Spirituality
23 Nov 06
23 Nov 06
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
"Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The specter of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'these are not one-dimensional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm waiting for the time when he argues that people who believe in God should not be allowed to breed so as not to pollute the human gene pool.
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used tha ...[text shortened]... stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
23 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're a very smart guy, Halitose, so you know that there is no possible way to argue logically from any set of purely descriptive claims (such as those that comprise evolutionary theory) to any single normative claim regarding eugenics or any other topic for that matter.
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used tha stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
I'm not familiar with the article you cite; but I don't see anything in what you have quoted showing that Dawkins explicitly "supports" this sort of eugenics. In fact, did you overlook this part?:
"I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me."
He's talking here about persuasion towards a normative outlook against eugenics, isn't he?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI am not "Dawkian" but I similarly see nothing wrong with Eugenics on its own. However, most people have a built in desire to perpetuate their own genes (as a result of natural selection) and so would object to Eugenics if their genes were not the 'perfect' ones.
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used tha ...[text shortened]... stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
My biggest reason for objecting to the actual use of Eugenics would be the potential for misuse. Who is to say what the perfect genes are?
Do you have objections to Eugenics and why?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloHammer?
No. I'm a LemonJelloian.
But I daresay Hammer is not a Dawkinian, either. For that matter, are you breaking Halitose's rule of engagement as well by posting here, you long-haired hippy?
I am flouting the regulations, I guess. Why do you have to go and make me feel like scum?
If only I had Dawkinian locks. I'd get more respect around here.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's OK -- I'm growing my hair out, too, but it will take a while.
Hammer?
I am flouting the regulations, I guess. Why do you have to go and make me feel like scum?
If only I had Dawkinian locks. I'd get more respect around here.
Oh, I call lucifershammer "Hammer" sometimes (affectionately).
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloOh right. A not unpleasantly jarring associational juxtaposition (Hammer time!).
That's OK -- I'm growing my hair out, too, but it will take a while.
Oh, I call lucifershammer "Hammer" sometimes (affectionately).
Hair grows faster if you mulch it.
Would it be wrong if I, a dyed-in-the-wool hippy, applied eugenics to ensure that my progeny have optimally shaggy locks?
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseHa, ha, ha, ha!!!! Great article Halitose! Darn that Hitler. If it had not been for him we could hate Jews and breed the master race in good conscience as we treat human beings as mere animals. Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end n we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"[/i]
What say the Dawkinians?[/b]
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseIf it's good enough for Dawkins, then it's good enough for me. For if Dawkins said it, and it's been written down, then it is scripture. Our task now is not to examine the evidence and see where it leads us, but to force all available evidence to conform to our pre-determined conclusion. We will be unveiling a new line of Dawkinsian eugenic atheodicies to add to the catechism very soon.
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used tha ...[text shortened]... stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
Amen.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettWhere do I register for Dawkins camp? What kind of stuff goes on there?
If it's good enough for Dawkins, then it's good enough for me. For if Dawkins said it, and it's been written down, then it is scripture. Our task now is not to examine the evidence and see where it leads us, but to force all available evidence to conform to our pre-determined conclusion. We will be unveiling a new line of Dawkinsian eugenic atheodicies to add to the catechism very soon.
Amen.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThey herd you up and brand you on your blessed assurance and then try to pair you with some poor unsuspecting girl who can play the flute rather well. It's all done in good fun though.
Where do I register for Dawkins camp? What kind of stuff goes on there?