February 16, 2020

"It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would."

"It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."

Tweeted Richard Dawkins at 1:26 a.m., and I think that's why "eugenics" is trending on Twitter this morning. He followed up, an hour ago, with this: "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."

Here's #eugenics — in case you want to see what people are saying right now. It's a slog to get through all the many people who are saying I see eugenics is trending. I'll just cherry-pick some good substantive stuff (which sounds kind of eugenics-y!):

"The thing about people who believe in eugenics is that they always believe themselves to be the superior kind of human. No-one ever thinks that it could make *people like them* obsolete..." (Joanne Harris).

"I mean, the biggest problem with Richard Dawkins take on eugenics is that he'd probably consider his own traits to be superior and then the world would be full of insufferable assholes" (Nick Jack Pappas).

"While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders"/"Eugenics does not create superior species. We turned mighty buffalo herds roaming the plains into factory farmed cows, the independent stallion into the pony, and the wild boar into the pig. We weaken the gene pool selecting for traits desirable for us but not for the subject" (Eugene Gu MD).

"All of Dawkins’ tweets make more sense if you add '... Mr Bond' at the end of them" (Ned Hartley).

225 comments:

1 – 200 of 225   Newer›   Newest»
rhhardin said...

Scott Adams today notes that the angry ones are artists and the supporters have talent stacks. Adds that artists don't distinguish separate aspects and scientists do.

Go wide or go deep.

whitney said...

Haha! 1:26 a.m. How many cocktails do you think he had?

Howard said...

If you're smart you practice eugenics individually.

rhhardin said...

Genetics gave us a poor yield wheat that couldn't take the weather. You need a selection step after the relaxation step.

madAsHell said...

Eugenics thy name is coronavirus.

rhhardin said...

Probably with humans grafting is the way to go.

Howard said...

Once again agreeing with girl logic there rh. Science and art is so highly intertwined that once you get to a high level of either practice you really can't tell which aspect or solving the biggest problems.

The big picture you're missing is that people who call themselves artists aren't really artists they are craftspeople technicians drones.

tcrosse said...

The eloi were bred to be delicious.

Temujin said...

A thing is what it is, and all the wishing in the world will not make it something else.

rhhardin said...

By their fruits ye shall know them. If that's not supporting eugenics I don't know what is.

gspencer said...

from the great Micahel Crichton,

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

Read the rest here,

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/

Nonapod said...

We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders

I don't know about that. What's so "magnificent" about an average lifespan of 6-8 years for a wild wolf compared to 10-15 years for most domesticated dogs? Or the fact that most domesticated dogs often live pretty great lives relative to wild wolves with plenty of food and shelter and veterinay care? There's probably 100 times more dogs then wolves, so they're more successful by every metric. True, excessive inbreeding has caused issues, but that's the tradeoff I guess.

Automatic_Wing said...

Sorry to break it to Dr. Gu, but cows are not selectively bred buffaloes.

gilbar said...

Richard Dawkins, the noted Atheist; that thinks belief in a higher being is superstition?
Richard Dawkins, the noted believer in Gene-centered view of evolution, who believes that PEOPLE exist SOLELY as a means of propagating DNA?

If you concatenate his ideas; it's clear that PEOPLE as entities exist no more than GOD does. That, in FACT; belief in PEOPLE is a superstition. Only Genes exist
So, OF COURSE he believes in eugenics

Gahrie said...

Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."

We have been doing this, for 300,000 years. The issue is that now we have the ability to take a natural process that occurs over generations, and turn it into an industrial process. I agree with Dawkins that it is going to happen, whether we like it or not. Do you think that China or North Korea would hesitate for a second?

rhhardin said...

We lost 40 points of national IQ when women started voting.

mjg235 said...

Twitter on eugenics makes a good meta-argument for eugenics, if only to get rid of the people who use twitter.

Howard said...

I'm surprised you don't blame the Great depression on women voting there rh. maybe it's just your perspective from always living in some shit hole in the middle of nowhere where all of the smart hard-working intelligent and ambitious people migrated to the West coast after the second world War

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

What is "works?"

I doubt that the gains would outweigh the losses.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Can we call these outraged people Science Deniers?

Howard said...

My Viking forebears practiced the fine art of eugenics by spreading their seed all over Western Europe then by Mike writing to the United States which produced the most powerful richest and freest nation in the history of the planet. Of course there was a little genocide along the way. I didn't say we wouldn't get native American hair mussed, but no more than seventy-five to a hundred million killed depending on the breaks.

Anthony said...

Complicated idea. We can and do breed critters for specific characteristics that are useful to us, but they can't really fight back or rebel like other humans would. But we do it anyway through assortative mating. Doesn't mean the traits that are selected for in the latter are in any way "better" in some ultimate or moral/ethical sense, but it does tend to create particular clades with sets of related traits.

I wonder if anyone's looked at the former Soviet Union's athletic programs and whether/how they used assortative mating in that regard?

Paul said...

You know of course Hitler thought his Germanic race was 'superior'.
Stalin thought he could make a 'Soviet Man'.
So did Mao.

All murdered tens of millions in the search for that perfect human race.

We already have the perfect race... it's called the human one.

It has it's faults (yes odd to say that for a 'perfect' race) but those faults many times show to be assets as circumstances change.

Anonymous said...

What is "substantive" about the first two comments? They're the same dumb knee-jerk comments ignorant knee-jerkers always make regarding anyone not spouting the woke party-line about matters genetic.

As for the third, from the well-known TDS-suffering internet loon Eugene Gu, his own "science on genetics" isn't bad, it's in "not even wrong" territory.

The fourth is mildly amusing.

Fernandinande said...

I'll just cherry-pick some good substantive stuff

Substantive?

Two ad hominens based on psychological projection, and a post by a person who doesn't understand farming, or even the idea of domestic animals.

Bill Peschel said...

It's been bothering me more and more that I'm seeing people who admit that their children aren't right. I mean, children with anxiety issues, mental issues, defects.

It's getting to the point that when I go out and meet new people, it seems like every one of them have a child (those who have children) with at least one mental handicap.

Are we recognizing them earlier? Or did we poison a generation and are reaping the fruits?

Fernandinande said...

Most people, especially liberals with their remnant fantasies of the maleable New Soviet Man, don't like the fact that all human traits have a substantial genetic component and that those traits can be selected for or against.

Patrick said...

For a noted atheist like Dawkins, the phrasing "heaven forbid" is odd. Seems like he's not convinced.

Bob Boyd said...

Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans?

Who gets to define works?

Lucien said...

Dawkins was being provocative by making a trivial and obvious point in the hope that many could not resist misconstruing it.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Howard thinks the white man killed 75-100 million people. Then there must be a lot of evidence of mass graves etc that would support that astronomical number? And I guess Europeans stowed nothing but bullets and blankets on their voyage to to the New World.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

In practice, eugenics means "don't let people breed unless they are like me."

Earnest Prole said...

Applying Eugenics to gray wolves, humans have produced astounding variation, most of it in less than 300 years.

"The smallest dog, a Chihuahua, is just about 5 inches tall. The largest dog, a Great Dane, is over 7 feet tall when he stands on his hind legs. That's the same as the shortest humans being 2 feet tall. And the tallest humans being over 31 feet tall.

Howard said...

Bill I think part of it is just that people are more comfortable talking about mental problems. Also there is more of an effort to mainstream mental patients, so they're not hidden away and some padded room drooling from thorazine and mellaril

tcrosse said...

Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans?

It's possible that slave-owners in the ante-bellum South were breeding field hands.

Ken B said...

Never cite Eugene Gu seriously. Seriously. Even here he misrepresents what Dawkins is saying.

Fernandinande said...

EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS.
Francis Galton
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1


There's a funny 'discussion' at the end wherein H.G. Wells says "Many eminent criminals appear to me to be persons superior in many respects--in intelligence, initiative, originality---to the average judge. I will confess I have never known either."

Oso Negro said...

@ Bill Peschel - Same old kids, but society fucked itself up. We turned pathology and victimhood into a competitive advantage. Your kid doesn't have to be "below average", which of course a great many children happen to be - he or she or xe or whatever can have "issues" to explain it all away.

mockturtle said...

Of course it's 'possible'. So is cloning humans. Unfortunately, some scientists have the idea that if it can be done, it should be at least tried. Like Dr. Frankenstein and He Jiankui of CRISPR fame [or infamy], we are treading on very dangerous ground when we put ethical considerations aside for the sake of 'progress'. Huxley wrote about the prospect in 1931 in Brave New World.

David53 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort [eugenics].

Said by whom, I wonder?

n.n said...

Planned parenthood (e.g. selective-child, cannibalized-child). Planned population, too. Of course, it does.

mockturtle said...

There's a funny 'discussion' at the end wherein H.G. Wells says "Many eminent criminals appear to me to be persons superior in many respects--in intelligence, initiative, originality---to the average judge. I will confess I have never known either."

Exactly. Intelligence has nothing to do with character. Neither is it the equivalence of wisdom.

Anne in Rockwall, TX said...

I've been telling people for too long that the miniaturization of animals like teacup dogs, ponies and pigs is just not good for the species. All I get in return is, " But they're so cute!"

Don't even get home started in what they are doing to horse's muzzles!

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“"All of Dawkins’ tweets make more sense if you add '... Mr Bond' at the end of them"”

That’s great. Works for Elizabeth Warren too.

Ann Althouse said...

"What is "substantive" about the first two comments? They're the same dumb knee-jerk comments ignorant knee-jerkers always make regarding anyone not spouting the woke party-line about matters genetic."

I see your point, but the context was a whole lot of posts just talking about seeing that #eugenics was trending. Anything beyond that was classified as substantive by me.

I'm used to the substance/procedure distinctions in law... so the stuff about why are we talking about this at all is like a jurisdictional question and anything getting to the issue under discussion is substance. Not a high bar to pass.

jaydub said...

I've never been able to get a satisfactory explanation of the fundamental difference between a eugenist and a Nazi as regards population control objectives. Admittedly,the unpleasantness associated with the ovens and crematoria of the Nazi methodology was messier but weren't both factions trying to eventually get to the same place?

William said...

Only those who have made a serious study of phrenology can truly understand the uses and advantages of eugenics. It is very important to factor in the right skull shape when breeding humans.

Ken B said...

Buffalo cows
Won’t you come out tonight
Come out tonight?
Buffalo cows won’t you come out tonight
And lo by the light of the moon?

William said...

Eugenics had some truly awful consequences in Red China. I think they might have had a higher body count than the Nazis. If you were being euthanized for the greater good of humanity, would you prefer to be gassed or left, as a newborn baby, by the side of the road.

Anne in Rockwall, TX said...

"It's been bothering me more and more that I'm seeing people who admit that their children aren't right. I mean, children with anxiety issues, mental issues, defects.

It's getting to the point that when I go out and meet new people, it seems like every one of them have a child (those who have children) with at least one mental handicap.

Are we recognizing them earlier? Or did we poison a generation and are reaping the fruits?"

Nope. It's just finding something, rather than someone, to blame. Also, schools get more money for every diagnosed kid.

The victim Olympics. Try telling one of them everybody has anxiety and you get, "Not like mine! I lay awake at night worrying!"

Dude1394 said...

Every single criticism of his science was emotion and empathy based. Of course eugenics works. Whether it should be used or not is politics, and that is what those criticisms were about.

Bob Boyd said...

So should we breed out people who are in the middle of the gender spectrum or breed everyone to be in the middle?

Ken B said...

Annie C
Indeed. Hence the burgeoning diagnosis of “on the spectrum”. Because it combines victimhood with being gifted. I talked with a couple rhapsodizing about their grandson, so Aspergergy, so brilliant.

mockturtle said...

Unknown, do you believe there is such a thing as ethical consideration in science, or so you see ethics as entirely 'political', based on 'emotion and empathy'?

Ken B said...

People are seizing on “superior” to grandstand. Superior means just in one aspect, that bred for. If you want to breed for height it will work. If you want to breed for eye colour it will work. You should not want to breed for such things.

chuck said...

He's right, of course. I always thought the biggest problem was that the human bitches are always in heat and the males want to f*ck everything. Makes it hard to control reproduction, although the Chinese might could pull it off.

Ken B said...

Mockturtle
Shame on you. Unknown is pointing out “that makes me sad” does not disprove Dawkins’s factual assertions.

Bay Area Guy said...

Of course, Eugenics work. Duh. Smart people tend to give birth to smart children, just as tall people tend to give birth to kids who grow up tall.

The question is, Do we want it to work?

Bob Boyd said...

Eugenics is Progressivism's crowning achievement.

To Progs the purpose of the citizenry is to serve policy goals, not the other way around.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."

Of course it is possible. We are doing it now..... In a haphazard way the "selective" breeding of humans has been going on for a million years. It is called Natural Selection, where the traits that make for a successful human/animal in the environment in which it is living are "selected" by not dying.

We haven't done it on purpose in a scientific way, be humans have certainly selected for trait that they like or that are useful or UNselected for traits that are objectionably or considered ugly.

Pointing out the obvious is forbidden in today's PC society.

The movie Idiocracy is a humorous take on the Eugenics and Natural Selection that happens when those with the "better" genetics just decide to opt out of being in the future gene pool.

dbp said...

Dr. Gu is kind of dense.

"...many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders"/"Eugenics does not create superior species."

Superior according to whom? A Cavalier Spaniel is not superior to a wolf in terms of hunting or in general, surviving in the wild, but I know which one makes the superior pet.

The problem with Human eugenics is that the most valuable Human traits are the hardest to measure and the downside of getting it wrong are higher.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Note: I don't think we should perform eugenics or selective purposeful breeding of humans.

Ethically it is abhorrent. Scientifically it is dangerous.

ExplainMeMore said...

Let's face it, eugenics is a touchy subject because one of the most desired traits it tries to enhance is intelligence which may be the last taboo subject when race is also involved.

gilbar said...

chuck said...
I always thought the biggest problem was that the human bitches are always in heat and the males want to f*ck everything. Makes it hard to control reproduction


no problemo!
Oral contraceptives in the water supply (or, if you prefer Topical ones in the shower water)
If someone is APPROVED to have children; they are given anti contraceptives, and their eggs are used for IVF

Michael K said...

Harvard and Yale students are already practicing it. Read Charles Murray.

rcocean said...

What Dawkins says is true. His critics are dumbshits who come up with bogus arguments to make the boobs feel better. There is no credible scientific argument against it, only a moral one. So make the moral case.

In any case, if leftist made a convincing case that eugenics will fight "racism" or "antisemitism" - the same ones now screeching about it would support it.

Wince said...

I suppose you need to seize any opportunity to decry eugenics, fairly or unfairly, if your catechism recognizes Margaret Sanger as a hero.

Lucien said...

By the way: pretend you could get enough volunteers (in each generation) to try to breed humans for 10 generations (around 200 years)to jump higher or run faster (both complicated things to do)-- what would make you think that advances in genetic engineering over the next 200 years wouldn't allow for obtaining the same result, much more quickly, and at considerably less cost?
Isn't that the whole point of GMOs: instead of breeding plants for dozens of generations, we get the same result by operating directly on the genes?
Why do it the hard way?

rcocean said...

Remember when Dawkins got the feminists - including Rebecca Watson - all upset. He caved and apologized after some Left-wing blowback. taking bets on when he will recant, grovel and apologize for this eugenics remark.

rcocean said...

I think Margaret Sanger did some good work.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Liberals believe what they believe in full knowledge that reality is in complete contravention.

tcrosse said...

The ethical problem with eugenics is what you do to dispose of the unsatisfactory issue.

MD Greene said...

Howard said, "If you're smart, you practice eugenics individually."

My wise grandmother said, "I think good people should have children."

They were right, but if you want to systematize a eugenically optimizing culture you're going to end up with a bunch of insufferable know-it-alls directing the project so as to produce more people like themselves. How many Bloombergs and Romneys and Hillarys can one country be expected to tolerate?

In fact, there is plenty evidence that people can achieve beyond expectations, and if you haven't seen it you haven't been paying attention. The best predictors of such success are 1)Strong families, and 2)Broad communities that don't isolate the poor and luckless in crappy schools and squalid neighborhoods.

Achilles said...

I wanted to think twitter was eugenics in action.

I wanted to think it was selecting out the dumb people and hopefully convincing them to not procreate.

But I think it is just a window.

Hopefully it is just the dumb ones commenting there.

Cows were buffaloes? Dude is a doctor.

Fuck.

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Of course, Eugenics work. Duh. Smart people tend to give birth to smart children, just as tall people tend to give birth to kids who grow up tall.

The question is, Do we want it to work?



We do, but we wont say it out loud.

The issue is that it is backwards from what we want. We want our kids to be smarter. We want society to not judge.

But moving the mean is a population wide function that selects for outliers.

Individual couples have children that tend towards the mean.

Maybe the mode...

Either way it is backwards.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
The fourth is mildly amusing.


Come on, the fourth is funny, Colonel Klebb.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Boyd said...

What Dawkins says is true.

What Dawkins says is meaningless. Define "works".

narciso said...

Gu is a recursive cycle in category error, why do we think they would be better people, unless their moral character was superior, software instead of hardware,

Anonymous said...

AA: I see your point, but the context was a whole lot of posts just talking about seeing that #eugenics was trending. Anything beyond that was classified as substantive by me.

I'm used to the substance/procedure distinctions in law... so the stuff about why are we talking about this at all is like a jurisdictional question and anything getting to the issue under discussion is substance. Not a high bar to pass.


OK, I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

mockturtle said...

Mockturtle
Shame on you. Unknown is pointing out “that makes me sad” does not disprove Dawkins’s factual assertions.


Ken B, shame on me? I didn't misunderstand his statement. I merely asked him a simple question.

narciso said...

'nature finds a way' as dr. ian Malcolm put it, around the manipulations of biology, see the reavers in firefly, the backlash to creating a docile populace, the replicants rebelled so did the inhabitants of westworld,

Howard said...

Crazy Jane sounds very sane to me. I agree the free-range application of eugenics not dictated from above is the way to go. However genetics if the best predictor of success. Yorkshire has a role but in my experience control is to ensure mental health

Howard said...

Nurture not Yorkshire

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

It is worthwhile pointing out that the genetic engineering eugenics race has already started. The first shot was fired by Jian-kui HE. Although he claimed to be attempting to produce HIV resistant children, this made no sense in context and it is more likely that he was trying to enhance cognitive function.

Achilles said...

Morkoth4682 said...
I think eugenics as a theory is flawed, just like selective breeding or a centrally planned economy... The bio-diversity and strength of life on this planet comes directly from the chaos and unplanned "accidents" which occur via genetic mutation... Yes, it's messy and brutal, with entire species going extinct, yet life prevails, even thrives. And it is this diversity of chance that allows life to slog on even after an extinction level event.


I think this is a brilliant insight.

I never thought of eugenics as a centrally planned economy. But it makes sense.

I think that you have to expand it in that breeding for a specific characteristic will lead to failure of the system.

College professors came up with a test to measure your IQ. And magically the people who perform best on this test are college professors.

If we let them use eugenics to improve our race we would end up with a bunch of autistic assholes who can't change a tire or fix the air conditioning.

Anne in Rockwall, TX said...

Right narcisco.

You scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think whether or not you should.

Gabriel said...

Just because it's evil doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

Eugenics is no different from nuclear weapons in that regard. It's evil to nuke people, but that doesn't mean the science and engineering of nuclear weapons is somehow flawed.

People are really stupid nowadays.

If you can breed animals for a trait so you can humans. Plato talks about it in "The Republic" and arguably the Spartans practiced it.

Anonymous said...

John Lynch: In practice, eugenics means "don't let people breed unless they are like me."

No, it doesn't. In actual real-life contemporary practice, it means "If the amnio shows the fetus has Down Syndrome or is the 'wrong' sex, I'll abort it." Or, "I'm seeking a sperm or egg donor with this set of traits". Or - and this is not necessarily as conscious as the above, but is just as "eugenic" - "I'm going to reject people with this set of traits as possible marriage partners". Or, getting away from personal practice to ideological preferences, "white people are bad; the world would be a better place if there were fewer white people in it".

The above examples are practiced without moral qualm by people who are happy to slander as master-race promoting Nazis any person who wants to have an intelligent adult discussion about genetics without SJW mobs trying to ruin their lives.

narciso said...

that was the follow up line, I think it's more about conditioning than genetics, although it plays a part, we imagine the world the way we want it to be, and try to shape it In that direction,

Saint Croix said...

What Dawkins says is true.

You're basing this on what? What society allows the intelligent to breed and forbids all the dummies from having children?

You might find some ancient societies that tried this (a long time ago). Plato suggested as much (a long time ago).

If eugenics is a working model for a society--if it would improve humanity--how weird that exactly zero cultures are doing it now.

Saint Croix said...

Being a fan of eugenics is like being a fan of socialism. You're stuck sounding like an idiot. "It's never been tried."

Do you really want Donald Trump--or Nancy Pelosi--deciding who gets to breed?

h said...

For agricultural animals, the breeding for a result is always for an easily identifiable and measurable (and a single) outcome: higher milk output per cow, faster weight gain for a hog or chicken, etc. So it is uncontroversial to say "Bull A is better than Bull B". And animals (many/most) animals reach sexual maturity after a small number of years, so we can select for pugnosed dogs and have (say) 20 generations in 40 years, making a complete transformation to pug-nosed-ness. The problems for applying these lessons to humans are (1) that we don't have a common agreement on what we are selectively breeding for (even something measurable like footspeed in a race does not translate directly into athletic superiority in any sport) and (2) that it takes years to find out the outcome of our breeding (footspeed at age 20?)

Saint Croix said...

There is no credible scientific argument against it...

The human race is an ongoing experiment, a real life illustration of what works. You would think Darwinists would understand the concept of good ideas being passed on to our children, and bad ideas becoming extinct because the ideas are too stupid to work. And I say that even as the shambling corpse called Socialism is shuffling around, still trying to run the government. Some bad ideas are so spectacularly bad the romantics can't let go of them. But calling it "science" doesn't actually make it so.

Gabriel said...

I don't know what to do with a civilization that can't distinguish between "wrong" as in "evil" with "wrong" as in "false".

A centrally planned program of breeding humans for specific traits is a bad idea for moral reasons (treating humans as means to an end) and it's a bad idea for practical reasons (another commenter has likened it to centrally planned economy).

But it's not a false idea. It's very simple and obvious and long-practiced and doesn't even require knowledge of DNA.

All these people on Twitter went to the best universities, or echo people who do. They're ignorant and unable to think. They just fling feces at the other apes.

jimbino said...

The assumption in many of these posts is that Eugenics is associated with killing of the handicapped and "inferior" as was practiced by Nazis and Mao. That's dumb, and eugenics can be practiced by prohibiting or controlling breeding and abortion, killing nobody.

Dawkins speaks of the science of eugenics, which is not appreciated by most commenters here.

Statistics show that the brightest and best educated the world around have the fewest progeny.
Government wholeheartedly promotes pro-natalism at great expense to the best among us and, in particular, to those of use who are child-free, refusing to be bribed by child tax credits, earned income tax credits, free public "education," Medicare, Medicaid, foodstamps, housing allowances and the like into polluting the world with ever more CO2 producers.

The irony is that Eugenics, properly practiced, would lead to extinction of the human race unless the best and brightest were bribed into breeding a lot more. Of course, the result would be celebrated by the flora and fauna around the world.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Statistics show that the brightest and best educated the world around have the fewest progeny.

Idiocracy in action. :-D

Anonymous said...

Achilles: "College professors came up with a test to measure your IQ. And magically the people who perform best on this test are college professors.

If we let them use eugenics to improve our race we would end up with a bunch of autistic assholes who can't change a tire or fix the air conditioning."


Lol. Yes, I think that would be the result of any top-down eugenics program run by people who think they're qualified to do the selecting for traits for the human race. But individuals are already running their own personal eugenics programs.

However, your first statement is wrong. (On the same order as the oft-repeated claim that "people who make IQ tests design them so that their race always scores highest". Uh no.) One doesn't have to be some sperg IQ absolutist to recognize that "IQ" is a robust, useful metric that predicts a lot more than one's ability to do well on IQ tests. That doesn't mean I have any interest in letting people with higher IQs than myself run my life.

J Melcher said...

Patrick said...
For a noted atheist like Dawkins, the phrasing "heaven forbid" is odd. Seems like he's not convinced.

If one does not accept the authority of heaven, then saying "heaven forbid" is identical to saying "nobody should stop it".



Saint Croix said...

Plato talks about it in "The Republic" and arguably the Spartans practiced it.

How did that work out for them?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel said...
Just because it's evil doesn't mean it wouldn't work.


I am neutral on its evilness but there are good reasons why it won't work. We have a surprisingly small number of genes, that get pressed into service to do a lot of different things. As a consequence there are trade-offs, a lot of trade-offs, when things get changed. We are probably close to an optimum already, taking account of all those various trade-offs, and assuming hominids have been selecting for intelligence for millions of years, as seems likely given the changes in brain volume. It is likely that there will be only marginal returns to artificially tinkering with human intelligence, unless we come up with fundamentally new genetic or functional/network units, something that seems a very long way off.

chuck said...

And it is this diversity of chance that allows life to slog on even after an extinction level event.

Let nature decide. I believe that was where Herbert Spencer (social Darwinism) ended up. He didn't think government should intervene in such matters.

Let us not forget how popular eugenics was among progressives back in the day. IIRC, Sweden had a history of forced sterilizations second only to Nazi Germany.

jimbino said...

@ Angle-Dyne: That doesn't mean I have any interest in letting people with higher IQs than myself run my life.

You won't have to worry about that as long as the USSA allows our democratically elected gummint run your life!

Bob Boyd said...

If you can breed animals for a trait so you can humans.

Animals can't understand what is being done to them, organize and rebel.
Successfully implementing the program is part of making it "work".
And again, define work.
You can breed higher IQ people? That's only an interim goal. The ultimate goal is a better society, right? Will it be a better society after you do all the things required to force people to go along with your breeding program?
Suppose you manage to keep everybody under your thumb, you're breeding them selectively and now they're statistically smarter, but they're living in hell. Tell me, did eugenics work?

Anonymous said...

Saint Croix to rcocean:

"What Dawkins says is true."

You're basing this on what? What society allows the intelligent to breed and forbids all the dummies from having children?


Why don't you take the trouble to ascertain "what Dawkins said" before having an opinion about it? Or what the person you're responding to is actually saying, for that matter.

This is where I really sympathize with Althouse complaining about people who seem to like hearing themselves talk a lot more than they like *actually reading the actual fucking content of other people's actual comments". (I paraphrase, of course.)

D. B. Light said...

How many of those "magnificent" wild creatures are still roaming the Earth as opposed to the inferior domesticated breeds? In the long run at the species level domestication by humans is a wildly successful survival strategy.

D. B. Light said...

And, according to Prof. Pinker humans have been self-domesticating for millennia.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Shit like this is why being called a “science denier” by global climate fetishists irks me. People are so scientifically illiterate yet selfsure in their political righteousness it is impossible to have rational discussion with them. Yes, selective breeding in controlled environment works, whether you like it or not. So does gravity. Are we really having this discussion?

FullMoon said...

Irrelevant, or irreverent?

"Sholonda Parker is a recurring guest on the Maury Show infamous for having almost 20 DNA tests for her 3 children, including 1 daughter who she tested 17 different men for. During Sholonda's first appearance on September 28, 2004, she admitted she cheated on her husband Tywrell and said their daughter Kayla might not be his."


Sholonda | Maury Povich Wiki | Fandom

Bob Boyd said...

The operation was a success, but the patient died.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

I guess one counter argument would be: look at the British royal family, the product of centuries of selective breeding. Does Prince Andrew strike you as smarter and better than the rest of us?

The royal families of Europe were seriously inbred by the start of the 20th century.

rcocean said...

This is true:

"Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."

But carry on with the hysterics.

rcocean said...

Everyone know intelligence, like Height and hair color in an genetic trait. And we could breed a lot of super smart people if society decided to.

That doesn't make it right. But I'm wondering if the Chinese Chicoms have our sense of ethics.

chuck said...

she admitted she cheated on her husband Tywrell and said their daughter Kayla might not be his.".

Like I said, the bitches are always in heat and the males will f*ck anything :)

robother said...

I deplore nuclear weapons so much, I deny they work.

Gabriel said...

@Saint Croix:How did that work out for them?

Do you not know about the Spartans? They decided to breed ultimate soldiers and it's hard to argue they didn't succeed at that. That worked for them pretty goddamned well according all of the other people who lost wars to them over hundreds of years.

Were they good at other things? Not so much. No dog breed is good at everything, but that doesn't mean you can't breed dogs for something.

@ARM:We have a surprisingly small number of genes, that get pressed into service to do a lot of different things...

Nothing you say is any different for domestic animals. You can breed them for this trait or that trait and there's tradeoffs. No different for humans.

@Bob Boyd:Successfully implementing the program is part of making it "work".
And again, define work.


Just as for animals. Pick something and select for more of it. Taller, or stronger, or smarter, whatever. It would work. Would Utopia follow? Fuck no. Would there ne no tradeoffs, no unforeseen consequences? Fuck no.

The people here, and on Twitter, who are saying "eugenics doesn't work" are not paying attention to what the other side is saying.

They are saying only that what can and has been done with domestic animals can and has been done by humans. That is simply a fact, like gravity.

The early 20th century progressives were big on central planning. They wanted to centrally plan industrial production. That would have been a disaster eventually yes, but the factories would have produced things. The Nazis and the Communists were able to build pretty good war machines through central planning, but they sucked at everything else because central planners cannot possibly plan everything that well.

They also wanted to centrally plan human breeding for traits they selected. They would have got the traits they selected for. It would have been a disaster for other reasons, but they would have got the traits they selected for just like the Nazis and the Communists got the tanks they planned for.

FullMoon said...

Fastest racehorse gets highest stud fee.

n.n said...

Selecting for preference or function in a limited frame of reference with a relativistic religion. Be wary of mortal gods and acolytes.

FullMoon said...

The royal families of Europe were seriously inbred by the start of the 20th century.

But no particular genius or particular mental or physical defects?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel said...
Just as for animals.


I think you are confused as to what domesticated animals actually are. They are parasites of human civilization. Most could no longer function independently of human society (not cats). As parasites they have lost much of their useful functionality (cats never had any). This is not a useful model for human eugenics.

n.n said...

There use to be a principle in engineering: just because you can doesn't mean you should. There use to be a principle in medical practice: do no harm. Social progress (e.g. normalization), and the special and peculiar interests of mortal gods and their elite acolytes, forces their recurring obsolescence.

Gabriel said...

@ARM:As parasites they have lost much of their useful functionality...

Useful to whom, ARM? The humans who bred them. Domestic animals are EXTREMELY useful to humans! That's why humans applied eugenic principles to them!

Put the pieces together. It is wrong to say that eugenics doesn't work. It does and it is evil. Humans will be bred for the service of the aims of other humans. Some humans will be domestic animals for others. That's why Dawkins has a problem with it. Putting you head in the sand and saying "it would never work" is the very thing that will bring it about.

chuck said...

Were they [Spartans] good at other things?

Spartans were noted for poetry. Poetry and militarism was a traditional pairing.

Saint Croix said...

Why don't you take the trouble to ascertain "what Dawkins said" before having an opinion about it? Or what the person you're responding to is actually saying, for that matter.

I read your comment at 12:52 to mean that you think liberals are hypocrites for supporting the killing of unborn children with Down's while they simultaneously abhor eugenics. I agree with you about the hypocrisy. I would have them fix the lie by accepting that the handicapped have a right to life.

It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins is a eugenicist. He's a big fan of Peter Singer. Singer believes we should have the right to kill newborns. You want to comment on that?

Karen of Texas said...

We're doing a bang up job assisting bacteria and viruses. Seems breeding humans to be resistant would be a worthy goal.

"Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines can incite changes that enable diseases to escape their control. Researchers are working to head off the evolution of new threats."

Let's keep tinkering with the innate and amazing immune system that humans used to have.

Gabriel said...

@chuck:Spartans were noted for poetry.

True. But not much else. They could defeat their enemies but could not conquer them. Their system was not one that could scale. They certainly wouldn't want other civilizations to emulate them so they wouldn't spread their system. It's not a life that anyone would choose if they had a free choice, so they didn't get conversions to their system.

And all that is exactly my point. It worked, and it was evil.

FullMoon said...

ARM said
I think you are confused as to what domesticated animals actually are. They are parasites of human civilization. Most could no longer function independently of human society (not cats).


I would definitely give this 10/10 on a site devoted to fanatical dog lovers ...


Maillard Reactionary said...

ARM: Domestic animals aren't parasites in the biological sense of the term.

A better analogy would be the fungus that certain leaf-cutter ants cultivate and grow underground on the ground-up and spit out leaves that the ants, you know, cut.

Just because the fungus has evolved (and for all we know, has been been bred by the ants) to only be able to live in those nests doesn't make it a parasite on the ants.

The ants find it useful. The fungus has a place to live.

There is nothing useful to humans in e.g. tapeworms and the malaria plasmodia. Those are parasites.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Phidippus said...
ARM: Domestic animals aren't parasites in the biological sense of the term.


I tried to make this point by saying human civilization, the entire system not the actual humans. But, I agree the analogy is a bit strained. Couldn't think of a better one.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Symbionts has its own problems as an analogy because we, individual humans, aren't symbiotic with any domestic animals, as vegetarians show regularly.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

But no particular genius or particular mental or physical defects?

2/16/20, 1:48 PM

Haemophilia, which was passed on by Queen Victoria to various royal houses in Europe, ended up having a pretty significant impact on Russian history.

Bob Boyd said...

Just as for animals. Pick something and select for more of it. Taller, or stronger, or smarter, whatever. It would work. Would Utopia follow? Fuck no. Would there ne no tradeoffs, no unforeseen consequences? Fuck no.

You're talking about selective breeding. I'm talking about eugenics, which is a much larger idea. Eugenics is the whole project of planning and building a better society, selective breeding is only part of it.
When selectively breeding animals, the trait is the end goal. For eugenicists selectively breeding humans, the target trait is an interim goal. The ultimate goal is a better society.
You might produce some specimens with the desired trait, but you wouldn't reach the ultimate goal. Successfully implementing a program is part of being able to say "it works."

FullMoon said...

Haemophilia, which was passed on by Queen Victoria to various royal houses in Europe, ended up having a pretty significant impact on Russian history.

Interesting. Actually new a kid who had it. Internet searched him during one of those "wonder if I can find so and so " days. Killed in a car wreck in his twenties.


Anyway, always thought inbreeding was outlawed because it ended up with morons or physical deformities. Kinda like the Deliverance banjo player guy.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Saint Croix said: "It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins is a eugenicist."

Dawkins just got done saying the opposite, you twit. Go reread what was quoted of him again. We'll help you with any of the big words.

Based on this, I suspect you got the other thing wrong too.

I've read Dawkins. He is not a monster, a mad scientist, or most of the other things he's been accused of. He does think (rather strictly) like a scientist, and being outspoken in his opinions and rather indifferent how how people react to them, is disliked by many.

It doesn't matter. Nature is what it is and our feelings about it don't enter into it. But I strenuously agree with the others who have noted above that humans lack the wisdom at this time to wisely attempt any efforts to "improve" the human race. Unforeseeable and catastrophic unintended consequences are a virtual certainty (given our track record) and may be difficult or impossible to undo.

That last is a point many overlook: We should be loath to undertake risky things if there is not a dependable road back if they go awry.

Maillard Reactionary said...

ARM @2:09: Point taken sir, but I still think my analogy is better than your analogy ;-)

Saint Croix said...

Dawkins just got done saying the opposite, you twit.

I'm of the opinion he said what he thought and then regretted it. He's now a eugenicist-in-hiding.

And his friendship with Singer speaks volumes.

Phil 314 said...

I think you are confused as to what domesticated animals actually are. They are parasites of human civilization. Most could no longer function independently of human society (not cats). As parasites they have lost much of their useful functionality (cats never had any). This is not a useful model for human eugenics.

What is a person's functionality in society? what is the functionality of a worker bee?

We should ask Richard Dawkins what the functionality of an unmotivated, IQ of 88 twenty something is.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Eugenics gets labeled as "pseudoscience" for emotional reasons, but it works (i.e. it generates phenotypic change in traits on which artificial selection is exercised), so calling it a pseudoscience is like calling the internal combustion engine pseudoscience because it contributes to global warming, even though it transforms potential energy into work.

"The thing about people who believe in eugenics is that they always believe themselves to be the superior kind of human. No-one ever thinks that it could make *people like them* obsolete..."

Besides not being true, this says nothing about whether or not eugenics works, which is the only point Dawkins was making.

Derek Kite said...

I read a bunch of them this morning. It convinces me of the uselessness of Twitter, where stupid people can opine in large numbers to move 'opinion'.

Eugenics isn't evil because it doesn't work. It is evil because it would work, and that the impulses to make it work are evil.

I saw no one explain why it is evil. I don't think they know. And in my worst moments, think that if they thought it through they would like the idea.

Bob Boyd said...

Interesting editorializing.
Here's the definition that comes up first on Bing:

eugenics
[yo͞oˈjeniks]

NOUN
the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Anyway, always thought inbreeding was outlawed because it ended up with morons or physical deformities. Kinda like the Deliverance banjo player guy.

Inbreeding, whether in animals or humans, has the disadvantage of concentrating in a smaller population genetic traits that can be harmful especially if they are recessive or double recessive. It can also concentrate good genetic traits....or both.

Recessive genetic traits don't express themselves if there is only one copy of the "bad" gene in the offspring. Two people with the same recessive gene who breed together have a much higher chance of having children with the "bad" trait. Like the Hemophilia example above. This is why people in small communities or tribes have avoided breeding with other family members and have gone to great lengths to find mates from OUTSIDE of the tribe.

Sometimes the trait can be something good, like strength, intelligence or other. However, often the hidden bad traits will be there too. Intelligent people who bleed to death with a bruise.

My mother was a double recessive gene participant. She is/was color blind. Women are only color blind with a double dose of the gene on both X chromosomes. Men only need it on one X because the Y chromosome lacks that portion of the DNA (over simplified but that is the gist) All her 5 brothers are color blind. One of her three sisters also color blind. Not a recessive trait that will kill you. One that might even have some evolutionary upsides. Along with the colorblind double whammy, she also got a chronic inability to metabolize Vit K

The OK. The good. The bad.

tcrosse said...

What does the eugenicist do with the discards?

FullMoon said...



What does the eugenicist do with the discards?

Part 'em out. Use Planned Parenthood as intermediary.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

Often lost in the discussion of the history of the Eugenics movement was who ended up being its most successful opponents -- i.e. the Roman Catholic Church & the Evangelicals.

The RCC could argue against it successfully because they had their Neo-Thomistic "competing metaphysics" which allowed them to argue for a moral worth of the individual that was inalienable and could not be overridden by the demands of the state.

The Evangelicals started out more or less on board, and then discovered that it was their community who were the primary targets of eugenic abuse. They lacked the educational infrastructure to use as bully pulpits that the Catholics had, but they had the numbers & connections to raise hell at the local level.

This is a good read on the topic.

Mark said...

"For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. . . . But heaven forbid that we should do it."

His express condemnation of the matter is different entirely than bemoaning, "You don't understand me," and then doubling down on an implied embrace of it.

veni vidi vici said...

All of those quoted twitter comments concede his point that it works.

But to a person, each of the tweeters probably considered him/herself colossally superior to the benighted Dawkins and his backwardthink.

For the love of Pete, would that some of these idiots had tried to find a Jew in West Germany sometime in, say, 1975. Are people really this dumb, I ask myself; and then I log on twitter and look around.....

cubanbob said...

Derek Kite said...
I read a bunch of them this morning. It convinces me of the uselessness of Twitter, where stupid people can opine in large numbers to move 'opinion'.

Eugenics isn't evil because it doesn't work. It is evil because it would work, and that the impulses to make it work are evil.

I saw no one explain why it is evil. I don't think they know. And in my worst moments, think that if they thought it through they would like the idea."

Well said. A thought experiment for those commenting here: what if the technology were to exist that every viable pregnancy would result in a child with an IQ of 145 or higher. After several lifespans would humanity as a whole be better off? My first thought is on balance, no. No doubt much more progress in science and technology as well as in the arts and in other learned professions but the current negative social traits would remain but coupled with more smarts. Smarter assholes and smarter criminals and smarter crazies to my mind is not an optimal outcome.

YoungHegelian said...

The Commies were not big fans of eugenics. Why? Not because they thought it was evil, but because they denied Mendelian genetics, and thus felt that eugenics was unnecessary.

The Marxists believed that both man & nature were infinitely malleable to the human will-- "Man is the measure of all things". They thought that man was a "tabula rasa" at birth and thus by rearing & education the New Soviet Man could be created that could fill every need of society much like interchangeable cogs in a machine.

The economic & social disasters of Marxist-Leninist regimes came not from the assumption that the fixed genetic essence of men could be channeled, but rather from Lysenkoism, the uber-Lamarckian false science that preached that genetic traits could be made infinitely malleable by environmental control --- e.g. that wheat could be made to grow in winter by mass attempts to grow wheat in winter.

Whatever moral & societal horrors eugenics unleashed on the world (and I will at a stretch even include the Holocaust in this total), the body count of Lysenkoism far outstrips it by several tens of millions of murdered souls.

chuck said...

It is evil because it would work, and that the impulses to make it work are evil.

The same reasoning is used to argue against torture: "it doesn't work". The people who argue so then go on their happy way convinced of their own moral and scientific superiority.

joshbraid said...

Wait--given that the Wilson administration did everything it could to make eugenics work, what happened? What--Hitler got his eugenics buzz from the American left? Just like socialism, eugenics will work this time.

mockturtle said...

The Evangelicals started out more or less on board, and then discovered that it was their community who were the primary targets of eugenic abuse.

Oh, really? Evangelicals founded most of America's top colleges. Unless you don't consider Puritans evangelicals.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"he Commies were not big fans of eugenics.”

they had their own brand. They basically machine gunned everybody with an IQ above room temperature into a ditch and covered them with lime.

Pol Pot killed everybody with glasses, I think.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

The “Mr Bond” jibe was perfect.

mockturtle said...

Yes, Aunty Trump. In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, it was the educated who needed re-education.

Sebastian said...

So eugenics is evil now to progs. How long until they prohibit free mate selection and assortative mating?

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

There is of course the line of thinking that we are becoming genetically degenerate because we used to have large numbers of children, only the fittest of whom survived to adulthood to bear children themselves, kind of like the undoubtedly very fit wild populations of animals. Wolves seem a lot more fit than Labradors, but a Labrador is a better choice if you need a dog to fetch the duck you just shot over water.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

@mockturtle,

Unless you don't consider Puritans evangelicals.

No, I don't, and that's not how the term is used outside of a "confessional formulation". The Lutherans call themselves the "Evangelical" Lutheran Church, but they are no socio-economically nor theologically "Evangelical".

The Evangelical Churches are those churches that would be called in normal parlance "low" churches, e.g. not heavily liturgical, parishonal vs episcopal management, Arminian in theology, and with the central spiritual experience being based on a the believer's personal encounter with Sacred Scripture. Their adherents were mostly located in the "frontier" states, and were at the time mostly rural.

As for the more established Protestant denominations, they failed the moral challenge of eugenics miserably. The centers of learning you point to that were founded by them were the centers of the promulgation of eugenics by the Best & Brightest.

chuck said...

They basically machine gunned everybody with an IQ above room temperature

Selecting by class instead of genes. It makes sense if you believe the Marxist theory of social evolution.

MikeR said...

Reading that comment thread was just embarrassing. Reading comprehension, anyone?

jimbino said...

I would love to hear Dawkins opine on the dysgenics implicit in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, food stamps, paid pregnancy leave, FMLA, child tax credit, earned income tax credit, compulsory insurance and the other socialist welfare policies.

rcocean said...

Never assume that the person smearing you or someone else as an "-ist" is making a good faith argument. 95% of the time they are not. And trying to "Reason" with them or explain to them why you or so-and-so is NOT an "-ist" is a waste of time.

But people constantly do it.

rcocean said...

Just note they are smearing, and move on.

Mark said...

Everyone know intelligence, like Height and hair color in an genetic trait.

That has been said a few times here.

But take it from someone who apparently does not qualify to be included in "everyone," an awful lot of the "intelligent" people are complete idiots, lacking in nearly any ability to reason. Case in point, practically all of humanity's most destructive ideas have come, not from the great unwashed ignorant masses, but from the "smart" and "educated" people. Even that dull-witted Adolf got all his ideas from intellectuals.

mockturtle said...

With all due respect, Young Hegelian, I believe you are wrong in your definition of Evangelical. Certainly the eminent preacher and President of Princeton U., Jonathan Edwards believed himself an evangelical Christian. Perhaps your characterization is based on demographic data rather than theological.

Anonymous said...

Saint Croix: I read your comment at 12:52 to mean that you think...

You still haven't demonstrated that you can correctly characterize Dawkin's comment. Why don't you work on that before moving on to others' comments?

He's a big fan of Peter Singer. Singer believes we should have the right to kill newborns. You want to comment on that?

Sure. I'm aware I'm just stating what is obvious to everybody, but I'll oblige your request for comment on that statement nonetheless: You're a self-satisfied lightweight fond of gossip and sanctimony, but not really up to engaging with more substantial fare.

YoungHegelian said...

@mockturtle,

Jonathan Edwards believed himself an evangelical Christian. Perhaps your characterization is based on demographic data rather than theological.

Nope. Rev. Edwards' characterization of his faith was, even by 18th C standards, a "confessional" usage.

What we call the "Evangelical Churches" were barely a-borning in Edwards' time. Matter of fact, modern Evangelicals tend to consider Calvinism to be a heresy.

n.n said...

Everyone know intelligence, like Height and hair color in an genetic trait.

Maybe. At minimum, it is nature and nurture. However, the limits of science are correlations, not discerning cause and effect. Also, it depends on how you define intelligence (a la "progress", "conservative", etc). It is objectively correlated with skill and knowledge. However, there is also an imputed positive sense.

Quaestor said...

While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer.

Doctor Gu (How's that for a Bond villain's handle?) is more mistaken than correct. Selective breeding has produced many more successes than failures like the King Charles Cavalier spaniel, else we'd still be living in hunter-gatherer bands rather than in agriculture-based civilizations.

Also, his horse/pony comment is ill-founded. Ponies are the result of non-selective breeding. Take any population of selectively-bred horses -- giant Percherons or swift Thoroughbreds -- and allow them to breed at liberty, and within several generations, the mean height of the population will be 14 hands or smaller. This is the principle of regression to the ancestral phenotype at work.

narciso said...

well he was evangelizing, the technical details of the affiliation are immaterial,

phillip Kerr's Bernie Gunther tale, Marlowe in Nazi germany, affords a perspective of how these attempts at shaping the population look like from the outsider, then there's vollman's Europa central, which gives character sketches about figures on the right, like general vlasov and left figures like Shostakovich,

Saint Croix said...

You still haven't demonstrated that you can correctly characterize Dawkin's comment.

I understand his comment very well.

He's a eugenicist who thinks humanity would be improved with selective abortion and the killing of the handicapped.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

“Kahn” the fictional genetically engineered character was far more like the wolf than the Labrador. Wolves define their own interests. Animals are bred in such a way that they don’t.

ken in tx said...

I think that with subsidies and other positive incentives, future generations could be bred that live longer, don't get diabetes, arthritis, need glasses, have higher IQs, and a myriad of other positive traits. I have read that the Government of Singapore has something like this for IQ. Positive Eugenics does not have to mean culling the herd.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

“Positive Eugenics does not have to mean culling the herd.”

Just displacing them.

The Vault Dweller said...

I mean if you have very narrowly tailored 'goals' for eugenics like make people taller, and improve performance on iq tests. Then yeah I guess eugenics can be successful, but that wouldn't be the goal of any eugenics program, it would be things like increase global wealth, improve global health and healthcare, and make overall make society better. There are a lot more variables and a lot more intervening steps between selective breeding and reaching those results. And the ideal way to achieve those results are under no obligation to make any sense to any person trying to figure them out. Not even those people are a group of well meaning scientists. It is not hard for any minimally creative person to imagine some terrible, dystopian sci-fi book or movie that starts with the narrator saying, "It all started to change when the world's governments implemented their eugenics programs..."

Howard said...

In a free-market version of eugenics culling of the herd is called The ghetto.

Howard said...

Evangelical is impossible to define precisely. Everyone's got their own opinion. The least reliable of which come from evangelicals and other Christian extremist groups.

Howard said...

The real advantage to free market eugenics is that the herd culls itself by congregating in Trump country where they can feel safe among their own kind.

Mary Beth said...

"The thing about people who believe in eugenics is that they always believe themselves to be the superior kind of human. No-one ever thinks that it could make *people like them* obsolete..."

It's similar to the people who are pro-communism. They always think they'll be running things. They never think they'll be among the ones sent for re-education. If they paid attention, they'd notice that those with small ideological differences are the ones that get the most intense hate.

Narr said...

I just got here w/o reading comments (or TFA) and I have to eat dinner soon so I'll predict
that at least half of the comments when I come back will reflect misreadings of Dawkins, the Prof, A/atheist(s), E/eugenicist(s) and other posters' comments.

Narr
Please prove me wrong!

Saint Croix said...

Eugenics thy name is coronavirus.

There's credible evidence that the virus was man-made.

'The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus,' penned by scholars Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao claims the WHCDC kept disease-ridden animals in laboratories, including 605 bats.

It also mentions that bats - which are linked to coronavirus - once attacked a researcher and 'blood of bat was on his skin.'

The report says: 'Genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis (intermediate horseshoe bat).'

It describes how the only native bats are found around 600 miles away from the Wuhan seafood market and that the probability of bats flying from Yunnan and Zhejiang provinces was minimal.

Instead the authors point to research being carried out within a few hundred yards at the WHCDC.

One of the researchers at the WHCDC described quarantining himself for two weeks after a bat's blood got on his skin, according to the report. That same man also quarantined himself after a bat urinated on him.


The lab was right next to the hospital where the infection first broke out.

mockturtle said...

Well, St. Croix, some of us have been insisting this all along. I think the 'wet market' theory had been pretty well debunked.

mockturtle said...

What we call the "Evangelical Churches" were barely a-borning in Edwards' time. Matter of fact, modern Evangelicals tend to consider Calvinism to be a heresy.

Where, pray tell, do you get your information, YH? I myself am a Calvinist evangelical. And most Baptist churches are basically Calvinist in doctrine.

mockturtle said...

Perhaps you are thinking of Pentecostals?

Maillard Reactionary said...

Quaestor @4:44 PM:

You sound like you know what you're talking about. Shut up, we're having an argument here.

Chris N said...

Twitter, unfortunately, selects for losers and loudness, and the people who curate it select for ideological similarity from what I presume is a worldview with identifiable characteristics.

It does not favor much deep and intelligent discussion and the people who run it select in favor of activist causes because they tend to be parasitical ideologues.

wildswan said...

I think eugenics as defined by Galton has three essential characteristics - 1. You accept Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and you resolve to apply selection to human society so as to speed up evolution. 2. You think you know in what direction natural selection is moving - that is you think you know know a marker defining what natural selection is selecting for or against. i.e. race or IQ. 3. You propose social policies that will cause faster selection by discriminating for against human groups defined by the marker. i.e. segregation for race, the ovens for Jews, abortion for those of low IQ.

Will it "work?" Planned Parenthood was a eugenic program which aimed to lower the number of African-American children born and thus gradually breed them out. It promoted itself as "choice" and was enthusiastically taken up by European-Americans also. So although it "worked" in that the African-American birth rate has now fallen below replacement level, it didn't "work" in that the same thing happened to the European-American birth rate. That's just one example but I assert that it's typical. No one knows where "natural selection" or evolution is going with respect to the human race - it's like saying "I know where history is going." And meanwhile a plan of being cruel to any human group creates enormous opposition as soon as it is understood and not just in the disfavored group. Eugenics is planned cruelty and always aimed at the weak and miserable and people hate that. Ultimately that is why eugenics will not work.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Perfect!
we're naming our little CRISPR Critter "Eu-gene"


Is CRISPR Opening a Back Door to Eugenics?

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/11/15/is_crispr_opening_a_back_door_to_eugenics_110458.html

wildswan said...

Eugenics is always bad science, always the wrong explanation for why a group is weak and miserable. City poverty in 19C and early 20C England was a result of the upheaval of the Industrial Revolution, not a consequence of inherited material traits.

Or take the famous IQ testing. There are IQ tests that are supposedly culture-free - the Raven tests which use diagrams and the ability to match similarities or spot differences. But is this culture-free or is it the very essence of a literate, technical culture? What if there were a similar test based on sounds so that you had to remember three sound sequences and then pick out a fourth which was similar? I would do very badly on that. But I think that the race that gave us jazz would on average do very well? If IQ is pattern recognition, why is pattern recognition only thought of as writing or geometry and not as sound or music?

And guys, guess what? Charles Murray has new book out, Human Diversity. Just as the Bell Curve spouted the old eugenics, IQ and race, so this new book spouts the new eugenics, behavior genetics and race. The pig has lipstick but its the same old pig.

Anonymous said...

wildswan: And guys, guess what? Charles Murray has new book out, Human Diversity. Just as the Bell Curve spouted the old eugenics, IQ and race, so this new book spouts the new eugenics, behavior genetics and race. The pig has lipstick but its the same old pig.

You didn't actually read The Bell Curve and you won't read Human Diversity, either.

Not that that will you stop you from expatiating on its contents.

Anonymous said...

BCARM: Come on, the fourth is funny, Colonel Klebb.

That was funny.

wildswan said...


Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
"wildswan:
You didn't actually read The Bell Curve and you won't read Human Diversity, either."

When The Bell Curve came out in the Nineties, I was very interested because it had many eugenic references all the way through it and it explained the science and had organized the eugenic references into a coherent argument for eugenics through birth control and abortion. Of course I read it. Human Diversity is similar in that the new post-Human Genome Project science is explained and organized into a new eugenic argument, though the old IQ argument seems to be enclosed in there somehow. Of course I'm reading it.

The day may come when instead of saying "you didn't read that," you'll answer my arguments.

wildswan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

wildswan: Of course I read it.

So the book you read is an argument for eugenics via birth control and abortion? Here's the amazon link for the book of that title I have on my shelf. Could you provide me with a link to the book you read?

The day may come when instead of saying "you didn't read that," you'll answer my arguments.

And perhaps the day may come when your "arguments" consist of something other than the same tired straw men that have been advanced for decades by indignant souls who don't appear to have any real familiarity with the works and people they're criticizing.

The Vault Dweller said...

When The Bell Curve came out in the Nineties, I was very interested because it had many eugenic references all the way through it and it explained the science and had organized the eugenic references into a coherent argument for eugenics through birth control and abortion. Of course I read it. Human Diversity is similar in that the new post-Human Genome Project science is explained and organized into a new eugenic argument, though the old IQ argument seems to be enclosed in there somehow. Of course I'm reading it.

I didn't read the Bell Curve or Human Diversity, but I would still be surprised if Charles Murray is arguing as a proponent for Eugenics. He recently wrote another book called Coming Apart, and in it he warns against a society that is experiencing de facto segregation and de facto eugenics. The well educated and high earners have essentially sealed themselves off from the other 85% to 80% of society. He sees this as a by product of assortative mating. Where smart college educated or higher people pair off with other smart, college educated or higher people. Who then produce smart children who go off to College or higher and wind up marrying other smart children who went to college or higher. This is leading to divergent social experiences across large swaths of society, where people are kind of sealed off from one another. Where as before it was more common to have much more interaction between "Classes" as it were. And he definitely seems to take a position that this is bad overall for society.

But again I haven't read his books, but from what I've gleaned by watching him in interviews I think sometimes people mistake his arguing that a certain phenomenon is responsible or the cause of something that is that he is arguing that that phenomenon or pattern is good or should be pursued.

Saint Croix said...

Dawkins the scientist.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

Dawkins the eugenicist.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 225   Newer› Newest»