Althouse: "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."

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:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225

chuck said...: we'd still be living in hunter-gatherer bands rather than in agriculture-based civilizations.

Modern agriculture is also a product of selective breeding. Tomatoes and corn are recent examples, and, IIRC, wheat isn't successful in the wild because it has been bred so that the head doesn't shatter to scatter the seeds.; 2/16/20, 9:10 PM
Saint Croix said...: Dawkins the apologist.; 2/16/20, 9:17 PM
Gahrie said...: 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?

I.Q. tests are valid, and have nearly identical results across culture, nationality and language. See South Africa for instance. IQ tests are the most valid measurement in social science.; 2/16/20, 9:27 PM
Gahrie said...: I.Q. tests are used in every school in the United States to determine eligibility for special services.; 2/16/20, 9:28 PM
Gahrie 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).

Cows, pigs, horses, dogs, chickens etc all do just fine when allowed to go wild. In fact I am unaware of a single domesticated animal that does not thrive in the wild. Even goldfish do.; 2/16/20, 9:36 PM
Narr said...: Man, I can call 'em. Dawkins' twittercritics, like some commenters here, seem to have mental blockages when it comes to understanding his statements.

Not surprising really.

As to European royalty, using the Windsors as examples, they were selected for rank and lineage, not for looks or brains; most royals and ex-royals in Europe today are probably less intelligent and less comely than average.

In classic Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat would begin a succession of new and higher human achievements, once the pathologies of capitalism were overcome--healthy, intelligent, liberated people would be what humans were supposed to be. That was a herd-level approach, as opposed to the hit-or-miss royal bloodlines one.

The most important thing today is that opposition is like closing the barn doors after the horses have eaten your children. By the time ethicists, bioethicists, priests, politicians and other shamans have noticed something like this, actual scientists are miles up the road, creating a new reality.

Narr
It's a scifi world, I only wander around in it; 2/16/20, 9:57 PM
wildswan said...: "Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard 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?"

I'm glad you bought a book. Strangely I bought the same one even though back in the day there was no Amazon. In the book, there is the following quote:

:... the problem: The United States ... has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women. If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility. The technically precise description of America’s fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended.

The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone, rich or poor. The other generic recommendation, as close to harmless as any government program we can imagine, is to make it easy for women to make good on their prior decision not to get pregnant by making available birth control mechanisms that are increasingly flexible, foolproof, inexpensive, and safe."

That is eugenics. How have you been interpreting it?; 2/16/20, 10:27 PM
wildswan said...: The Vault Dweller said... [I read Coming Apart]... "I would still be surprised if Charles Murray is arguing as a proponent for Eugenics"

I found Coming Apart a very interesting book and at the time I read it I did not think it was an argument for eugenics though the Bell Curve was. I think that Coming Apart was more a description of a problem than a full bore argument along eugenic lines. Since it is about assortative mating the description might show up in a later argument which is eugenic.; 2/16/20, 10:38 PM
wildswan said...: Gahrie said...
I.Q. tests are valid, and have nearly identical results across culture, nationality and language. See South Africa for instance. IQ tests are the most valid measurement in social science.

IQ tests are considered valid mainly because they predict success in the schools that prepare for a literate technical culture. But is the mind that succeeds in a literate technical culture the only intelligent mind? That's what I'm getting at. If intelligence is pattern recognition then why make the patterns to be recognized solely patterns of diagrams in space? Why not sound?

Or consider this. South American Indians do poorly on IQ tests. Yet we know that they (the women) developed corn, potatoes, chilis, beans, chocolate, squash, and many other foods that are feeding the world. Unintelligent? What pattern would that kind of intelligence be good at recognizing because intelligence is at work there.; 2/16/20, 10:48 PM
effinayright said...: What's interesting about the atheist Dawkins is that he thinks the values of the Bible--Both Old and New Testament--should be taught in UK schools, in order to push back against the barbarism of Islam.

A grudging admission that some "mass delusions" are better than others!; 2/16/20, 10:59 PM
effinayright said...: wildswan said...
Or consider this. South American Indians do poorly on IQ tests. Yet we know that they (the women) developed corn, potatoes, chilis, beans, chocolate, squash, and many other foods that are feeding the world. Unintelligent? What pattern would that kind of intelligence be good at recognizing because intelligence is at work there.
**************

Then again, it could have been nothing more than trial and error.

Carl Sagan once commented that there are no memorials to the ancient people who ate certain plants and then died, providing guidance of a sort to their survivors----"don't eat that!"; 2/16/20, 11:01 PM
Gahrie said...: South American Indians do poorly on IQ tests. Yet we know that they (the women) developed corn, potatoes, chilis, beans, chocolate, squash, and many other foods that are feeding the world. Unintelligent? What pattern would that kind of intelligence be good at recognizing because intelligence is at work there.

If civilization collapsed, I'd be more than happy to be surrounded by illiterates South American farmers. Otherwise, not so much.; 2/16/20, 11:37 PM
Josephbleau said...: We have to understand that labels age out in less than five years. Eugenics or Marxism or Nation Building are meaningless. Give an operational definition of what you what to do. Do you want to make black furred puppies? sure. Do you want to make tall kids? maybe? Do you want to eliminate minorities you hate, no, but you can by forbidding breeding. I won't hate you until you tell me your goal.; 2/17/20, 12:14 AM
wildswan said...: wholelottasplainin' said...
"wildswan said...
Or consider this. South American Indians do poorly on IQ tests. Yet we know that they (the women) developed corn, ....
**************

Then again, it could have been nothing more than trial and error.

Carl Sagan once commented that there are no memorials to the ancient people who ate certain plants and then died, providing guidance of a sort to their survivors----"don't eat that!"

The evidence is that plants such as corn in the beginning were small with a few grains on them and that the Indians developed them into close to the present size and as well developed varieties appropriate to different climate zones.

Picture of teosinte, the plant from which the Indians developed corn. https://www.snakeriverseeds.com/products/teosinte-1; 2/17/20, 12:39 AM
wildswan said...: "Gahrie said...

If civilization collapsed, I'd be more than happy to be surrounded by illiterates South American farmers. Otherwise, not so much."

How about being surrounded by literate hedge fund managers because civilization has not collapsed?; 2/17/20, 12:42 AM
n.n said...: Dawkins the scientist.

Twilight (e.g. conflation of logical domains) faith. Pro-Choice (i.e. selective, opportunistic, politically congruent) religion. Liberal (i.e. divergent) ideology. Progress (i.e. monotonic [unqualified] change). In Stork They Trust.; 2/17/20, 1:13 AM
n.n said...: A grudging admission that some "mass delusions" are better than others!

Some, many, people defer to mortal gods, their acolytes, and secular indulgences. Different label, another judgment, often wicked outcomes.; 2/17/20, 1:19 AM
n.n said...: Dawkins the apologist.

Cannibalized-child.

Dawkins the eugenicist.

Planned parenthood (i.e. selective-child).

The Chinese leftists selected/planned the second and later child. The Western leftists are more discriminating. The right (i.e. libertarian), perhaps ironically, tend to agree with their consensus. The extreme right (i.e. anarchist) is complementary to the extreme left (i.e. totalitarian) in a left-right nexus. Moderates tend to follow the Humpty Dumpty principle. Conservatives or center are, for one reason or another, true to their founding: all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. #PrinciplesMatter; 2/17/20, 1:32 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Dawkins is a very silly person. Of course eugenics would work. The alternative is either people reproducing by accident, or by irrational criteria. To believe otherwise is to believe that something exists above accidental procreation that works behind the apparent accidental or irrational reproduction to achieve its own ends.
That's not scientific.
But if eugenics is bad, even though it would work, than what is it tells you that eugenics is bad? Not nature. Believing that nature is "wiser" than the eugenicists is justifying the silly decisions that cause people to have children by magical hand-waiving.; 2/17/20, 1:40 AM
Anonymous said...: wildswan: That is eugenics. How have you been interpreting it?

Why yes, I would interpret what you quoted as "eugenic". You are certainly correct that there are statements properly characterized as "eugenic" in the book. But I made no claim to the contrary. What I criticized you for was your tendentious misrepresentation of its content as an "argument for eugenics through birth control and abortion" tout court. Which it isn't, as anybody who has read it, rather than combing through it looking for the naughty bits (to use in support of his slanderous and crackpot conviction that the writer is a racial supremacist who wants to kill all the brown and black people), and ignoring or dismissing all the rest, would know.

This is an example of why it's not worthwhile to engage with your "arguments". When you've convinced yourself that the people who disagree with you about the meaning and import of IQ are evil racial supremacists who hate brown and black people, you don't put any intellectual energy into understanding them - 'cause you already know that they're bad and up to no good and they're not gonna fool you with all those stats and charts and facts, are they?!?!?!? So you end up, as I complained, not being up to much more than trotting out tired straw men and nosing around for evidence of the noxious intent that you *know* is what's really motivating their interests in a subject.

As for your other comments, above, well...there you go again. You're like the creationist who, with an air of triumph, asks things like "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? Huh?" After which he turns around to his amen section with a smug expression conveying "Ha, I showed him, totally owned, yuk yuk yuk." But of course, the only thing he's shown more informed audience members is that he doesn't know what he's talking about (Or that he's dishonest. Which I don't think you are.); 2/17/20, 8:38 AM
Fernandinande said...: But individuals are already running their own personal eugenics programs.

I've also used the term "personal eugenics", but it's incorrect since eugenics refers to improving society, and "personal eugenics" is better called "mate selection" or "sexual selection" since it's meant to optimize the individuals' genetic fitness, not the groups'; the "personal eugenics" program of a lazy/violent/stupid/diseased/crazy person is likely to be dysgenic for his larger society.; 2/17/20, 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Fern: I've also used the term "personal eugenics", but it's incorrect since...

I concur.; 2/17/20, 9:33 AM
Narr said...: All settled then?

Toynbee uses a clever analogy to explain the cultural-civilizational differentials among human societies, which are often seen as proxies for the intelligence of the members of those societies: we are like climbers on a mountain who can only see the ledge we're on, and bits of ledges above and below--but no clear idea of the paths up and/or slides down, and what perils may be around the next bend.

The climbers "below" may have tumbled backward never to recover, or they may have expended their energies for now in the greatest step of all: from pre-civilization to civilization.

Jared Diamond argues that today the average New Guinea highlander needs a higher IQ than the average 'Murcan grocery-sacking schlub or schlubetta just to survive.

Narr
Why yes, the world IS a real-time theory-testing experiment; 2/17/20, 10:49 AM
mtrobertslaw said...: Dawkins,like many naive materialists, simply cannot understand a philosophical argument. His mind, for whatever reason, cannot grasp philosophical concepts. This was obvious in a BBC debate/discussion he once had with a philosopher who I think was Rodger Scruton. But of that I am not sure.; 2/17/20, 1:30 PM
Kirk Parker said...: I wouldn't call Murray's quoted statements here "pro-eugenics"; at most they are anti-dysgenic.; 2/18/20, 1:18 AM