The view that eugenics is simply the application of selective breeding principles to humans and that it was abandoned solely for ideological reasons is entirely ahistoric.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512 …
-
-
Quote tweeting this because it's worth noting this "all good traits are correlated" assumption more explicitly. Legacies of this kind of reasoning are common in modern "Hereditarian" arguments.https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1229006460773756928 …
Show this thread -
It's also present in the pro-eugenics comments made by Boris Johnson's new advisor (opposition to which seems to have inspired
@RichardDawkins tweet in the first place). https://schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-sabisky-political-forecaster/ …pic.twitter.com/2zKYjDavbk
Show this thread -
Unfortunately due to my recent low productivity I have nothing new/relevant to promote, but those who liked this thread may also enjoy this tangentially relevant Youtube video:https://youtu.be/2FcpNZ2BEgY
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think 1) here is key; when Dawkins says "it works", he's not endorsing it (as many seem to think), but he is mistaking the intent - it doesn't work for what the eugenicists were actually trying to do.
-
"as many seem to think" I don't even know many people are making this mistake. Most of the posts I've seen about this haven't been moral outrage but, rather explaining the obvious error. Not that moral outrage should be ruled out for someone conflating eugenics with science.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you, thank you for presenting the historical context and showing that Richard Dawkins is wrong about the science element of Eugenics experiment. The entire 20th century horrors provide the evidence against Eugenics.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Re 1), what is objectively better? I presume you mean physical fitness?
-
This is sort of the crux of the problem. Objectively better depends on context, which is always changing. The whole point is without constant neutral mutation evolution would never have the diversity necessary to survive an unknown future.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you for stating this all these people saying "he's not being offensive he's just saying 'it works'" are getting on my nerves for missing the fact that it dosen't "work" eugenics is to genetics and astrology is to astronomy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Objectively better humans." You don't see how f*cked up that is?
-
i do, it's the eugenicists who do not.
End of conversation
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.