The issue is that the things people want to breed humans for - "intelligence", "beauty", "virtue", "character", "leadership", "creativity", "talent" - are not physical characteristics that have an objective and consistent definitionhttps://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512 …
-
-
The history of aristocratic breeding in humans is the same litany of health problems and genetic diseases as with fancy purebred dogs Only worse, because the "breed standard" we were trying to achieve with human nobles was completely imaginary
Show this thread -
It would be one thing if Charles I's fucked up face was a sacrifice his family made to preserve their bloodline's great wisdom or purity of spirit or natural charisma or ability to control dragons But it wasn't None of those things actually existed in "royal blood"
Show this thread -
The strongest argument against any of these things being heritable in any simple sense is that *that's what we tried for centuries*, we had so many societies based on trying to breed for positive human traits, and they all failed Kept getting overthrown by randos
Show this thread -
This is one of those things that's been fairly well established by history and if you want to keep believing in eugenics you have to either go full neoreactionary ("The history books are lies with by peasants! The Hapsburgs really were superhuman demigods!") or just be stupid
Show this thread -
Falling into that same trap of "X has never REALLY been tried by SMART people who knew SCIENCE" etc
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
ew no thanks they're quite ugly
End of conversation
-
-
-
Also wasn't there a lot of INbreeding as well (which wouldn't produce "superior stock*" simply on a scientific basis alone.) *
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.