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
I have literally never seen an argument against eugenics that hinges on the idea of whether or not it "would work." The issue is what would it mean to say that eugenics "works," which you conveniently have not defined. Care to elaborate on what a "working" model of eugenics is?
176 replies 384 retweets 7,736 likes -
Replying to @destroyed4com4t @RichardDawkins
He makes it obvious what he means in the tweet. It is possible to selectively breed cows, dogs, roses. It is possible to selectively breed humans. I'm at a loss as to why that fact is contentious.
11 replies 1 retweet 32 likes
My question for anti-eugenicists is what about heritable diseases that everyone agrees are Bad? We might shudder at applying eugenics to aesthetics or IQ, but what about Huntington's or cancer?
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.