Dawkins supports eugenics.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 pe, Peter Singer just ransacked Tokyo, get all the children indoors type attitudes.

LemonJello: "You and hoe have played right into Dawkins' hands ... "

Now that is a deep one, LJ ... considering the fact that you assume that Dawkins is [/i]against[/i] eugenics ... think it through, genius .....


By the way, I'm still wating for your arguments against eugenics.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
LemonJello: "You and hoe have played right into Dawkins' hands ... "

Now that is a deep one, LJ ... considering the fact that you assume that Dawkins is [/i]against[/i] eugenics ... think it through, genius .....


By the way, I'm still wating for your arguments against eugenics.

I'm not assuming anything about Dawkins' stance. I know it goes against your trollish nature, but if you had been reading and comprehending, you'll note that I just stated that I am not aware of what stance Dawkins takes. But I do think the article Halitose posted offers, if anything, evidence that Dawkins would, all things considered, be against eugenics, not for eugenics -- which is pretty ironic and funny with respect to the title of the thread!

And, again, you are a perfect example of Dawkins' intended audience here. So try to learn something, ivanhoe.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]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 ?[/b]

That's an argument against reproduction at all, not merely breeding for "desirable" ability. You're not against reproduction, are you? Isn't it time you started actually discussing the points raised by the article in some meaningful way rather than merely parroting your propaganda lines, Ivanhoe?

Originally posted by wucky3
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 ar ciety. We might end up with a country full of talented pianists and no street cleaners 🙄

This argument proves too much; such reasoning could just as well be used to say that all children shouldn't get anything but a minimal education. After all, what use is differential calculus to street cleaners? An increase in the number of people with "desirable" abilities doesn't seem to me to lead to any particular negative consequences.

Originally posted by wucky3
We might end up with a country full of talented pianists and no street cleaners 🙄

In that case we'll just have to invent street-cleaning machines which are operated by playing the piano. 😉

Seriously, I don't think this is a likely scenario, but it's hard to predict what would happen, positively and negatively. One thing I would worry about is that there might be a lot of pressure on parents to use the new possibilities. It would probably lead to the same kind of discussions we now have about cochlear implants (which enable many deaf people to hear). Parents who decide against cochlear implants for their deaf children get a lot of criticism (so do those who decide for it, just by other and smaller groups). New possibilities almost always mean you'll be faced with ethical problems which didn't exist before.

Originally posted by Nordlys
In that case we'll just have to invent street-cleaning machines which are operated by playing the piano. 😉

Seriously, I don't think this is a likely scenario, but it's hard to predict what would happen, positively and negatively. One thing I would worry about is that there might be a lot of pressure on parents to use the new possibilities. It would proba ...[text shortened]... ilities almost always mean you'll be faced with ethical problems which didn't exist before.

😀 Sure..it was an extreme example. I like the idea of the piano operated street cleaners though 😛

Originally posted by wucky3
😀 Sure..it was an extreme example. I like the idea of the piano operated street cleaners though 😛

Me too. I would also love a machine for doing housework by playing the cello or piano.

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)?

For example, he didn't say it was "fallacious to argue that one can't employ eugenics"

Uh... refer to the following sentence: some scientists... stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible.

IMO he's referring to the is-ought (naturalistic) fallacy, no? And isn't breeding for certain qualities defined as eugenics under the definition I gave? How then did I read my preconceptions into it?

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".

According to evolutionary theory humans are higher animals; similar in that we share a common ancestor, homologous physiology, etc; different in having a capacity for abstract reasoning, etc. Perhaps I gave Dawkins the benefit of the doubt, my bad.

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)?

Does the volunatary qualifier apply to the "breeder" or the "breed"?

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 ...[text shortened]... pe, Peter Singer just ransacked Tokyo, get all the children indoors type attitudes.

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've tried to be nothing but transparent, LJ. I've given you a paragraph by paragraph rundown on my interpretation of Dawkins and gave you the opportunity to point out where you would differ or where I was just plain wrong. You haven't done so; instead you continue to harangue me about disingenuity. Strangely, you seem to be the only one on this thread who seems to think Dawkins was implying the opposite. Give me a break.

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.

Again, could you please coherently demonstrate how you derive this view and I'd gradly retract.

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).

This is fair... At best I can only show that he's suggested revisiting the merits of eugenics. As for my thread title: it's all in the advertising (and throw in a mild blend of sensationalism). 😛

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.

Muahahah... okay... you can somehow read very deeply into the intentions of my posts, but I can't do the same to Dawkins? LJ, LJ..😀

Originally posted by Halitose
[I've tried to be nothing but transparent, LJ.

First time for everything then.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
First time for everything then.

...and a merry "holiday season" to you too. Sorry Scott, I won't bite.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]For example, he didn't say it was "fallacious to argue that one can't employ eugenics"

Uh... refer to the following sentence: some scientists... stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible.

IMO he's referring to the is-ought (naturalistic) fallacy, no? And isn't breeding for certainly qualities ...[text shortened]... ]

Does the volunatary qualifier apply to the "breeder" or the "breed"?[/b]

Hal, if you need reading comprehension lessons, I'm sure that the local high school can send you a tutor. Dawkins' sentence had nothing whatsoever to do with any so-called "naturalistic fallacy"; it was saying that some scientists were saying that what you chose to call eugenics is not even possible. And similar is not the "same".

Since no one being breed ever has a choice in the matter, your question is disingenous. But it seems that not a single person here will give a single reason why attempting to breed humans with "desirable" qualities is morally objectionable. Why is that?

Originally posted by no1marauder
But it seems that not a single person here will give a single reason why attempting to breed humans with "desirable" qualities is morally objectionable.

Because, it seems, that 'genetic breeding' has a very limited impact on the way in which a human
being involves into a personality, I think. As I cited above, and as many geneticists have observed,
the role of nurture is for more indicative of the type of person an individual will be. The idea that
we could take 'Hitler's DNA,' put it in a test tube, poop it out of a artificial womb and, BLAMO we
have a new charismatic dictator trying to take over the world is utterly absurd.

The only sort of 'genetic breeding' that I think would have any palpable results would be to breed
against specific sorts of genetic disorders that cripple an individual from birth or onset later in life.
As for breeding for 'piano skills' or 'nobel peace prize winner,' that is the realm of fantasy.

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not assuming anything about Dawkins' stance. I know it goes against your trollish nature, but if you had been reading and comprehending, you'll note that I just stated that I am not aware of what stance Dawkins takes. But I do think the article Halitose posted offers, if anything, evidence that Dawkins would, all things considered, be against eugeni ...[text shortened]... e a perfect example of Dawkins' intended audience here. So try to learn something, ivanhoe.

😀 You're a genius in twisting and turning ....

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's an argument against reproduction at all, not merely breeding for "desirable" ability. You're not against reproduction, are you? Isn't it time you started actually discussing the points raised by the article in some meaningful way rather than merely parroting your propaganda lines, Ivanhoe?

... You're still not in thinking mode, marauder. 😛 😀