It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2020 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Because Huxley offered nothing of scientific value, just barked at everyone who disagreed with Darwin and advocated eugenics, doesnt reflect well on his atheist beliefs and as for Mendel, religious crazy scientist who should not be considered because of his faith and his studies don’t really support evolution outside of change within kind
My opinion obviously




posted on Feb, 17 2020 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Because Huxley offered nothing of scientific value, just barked at everyone who disagreed with Darwin and advocated eugenics, doesnt reflect well on his atheist beliefs and as for Mendel, religious crazy scientist who should not be considered because of his faith and his studies don’t really support evolution outside of change within kind
My opinion obviously


A man by the name of De Vries helped connect the dots between Darwin's theory of heredity mechanisms with Mendel's additional research in heredity between organisms, although their work was somewhat small scale. Huxley assisted in applying their findings to humans and drawing a cohesive picture of ape descendance that we have in common with particular species of gorilla and bonobo monkey. It was specifically mentioned that some circles of society felt insulted by this correlation and often offers the same objection to this day. Thanks to Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane these studies were published across the world and changed the field of evolutionary research, laying the foundation for what we know today. It's all a very fascinating lesson in history.
edit on 17-2-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2020 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Eugenics is a tool that can be used wisely or insanely.

From eastern philosophy souls evolve thru reincarnation from less cognitive beings to higher cognitive being (sometimes they de-evolve).

IQ is a bad measurement for cognitive awareness and ability to balance logic part of brain with creative part of brain and handle information flow from that can appear in the unconscious.

I am 99% sure that programs for higher cognitive humans already is running behind the scenes. Both breeding DNA and teaching awareness tools that increase PSI levels and infuse a bliss body state.

Over population brings scarcity.


If you remove ways to die by increased knowledge (Medicine) then you need to control number of children that is born. Giving medicine and food so that people survive is also Eugenics since it changes who survives and make children.

It would be wise for countries that cannot sustain their population to have a temporary 1 child policy. India for instance.

I do not like hidden sterilization attempts by WHO/Bill Gates (Kenya/Philippines) where they spike vaccine with HCG.

Sooner or later designer babies will come. Changed DNA for looks and increased cognitive awareness. The body is only a vehicle the soul is temporarily connected to. Will the parents choose that their kid/kids should drive a Lada, BMW or a Ferrari.



posted on Feb, 17 2020 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




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.



The only difference between humans and less sophisticated animals is an overwhelming abundance of ego. For all the good it has done us.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
What about the Spartans?
They took part in eugenics without Darwins input.

Bit of a stretch, I guess I'm not sticking strictly enough with the definition.

Any eugenicist who doesn't believe in evolution probably won't be good enough at their jobs to make the paper.

I just don't believe that evolution is the gateway drug that leads to supporting eugenics.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
I think I see the angle...

Care for the weak, don't turn them into supersoldiers. A Christian has clear guidelines to follow to achieve this whilst a heathen like myself doesn't.

But you, me and Dawkins all agree about the dangers of eugenics.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Plenty of heathens like you doing a great job, I am not saying christians have the market cornered in kindness and care
In fact I think christians are sometimes less Christian than they espouse, personally I don’t like most Christians and churches so.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic




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.


The only difference between humans and less sophisticated animals is an overwhelming abundance of ego. For all the
good it has done us.



hahah animals less sophisticated , that is as you have suggested is just our own hubris , thinking we are better because we think of our own identity and are aware of our own existence.

To value one living being over another is just nonsense in my opinion.

we need to return to our natural roots if we are to survive as a species, not regress completely , but re-embrace what it means to live in balance with nature.

we have abandonded all of our old traditions for making boys into men , initiation of the youth to adult is missing . We are a species of immature adults .



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Plenty of heathens like you doing a great job, I am not saying christians have the market cornered in kindness and care
In fact I think christians are sometimes less Christian than they espouse, personally I don’t like most Christians and churches so.



Can we not use derogatory slang like the word heathen? We're better than that language.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic




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.


The only difference between humans and less sophisticated animals is an overwhelming abundance of ego. For all the
good it has done us.



hahah animals less sophisticated , that is as you have suggested is just our own hubris , thinking we are better because we think of our own identity and are aware of our own existence.

To value one living being over another is just nonsense in my opinion.

we need to return to our natural roots if we are to survive as a species, not regress completely , but re-embrace what it means to live in balance with nature.

we have abandonded all of our old traditions for making boys into men , initiation of the youth to adult is missing . We are a species of immature adults .





I was part of a conversation recently concerning native american culture and how they taught the value of life in all its forms, humans nurturing a partnership with nature instead of subduing it and exploiting the elements of the earth for our selfish gain.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345
I'm unconvinced that animals bread to be food, slaves or pets represent an improvement in their genetics.


You must have never had a dog that was happy to see you when you got home or that acted like it was part of the family. The hormones and endorphins released by a happy and content animal should be making subtle changes in it's genetics.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Absolutely TC but I was paraphrasing your choice of identification from the previous post you wrote and identified with
No offence

I wouldn’t have considered an atheist a heathen in its pure term



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

looking at some of the things the lunatic has come away with on Twitter.

And the madness he dispensed that passed as advice to other gullible people.

I have to say it looks like Dawkins stepped on quite the pile of #e.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Absolutely TC but I was paraphrasing your choice of identification from the previous post you wrote and identified with
No offence

I wouldn’t have considered an atheist a heathen in its pure term



heath·en
/ˈhēT͟Hən/
noun DEROGATORY
a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.

heathen noun
plural heathens or heathen
Definition of heathen (Entry 2 of 2)
1: an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2: an uncivilized or irreligious person

heathen
hea·then
Use heathen in a sentence

noun
The definition of a heathen is someone who does not belong to an accepted religion or is someone who is lacking in morals or principles.


It is a derogatory term. Nuff said.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Atheism and it's marriage with science will negate the need for eugenics.

Crispr is just the beginning.

Science doesn't care much for ethics or morals, you can't describe them with mathematics unfortunately.


edit on 18/2/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neoholographic

Atheism and it's marriage with science will negate the need for eugenics.

Crispr is just the beginning.

Science doesn't care much for ethics or morals, you can't describe them with mathematics unfortunately.



I guess you never heard of political science aka the study of government, legislation and diplomacy?



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

The thing with that assumption is that science still requires one free miracle to explain the universe.

And since we can never measure nor observe that miracle, in any sort of meaningful manner, it could very well constitute our notions of what constitutes God.

So its not like science completely discounts the notion of God.

Ethics and morals are more about philosophical and religious matters whereas science concerns the natural world and produces results based on testable hypotheses.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


The thing with that assumption is that science still requires one free miracle to explain the universe.


I would rather use that one free miracle to cure cancer in children and let science handle the rest in its own time.



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
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.


Huh?
Surely the whole point behind the pursuit of eugenics IS to make us more enlightened as a species?
(Shrugs)



posted on Feb, 18 2020 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood

originally posted by: gortex
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.


Huh?
Surely the whole point behind the pursuit of eugenics IS to make us more enlightened as a species?
(Shrugs)


No, eugenics was originally devised to minimize (or eradicate) disease and deformity in a population.
edit on 18-2-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join