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

a reply to: TzarChasm

Finding a theory of everything would be a staggering achievement, finally making sense of all the weird and wonderful things in our universe.

A theory of everything is quite conceivable given that the laws of nature are rather few, they're simple and symmetrical, and there are only four fundamental forces.

It might not be right around the corner, but it is the end result of what science and mathematics are all about, Hollywood logic or otherwise.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TzarChasm

Finding a theory of everything would be a staggering achievement, finally making sense of all the weird and wonderful things in our universe.

A theory of everything is quite conceivable given that the laws of nature are rather few, they're simple and symmetrical, and there are only four fundamental forces.

It might not be right around the corner, but it is the end result of what science and mathematics are all about, Hollywood logic or otherwise.

Hopefully not. The inevitable consequence of possessing all knowledge is to "do it better". There will always be students who cant help trying to be masters, to not just understand but OWN the fabric of existence and modify it as they see fit. Ego has no place in the arena of physics.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes, I'm glad science poses more questions than it answers also else existence would be a rather boring affair.

Then again it might be nice to develop such a theory and build our own universe or reality, which taken to its logical conclusion, might just make us Gods after all.

Don't worry i don't see it happening any time soon or this side of the approaching singularity of a different sort.

If the ego did not have its place in science, nothing would ever be achieved nor accomplished, well nothing dangerous nor noteworthy that is.

Science is a risk-takers game where we are apt to learn as much from our mistakes as our success.

and reply to: neoholographic

Not very familiar with the details but from what I understand he didn't endorse it in any manner, shape, or form.

He only said eugenics works.

Richard Dawkins is a Politically Correct person but sometimes the way he says things may be misconstrued by theist critics.

a reply to: neoholographic
Ah! Just another offshoot of nature vs nurture. Its all selective breeding is. But! Even in dogs, its just a form and function for specific purposes. And well? Lets just say they can in no way or form even get rid of the common cold. Yet you think they can get rid of a the millions and billions if not trillions of variables that contribute to any number of things?

Breeding cows for more milk, was done literally over thousands and thousands of years ago. Now a days? Well they have learned how to water down that milk more, and sell it to you as something other then it is, nothing all that great, nothing less nothing more.

And the whole of history and civilization is nothing but an attempt by peoples at a sort of eugenics, only everybody calls it by different names and labels, after all why would somebody want a faster car, or a better guard dog? The same reasons apply. And as they say, specialization is an evolutionary dead end. So specialize away. Quite literally, poof, gone, like the wind. But and get this, so does everything else eventually but lead to a dead end.

In the end its all just window drapes, and peoples fancy. The dog has been breed for untold centuries into what it is today. And what it is today, is but a shadow of the giant wolfs that used to roam the earth, from which it was breed down into the chihuahua, and many other breeds of today. All of it eugenics, and so is when people pick mates to have children.

In all! You all arguing about nothing. And Nazi Germany and that ilk. Was just a passing fad and an experiment in social engineering and the foils of specialization. And that's why they fell and lost. Because there many great strides in technology and other areas, they were not broad enough in there approach as a whole, to everything else around them.

Specialization, is for bugs, birds, and bees. And evolution may just be a myth. After all, evolution simply says that things evolve to suit there environment. Nothing more nothing less, Dawkins or Darwin even or anybody else, has said nothing more then that.

And in the end, were back to nature vs nurture. You are the product of your environment, and sometimes the environment is a product of the collective yous. Round and round they go.

So ya! They cant even find a cure to the common cold? What makes you think they will somehow magically splice somebody or somethings to be this all perfect animal that has ever existed? Its stupid thought, brought to you by stupid people, who have no experience in the millennia and untold variations that took to bring all that you see before you, to be as it is.

I would not hold my breath waiting for these geniuses to make the perfect special personages immune and breed to be all perfect. In fact I would not hold my breath waiting for them to cure the common cold or a million other such simpler things and issues any time soon.

So no, eugenics is not the end result of evolution. Evolution is just a symptom of nature, time, and change. Its not the end result, its not even the middle result, heck it might not even be the beginning result. Its just a label, meaning that things change to suit there environment, nothing more, nothing less.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm sure you treat all people equally, as do i. However when looking for a partner are you really going to claim their intelligence, beauty and health aren't factors? If you were being honest i'm sure we all consider these attributes as important when choosing a life partner.

a reply to: Grenade

Stuff treating people equally, as they are completely different animals, best just to treat them how you find them.

Not that we should not strive towards equality all the same.

We will get there in the end, and hopefully without the likes of eugenics in tow.

a reply to: andy06shake

I treat everyone equally until they give me reason not to

a reply to: sapien82

Circumstances dictate the response sapien82.

Everyones an individual, the old saying springs to mind "You catch more flies with Honey than Vinegar".

But its also nice to be nice as well, prudent even.

Every time I got turned down by women for being short, that's eugenics. Nature trying to strengthen the species through selecting the strong over the weak. Where nature is screwing this up is not accounting for intelligence (yet) in the attractiveness of a mate. Oh I know I know, women will say "but I love an intelligent man!" Ok. But given the choice of a not so smart handsome, sexy, strong, tall man or a short, bald, smart man...well. You know.

This is where civilization plays a role. Our society and laws protect and shelter people that would not survive without it. It also values intelligence and pays well for it. So a smart well off men can still find a mate even if they're short, bald and fat.

Of course pre-civilization short, fat, ugly, bald men could still breed if they attained high social status by being a shaman or a priest. This is how religion came to be.

The downside of modern social morality is if civilization ever collapses many many will not survive it due to medical problems, physical weakness, or inability to defend oneself or not knowing how to find food.

This post is only partially tongue in cheek.

a reply to: neoholographic

No. Eugenicists pick and choose desirable traits based on their own worldview and desires through direct, in-kind manipulation (e.g. "this" or "that," "a" or "b," etc).

Evolution doesn't "pick" anything. It maximizes survivability by introducing 100-percent random mutations. Most mutations don't amount to much; --the individual neither gains or loses much and its chances of reproducing remain about the same. Many are downright harmful and drastically reduce the chance of producing viable offspring before the individual dies. A fortunate handful, depending on how you look at it, make the individual so much better at competing for survival resources within its niche it is practically guaranteed to produce several viable children before dying.

These successful traits are, therefore "chosen," by mechanism of nature itself, without outside interference from directed intelligence(s). In this way, "chosen" traits become dominant (or "common") over time (or at least until a better mutation/adaptation occurs rendering it obsolete).

A variety of internal and external factors come into play that collectively we call, "the environment." It is within this sphere that the weak and strong are separated and the weak are encouraged to die off without reproducing or by reproducing far less than the strong reproduce, which is the same thing from the point of view of the weak.

Eugenics is to the natural consequence of evolution as a horse is to drag racing.

a reply to: whereislogic