Dawkins supports eugenics.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, in his Utopia (which bears a striking resemblance to the United States of America -- at least in foundational principles), deformed people are treated with the same dignity and rights that normal people have.

Better still, there are no deformed people!

Unfortunately, there are still demented people .......

Originally posted by no1marauder
Rational people judge that the ability is desirable, not that the people who possess it are superior. What irrational people think is their own problem.

Both would be "investments".

Note 1: Read the edited version above.

Note 2: Rational people who consider a person's existence desirable purely by virtue of the fact that he/she possesses certain abilities consider such people superior.

Irrational people don't see the wood for the trees.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have hereditary myopia. Should it turn out that this physical defect has a genetic cause, why would it be wrong to tweak my progeny's DNA to do away with it?

Simple practical matters such as these are positive arguments for a humane eugenics, in my view.

I do not think that curing or fighting diseases with gene-technologies is what Dawkins is referring to.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Unfortunately, there are still demented people .......

I bet you have a solution in store for them within the scope of your enlightened and rational liberal ideology.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Note 1: Read the edited version above.

Note 2: Rational people who consider a person's existence desirable purely by virtue of the fact that he/she possesses certain abilities consider such people superior.

Irrational people don't see the wood for the trees.

I see. Some people believe that some human beings are "superior" even infallible. Such people sometimes project that belief system on others. But this is merely an expression of their inferiority complex.

I suppose if a clinic assured someone that they could guarantee that the child would be the next Mozart, they'd be in breach of contract if the child wound up not to be. Somehow I doubt that they would make such a claim.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I do not think that curing or fighting diseases with gene-technologies is what Dawkins is referring to.

All the more reason to deal with the issue constructively.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I do not think that curing or fighting diseases with gene-technologies is what Dawkins is referring to.

No, he was referring to attempting to breed people with "mathematical, musical or athletic abilities". What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
All the more reason to deal with the issue constructively.

Another liberal in favour of eugenics.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, he was referring to attempting to breed people with "mathematical, musical or athletic abilities". What's wrong with that?

Actually, considering you'd have no place in such a world, maybe Dawkins has a point ...

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Another liberal in favour of eugenics.

Have you got an objection to the example I gave?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, he was referring to breeding people with "mathematical, musical or athletic abilities"? What's wrong with that?

Try hard ... maybe you come up with some ideas .. I doubt it, though.


By the way, answer the question of what will happen to breeded people who have failed to meet the expectations of the eugenics program.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, considering you'd have no place in such a world, maybe Dawkins has a point ...

Non sequitur. And childish.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Have you got an objection to the example I gave?

Yes. It has nothing to do with what is called the politics of eugenics.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Try hard ... maybe you come up with some ideas .. although I doubt it.


By the way, answer the question of what will happen to breeded people who have failed to meet the expectations of the eugenics program.

I did. Twice.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Yes. It has nothing to do with what is called the politics of eugenics.

OK. What is it?