It’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 thread
-
Replying to @RichardDawkins
Mate choice is just intuitive eugenics.
45 replies 83 retweets 874 likes -
Replying to @primalpoly @RichardDawkins
Natural/sexual selection is bottom-up. Eugenics is top-down.
6 replies 10 retweets 165 likes -
Replying to @seattleblacksh1 @RichardDawkins
Voluntary eugenics is bottom up. Coercive eugenics is top down.
3 replies 5 retweets 147 likes -
Replying to @primalpoly @RichardDawkins
How is "voluntary eugenics" different from sexual selection?
7 replies 1 retweet 20 likes
Replying to @seattleblacksh1 @RichardDawkins
Historically, 'voluntary eugenics' involved trying to raise public awareness of trait heritability through education and outreach. Trying to make intuitive 'good genes' mate choice a little more conscious and scientifically better-informed, basically.
2 replies
1 retweet
42 likes
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.