?
We already see people trying to avoid genetic diseases. Is this also wrong?
Suppose I want a daughter with blue eyes. Why would I be wrong to select an egg which has the correct genes to ensure this? ...[text shortened]... story is very good but nobody actually takes it to heart, the fashion industry is proof of that.

I think the Ignorance of GOD and Religon what opened the door for all of this. Of cource I will be attacked from every one of thinking about GOD here. But because you choosed not to belive in GOD you don't have any Guidance except you mind. Which of cource different from one to one. What you think is the best others will see wrong. And you may think choosing the eye color is not a problem , and others say it is wrong. But the result will be a mess.

Imagin that what you want is happned. And we all chosed to have intellegent children. After a while every human will be intellegant, so , who will do Jobs that don't need intellegant and Just requires other attributes. I think non. So gradually the human kind will lose his ability to survive. Because humans depend on each other to survive. No one can survive by itself. I may be intellegent but I need non intellegent people to survive, I need some one to farme my land, to dig the roads and to build buildings. And the might need me for some other reason. All depend on each other. And if one doesn't exist all will get disappear.

Leaving it to chance will ensure diversity wich is required to survive at least.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are those moral objections or just questions about possibilities? Why is leaving the choice of child qualities up to random chance better in your opinion?
We already see people trying to avoid genetic diseases. Is this also wrong?
Suppose I want a daughter with blue eyes. Why would I be wrong to select an egg which has the correct genes to ensure this? ...[text shortened]... story is very good but nobody actually takes it to heart, the fashion industry is proof of that.

According to Wiki, "Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. the purposrted goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save societies resources, and lesson human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counciling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eguenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive stat=sponsered discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilizaion of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide on races perceived as inferior."

So when one is talking about eugenics one is talking about a wide range of activities. I think we can both agree, however, that coercion seen in the past to conform to eugenic policies is immoral. However, what about those who choose a eugenic path? For example, what about those who choose birth control/abortion? According to the eugenic philosophy such activities are done to "improve" society. Has it? If so, where is the data to show it has "improved" society. Also, define "improvement". Hlitose has brought to our attention some of the consequences for abortion/birth control known as birth dearth in Western societies. Western Civiliation may one day disappear altogether. You see, every action has a consequence or side effect. Unfortunatly it takes a while to see such side effects and then it is too late. This is the aspect of eugenics that is the most troubling in that it is a pseudoscience. It must be done with subjective analysis as to what is desirable and what is not desirable coupled with scientific results showing the genetically altered outcomes. Where is the data to show eugenics is currently "improving" society? What does "improving" society mean and who is to say? In the mean time as we are debating these issues we are tinkering with a natural evolutionary process with the most frightening possibility of genetic engineering. I once took a course in college about science in relation to ethics. I seem to remember an example about the dangers of genetic engineering. My professor talked about a certain kind of crop that was genetically engineered to be bigger and insect resistant. It worked and once it worked it became mass produced. All was well and good until the crops began to die off. Apparently they had been altered to the point of them opening themselves to various diseases that they would have ordinarilty been able to fight off had they not been genetically altered. The problem was, however, it took years to figure this out. By that time it was being implimented on a large scale. What if such a problem arose once thousands and millions of people had already become genetically altered? Is this an acceptable risk?

Wiki says, "In modern bioethics literature, the history of eugenics presents many moral and ethical questions. commentators have suggested the new "eugenics" will come from reproductive technologies that will allow parents to create so-called "designer babies". It has been argued that this "non-coercive" form of biological "improvement" will be predominantly motivated by individual competitiveness and the disire to create "the best oppurtunities" for children, rather than an urge to improve the species as a whole, which characterized the early 20th century forms of eugenics."

Hence the Dr. Suess story. You are right in that as human beings we are competitive as seen in the fashion industry. This competitive nature has resulted, in large part, into a great waste of financial and natural resources, however, that seems to be extending itself towards the unborn. What you are proposing is merely an escalation of this waste. Who needs that? You see, just as in the Dr. Suess story this competitiveness will never abate until one realizes the futility of such a pursuit. We will continue to poor an untold amount of money to "get an edge" and feel better about ourselves as being superiour to "the average Joe" but are we in all actuality? Then enters McBean with his fix-it-up machine for a fee involving money. Give him a dollar and then with just a flip of the monitor he can turn you into the best Sneetch on the beaches.....

Originally posted by whodey
According to Wiki, "Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. the purposrted goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save societies resources, and lesson human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective ...[text shortened]... he monitor he can turn you into the best Sneetch on the beaches.....

A bunch of hysterical nonsense. Because of birth control/abortion "Western Civiliation may one day disappear altogether"?????? Please.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b/]Look, if you're trying to imply that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent with any perspective that happens to support both materialism and evolutionary theory, then you're just patently wrong. Obviously, the claim that eugenics is morally permissible is inconsistent with a perspective that supports materialism; evolutionary theory; an an an ethically emasculated "scientific" discussion?

You seem to be reading your preconceptions regarding Dawkins into the article. For example, he didn't say it was "fallacious to argue that one can't employ eugenics", he said it was incorrect to state that it is impossible to breed humans for certain qualities. Ditto for your specious ""if we can do it with animals, why can't we do it with humans -- surely we are one and the same" comment - I guessed I missed where Dawkins says that humans and other animals are the "same".

If you want to discuss the article, perhaps you'd answer the question I asked: what is morally wrong with attempting to breed humans so that their chances of having "desirable" qualities is enhanced (assuming that this breeding is done voluntarily)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to be reading your preconceptions regarding Dawkins into the article. For example, he didn't say it was "fallacious to argue that one can't employ eugenics", he said it was incorrect to state that it is impossible to breed humans for certain qualities. Ditto for your specious ""if we can do it with animals, why can't we do it with humans -- sure desirable" qualities is enhanced (assuming that this breeding is done voluntarily)?

"we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons". (Dawkins)

Is there a moral difference by forcing a child to have piano lessons or by breeding for ability. ?? (I don't think there is) Shouldn't a child have an 'open future'? Wouldn't it be morally wrong for parents to close off most opportunities that might be available in order to impose their own conception of 'a good life'. Wouldn't genetic enhancement kind of deny the child their own character?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to be reading your preconceptions regarding Dawkins into the article. For example, he didn't say it was "fallacious to argue that one can't employ eugenics", he said it was incorrect to state that it is impossible to breed humans for certain qualities. Ditto for your specious ""if we can do it with animals, why can't we do it with humans -- sure desirable" qualities is enhanced (assuming that this breeding is done voluntarily)?

marauder: " ... assuming that this breeding is done voluntarily"

How do you ask someone who isn't there yet, whether it is ok with him or her that he will get certain capacities or traits which will be brought about by artificial eugenic means and methods ?

Isn't it time you switch to "thinking" mode, marauder ?

Originally posted by wucky3
[bIs there a moral difference by forcing a child to have piano lessons or by breeding for ability. ?? Shouldn't a child have an 'open future'? Wouldn't it be morally wrong for parents to close off most opportunities that might be available in order to impose their own conception of 'a good life'. Wouldn't genetic enhancement kind of deny the child their own character?[/b]

But, if one recognizes that genes play at least some role in the
process, then there is no such thing as 'an open future.' That is, if a
child has the genetic makeup of an athelete (either because two
Olympic gold medalists have a child or because someone implants
the egg of one in her womb with artificial insemination from the other),
is their life 'a closed future?'

No. Genetics don't play nearly as much a role in shaping the future
as the way in which the child is raised. That is, we know, for a certainty, as reported in Scientific American (and many other journals).
http://scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

So, it's the 'forcing kids to take lessons' that closes their future far,
far more than any sort of genetic manipulation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Halitose
Look, if you're trying to imply that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent with any perspective that happens to support both materialism and evolutionary theory, then you're just patently wrong. Obviously, the claim that eugenics is morally permissible is inconsistent with a perspective that supports materialism; evolutionary theory; an an an ethically emasculated "scientific" discussion?

As much as I hate to say it, it's my opinion that you are being completely disingenuous here. It's also my contention that if you desired any sort of objective discussion on eugenics, you would have conceived a different thread.

I mean, really: if you're going to claim that "Dawkins supports eugenics", then don't enter as sole evidence an article in which Dawkins himself implies that he sees good and likely persuasive reasons against the employment of eugenics. Either find some evidence in Dawkins' hand that demonstrates he "supports" eugenics, or retract your claim (I personally have not seen work by Dawkins that addresses the permissibility of eugenics, so I'm not familiar with his stance).

And your response to the article (throw in ivantroll's response, too) simply demonstrates Dawkins' actual point. His point is not that he supports eugenics, or that eugenics is socially optimal, or that...; his point is that even mention of eugenics scares the hell out of some people for all the wrong reasons. You and hoe have played right into Dawkins' hands with your culture of death, slippery slope, Peter Singer just ransacked Tokyo, get all the children indoors type attitudes.

Originally posted by Nemesio
But, if one recognizes that genes play at least some role in the
process, then there is no such thing as 'an open future.' That is, if a
child has the genetic makeup of an athelete (either because two
Olympic gold medalists have a child or because someone implants
the egg of one in her womb with artificial insemination from the other),
is thei ...[text shortened]... hat closes their future far,
far more than any sort of genetic manipulation.

Nemesio

Yes, that's probably right. I'm just reading a chapter on 'Environmental versus Genetic pursuits'
Where should there be a line drawn though? I mean, and I hope I'm not getting off the subject too much but for example to avoid some sex linked genetic diseases there may be a selective abortion if for example the fetus is male. Whilst there are moral issues around this it doesn't show a significant shift in sex ratios compared to India (due to selective abortions on female fetus) where there has been a dramatic shift so serious that legal restrictions have been imposed. So in this example allowing parents to choose the sex of their child has had a harmful effect on society.
Isn't it possible that genetically enhancing children to be great footballers, pianists etc have a simialr effect on society. We might end up with a country full of talented pianists and no street cleaners 🙄