Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

M.I.K.

He apologised three years later, indirectly, on a blog, without mentioning the apologee's name.

I'll have to let someone else answer those questions. I was just noting some reasons why he might be considered a prick.

Also, here's his thoughts on eugenics, (FFS), which I was completely unaware of until now...

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512

...and before you start thinking he may have a point with that statement, may I direct your attention to the numerous health problems which occur as a direct result of selective breeding, as most commonly noted in various breeds of dog, (deafness, breathing issues, heart disease, cataracts, cancer, hip dysplasia, etc;)


Funt Solo

Okay. But he doesn't say he's in favor of eugenics, and he doesn't say it wouldn't potentially have side effects.

All he said was that it would be possible. And he's right, isn't he?
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

M.I.K.

Quote from: Funt Solo on 31 May, 2020, 03:24:31 AM
Okay. But he doesn't say he's in favor of eugenics, and he doesn't say it wouldn't potentially have side effects.

All he said was that it would be possible. And he's right, isn't he?

No, he said eugenics would "work". He also says "facts ignore ideology".

The basis for "working" in regard to the animals he mentioned is entirely subjective and therefore entirely ideological.

The only way to work towards an 'improvement' is to have some form of ideology, otherwise you're just mucking about to see what sticks and you'd be better off letting evolution handle it.




Funt Solo

His follow-up post:

"For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Robin Low

Quote from: Funt Solo on 30 May, 2020, 11:27:35 PMTaking a step back for a second from the "do you like or dislike Richard Dawkins" side-debate, I think it's worthwhile following the train of logic that got us here. It went like this:

- IP said that Baroness Varsi, a member of the House of Lords, wanted to entwine religion and governance.
- Robin said (in response to that) that he didn't like Richards Dawkins or Stephen Fry.

It was something if a throwaway comment, really, more in reference to the bit about militant secularists. And I do like Stephen Fry, but his atheism is a bit on the smug side.

Regards,

Robin

Robin Low

Quote from: Funt Solo on 30 May, 2020, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Robin Low on 30 May, 2020, 07:32:23 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 30 May, 2020, 06:59:56 PM
The problem I have with both your arguments is that they're entirely based on perspective.So, you both seem to be arguing against the man, rather than the man's logic.

Yes. My issue is not with the logic, but with the presentation.


So you agree then that belief in mythical beings is a nonsense?

Yes.

But at the same time I'm quite comfortable embracing a lot of - even muturally contradictory - nonsense. I just don't let it get in the way of the practical stuff, except where it's useful - not walking under ladders seems quite sensible to me.

Regards,

Robin

sintec

#17091
Cows that produce more milk - and suffer more mastitis. I mean if you set a narrow goal and ignore all the side-effects then yeah eugenics "works". If on the other hand you actually look at it holistically (and surely we should always be looking at life holistically) then I'm less convinced.

Dogs are always my favourite example of this, we've selected an arbitrary set of characteristics for each breed and selected for them over generations. In the process we've given then a set of genetic defects which in some cases would kill the animals without human intervention and in non-fatal cases significantly reduces their quality of life. There are a couple of breeds that are unable to reproduce withouth medical intervention ffs - how is that improving anything?

If your definition of "works" is so narrowly defined that it only measures the single characteristic you bred for then yeah eugneics works - but I'm not even sure that's a good definition of eugenics. Wikipedia defines it as:

"Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- "good" and γενής "come into being, growing") is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, typically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I'd argue that genetic quality has not been improved in dogs, cows or pigs (I'm not familiar enough with roses or horses to comment). Both cows and pigs are more productive sure but I'm not sure that equates to improved genetic quality unless we measure everything in terms of economics.

A few years back I had an old friend who disappeared down the alt-right rabbit hole - I think he got sucked in via the toxic mess that was gamer-gate. He was a big Dawkins fan precisely because in Dawkins he saw a top level academic who was validating his racism and islamaphobia. And that right there is my biggest gripe with Dawkins - he provides a veneer of credibility to the beliefs of some deeply unpleasent people and it's hard to believe he doesn't know that (he's far from an idiot after all). Following up your initial message with:

"For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn't mean it wouldn't work."

basically validates a redefinition of morality which values the genetic purity of the human race as more important than individual human suffering. And at that point you're just a small step away from justifing death camps and mass sterilization. Ugh.

sheridan

Quote from: Robin Low on 31 May, 2020, 09:18:59 AM
But at the same time I'm quite comfortable embracing a lot of - even muturally contradictory - nonsense. I just don't let it get in the way of the practical stuff, except where it's useful - not walking under ladders seems quite sensible to me.


Seeing as modern religion is based on things which may have made sense at one time (keeping away from some types of food before refrigeration was possible, etc) how do you feel about avoiding walking under ladders when it means walking into busy roads with fast-moving traffic?  Which isn't even a metaphor because superstitious people will do things like that.

sheridan

Quote from: sintec on 31 May, 2020, 09:21:55 AM
I'd argue that genetic quality has not been improved in dogs, cows or pigs (I'm not familiar enough with roses or horses to comment).


I've got one - if you've bred everything to be the same then what you've got is a monoculture.  Wikipedia has a few examples of what that isn't the best idea.

Robin Low

Quote from: sheridan on 31 May, 2020, 10:24:29 AMSeeing as modern religion is based on things which may have made sense at one time (keeping away from some types of food before refrigeration was possible, etc)

Indeed, and some if it may still prove to be relevant if we're willing to engage with it in a thoughtful manner, rather than reject it wholesale.

Quotehow do you feel about avoiding walking under ladders when it means walking into busy roads with fast-moving traffic?  Which isn't even a metaphor because superstitious people will do things like that.

I'd probably look first and wait for a break in the traffic. Depends on what's going on at the top of the ladder, really. Like I said in the post, I don't let it get in the way of the practical stuff.

Regards,

Robin

sintec

Checked in with an equestrian friend, her comments on genetic selection in horses - " a thoroughbred, for example, now has really thin leg bones that really easily snaps and their feet are brittle".  So yeah another great success for eugenics there.

I think what Dawkins was rather clumisly stating was we can selective breed for specific traits, which I'd agree is an inarguable fact. But I'm not sure it can be claimed that doing so really "improves the genetic quality", which as I understand it is the aim of eugenecists. Most recent evidence seems to be showing that a more diverse gene pool is the best way to improve overall genetic quality and for me that's a much stronger argument against eugenics than saying inacting a eugenecist policy would be morally deplorable. What's considered morally acceptable is somewhat subjective after all.

Tjm86

Quote from: Professor Bear on 30 May, 2020, 01:21:17 AM
it is also a great place to find accessible debunkings of fascist and white supremacist propaganda, such as the notion of the Pakistani grooming gang peddled by the British press (including the Guardian and BBC).  The video doesn't just debunk the objective notion, it also points out the double standard in how the media reports on organised child sex trafficking, which risks inverting truth entirely in service of wiping out the role of British men in child sex exploitation and helping to keep it slightly mystified and "foreign" as a concept -

Sorry for bringing the thread back to this.  The idea that Child Sex Exploitation is a 'foreign' concept and primarily practiced by members of ethnic minority communities has a major and regrettably underreported evidence base to debunk it.

The practice of pedophilia in the private, boarding-school sector down through the years has only been mentioned occasionally.  Yet the number of individuals that can comment on such experiences and the range of institutions mentioned suggests that the practice is far more widespread.

So what is the difference?  I mean, is it because the perpetrators were / are predominantly indigenous, white, male, middle / upper class?  Is it because these incidents involve 'respectable' academic institutions?  Is it the 'money'?

When I think back to the reporting on our old head and his exploits after he had disappeared from our place of learning I am utterly appalled.  Authorities in this country and other nations effectively gave him impunity to practice his vices.  He was able to repeat what he did at our school again and again.  So the news of his prosecution when it finally came about was tinged with bitterness at the missed opportunities.

Like I say though, his story is far from unique.  Fellow students who experienced his attentions first hand share those memories with students from far too many British Educational Establishments for the well-heeled.  Strangely though those stories rarely if ever make the national press.

So yes, there are far more British men involved than the press would have us believe.

IAMTHESYSTEM

Both Judge Dredd and Rogue Trooper are a result of genetic manipulation, rather than natural selection. Built for specific tasks, Law Enforcement, Warfare, they had the traits that helped them survive in their various environments. Like ourselves, they did not choose their inheritance; it was bestowed upon them by scientists, as we had our genes given to us by our parents. Though these are fictional characters at some point humans will be able to manipulate the genetics of their offspring. So the hard question is, should we do so? If we can make everyone equally healthy, eliminating physical disability, say as a human trait is that not for the greater good? Or is that the grim trap, that an arms race of genetic traits driven by social desires makes us very alike in the end, destroying the diversity of humans by the very thing we hoped would make us more 'equal.'
"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension."

http://artriad.deviantart.com/
― Nikola Tesla

Funt Solo

Quote from: sintec on 31 May, 2020, 09:21:55 AM
"For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn't mean it wouldn't work."

basically validates a redefinition of morality which values the genetic purity of the human race as more important than individual human suffering. And at that point you're just a small step away from justifing death camps and mass sterilization. Ugh.

You know, I absolutely agree with you that there is a wide range of possible definitions for what the word "works" means if someone says "eugenics works". That's fair. I presume most people would be able to then debate that point and come to some conclusions. Like, it's operable but there are examples of serious side effects.

But it's a shocking leap to suggest that the phrase "eugenics works" (even more especially when surrounded by caveats such as "I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy") somehow leads to there being an automatically attached justification of "death camps and mass sterilization". Catch oneself on.

There's a suggestion there that we aren't allowed to even talk about eugenics. Now where's the fascism?

I imagine a braying herd of angry but well-meaning folk dragging Dawkins out to the scaffold chanting "dickhead" and "nazi" and afterwards, when asked what he had done to deserve his fate, they listed the crimes:

- he apologized in a half-hearted way
- he tried to discuss biological science and we misinterpreted his motivations
- he compared a book that says all non-believers should be forced to bow down before their one true god to another book that says all people of a particular creed aren't human and should be "removed"
- he said we shouldn't lie to children
- sometimes he was impatient

Oh well then. I suppose he deserved it.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

sintec

Quote from: Funt Solo  on 31 May, 2020, 03:31:17 PM
But it's a shocking leap to suggest that the phrase "eugenics works" (even more especially when surrounded by caveats such as "I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy") somehow leads to there being an automatically attached justification of "death camps and mass sterilization". Catch oneself on.

That's not quite what I was trying to say - maybe my choice of wording was poor. Just to be clear I fully accept that Dawkins is in no way advocating death camps or mass sterilization. His follow up is clearly distancing himself from that position.

What I was trying to say is that for someone already enamoured with the idea of a superior Aryan man and whose personal morality values genetic purity over individual freedom/suffering they've now got a leading geneticist telling them eugenics would be successful. They will quote his tweet as evidence for thier position and that I find deeply concerning because it can help convince others of the validity of their arguments. Maybe my experience arguing on this subject with the previously mentioned ex-friend has coloured my feelings on this somewhat. He would post pro-eugenicist material from sites like Stormfront and when called out on it would try to validate it with quotes like this.

Quote from: Funt Solo on 31 May, 2020, 03:31:17 PM
I imagine a braying herd of angry but well-meaning folk dragging Dawkins out to the scaffold chanting "dickhead" and "nazi" and afterwards, when asked what he had done to deserve his fate, they listed the crimes:

- he apologized in a half-hearted way
- he tried to discuss biological science and we misinterpreted his motivations
- he compared a book that says all non-believers should be forced to bow down before their one true god to another book that says all people of a particular creed aren't human and should be "removed"
- he said we shouldn't lie to children
- sometimes he was impatient

Oh well then. I suppose he deserved it.

I find this scenario equally disturbing and I agree we do need to be able to have conversations about topics like this without it blowing up into finger pointing and name calling. I'm also pretty convinced that Twitter isn't the medium via which those conversations are going to happen. It's hard to know what point Dawkin's was trying to make with his tweet without the context of why he decided to broadcast that opinion to thousands of people. It seems ill-considered imo but I wouldn't condemn anyone for that (I'd be a massive hypocrite if I did as I'm plenty prone to placing my foot in my mouth as I think I've proven nicely here).