-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Richard Dawkins is having a completely normal morning
- Thread starter excelsiorlef
- Start date
- Status
He's not saying it's good is he? He's saying it would work, presumably in terms of eventually modifying the gene pool. I dunno.
So, basically, this sketch?
OP
OP
What does work mean?
Like when Buckleys claims it tastes awful but it works, works here means it is doing the positive thing of fixing your ailment.
Is there actually evidence that Eugenics would make a superior human race?
He points to animals, but those animals were bred for specific traits beneficial to humans, not the animals, arguably the selective breeding is detrimental to those animals.... so how can Eugenics be said to work like Buckelys says it works.... it can't....
And you know he's a fucking troll and knows this
If you believe in evolution, you have to believe eliminating a trait from the gene pool will result in a net effect for the species.
I think you have to kind of try hard to argue that this isn't true, or that he's saying that means we should do it, or that eugenics is good.
But people already don't like him and are going to assume bad faith, so, enjoy that I guess.
I think you have to kind of try hard to argue that this isn't true, or that he's saying that means we should do it, or that eugenics is good.
But people already don't like him and are going to assume bad faith, so, enjoy that I guess.
It's a sensitive topic and the indelicate and tactless wording of the tweet is dismissive of the real-world victims of historical and present day eugenic-driven atrocities.
OP
OP
Look, I'm against the idea, but you guys really need to understand eugenics works and would make life better for everyone, okay
OP
OP
People often argue about whether something is possible as opposed to whether something should be done - so essentially technical versus ethical grounds.
Take the UK debate over face recognition cameras, it seems to hinge almost entirely over how accurate the cameras are as opposed to whether, ethically, they should be used.
Dawkins is completely right in his point - of course eugenics would technically work, we do it already for dog breeding and the like. It shouldn't be argued against on technical grounds, it should be argued against on ethical grounds.
What is the preceived issue with this tweet? Are there other tweets to this that tell more of a story?
Take the UK debate over face recognition cameras, it seems to hinge almost entirely over how accurate the cameras are as opposed to whether, ethically, they should be used.
Dawkins is completely right in his point - of course eugenics would technically work, we do it already for dog breeding and the like. It shouldn't be argued against on technical grounds, it should be argued against on ethical grounds.
What is the preceived issue with this tweet? Are there other tweets to this that tell more of a story?
OP
OP
It depends on the context that it's being used for. Like, if he's saying that we can use eugenics to breed out low IQ people as a way of increasing the intelligence of society for example, that's nonsense because IQ and intelligence in general is impossible to comprehensively define or accurately test for. For us to say whether he's right about whether it works means we need to ask what he's talking about. Eugenics for what purpose?
And in general, we don't really need to breed humans for any particular purpose. Like, we breed horses for sporting competitions as a way of recreation. No one truly NEEDS for a really fast horse to be bred nor does the horse benefit from it themselves. It's just a thing we do for shits and giggles to animals. It's not even really humane to the animals themselves, it's just a way obscenely rich people pass the time.
And he's doing this 'smart person says shit, is bewildered why everyone is upset with him for it', which I am miles past giving the benefit of the doubt for. He knows exactly why talking about eugenics is a hot topic issue and it's hardly the first time he's said dumb shit like this. We'll see I guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if this "I'm just stating the facts" is a deflection from the fact that he, idk, maybe defended the holocaust or whatever.
He's not technically wrong (it would "work", which is to say, control for genetic factors through breeding, though what the aim of that would be or what would be considered "working" is well up for debate)...
..but any time anyone says something akin to "facts don't care about your feelings" I label them as a fucking knob.
OP
OP
Don't think there is a context. He just decided to throw this into the wind
Hasn't selective breeding in animals caused a lot of health problems, and ultimately weakened the gene pool, because genetic diversity is a strength.
Edit: and that's just me addressing the scientific validity of his point, it's obviously monstrous even outside of that.
Edit: and that's just me addressing the scientific validity of his point, it's obviously monstrous even outside of that.
OP
OP
If we're using animal husbandry as evidence, eugenics is a fucking disaster. We have completely fucked up dogs, to borrow your example.
There's evidence you can select for specific traits in a species. No one has ever bred an entirely better version of any species. So by what metric would eugenics "work"?
- Status