Richard Dawkins stepped in it on eugenics but isn't it the end result of evolution?

Richard Dawkins has created a firestorm on Twitter with this tweet.

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.— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Of course he tried to clean it up later.

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.— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Heaven forbid???

I find it funny because I can't understand why people are offended.

If you're an atheist with a materialistic view of evolution, what Dawkins said is just a logical end. It's why Hitler's Germany supported Dawkins view of evolution.

A naturalist, materialistic interpretation of evolution isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. If humans are just animals, why not just breed us like cows and pigs?

The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals and that's why you have outrage at Dawkins comments. We have a higher faculty of self awareness that's separates us from animals.

This comes from God. The Bible says the Spirit of God dwells within us.

When you reduce us to animals that are no different than a cow or pig then eugenics is the end result. What material part of Dawkins material brain was offended by the obvious end of a natural interpretation of evolution?

a reply to: neoholographic

It's not the ethics of doing it it's the implications of doing it that stops us going down that path , long may that attitude remain.

It will likely be a thing in the future but hopefully when we are more enlightened as a species.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Richard Dawkins has created a firestorm on Twitter with this tweet.

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.— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Of course he tried to clean it up later.

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.— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Heaven forbid???

I find it funny because I can't understand why people are offended.

If you're an atheist with a materialistic view of evolution, what Dawkins said is just a logical end. It's why Hitler's Germany supported Dawkins view of evolution.

A naturalist, materialistic interpretation of evolution isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. If humans are just animals, why not just breed us like cows and pigs?

The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals and that's why you have outrage at Dawkins comments. We have a higher faculty of self awareness that's separates us from animals.

This comes from God. The Bible says the Spirit of God dwells within us.

When you reduce us to animals that are no different than a cow or pig then eugenics is the end result. What material part of Dawkins material brain was offended by the obvious end of a natural interpretation of evolution?

We actually do engage in eugenics to some degree, it is just more subtle and not as overt....

People engage in eugenics when it comes to picking a mate, schooling, career, etc. Social status. It is all around improving one's lineage.

I think the movie Gattaca does a good job of predicting where we as a society are going to end up with gene editing, etc. For those that haven't seen it, society splits between those who have been "modified... basically the upper classes who become smarter & stronger through being able to purchase better DNA/genes" and normal people who have all our inherent flaws.

Unfortunately it seems that the only thing that seperates humans from other animals is increased intelligence. This does not mean there is a god or anything more than basic chance and evolution at play

It’s not always the case that humans are more intelligent either

WHat about those that are born severely retarded and don’t have a higher faculty or self awareness. Why has the spirit of god abandoned them?

a reply to: neoholographic

"The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals"

Err you do know that humans are primates?

a reply to: knackers323

Because gods don't exist. We are just highly complex social creatures that have a higher understanding and conscious awareness to the universe around us. Meaning, we utilize our surroundings to it's fullest potential and are continuously looking for new ways to manipulate that universe to better our survival. And yes, that also includes killing one another, suppressing other groups of people, and even advancing medical science to create ideal humans to better their social and physical attributes to ensure their genes get a leg up on the competition.

Cesarean deliveries have enabled millions of people to pass on their genetics, and it's created a rift in female physical traits like hip bones that aren't wide enough for a natural birth.

I'm unconvinced that animals bread to be food, slaves or pets represent an improvement in their genetics.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Richard Dawkins has created a firestorm on Twitter with this tweet.
A naturalist, materialistic interpretation of evolution isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. If humans are just animals, why not just breed us like cows and pigs?

The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals and that's why you have outrage at Dawkins comments. We have a higher faculty of self awareness that's separates us from animals.

This comes from God. The Bible says the Spirit of God dwells within us.

When you reduce us to animals that are no different than a cow or pig then eugenics is the end result. What material part of Dawkins material brain was offended by the obvious end of a natural interpretation of evolution?

Atheism is one thing and that is not having a belief in gods or God. The thing is most atheists are philosophical materialists:

en.wikipedia.org...

According to the materialists human beings are really just mindless machines with no soul, consciousness, or divine value.

I think you bring up some valid concerns. There are many forces at work with human culture, mostly not supernatural in nature, that are determined to turn humanity into slaves. I think it's always been this way. Power corrupts the human mind to see people under its influence as worthless ants to be stepped on without any moral implications.

I don't know what the answer is for this very dark zeitgeist or juju permeating the human psyche. For me personally I always try to treat everyone in my life and that I meet with the greatest amount of respect. But I am not in some great position of power where my decisions would cause others great suffering. My moral goodness to other is probably why I am not in a position of power. It seems the very worst people among us are always the ones who rise to power.

Rupert Sheldrake is my favorite science author. Here brings up really good criticism of Dawkins mindset:



If the video above Sheldrake talks about the 10 assumptions materialists have as part of their dogma. Here's another video where Sheldrake makes his argument why the 10 assumptions appear to be false when scrutinized:



Dawkins is a really good scientist and science writer. He's very well read and amazing insights into religion. His ideas on God change my way of thinking about God completely. In the Q&A part of the following video there are a few answers where talks about his way of thinking about God. From the moment I heard it I haven't let it go as my primary way of thinking about God:



Most scientists are atheists. Most atheists are philosophical materialists. And for most materialists God is dead or irrelevant. Or even worse, many materialists simply become nihilists. For the nihilists, there is no God, nothing is divine, and everything is meaningless. So there is no moral reason why people should be treated as being sacred.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's another really good video by Sheldrake on Dawkins mindset:

a reply to: neoholographic

Thing is there is nothing perfect about Humanity, so trying to attain such through eugenics and selective breeding, is simply counterproductive to our species evolution.

End of the day its always the poor, hungry, destitute and disabled, that get the raw end of the eugenics deal.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: neoholographic
Thing is there is nothing perfect about Humanity, so trying to attain such through eugenics and selective breeding, is simply counterproductive to our species evolution.
End of the day its always the poor, hungry, destitute and disabled, that get the raw end of the eugenics deal.

Everyone just assumes the problem with humanity is our genetics. I think it's more psychological and cultural. The human mind seems pretty capable as far as I am concerned. Inventing new forms of conscious is not going to solve any problems. Why would anyone assume the newly created new form of consciousness would not have the same existential, psychological, spiritual, and cultural problems is a little short sited in my opinion.



"What is my purpose?"
"You pass the butter."
"Oh my God..."
"Welcome to the club pal"

I've always found it odd how we're so effing proud to breed ourselves a spectacular hunting or guard dog with perfect form and the best possible health as opposed to a poorer sense of smell and screwed up joints, but the idea of those pluses of better health being applied to humans-- breeding out disease, for example -- is deplorable for some reason.

Freaking boggles the mind how we'd rather have spiffier pets than be spiffier ourselves. Unless it's a damn pill, then we'll choke that down just fine like it's something to be proud of.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I've always found it odd how we're so effing proud to breed ourselves a spectacular hunting or guard dog with perfect form and the best possible health as opposed to a poorer sense of smell and screwed up joints, but the idea of those pluses of better health being applied to humans-- breeding out disease, for example -- is deplorable for some reason.

Freaking boggles the mind how we'd rather have spiffier pets than be spiffier ourselves. Unless it's a damn pill, then we'll choke that down just fine like it's something to be proud of.

It's all fun and games as long as you the one deciding who gets to breed with who. Are you seriously suggesting human beings breeding together would be somehow determined and controlled by some outside authority?

Obviously you do not have much experience with the opposite sex. You need to move out of your mother's basement!

a reply to: dfnj2015

It's a rather complicated affair.

The Human condition that is.

Fact is we are not supposed to understand existence, else it would come with an instruction manual.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Nyiah
I've always found it odd how we're so effing proud to breed ourselves a spectacular hunting or guard dog with perfect form and the best possible health as opposed to a poorer sense of smell and screwed up joints, but the idea of those pluses of better health being applied to humans-- breeding out disease, for example -- is deplorable for some reason.

Freaking boggles the mind how we'd rather have spiffier pets than be spiffier ourselves. Unless it's a damn pill, then we'll choke that down just fine like it's something to be proud of.

It's all fun and games as long as you the one deciding who gets to breed with who. Are you seriously suggesting human beings breeding together would be somehow determined and controlled by some outside authority?

Obviously you do not have much experience with the opposite sex. You need to move out of your mother's basement!

Considering your far-left political stances, you might want to quit trying to poke the non-existent bear here before you humiliate yourself. It's a thought exercise, not a demand on my part.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I've always found it odd how we're so effing proud to breed ourselves a spectacular hunting or guard dog with perfect form and the best possible health as opposed to a poorer sense of smell and screwed up joints, but the idea of those pluses of better health being applied to humans-- breeding out disease, for example -- is deplorable for some reason.

Freaking boggles the mind how we'd rather have spiffier pets than be spiffier ourselves. Unless it's a damn pill, then we'll choke that down just fine like it's something to be proud of.

It is because we don't view animals has having the same level of intelligence or sentience.

For example, I've posed this question before... would the homosexual community be opposed to technology that guaranteed no child would ever be homosexual? So when a woman is pregnant, we can do all kinds of testing for genetic disease, what if that same tech allow us to identify if a child would be gay? Can the woman still abort like they do with say down syndrome?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Nyiah
I've always found it odd how we're so effing proud to breed ourselves a spectacular hunting or guard dog with perfect form and the best possible health as opposed to a poorer sense of smell and screwed up joints, but the idea of those pluses of better health being applied to humans-- breeding out disease, for example -- is deplorable for some reason.

Freaking boggles the mind how we'd rather have spiffier pets than be spiffier ourselves. Unless it's a damn pill, then we'll choke that down just fine like it's something to be proud of.

It is because we don't view animals has having the same level of intelligence or sentience.

Indeed, we view animals as something like a lump of clay to mold as we please. Look at what we've done to ancient wolves (modern dogs) as an example. To an extent, we do the same with our kids, psychologically molding them as we please before letting them loose upon society at large in their teens/twenties. Sometimes thirties these days.

For example, I've posed this question before... would the homosexual community be opposed to technology that guaranteed no child would ever be homosexual? So when a woman is pregnant, we can do all kinds of testing for genetic disease, what if that same tech allow us to identify if a child would be gay? Can the woman still abort like they do with say down syndrome?

Ah, the old debate for the ages. Frankly speaking, it would be a very skewed split, with some supporting doing that, but most others not. Ultimately, it's not up to you or me what someone else does or doesn't choose to do, but we can debate the merits all we want pertaining to us and our wants that directly impact only us. That's really the only point of view that matters at the end of it.

a reply to: Nyiah

Eugenics is not nonexistent, it never really went away.

A sport that both our respective nations practiced right up until the end of the 1960s and most lightly continue to pursue under the table.

It's more than just a thought exercise, even if the bear is somewhat in hibernation.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Nyiah

Eugenics is not nonexistent, it never really went away.

A sport that both our respective nations practiced right up until the end of the 1960s and most lightly continue to pursue under the table.

It's more than just a thought exercise, even if the bear is somewhat in hibernation.

No, you're right, it's never gone away, and never going to because it's in blatant play when people get really picky about who they marry and and have kids with, that's a prime example of self-directed eugenics. Ignoring it and pretending some old policy that hasn't been in broad practice for decades is going to be the death of us is pretty disingenuous. Picky women (and picky men) have the same end results as those old policies, it's just not government hinkiness doing it.

a reply to: Nyiah

Playing the field can be fun all the same.

And you don't need to be married nether, i would say people are more picky about who they divorce these days, which kind of defeats the purpose of marriage in the first place.

Something to consider, old policy can become a new policy at the drop of a hat given the right conditions for it to fly.

There is nothing new under the Sun with respect to our form of governance, its all rinse and repeat really.