I would say that eugenics has a philosophical aspect to it and a scientific aspect to it. Like medecine. It’s part science but motivated by a philosophy about what matter.
-
-
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
Problem is, that's just an arbitrary separation between two concepts. Where does the "scientific" element of eugenics end and the philosophical part begin? Without a value proposition about which human traits are better, eugenics ceases to exist
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Ok, question. If a mad dictator decided to breed human for multiple generations based on personality traits, would he succeed in creating a population that on average score way higher on his arbitrary selection of personality traits ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
Probably not, although it's quite hard to say. Personality is an inherently complex trait that is a very sophisticated combination of genes and environment. He'd probably end up with a country full of very damaged people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
A better example is height, for which the answer would also be probably no. Height is influenced by genetics but at a population scale the biggest differences in height have come about due to nutrition and medicine
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ok, but isn’t dog size also influenced by nutrition ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
Probably? I don't know much about dogs. All of this is missing the actual point tho - even if we ignore the theory around what personality ~is~, why is our mad dictator choosing certain characteristics?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Rémi Vachon Retweeted Richard Dawkins
No, you are dodging the question. Do you believe that selective breeding would work in human ? (independently of the rationale behind what trait we select) If no, why ?https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512?s=20 …
Rémi Vachon added,
Richard DawkinsVerified account @RichardDawkinsIt’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.Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
Actually, you are the one dodging the question. There are obviously traits that could be bred - the point is without any selection what is "selective" breeding? Can you breed selectively without ever considering the selection?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The point is that the moment there is a genetic basis for a trait, there is no reason to believe selecting for it wouldn’t work. You are the one trying to dodge, trying to state there is a value judgment when there is none.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Ok, describe to me a process whereby you pick a trait to selectively breed in which there is no value judgement
-
-
It’s not about the process of selecting the trait, it’s about everything you do after you have selected the trait. I don’t need to have a place to go to prove to you that I can drive.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
Actually, if there is no way of defining a starting point, then you literally can't drive, unless you redefine "driving" into meaninglessness
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.