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

a reply to: TzarChasm
That's a very polite way of answering my question with the same point I made. It came about through selective breeding.
"Aint no answers in them genes!"

a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure i've heard of them, hardly relevant when we are discussing biology.

What you call social science is just really sociology.

I'll re-define it to natural science, that better?

Don't we all practice eugenics to a certain extent when choosing our partners? After-all that choice decides the genetics of our children and we base it on attributes and characteristics we covet in other people.

You might be the one who’s bred out of society for the rest of our benefit...

What’s offensive shouldnt need to be explained here.

a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: TzarChasm

Selective infanticide and phenotypic selection were much more simplistic in ancient history and boiled down to the choice of the parents and community.

The problem for me is when you have state sponsored eugenics programs.

The fourth table in roman law for example stated that deformed children should be put to death.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Not that it would not be nice to cure all cancer.

But you need to think somewhat larger my friend.

If we could ever measure or observe the actual beginning of the universe, or the iterations of space-time that came before our own universe(if thats what there was), a theory of everything or final theory may emerge or become a distinct possibility.

A hypothetical, single, all-encompassing, coherent framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.

With that type of tool in your back pocket, you could cure kiddie cancer at the drop of a hat, nevermind do a hell of a lot more that we cannot even as of yet imagine.

It's the holy grail of science and physics.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: whereislogic
What about the Spartans?
They took part in eugenics without Darwins input.

Here's what I said:

...
The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin. ... Influenced by the writings of Darwin, Galton reasoned that it was time for humans to take control of their own evolution. During the early decades of the 20th century, Galton’s ideas became extremely popular among politicians, scientists, and academics, in both Europe and the United States. ...

And (virtually) all of these were evolutionists, fans (believers) or promoters of evolutionary philosophies and stories (mythology). If you can think of a single one that wasn't, I'd be quite curious to know. ...

So what I said is about those among whom "Galton’s ideas became extremely popular" "During the early decades of the 20th century". So any example you would propose would have to be in that category during the early decades of the 20th century (after the term "eugenics" was coined by Galton and it would have to be a politician, scientist or academic who liked Galton's ideas but not evolutionary ideas, possibly speaking favorably of the first, and disfavorably of the last to confirm that). Were you proposing Spartans in response to that last remark?

Your best chance would be a politician I recon, since they are most used to expressing contradictions or things that could be seen as somewhat contradicting or incompatible with eachother at least, in order to appeal to a wider audience with differing opinions (opinions that do not match well, are not as compatible as the politician would like to paint when trying to get votes or support from those with incompatible or even opposing opinions as held by different target groups; telling one group what they want to hear, then on another occasion, telling another group what they want to hear even when it's not compatible with what the first group was told, then pretending there is no conflict between what was said. Even being careful on how to phrase things so it gets harder to notice the incompatibility, vague slogans often come into play here).

What I edited in later about my use of the word "virtually" may actually be a bit confusing cause I somewhat ignored the timeframe requirement there (during the early decades of the 20th century). So please ignore that. I should have said: "I don't know the views regarding evolution of every fan or promoter of eugenics (Galton's ideas, what Galton was referring to with that term) of the early decades of the 20th century".

When I'm using the term "every fan or promoter of eugenics" in that context, that's my shorter way of describing the category of people mentioned at the end of what I was quoting from my previous commentary:

During the early decades of the 20th century, Galton’s ideas became extremely popular among politicians, scientists, and academics, in both Europe and the United States.

That was the subject there after all. That's what I mean with "fan or promoter of eugenics" as used in that context because those were the people I was saying something about when I used the word "virtually". Those among whom Galton's ideas regarding eugenics became extremely popular (making them fans of it, fans of eugenics, fans of Galton's ideas regarding eugenics to be precise, the very term "eugenics" after all being his baby).

I hope I didn't spend too many words on explaining something that might have been quite obvious from the start. But I can see how one may have gotten confused by what I said about why I put "virtually" in between parantheses (my remark on the side, a side point which I was trying to keep short), thinking that Spartans would make a good example regarding:

If you can think of a single one that wasn't, I'd be quite curious to know.

That "single one" would have to come from the category of people I was saying something about. If you bringing up Spartans wasn't a response to that remark, than it seems a bit of a distraction from what I was talking about in my comment or expressing a curiosity in (encouraging a response to that part of my comment and not something else that might distract from the points I was making there that were to lead in the ending conclusion after "make no mistake"; nor does bringing up Spartans really respond to the conclusion as it is phrased there*).

*: not any potential rephrasing of that conclusion by you, in case that was done with your phrase:

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

In case that remark was about my ending conclusion, which was different so I can't be sure if you're actually responding to it with that remark. Much like I can't be sure what it is you're actually responding to by bringing up Spartans, since it's a bit irrelevant to anything as it is phrased in my comment (as I tried to explain and elaborate on in this comment).

Not saying it was intended as such, but would you like to know how the Cambridge Dictionary defines a "red herring"?

a fact, idea, or subject that takes people's attention away from the central point being considered

Notice they mention no requirement regarding it being intended as such or not. Of course, you never promised to consider any of the points or my ending conclusion in my comment, you merely clicked reply after all. These were the points I was considering and putting up for consideration though.

And there was only 1 thing I expressed curiosity in, considering the first central point which was:

And (virtually) all of these were evolutionists, fans (believers) or promoters of evolutionary philosophies and stories (mythology).
...
And again, the ones setting up and organizing these fairs and expositions, were evolutionists, fans (believers) or promoters of evolutionary philosophies and stories (mythology).

These ideas were not merely intellectual exercises. Tens of thousands of “undesirables” were sterilized in both North America and Europe.
At the instigation of evolutionists, fans (believers) or promoters of evolutionary philosophies/ideas and stories (mythology).

a reply to: Grenade

Emperor Claudius struggled with various physical ailments including tremors of the head and hands, a limp, a runny nose and foaming at the mouth. Historians have since speculated that he may have suffered from cerebral palsy or Tourette’s syndrome. There is also speculation Julius Caesar suffered from strokes or Epilepsy.

So my bet is if it was a roman law it was for the lower classes.

One rule for some and another for the rest since time immemorial really.

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.

Just because we do not know all the variables in an objective morality formula do not mean it does not exist. Eastern philosophy discuss karma creation deeply.



Just because the Abrahamic religions are logically contradicting themselves do not mean all moral understanding is on the same awareness level.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TzarChasm

Not that it would not be nice to cure all cancer.

But you need to think somewhat larger my friend.

If we could ever measure or observe the actual beginning of the universe, or the iterations of space-time that came before our own universe(if thats what there was), a theory of everything or final theory may emerge or become a distinct possibility.

A hypothetical, single, all-encompassing, coherent framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.

With that type of tool in your back pocket, you could cure kiddie cancer at the drop of a hat, nevermind do a hell of a lot more that we cannot even as of yet imagine.

It's the holy grail of science and physics.

Wouldnt it be lovely , but lets face it , if we discover a unified field theory tomorrow , its not going to cure cancer in 10 years, if we find a cure for cancer tomorrow its not going to cure cancer

Why ,because there is already so much money and power built into the pharmaceutical industry and the prevention of diseases that if you cure it tomorrow , then markets will crash because of all that lost money , all the anti cancer drugs, sitting useless in a warehouse because we cured cancer

do you really think that wilkl happen , its the same with #in oil

if we found an renewable , limitless clean energy source tomorrow , OIl would still reign supreme , and it would likely result in wars over the transition

there is too much personal greed involved in the world . Too many people have their fingers in the collective pie

what we need is a massive shift in our consciousness , we need minds to change before the rest follows


although if we did discover a unified field theory maybe that would create a global consciousness shift

really hard not to be a doomer right now !

I mean I work for a right wing government that takes advice from adherents to theories of Eugenics

Am I the bad guys ?

Have you seen the skulls on my uniforms

a reply to: sapien82

Of course, they are not going to cure cancer, for one thing there is the population control aspect to consider and the fact that palliative care generates billions of ££££/$$$$$ for there coffers.

Grand Unified Theory is closely related to unified field theory, but differ by not requiring the basis of nature to be fields, and often by attempting to explain physical constants of nature.

The paradigm shift you seek sapien82 will never materialize whilst we exist in the manner that we do.

Change will never happen whilst they have us by the short and curlies because it's simply not a requirement or in any way conducive to control.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

There are shortcomings with the Eastern philosophies as well.

Karmic debt/cycles still imply a prison planet type scenario where you have to keep on coming back until you get things right, in a somewhat of an infinite cycle of death and rebirth.

Logically one would seek out the answer sheet so as to somewhat expedite the learning curve rather than simply having to rely on experience for answers that are always changing or in flux.

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood
a reply to: TzarChasm
That's a very polite way of answering my question with the same point I made. It came about through selective breeding.
"Aint no answers in them genes!"

You said the purpose was enlightenment, I said the purpose was to cure criminal behavior. Actually I left that out, I said physical deformity and disease but that was an extension of rehabilitating criminals. It all falls under the "mental health" umbrella. Enlightenment is not the same as civil training.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure i've heard of them, hardly relevant when we are discussing biology.

What you call social science is just really sociology.

I'll re-define it to natural science, that better?

Don't we all practice eugenics to a certain extent when choosing our partners? After-all that choice decides the genetics of our children and we base it on attributes and characteristics we covet in other people.

Maybe you do. How does your partner feel about being regarded in the manner of a brood mare? Is genetic stock your primary motivation in pursuing a relationship?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well I certainly don’t go out of my way to date ugly, mentally challenged dwarfs.

a reply to: Grenade

They might not want to date you nether all the same.

But as long as you are not going out your way to euthanize, nor sterilize, these poor vertically challenged persons, then no harm no foul and everyone is happy.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well I certainly don’t go out of my way to date ugly, mentally challenged dwarfs.

And yet they continue to enjoy civil rights, which means more discerning folks are free to indulge in their company and discover the gems hidden in the rough. We are free to love and procreate as we choose, and not for the purpose of making the perfect human being. That sort of thinking is what causes prejudice and persecution of innocent people.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: neoholographic

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

Err you do know that humans are primates?

No seriously we are primates

www.newscientist.com...

Every time an attractive woman has selected someone bigger, stronger, more handsome and richer than me, that's eugenics at work. They try very hard not to settle on an average schmoe (though obviously most do), with the goal of improving their own lives as well as the lives of their potential offspring including their actual physical form and fitness. They usually don't even know they're doing it, but in case they don't get the message we have the multi-billion dollar beauty and fitness industries to keep constantly hammering at them to be more attractive to find a superior mate.

Advertising sells the idea that everyone not only can but needs to improve, themselves first, the human race second. Or maybe the other way around.

a reply to: andy06shake

A hypothetical, single, all-encompassing, coherent framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.

With that type of tool in your back pocket, you could cure kiddie cancer at the drop of a hat, nevermind do a hell of a lot more that we cannot even as of yet imagine.

That is Hollywood logic