Dawkins supports eugenics.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What is it about being "a highly respected man of science" that turns off the brain of his supporters?

I'm just reading the passage. It's pretty clear from it that he does not support eugenics. It's only your insatiable desire to demonize non-believers that causes you to see it any other way.

Obviously you don't like Dawkins for many reasons. You hardly need to put words into his mouth to dislike him.

Originally posted by Halitose
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":

"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 tha ...[text shortened]... stop being frightened even to put the question?"

What say the Dawkinians?

I've read a lot of hysteria and a ton of non sequiturs in this thread, but Dawkins' main point seems valid to me.

Dawkins: why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?

Well, why?

Originally posted by telerion
I'm just reading the passage. It's pretty clear from it that he does not support eugenics. It's only your insatiable desire to demonize non-believers that causes you to see it any other way.

Obviously you don't like Dawkins for many reasons. You hardly need to put words into his mouth to dislike him.

When someone cannot see a clear moral difference between breeding and training, I don't need to put words into his mouth.

It's only your insatiable desire to demonize non-believers that causes you to see it any other way.

And here I thought that maybe calling your article "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" had something to do with it.

EDIT: Why don't you read what I've actually posted so far in this thread and tell me who's putting words into someone else's mouth?

Originally posted by rwingett
At least Dawkins was never in the Wermacht.

But seriously...

If you look at the quotes Halitose provided, he's not talking about killing off anyone. He's talking about breeding for gain in specific attributes. Given that mankind continues to evolve, the question is whether we can actively guide the path that evolutionary process follows. Instead of h that it is feasible, but is saying that we should at least be allowed to ponder the matter.

"We should at least ponder the matter ....... "

That's how the discussions about abortion and euthanasia also started.

If we start breeding people than of course we must have the possibility to kill those who do not meet our expectations, meaning we should be able to perform abortion and euthanasia. I have always claimed that after the discussions about abortion and euthanasia, the eugenics discussion would follow. These discussions, together with the stem-cell dicussion and the use of human embryos, unborn human beings, for scientific research are all part and parcel of the same way of thinking, pointing in the same direction. Now Dawkins is suggesting we should indeed discuss the matter of eugenics.

I am proven correct in my claim.

I will also predict that those in favour of abortion and euthanasia will eventually, after much manoeuvring and "careful" discussion of course, will convert to the idea of eugenics.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When someone cannot see a clear moral difference between breeding and training, I don't need to put words into his mouth.

[b]It's only your insatiable desire to demonize non-believers that causes you to see it any other way.

And here I thought that maybe calling your article "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" had something to do with it.

EDIT: Why ...[text shortened]... posted so far in this thread and tell me who's putting words into someone else's mouth?[/b]

LH: When someone cannot see a clear moral difference between breeding and training, I don't need to put words into his mouth.

I'll bite; what is the "clear moral difference"? Please give an answer which is not merely a platitude.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"We should at least ponder the matter ....... "

That's how the discussions about abortion and euthanasia also started.

If we start breeding people than of course we must have the possibility to kill those who do not meet our expectations, meaning we should be able to perform abortion and euthanasia. I have always claimed that after the discussions abou ...[text shortened]... much manoeuvring and "careful" discussion of course, will convert to the idea of eugenics.

Another far fetched "slippery slope" argument which is also deficient in historical accuracy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've read a lot of hysteria and a ton of non sequiturs in this thread, but Dawkins' main point seems valid to me.

Dawkins: why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?

Well, why?

See what I mean ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
See what I mean ?

No. Answer the question.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Another far fetched "slippery slope" argument which is also deficient in historical accuracy.

Ha ha ha. the usual slippery slope bla bla ..... and the beat goes on.

You simply do not grasp the notion of an ideological societal development. It does not fit into your one-dimensional, a-historic and therefore static reasoning.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Another far fetched "slippery slope" argument which is also deficient in historical accuracy.

Considering he's from the Netherlands, I don't think he's deficient in "historical accuracy" when it comes to life issues.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Ha ha ha. the usual slippery slope bla bla ..... and the beat goes on.

You simply do not grasp the notion of an ideological societal development. It does not fit into your one-dimensional, a-historic and therefore static reasoning.

Does the idea of actually responding to the points made by others in this forum ever occur to you?

A-historic would be a understatement for your comments about abortion and euthanasia, which have existed for thousands of years.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Considering he's from the Netherlands, I don't think he's deficient in "historical accuracy" when it comes to life issues.

Yes, everyone in the Netherlands is an expert on such matters.

Now, about that "clear moral difference" .....

Originally posted by no1marauder
No. Answer the question.

Can't you see that the whole circus of the abortion, euthanasia and stemcell research debate will start all over, but now about eugenics.

I claimed that the euthanasia discussion would lead to a discussion to kill those not being able to utter their wishes and see what has happened, despite the claim from your side that this was not going to happen. It was labeled as scaremongering, same as my predictment that the eugenics discussion would be promoted one day. It's all scaremongering, isn't it, marauder ?

Of course you are in favour of eugenics, of course under carefully designed (ha) conditions and under carefully designed rukes for monitoring the eugenics processes. Right, marauder ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Another far fetched "slippery slope" argument which is also deficient in historical accuracy.

Could you please elaborate on this deficiency on my part regarding "historical accuracy".

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: When someone cannot see a clear moral difference between breeding and training, I don't need to put words into his mouth.

I'll bite; what is the "clear moral difference"? Please give an answer which is not merely a platitude.

Sure.

Eugenics presupposes that a certain class of people (with the traits we want to breed for) are "superior" to the rest of humanity -- not merely that they have superior abilities in a particular sphere of human endeavour, but that they are intrinsically superior; i.e. have greater worth, value and/or dignity. Training a person to develop the abilities he/she already possesses does not presuppose such a thing; it only presupposes that every person has a responsibility to develop his/her abilities to the extent possible.

Further, eugenics imposes constraints on human freedom. What if a child whose parents bred him/her for the specific purpose of being the next Mozart decides he/she doesn't really want to study music? While unwilling children may be forced to train for something while they are younger, there is no loss of purpose if they should decide not to pursue those interests when older. A child bred for musical ability who nevertheless chooses not to pursue it must contend with the idea that he/she is a waste of society's resources.

Finally, there are the slippery slope arguments that ivanhoe raises. If one is considering a utilitarian or pseudo-utilitarian model of morality, these would come into consideration.