I'd not say Dawkins thinks we can *responsibly* guide it. That's why he said he does not morally support it. He's just being a modernist, looking at questions in isolation. The extreme negative reaction is PoMo, saying it's meaningless to separate moral and technical questions.
-
-
Replying to @GregDember @ericlinuskaplan and
He claimed that it 'would work', just like with animals
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @ericlinuskaplan and
But not that it would be GOOD if it worked.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GregDember @ericlinuskaplan and
That's a fuzzy distinction. Saying something works often implies at least some normativity
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cognazor @GregDember and
ian hines Retweeted ian hines
Not necessarily. "It works" implies both that you can use it and also that bad people can use it. Bad actors are fully capable of performing eugenics for whatever ends they may have. It would be possible for people to make a "superior race" though uhhttps://twitter.com/imhinesmi/status/1216041998316163072 …
ian hines added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @imhinesmi @cognazor and
Pretending youre not racist but kinda hinting you are by hiding behind a mask of pseudo-science — that also works!!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ericlinuskaplan @cognazor and
Oh, sorry
I'm on a hair-trigger for false accusations around this, I should calm down a little2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is good practice!
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.