Travis Ekbom  💣

What experts and laity are criticising Dawkins for is the fact that the practice of eugenics is inherently ideological since it entails the question of deciding which traits are desirable in humans. Dawkins kinda overlooked that slight fact

The problem with eugenics is that everyone relates it to phenotype characteristics such as skin color and eye color, but not to people with Huntington's disease, dystrophy or diabetes ... Some genes shouldn't exist.

Should the genes that cause ALS exist? If we had taken measures to exterminate those genes we would never have seen Lou Gehrig or Stephen Hawking. Would humanity have been improved by their absence? I suspect the list of great people with diabetes is quite a bit longer.

This is absurd. You're deliberately conflating exterminating genes with exterminating people for the sole purpose of arguing against eliminating diseases and conditions that drastically reduce quality of life. Hawkins would have still been Hawkins without the ALS.

Hawkins would not have been allowed to have been born if eugenics had been in place prior to his conception. Eugenics is the use of selective breeding and sterilization to create superior humans. People carrying the faulty genes are not allowed to reproduce under eugenics.

Again, you're falsely conflating eliminating genes with eliminating people. In your short-sighted moral outrage over a tweet, you are arguing against the very methods that would allow us to eliminate ALS. You are not the moral hero here.

The methods by which eugenics eliminates genes are controlled breeding and sterilization. That is what eugenics is. It is the definition of the term.

Read my reply again. And actually read it this time.