Dawkins: Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"

[Sal316]

(From 2006)

Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and “racial hygiene” programs.

In a letter to the editor of Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

Dawkins: Eugenics may not be that bad

[Birthmark]

1. I wish Dawkins would STFU. Seriously.

[enlightenment]

3. Perhaps you should say the same for

Rick Pearcey - or do you agree with him?

[Birthmark]

5. Agree with him about what?

The best cut of beef? Which NFL team will win the Super Bowl? The perfect number of spots on a cheetah? :shrug:

[enlightenment]

7. About his views - apparently you chose to read the snip

rather than the editorial Pearcey wrote. Had you read it, you would see his position quite clearly. Or perhaps you did read it and choose to align yourself with someone that far out on the fringe of normalcy.

It's a slightly unusual position for a presumed liberal to take, but whatever floats your boat.

[Birthmark]

11. You've got it all figured out. Enjoy.

As for me, I wish Dawkins would STFU.

[madrchsod]

2. wow..dawkins and the pearcey report.....

that really is mind numbing.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Not just Nazi Germany. This country has had its share of shameful eugenics.

Until the Sixties, states regularly had hearings that were more or less predetermined to sterilize any individual deemed "feeble" or something implying less than normal to prevent them from breeding. The Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell (legitimizing state sponsored involuntary sterilization of American citizens) may not be used these days, but it's still considered active law, meaning it hasn't been overturned by a new case and a new decision. It can be reactivated at a state's whim any time including now.

Who was Carrie Buck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Buck

[charlie]

6. Let's have what Dawkins said

Which isn't quite what the religio-blogs were having him say in 2006:

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php

Note how the exclusion of the preceding fragment - "deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible" -- changes the meaning of the money quote that follows. Nice quotemining, peacey.

The headline isn't his. In fact, it's not a letter to the paper, either. It's something he wrote for a book by another author about "dangerous ideas."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,353,n,n#9524
http://richarddawkins.net/article,353,n,n#9554

[trotsky]

8. You have to realize by now that FACTS have no place in some good old-fashioned atheist bashing.

[charlie]

12. S'funny how both Pearcey and LifeSite

both ignored his truly provocative suggestion (the dangerous bit in a book of dangerous ideas), that we should put the Hitler taboo on hold and debate the moral difference between training and breeding. The fact that he says he has good arguments against it probably made it less attractive. So, it was off to the quote mines for the day for a nice dishonest hook to hang windy diatribes against the evil of evolutionary thought.

[trotsky]

13. And apparently a DUer was bored enough to go digging for 3-year-old atheist bait.

From wacko creationist Christians, even.

[charlie]

15. Even this Discovery Institute tool

felt compelled to publish a retraction:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2006/11/25/i-retract-my-claim-that-richard-dawkins-supports-eugenics

which is saying something. Acknowledging errors (or as often, outright deceit) is rarer than rare from that hothouse of mendacity.

(However, he can't resist attempting a save in a coda -- the original eugenecists were scientists and liberals and WE were the good guys, so take that!)

[moggie]

20. I guess I don't understand why this quote-mine was posted here

Presumably it's meant to be some sort of "gotcha" against atheists, but why? Part of being an atheist is that I don't have to treat anyone as an infallible source of ethical principles. Dawkins is not my god or prophet: I'm free to agree with him on some things, and disagree on others, and he can't punish me for that. Does that make me a bad atheist?

[laconicsax]

103. 30 days later, we're still left speculating.

The OP has yet to chime in.

[moobu2]

10. Kinda figured that

[rrneck]

33. +1 Thanks for the research. nt

[moobu2]

9. I do think some people should not reproduce

or even parent children, my neighbor for instance.

[struggle4progress]

14. Dawkins's high opinion, of his own understanding, may not match his actual understanding.

It seems unlikely to me that anyone really understands human development well-enough to predict how to breed "mathematical ability," for example: some of the great mathematical talents, that we are aware of, seem to have appeared without precedent. Isaac Newton came from farmer stock; his own biological father, though successful, was apparently completely illiterate; Newton was a strange man who never married and to my knowledge died childless. Carl Frederick Gauss, who by his early twenties was recognized as a towering mathematical talent, similarly appeared in an undistinguished family

Dawkins ought to be -- but seems in fact not to be -- a good enough evolutionary biologist to recognize that one and the same trait might be an advantage in some respects and a disadvantage in others, as with sickle cell anemia: Oliver Sacks, in one of his fascinating books, discusses the case of two autistic twins, whose sole interest in life seems to be (mentally) finding and then reciting to each other very large prime numbers: such an astonishing arithmetical ability might be extremely useful to a thinker, if coupled with a substantial scientific curiosity (say), but is not very helpful if the result is merely an idiot savant

But, of course, Dawkins is really just looking for controversy and attention: he's a publicit hound, not a scientist

[trotsky]

16. Or it could be the Kwazy Kooky Kreationists who are the publicity hounds.

See link above:
I Retract My Claim that Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2006/11/25/i-retract-my-claim-that-richard-dawkins-supports-eugenics/

[struggle4progress]

18. Well, here's a link to the longer piece -- and as far as I can see the intent is merely to attempt

to seem controversial, especially since he doesn't actually say anything

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dangerous07/dangerous07_dawkins_index.html

[trotsky]

25. And you embraced the fundie Christian nonsense anyway.

Because like many liberal believers, it seems you view outspoken atheists with no political power whatsoever a bigger threat than insane fundies on the Christian spectrum.

[struggle4progress]

43. After our years of encounters here, of course, you know that none of that is accurate

but since you are trying to get me to squeal like a stuck pig, I suppose I am expected to oblige, so ...

Kindly blow it out your nose

[trotsky]

47. The attitude is on full display in this very thread.

But feel free to hurl playground insults if that bothers you.

[darkstar3]

53. If you can't say something nice...

That old cliche seems very appropriate here...

Here's another: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

In other words...

Why is it that EVERY TIME I see a thread expressing atheist ideas on this board, you show up like Eeyore on downers? Are you following Trotsky around just trying to piss him off, or do you just enjoy being contrary?

Yes, before you fly off and post another passive-aggressive whine, I DO understand that this board is all about discussion, and in order to have discussion you must have differing viewpoints. But reading the exchanges between you and trotsky on this board reminds me of a Monty Python sketch...

Man: Hello, I'd like to have an argument please.
Clerk: No you wouldn't!

Being contrary, playing devil's advocate, or whatever you want to call it just for the sake of stirring the pot is not discussion. It's what my family refers to as being a "shit disturber."

And, to address your ORIGINAL point, you'll have to excuse me if I choose to believe Mr. Dawkins more than you with regard to biology. As a person with a minor biological background myself, I put my trust on that topic in the hands of smart people, and if any one author has the right to be considered an authority on evolutionary biology, it's Dawkins. He's only been doing it for longer than I've been alive, so I'm going to assume he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Further, you COMPLETELY missed the point he was trying to make! He simply said that selective breeding is a topic we as humans should be able to discuss. If we can do it to livestock, pets, and pretty much any kind of domestic mammal, we should at LEAST be able to discuss the idea of selective human breeding.

But then, accepting that point might require you to agree 100% on something with an atheist, which I suspect would warp your mind.

[struggle4progress]

54. I'll point out again that I have already posted a link to the original Dawkins text -- and not just

to the short newspaper extract from it -- in #18

If Dawkins thinks there is a case to be made for selectively breeding humans, absolutely nothing prevents him from making such a case -- but he prefers instead to complain that unnamed people in some unspecified way prevent him from having the discussion, whereas I actually provided some argument indicating a known problem with the project: namely, that nobody really knows understands the issues sufficiently for there to be much prospect of success breeding something like "mathematical talent"

That Dawkins complains he is being muzzled in some invisible and mysterious manner (rather than actually engaging in the discussion he claims to desire) clearly shows that the objective of his piece was entirely polemical -- but, of course, that is unsurprising, since Dawkins is currently not much of a practicing scientist but spends most of his energy on polemics

[darkstar3]

55. [i]absolutely nothing prevents him from making such a case[/i]

If you believe that, then you really do have blinders on to the world, and there is nothing I can say that will make you see.

But then, followers/members of a majority group are often blind to the negative actions of that group.

Have fun joining your brothers and sisters in your frequent 2-minute-hates of Dr. Dawkins. Thankfully, he doesn't need me to defend him, since his actual books do quite a good job of that on their own.

[struggle4progress]

58. Dawkins does not seem muzzled to me: f he wants to make a case for eugenics, he can,

though I suspect no good case can be made

[laconicsax]

62. He seems to agree with you.

"Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me."

I would suspect that if he could think of a good case for eugenics or wanted to make a case for it, he'd at least mention it. On the contrary, he seems to be satisfied with saying that we should discuss the issue and thinking up arguments against it.

[struggle4progress]

63. Hmmm. Well, I suppose we could also discuss the merits of getting drunk and decapitating

ourselves with chain saws. My immediate reaction is that I prefer not to have that particular discussion, unless I really have to have it. I've pretty much already made up my mind on the subject, and I wouldn't expect the conversation to be particularly edifying

If someone insists on having the discussion, I'll wonder why. If they're merely being a pain in the ass, I won't be charmed by the insistence. If I'm convinced they want to have conversation because getting drunk and playing with chainsaws has suddenly seemed like a good idea to them, I still won't be very happy about the prospects for the argument (Gosh! That sounds so ... um ... messy! What will the cleaning lady think? Couldn't we just snort root beer up our noses or gargle salty vinegar instead?)

I suppose this could be framed as Why doesn't struggle4progress want us to talk about getting drunk and decapitating ourselves? Shouldn't we at least be allowed to talk about it? but I think the natural retort will be, If we're gonna talk, couldn't we at least talk about something worthwhile?

[laconicsax]

64. True.

Although an analogy might be better framed as Why should Hitler's love of people getting drunk and decapitating themselves prevent us from talking about the act regardless of merit?

I think that's more the point of the afterword than, 'let's talk about eugenics.'

[Silent3]

65. The drunk/decapitation scenario doesn't have much possibility...

...of yielding results that very many people would consider positive. On the other hand, set aside the now-tainted word "eugenics" and substitute "improving the health and well being of the human species through genetics" and you have something that shouldn't be totally dismissed out of hand just because a bunch of idiots in the past with very little understanding of genetics and a whole lot of racial prejudice hijacked the concept.

I have a lot more of a problem with the idea of parents who know there's a high probability they'll pass on a terrible genetic disease to their children blithely taking their chances and saying something like, "Whatever happens it's the Lord's will" than I do with parents who would choose to use in vitro fertilization and pre-screen for genetic diseases -- even though the latter could be called a form of eugenics.

[struggle4progress]

66. From the 1996 Darwin awards: "... Polish farmer Krystof Azninski .. staked a strong claim to being

Europe's most macho man by cutting off his own head in 1995. Azninski, 30, had been drinking with friends when it was suggested they strip naked and play some "men's games". Initially they hit each other over the head with frozen turnips, but then one man upped the ante by seizing a chainsaw and cutting off the end of his foot. Not to be outdone, Azninski grabbed the saw and, shouting "Watch this then," he swung at his own head and chopped it off. 'It's funny,' said one companion, 'when he was young he put on his sister's underwear. But he died like a man' ..."

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1996-07.html

Who knows what ideas people will find attractive? :shrug:

[Silent3]

67. Interesting take on playing "head games".

This sort of thing is exactly why I used the phrasing, "...doesn't have much possibility of yielding results that very many people would consider positive", because I figured someone could come up with examples like this.

Some people definitely need to avoid alcohol.

Of course, to be picky about it, if the idea had been proposed before any of the drinking got started, "Let's get drunk and cut off our heads", even these adventurous men most likely would have turned down the proposal.

Already being drunk, however, the drinking part no longer had to be proposed. The momentary, ill-consider proposal was reduced to one man thinking, "it would be funny if I cut off my own head", not even properly putting the proposal on the table for group discussion before it was immediately acted upon as a direct demonstration.

I would certainly advise that major decisions in the field of human genetics and medical treatments based on genetics be made only by people who are stone-cold sober, nor playing with chainsaws at the time. I would also be very leery of geneticists with a penchant for saying things like, "Hey! Watch this!".

[charlie]

17. Evolutionary fitness is a different realm from breeding for traits

It's not an argument against its possibility. We routinely breed animals unsuitable for life in the wild. Dawkins isn't missing anything to say that breeding for traits isn't impossible, even if the result is someone wholly incapable of looking out for himself.

[struggle4progress]

19. You don't understand the "traits" that you want to breed. It's highly unlikely that there

is a definite hereditary "mathematical ability" or "musical ability" that can be isolated and bred, for example

[charlie]

21. That's a different argument from evolutionary fitness, though

per your second paragraph, which is what I was referring to.

As for Dawkins ginning up controversy -- he was addressing a community asked to submit "dangerous" ideas, and offering two he felt were omitted. Of course he was controversial, that was the point. Was he being "controversial" with the intent to rile others outside his audience? I doubt it, he has readily available avenues to address them whenever he wants, like his own website, science mags, and British newspapers.

[struggle4progress]

45. It's a more general argument, for which evolutionary fitness provides one example

[ZombieHorde]

26. "his own biological father, though successful, was apparently completely illiterate"

So? This just means he did not have as great as opportunity as others to develop his intellectual skills. With proper training, he may have been the greatest mathematician in recorded history. Same for Newton's mother.

[struggle4progress]

44. It is typical of mathematical genius that results are obtained without much training:

when the 18 year-old Gauss gave the ruler and compass construction of the regular 17-gon, making progress that no one else had been able to make in over two millenia, his teacher was so incompetent and uninformed that he told Gauss everyone already knew how to do that. And intelligen amateurs have sometimes made substantial progress in particular mathematical fields without much training, as you can verify (for example) by examining Coxeter's book on regular polytopes

[trotsky]

46. "without much training"

But still far more training than an early 17th century illiterate farmer would have had, wouldn't you agree?

[TZ]

31. Big assumption that the fundie xtian site isn't twisting Dawkins words

Cause I've read his stuff (BIOLOGY STUFF) and I never got that.
But hey, atheists are all evil and xtians never lie or distort the truth..:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

Well, it's just like I noted elsewhere on this thread.

There are many liberal believers who evidently believe that outspoken but powerless atheists are a far bigger threat to the country and much, much worse than fundie Christians who include at least a hundred current Congresspeople as well as the most recent presidents among their ranks.

[struggle4progress]

42. I posted the original text in #18 above: it's Dawkins's afterward to "Dangerous Ideas,"

an afterward in which he pretends to be edgy and daring without really saying anything interesting, unless one considers it fascinating to whine about how unnamed people in unspecified ways supposedly won't let him talk about eugenics

[Silent3]

22. Will you take a look at the subthread starting at post #6...

...and finally admit, for at least on this one occasion, you're simply spreading BS with the same intellectual honesty regarding Dawkins as talk of "death panels" has regarding the health care debate?

[trotsky]

24. You already know the answer to that.

The OP has proven on multiple occasions that he only wants to stir the pot. He routinely gets his ass handed to him with facts, then slinks away to wait for his next drive-by.

[Igel]

23. To some extent, we do that anyway.

By choosing mates at university, by profession, by looks, we bias the selection of offspring. Our kid runs rings around others his age in terms of vocabulary; you mate two linguists, that's what you get, I suppose.

Recently, possibly tongue in cheek, somebody suggested that women were getting prettier, because of differential birth rates.

We also choose mates based on less obvious, less overt things, apparently, like immune system compatibility, i.e., by scent (although even "pretty" is, to a large extent, symmetry, which reflects genetics). This makes for more robust, more immunologically sound, offspring.

The rub is having government run the "program" and making it compulsory, rather than let it run itself by chance interaction and selection. As with many things, what's perfectly fine when done voluntarily becomes unethical when compelled by government.

[Ready4Change]

27. Mr. Dawkins, do you love your wife?

'Cause frankly, I think anyone who thinks eugenics is a good idea should be kicked out of the gene pool, and I'd sure hate to put an end to your doubtless fine marriage for the greater good of the human genetic code.


:sarcasm:

[heidler1]

28. Has anyone heard of comparative tests where in pre-Hitler average

IQ in Germany is compared to very recent average IQ in Germany. I suspect the data is available and could be used to prove something maybe. I did notice that Germany, China and France were ahead in the getting past the economic collapse. One study claimed that the Chinese surpassed most other groups in I.Q.

[Jim__]

29. I think the questions are important and should be asked.

While we are not ready to implement this type of genetic engineering at present (at least I don't think we are) we probably will be in the not too distant future. If we discuss this now, while it is not an immediate issue, we may be able to have a rational, dispassionate discussion and all come to a better understanding of the issue.

Once this is available, discussions will probably quickly degenerate into heated, name-calling matches; similar to abortion "debates" today. Let's shed light on the issue while it is still possible.

[TZ]

30. Nice sources there.

Want to start quoting Pat Robertson at me about the evils of atheism too.
Find this from Dawkins HIMSELF. You can't can you? It makes me barf when right wing type sources are used on DU.
I'm a student of Dawkins biology for many years, and I've NEVER even seen a hint of this.

[laconicsax]

35. That's because you don't quote mine him.

Jeez TZ, why don't just just quote mine what he writes to support whatever you want? That way you too could manufacture controversy by dredging up 3-year old book excerpts and quote mining them.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[laconicsax]

34. Nice quote mining!

It helps to read what he actually wrote. Here's the next sentence after the alleged quote:

"I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me."

Hmm...that would indicate that he isn't in favor of eugenics. He then ends the paragraph with a question.

"But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

Seems his point is that we shouldn't be afraid to ask questions on the grounds that a comparison to Hitler might be drawn.

Its a fantastic job of quote mining a letter to the editor that was actually part of an afterword to someone else's book and you just ate it up.

I recall some time ago you accused me of "bad theology" for not interpreting parts of your holy book in a full historical context and here you have no problem parroting a quote mining job used to paint someone as favoring Nazi eugenics.

Nice to see you're not ashamed to hold others to different standards than you hold yourself.

[trotsky]

36. WWJD?

Apparently he's OK with his followers being big ol' hypocrites.

[uberllama42]

37. We should all remember this

We should all remember how Sal argues, and what he (if I may presume) is willing to stoop to. This poster is willing to drop a three-year-old quote-mining effort without comment, trying to discredit someone he doesn't like. Keep this in mind when interacting with this poster in future threads.

[laconicsax]

38. Ordinarily, posters who pull this sort of hit-and-run shit are trolls.

Always fun to see donating DUers who've been here since 2001 stoop to that level.

[trotsky]

41. Absolutely.

And I'm very happy to help keep this thread kicked to remind others. An apology from Sal and a promise to stop using this ad hom drive-by style of posting would be welcome and... Christ-like? :evilgrin:

[laconicsax]

57. It would be very welcome.

Like when VenomFangX agreed to apologize to the internets to avoid legal action.

[Evoman]

39. Dawkins thinks that having sex with farm animals is okay.....

"Since the...human species....ought to be improved by selective breeding...with horses...why on Earth should it...not..."



You sir should be ashamed of yourself!

[laconicsax]

40. !

:rofl:

[centristgrandpa]

48. WTF...

Too bad there isn't a time machine that could transport this idiot (dawkins) into one of those horrible concentration camp to experience the nazi process of selection. Dork is an understatement.

[laconicsax]

49. Read the subthread starting with post #6

The OP is an old quote-mine job. Dawkins wrote an afterword to a book on dangerous/controversial ideas with the point being that we shouldn't avoid discussing issues out of fear of being compared to Hitler and he gave some examples. That afterword was excerpted and published as a letter to the editor without Dawkins' knowledge or permission. That letter to the editor was quote-mined to accuse Dawkins of supporting Nazi eugenics--a position he certainly does not hold.

[centristgrandpa]

51. thanks for the thought provoking post. n/t

[Silent3]

50. Have you ever taken a moment to think...

...that when a thread has been sitting around for a while that it might be a good idea to read over what other people have already said before firing off a rant based on a quick first impression?

[centristgrandpa]

52. startin to slow down...

just got back from vacation, had to travel the freeway system, still scanning at about 80 plus mph...aNd

[and-justice-for-all]

56. I get what he is saying...

All some see is "Dawkins is for Nazi eugenics" blah blah blah..

If you do not have to brains to understand it, do not try to read it. Don't be so thick.

[The Magistrate]

59. This Head-Line, Sir, Is So Misleading Deliberate Dis-Honesty Must Be Considered As The Motive

At a minimum, the sites to which you have provided links are maintained by liars, whose word could be trusted on any matter whatsoever....

"Everyhing he says is a lie, even 'and' and 'the'."

[Silent3]

60. The OP has been curiously quiet since starting this thread

Is it too much to hope that maybe he's actually feeling some regret, or at least embarrassment?

Probably. :)

[laconicsax]

61. Maybe he's hoping that this thread will fade from memory.

[uberllama42]

73. I intended a while back to keep this thread

Since it's still alive, I'll do that now.

[laconicsax]

104. Oh, I think it'll be alive for a while longer.

Sal needs to chime in on his thread.

[Deep13]

68. Straw man.

He's not siding with Nazis and only brings them up to draw a distinction. Nazis were concerned with their pseudoscience of racial purity.

He is only wonder what the ethical distinction is between genetic manipulation for certain traits and external pressure--training and education, for example--to do similar things. So, there is nothing evil in bringing it up.

The article writer makes the pointless observation that nothing in Darwinsim prevents this. Of course it doesn't. Scientific theories about how the world works have nothing to do with ethics, except maybe to explain how why we have them.

I would rather we talk about genetic manipulation to avoid certain diseases and other disabilities. My own objection to genetic manipulation outside of preventing disease etc. is--apart from the ethics of testing on people with no say--is that we will create a kind of caste system where people are born to do certain things but have no freedom in choosing it.

[laconicsax]

69. Quote-mined straw man. n/t

[Silent3]

70. And still nary a peep from the OP

I didn't think hit-and-run was his style.

[laconicsax]

71. Maybe he forgot about this post.

I'm happy to keep occasionally kicking it until he chimes in.

[laconicsax]

72. I just realized, your quote-mined quotes aren't even correct.

Nowhere in the piece being mined does Dawkins even write the words, "may not be bad." In fact, he doesn't even use the words "may" or "bad."

I guess the only thing more dishonest than a quote-mine is a quote mine with made up quotes. Good job raising the bar. Gold star for effort:

[tama]

74. and Anglo-American eugenics

and concentration camps are just hip! Hooray for science!

("He who takes up science, perishes with science")

[anonymous171]

75. Please tell me that this is a joke/hoax. nt

[laconicsax]

76. Yep. What you read here is a three year-old, already debunked quote-mine.

Dawkins wrote an afterword for a book on 'controversial ideas' in which, he essentially says that fear of being compared to Hitler shouldn't stop a discussion. He uses eugenics as an example of an idea that isn't discussed because of fear of being compared to Hitler. An excerpt of that afterword was published as an LTE in a newspaper before the book was published with out Dawkins' knowledge or permission.

People who despise Dawkins quote-mined the afterword to accuse Dawkins of endorsing eugenics. The person who started it later retracted his comments and acknowledged that he was wrong. Dawkins does not endorse eugenics and even said something to that effect in the original afterword, saying of why eugenics is bad, "I can think of some answers, and they are good ones..."

The OP dug up something that parrots the quote-mine job and posted it here, presumably as a 'gotcha' post. No one knows if he had some legitimate reason for posting something that has already been shown to be a lie because he's been rather silent on this forum since this post.

[tama]

77. The real problem

is that Dawkins is using the Hitler card to comfily push aside the uncomfortable fact eugenics was (is?) "sound science" and "great humanitarian idea" for all racist, bigoted, supremacist, scientific white people, not just pre-WWII Germans but very much pre and post WWII Anglosaxons, Swedish, etc. etc.

So, it would be better to say that fear of being compared to racist scientific white people should not stop a discussion.

[laconicsax]

78. We're supposed to pretend that post WWII eugenics progams never happened.

Especially the ones in this country.

[tama]

79. Yeah

Considering the links between scientific racism and social Darwinism, the case might be that the topic is hitting Dawkins too close to home turf...

[moggie]

87. Let's look at something else Dawkins wrote

His essay A Devil's Chaplain (published in a collection of the same title) takes its name from this sentence in a letter Darwin wrote: What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature. Here's an extract from the essay, shortly after he disapprovingly quotes some "Social Darwinists" (including "some blood-chilling lines" from H. G. Wells promoting eugenics):

I prefer to stand up with Julian's refreshingly belligerent grandfather T. H. Huxley, agree that natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution unlike Shaw, admit its unpleasantness unlike Julian, and, unlike Wells, fight against it as a human being. Here is T. H., in his Romanes Lecture in Oxford in 1893, or 'Evolution and Ethics':

Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.

That is G. C. Williams's recommendation today, and it is mine. I hear the bleak sermon of the Devil's Chaplain as a call to arms. As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs. My previous books, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, extol the inescapable factual correctness of the Devil's Chaplain (had Darwin decided to extend the list of melancholy adjectives in the Chaplain's indictment, he would very probably have chosen both 'selfish' and 'blind'). At the same time I have always held true to the closing words of my first book, 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators'.

If you seem to smell inconsistency or even contradiction, you are mistaken. There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it a a practising one. For good Darwinian reasons, evolution gave us a brain whose size increased to the point where it became capable of of understanding its own provenance, of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them. Every time we use contraception we demonstrate that brains can thwart Darwinian designs. If, as my wife suggests to me, selfish genes are Frankensteins and all life their monster, it is only we that can complete the fable by turning against our creators. We face an almost exact negation of Bishop Heber's lines, 'Though every prospect pleases, And only man is vile.' Yes, man can be vile too, but we are the only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil's Chaplain: from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste.

He freely admits that people, including some scientists, have misused the ideas behind evolution for unpleasant political ends, and he opposes such misuse.

[tama]

88. What strikes me odd and sad

is "fighting cosmic processes".

Positioning oneself outside of nature and then fighting the (externalized and objectified picture of) nature.

Clearly, Dawkins is bonkers. But then again, who isn't... :)

[moggie]

89. It rained yesterday

It poured with rain while I was on my way home from work, and I got soaked. Of course, I didn't use a raincoat or umbrella, because I'm part of nature, and why would I want to fight it?

There are genetic conditions which will kill during childhood, but which are now treatable. A eugenicist might say: let the child die, so that the harmful genes won't be passed on. A decent person might say: treat them, to give them a chance of a good life, and, when they're ready, give them the facts so that they can make a choice about whether to have kids. Huxley, in his Victorian way, might have called the latter "fighting a cosmic process".

[tama]

90. As a part of nature

I sometimes enjoy getting soaked, sometimes go under cover, sometimes use raincoat or umbrella. It's all natural and there's no universal rule to how to behave, what happens happens. As a part of nature and no universal rule of boundaries what is me and outside me, why would I want to fight myself?

In the language I grew with when "it" rains there is no "it" (externalized nature), just raining happening without subject or object, without metaphysical presuppositions of English syntax.

***

Sure there are conflicts, fights, contradictions - cosmic processes. To give the child an antibiotic and face the longterm negative consequenses or not to give and face the shortterm negative consequenses? Life is made of difficult choises and situations. As Heraclitus says:

"War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free."

"We must realize that war is universal, and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife."

Cosmic processes are all about contradictions and imbalances: chirality, more matter than antimatter, etc. Only when we stop fighting against Cosmic War inside and outside and free ourselves of fear, comes peace. Warrior's peace, if you like.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. I think you're imagining what you think Dawkins might say

rather than bothering to see what he actually said.

It's at post #6. Would you like to reconsider your argument in light of it?

[tama]

81. Checked 6

No need to reconsider in light of it.

Couple wikipedia quotes re eugenics:
"Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.<64> A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.<60> American eugenicists inspired and supported Hitler's racial purification laws, and failed to understand the connection between those policies and the eventual genocide of the Holocaust.<65>"

"Although the U.S. state of Oregon didn't repeal its forced sterilization law until 1983, the last known forced sterilization there was performed in 1978. <74>"

"<98> From about 1934 to until 1975, Sweden sterilized more than 62,000 people, with Herman Lundborg in the lead of the project.<99> Sweden sterilized more people than any other European state except Nazi Germany.<100> More people were sterilized in 1948 than any other year."

And it hasn't stopped at all, I'm sure you've heard arguments like "middle class/rich people/smart people/jews/europeans should breed bore so that the inferior oops other races/cultures/classes don't outbreed them. Ehmm... maybe this kind of thinking has something to do with the "selfish gene" -meme that Dawkins is spouting? Hell yes. Does this kind of thinking have something to do with the culturally conditioned self-image of a selfish capitalist, best attested in USA? Hell yes.

[laconicsax]

82. The "selfish gene" has nothing to do with this.

The "selfish gene," a widely accepted evolutionary concept, is a gene's-eye view of evolution. For example, any gene that, independently or in conjunction with other genes, increases a host organism's fitness is actually increasing its own fitness or ability to perpetuate itself through more generations. The name, "The Selfish Gene," refers to the genes being selfish replicators rather than a gene that imparts selfishness.

You should actually read the book (or at least the Wikipedia article) instead of guessing at what it's about and then forming a conclusion based on that false assumption.

Interesting fact about the book: In it, Dawkins coins the term "meme."

[tama]

84. Hey, you noticed!

"Interesting fact about the book: In it, Dawkins coins the term "meme.""

Yeah, and it's a fun word to feed back to Dawkins, whose thinking, according to him, is slave to cultural memes. :)

Selfishness as such (whether applied to genes of humans), according to Dawkins' memetics, is a cultural meme that Dawkins as part of culture with selfish self-image projects to biology and nature - which projection then in turn is used to justify selfishness. Just another example of same old circular logic.

And as for the reductionistic theories in general, they are just wrong, bad science and worse philosophy and ethically horrible, no matter how widely accepted they are.

[laconicsax]

94. Yay! A philosophical argument against science!

Do you understand how scientific theories become widely accepted?

"And as for the reductionistic theories in general, they are just wrong, bad science and worse philosophy and ethically horrible, no matter how widely accepted they are."

I thought not. A theory become widely accepted by virtue of it being right and surviving peer review.

Quantum theory is reductionist. What's more, it's right and is good science. It has no philosophical or ethical implications. It's simply a model that accurately explains how a system works.
Genetic theory is reductionist. What's more, it's right and is good science. It has no philosophical or ethical implications. It's simply a model that accurately explains how a system works.
General relativity is reductionist. What's more, it's right and is good science. It has no philosophical or ethical implications. It's simply a model that accurately explains how a system works.

"Selfishness as such (whether applied to genes of humans), according to Dawkins' memetics, is a cultural meme that Dawkins as part of culture with selfish self-image projects to biology and nature - which projection then in turn is used to justify selfishness. Just another example of same old circular logic."

No one's justifying selfishness. You're projecting an is-ought problem where it doesn't exist. Saying that something is a certain way doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. Dawkins doesn't argue that we ought to be selfish because it's part of nature and biology. In fact, he argues the opposite in several of his books--that our intellect gives us the opportunity to rise above the selfishness of nature and we should do so.

[tama]

97. FYI

Science is subfield of philosophy, historically, generatively and evolutionarily. No scientific theory is "non-ideological", ie. having no philosophical(/metaphysical) presuppositions/belief systems. Conscious presuppositions are open to thinking and rethinking whereas unconscious presuppositions are less so, so one of the main tasks of philosophy is to bring unconsciouss presuppositions into light, as part of more general task of developing sound thinking skills.

From wikipedia:
"Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understand the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.<1> This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings. Reductionism is strongly related to a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of other, more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it."

"Holism recognizes the idea that things can have properties as a whole that are not explainable from the sum of their parts (emergent properties). The principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts"."

Reductionistic metaphysics has been logically and empirically falsified. That does not mean that good thinking skills wouldn't and couldn't entail both holistic and reductionistic (or rather, analytical) approaches and their dialectics.

So, for sake of dialectics and all that jazz lets ask: what is the reductionistic atom (gr. for undivisible)/universal building block that quantum theory and hence also classical mechanics and biology reduce to? Hint: there is 'one' candidate that I might take seriously!


"No one's justifying selfishness.

Plenty are justifying selfishness, from Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko to even many DUers. And the supposed selfish nature of humans (and or, genes) is often used as justification.

"You're projecting an is-ought problem where it doesn't exist. Saying that something is a certain way doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. Dawkins doesn't argue that we ought to be selfish because it's part of nature and biology. In fact, he argues the opposite in several of his books--that our intellect gives us the opportunity to rise above the selfishness of nature and we should do so."

Thanks for the Hume-challenge :). Hume pointed out the logical fallacy of ought from is - but not vice versa. Each 'ought' *is,* and especially ethically so in a holomorphic, dynamic and participatory approach to evolution and nature.

A more blatant logical fallacy, at least when subsribing to monistic ontology instead of dualistic ontology (which I'm now just presuming re Dawkins), is when participant of nature(/physis/physical world) tries to rise above nature - as if "intellect" would not be also part of natural world but something supernatural. Is Dawkins really a proponent of "supernatural intellect"? ;)

Is there any logically consistent way out of this conundrum? Probably more than one, but the easiest that comes to mind is that the picture of gene/nature as selfish that Dawkins presents is just wrong or more kindly, too narrow. And that when Dawking feels alltruistic feelings and thinks alltruistic thoughts, those are fully natural processes and not something supernatural, whether holistic and/or reducing to some quantum-atom. :)

[laconicsax]

98. Too narrow is more likely than flat-out wrong.

The gene-centered view offers good explanations for some things, but it's likely that higher-order explanations could offer better explanations for others.

I don't have enough knowledge and understanding of philosophy to address much of what you covered here in any way that will further discussion. The most I can hope to do is address one thing you mention.

As far as my comment, "No one's justifying selfishness," I was referring to Dawkins and proponents of the selfish gene idea, not the human population as a whole. More often that not, people will rationalize their views with a misunderstanding of scientific concepts. "Selfish" is a bad adjective in context of "The Selfish Gene." It's been a few years since I last read it, but I do recall Dawkins covering this aspect somewhere (possibly in a recent edition preface, possibly in another work), admitting that "selfish," with all its connotations was a poor word choice. Google books has excerpts from "The Selfish Gene" (link) including the first couple chapters. In the first chapter, Dawkins says:

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to.

Of course this flies directly into what you consider a blatant fallacy (I think). I would suggest that you are reading 'rise above' in too broad a sense. When I say 'rise above,' I mean it in a very limited context of behavior--I have read of evidence that humans have strong tribal instincts which lend themselves to racism and other bigotries. To accept the 'out-group' and behave altruistically towards them goes against our natural tendencies in a small way. In this sense, our intellect is not outside of nature; it is simply a tool that can be used to act in counter to our instincts.

[tama]

100. Culture and nature

The prevailing global eurocentric culture is plagued with strong, nearly absolute divide between culture and nature. This divide has it's causes and consequenses. The most critical consequense is that this culture is destroying the natural support it depends from, not unlike a cancer tumor is destroying the organism it depends from. This culture cannot survive as such, it can only get destroyed or transform from cancer-like behaviour to organic behaviour. And as behavioral patterns are not independent from self-images and world-views (e.g. scientific theories, religions etc.), also these need critical and radical rethinking.

It is easy to point out the logical fallacy and accept intellectually that the divide between culture and nature is a logical fallacy, but the divide and its causes are ingrained much deeper than that. It is fairly easy to see that the divide is linked to languages and linguistic conditioning of this culture, the strong subject-object divide, and how cocentric spheres of subjectivity or "in-group" (me, my family, our work-group/party, nation, western culture) objectify and externalize both nature and other perceived subjectivities or "in-groups". Also, it is fairly easy to understand intellectually that this subject-object divide is complementary opposition, there is no subject without object and vice versa. Subjects and objects have no independent existence but their existence is codependent.

Nature is. We are shared being. In this nature we share many kinds of languages, some languages can speak easily and naturally without subjectifying and objectifying, on the level of being and happening. In some languages speaking without subjectifying and objectifying can be more difficult, but this English now attempts as it happens.

Nature is as happens, nature does not get replaced with theory of objectified and externalized nature that subjectively states that nature is that and not this. That picture and not this being and belonging. Naturally, also creation of that picture happens as part of this being.

Intellect is a good tool, if it's considered a tool (for a subjcet to reach object), but with tools it is good to remember that for a hammer everything appears as a nail. Intellect is in no way contradictory to a feel or instinct of mere being - nature as such, unlimited by any theory.

Now, let's return to the question of transformation, if it is possible and how, and how intellect may help. Feel of mere being is all fine and constant transformation from moment to moment, but also better tools of thinking are fine and called for. One such tool has been implied allready and more than once, namely concentric spheres, like Russian dolls. IMHO natural evolution is not limited only to genes or biological processes as they are commonly understood, also "spiritual" evolution is perfectly natural (hopefully the word "spiritual" is not too problematic and can be forgiven :)). You mentioned alltruistic behaviour towards "out-groups", and one natural evolutionary way for such behaviour is gradual growth of the limits of "in-group", namely including larger and more inclusive concentric spheres to the feel and instinct of "in-group" - sphere of all of humanity, sphere of whole biosphere, sphere of Gaia and her magnetic body etc.. Spiritual evolution does not need to imply anything per se teleological but can be and is as adaptive evolutionary process as others. Animistic or pan-psychic world view was how our forefathers adapted to their changing environment with good success, so it has been allready tested by evolution. On the other hand we know, if we accept the 'ought' of transformation of our culture, that the founding world-views of this culture, growth and control, cannot stand the test of spiritual or cultural evolution. Animistic world views can be given also scientific interpretations that honour the best scientific traditions and principles (such theories are allready available), so that is not the problem. Our problem is transforming 'ought' to 'is' at required adaptive level.

[tama]

85. And FIY

I've read the wikipedia article including the discussions page, wondering why there was no "criticism" topic as there usually is. From the discussions:

"Alright, here is some stuff from Ernst Mayr. Goes as far to call Dawkins' claims not even Darwinian:

"MAYR: Yet the funny thing is if in England, you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian."

" The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong."

Mayr again:

"On one occasion Dawkins (ref. 13, point 7) himself admits that the gene is not an object of selection: “. . . genetic replicators are selected not directly, but by proxy . . . their phenotypic effects.” Precisely! Nor are combinations of genes, as for instance chromosomes, independent objects of selection; only their carriers are. "


David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist who has done actual research on the evolutionary history of religion:

"When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues"

"he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.""

[laconicsax]

95. Is it your prejudices keeping you from plainly seeing what's right in front of you?

"I've read the wikipedia article including the discussions page, wondering why there was no "criticism" topic as there usually is. From the discussions:"

Yep, no "criticism" at all. Must be a conspiracy.

Mayr, despite being a brilliant evolutionary biologist, doesn't have the authority to single-handedly toss out the selfish gene. Biologists generally accept it as accurate and dissenters like Mayr have been unable to demonstrate that it's wrong.

Wilson's criticism of The God Delusion has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[tama]

96. The article

and discussion I referred to was about Dawkins. I agree that the specific criticism section fits better the specific article about the book The selfish gene - which I didn't read. And I agree that I could have done a better research - though I did read the article about unit of selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection). Given my "prejudicies" my instinct guides me think that the multilevel selection theory hits the mark closest in this context.

There is more general criticisms,
1) emphasising competition ("greed") (at any level of selection) instead of evolutionary co-operation which is equally or more important aspect (Kropotkin being among earlier scientific proponents of co-operative evolution, Gould (AFAIK) later).

2) general rejection of reductionism and reductionistic prejudicies/metaphysics/beliefs (aka the pseudosceptic dogma) as philosophically (logically and ethically and also empirically) unsound.

Now, you claim that genes as the unit of selection is The theory generally accepted by the scientific community. Where is your proof of that or is that just your guess/impression? And even if so, how does the opinion of majority turn into truth?

[laconicsax]

99. I can't claim authority on it.

I'm not a biologist, just a layman. It is my impression that the gene as the main unit of selection is generally accepted. This impression is the result of everything I have read (except for Gould's work) and the handful of classes I've taken, all of which imply selection of genes.

Genes are the main unit of heredity. Genes manifest themselves in an organism in the form of phenotypes. Selection will favor phenotypic traits that are most beneficial to the organism's reproductive fitness (and those that have no effect). I've never seen this contested.

Dawkins' position is that since phenotypes are the physical manifestation of genes, genes are what drive selection. Indeed, mutations in the genotype result in changes in the phenotype. This is where Gould objects, arguing that since the phenotype is the physical manifestation, the phenotype is the unit of selection with genes acting as a record of the selection that took place.

This objection, to my eyes, doesn't work. Changes to the phenotype are a result of changes to the genotype, not the other way around--the gene is the cause, the phenotype is the effect. Gould's position requires the effect to precede the cause. Additionally, since the genotype can change without affecting the phenotype (through neutral mutation, non-expressing genes, etc.), the gene as a self-interested replicator makes more sense than the gene as a record of selection for an abstract effect.

I see an analogy to an archery contest--the gene is the archer, the phenotype is the target. The archer shoots an arrow and its position on the target drives the selection of who advances to the next round. Under the selfish gene view, the archer is selected by way of the target and gets to advance. Under Gould's view, the target is selected and the archer incidentally advances.

[tama]

101. Causality

With genes and phenotypes one main ingredient of the theoretical soup is left outside: these minds that theorize. In most direct phenomenological experience both genes and phenotypes "reduce" to mental images. :)

We consider mental causation (mind over matter/classical mechanics) perfectly normal everyday processes, these thoughts and feelings aim to find linguistic expressions that fingers hopping on the keybord give this form. This what is happening becomes extremely problematic, intellectually, empirically and otherwise, only if we try to fit it in the frame of reductionistic unilinear causality - and fully deterministic classical mechanics. Naturally, if mental causality over classical mechanics is accepted, so is causative power of classical mechanics over mental processes. Not a reductionistic relationship but two-way dialectic one.

It may be usefull to bring back to mind couple famous insights into nature of causality:

1) Buddha and codependent causality:
"If this rises, that rises; if this ceases, that ceases."

2) Hume:
"Taking a cue from Malebranche, Hume argued that there was no perception of the supposed necessary connection between the cause and the effect. When a sequence of events that is considered causal is observed—for example, two billiard balls hitting each other and flying apart—there are impressions of the two balls, of their motions, of their collision, and of their flying apart, but there is no impression of any alleged necessity by which the cause brings about the effect. Hume went one step further. He found worthless his predecessors' appeals to the power of God to cause things to happen, since, as he said, such claims give us "no insight into the nature of this power or connection" (p. 249). So, Hume secularized completely the notion of causality. He also found inadequate, because circular, his predecessors' attempts to explain the link between causes and effects in terms of powers, active forces, and so on. As he put it: "he terms efficacy, agency, power, force, energy, necessity, connexion, and productive quality, are all nearly synonymous; and therefore 'tis an absurdity to employ any of them in defining the rest" (p. 157)."
more: http://science.jrank.org/pages/8538/Causality-Hume.html

In light of these quotes, it may be usefull to make distinction between experienced Psychological Time (PT), of which unilinear (entropic) causality is a main feature - this is in other words what Hume appears to be saying -, and underlying Geometric Time (GT) and codependent causality of which Buddha speaks and where Quantum Theory points to. As to finer details and models of relationships between PT and GT they go over my comprehension, which of course doesn't prove that others couldn't understand them.

What I can think of is simple example of backwards causation. We habitually project various possible futures, calculate their likelihoods, evaluate wich we like and which we don't wish to happen - and then, from the viewpoint of a possible future shoot a causal arrow back in time affecting present behaviour.

To my best understanding, such imaginative causal power cannot be explained inside the normative reductionistic frame, namely mental processes reducing to classical electro-chemical processes inside brain, which are by definition fully deterministic and unilinear. Mental processes cannot be limited inside human scull.

PS: To widen our horizons hopefully even further, are there strict limits to mental causation, mind over matter? I see no a priori reason to presume that such limits, if they exist, have been met. For example, even though it may sound incredible at first, I'm quite convinced that some "shamanistic" healing happens directly at genomic level. Double helix is very ancient symbol familiar for example from the Hermes' staff:

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. I think you should read it again

because it has nothing to do with sterilization, or "racial purification". It's about whether purposely altering genotypes for abilities is possible (Dawkins is maintaining that since it's possible in domesticated animals, it is possible in humans too), and he says the moral implications are like those of education - how much can you force on a child? He also says "I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me". SO he not asserting that genetic modification is definitely good; but he's saying it deserves discussion and debate.

However, you seem to have proved his point - the mention of 'eugenics' has had you running to examples of sterilization.

Laconicsax has shown you what 'the selfish gene' really means. It's about 'does this gene get replicated' or not. Here's a quick rview from someone who just read the book for the first time:

Dawkins looks at evolution from the point of view of the gene, proposing that organisms (such as humans) are “survival machines” for the genes, containers that carry them in our chromosomes, protecting and replicating the genes. Therefore, natural selection favors organisms that most successfully replicate their genes. Characteristics that promote replication (e.g., fertility, attractiveness, ability to protect oneself) are preferred and so spread more widely through the population.

The title is a metaphor, since genes themselves do not have feelings. It is meant to indicate that in their drive to replicate (since that is their function), genes may even act against the best interests of the organism containing them or against the best interests of the community of organisms. From the gene’s viewpoint, what matters is the number of copies of the genes, not of the organism. Hence, organisms have evolved to protect those who have copies of some of the same genes (kin).
...
I particularly enjoyed his concept of an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) and the examples of such strategies that he and others have studied and/or modeled. In an encounter, the two participants have the choice to protect or defect. I was reminded of all those police dramas where they’ve separated two criminals and are telling each to rat on your partner before he rats on you; the one who defects first gets the best deal. Dawkins discusses many strategy models, while cautioning that the environment must also be a factor in their success.
...
The book does raise moral questions, although Dawkins cautions that he is just describing how things work biologically, not how they ought to work. And he reminds us that, as thinking organisms, we sometimes have the power to override our genetic blueprint. For example, we can choose not to reproduce. We can choose altruism. We can choose peace.

http://bmorrison.com/blog/185/the-selfish-gene-by-richard-dawkins

[tama]

86. Let's be carefull with our words

If Dawkins instead of eugenics (which in normal use refers to blatantly racist/classit science and a pretext for horrible crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) wishes to discuss selective breeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding) or artificial selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection) then he should say so.

And BTW, how does Dawkins know that genes have no feelings? Redutionists allways run into the problem of mysterious ex nihilo emergent categories.

And as for the general way Dawkins uses language (or language uses Dawkins), it seems that if Dawkins was discussing on DU or on some other discussion forum instead of writing books, he would be considered a troll in no time. Dawkins is no merit to science.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. Dawkins didn't mention 'eugenics' at all

so he was quite careful with his words. The mention of 'eugenics' came from the virulently anti-abortion (and right wing) Life Site News and the right wing blog that was linked to in the OP - they misrepresented what Dawkins had written.

Another anti-abortion blogger withdrew the claim that Dawkins supported eugenics, when it was pointed out to him that Dawkins never talked about 'eugenics'.

[tama]

92. OK, my bad :) n/t

[PVnRT]

93. Bullshit. That's not what he said.

That quote is yellow journalism at its finest. Dawkins was doing nothing more than speculating about the possibility of the effects of breeding, as is done with livestock, on humans. Eugenics as Hitler and others like him envisioned not just breeding, but the elimination of undesirables. Dawkins says no such thing.

Good to see, though, that there are plenty of DUers who buy into the atheism=Nazis bullshit.

[laconicsax]

102. More than that, at least one DUer was eager to post something quote-mined then disappear.

Thankfully the activity on this thread has picked up, giving Sal more time to respond and maybe shed some light on why he posted a three year-old piece that not only quote-mines, but makes up the quotes.

[Sal316]

105. What absolutely amazes me is....

....the defense of what Dawkins said in the name of "science".

Let's look at what he said again, shall we?

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

No, the time hasn't come. In fact, even posing this question shows that Dawkins is more interested in sounding smarter than he is than in ethics.

The difference between training for something and breeding for something is like night and day.

If a person trains for something, it is a choice. I know sometimes parents foist things on their kids, but it is still a choice and not permanent...children can and do eventually say "no more". Breeding for something implies that those without whatever those traits are less valuable to society. It also eliminates a person's ability to develop into someone unique on their own and turns them into a human "build-a-bear".

One can go back centuries through today and see selective breeding in the worst humanity has offered. It's not confined to the WWII era. Slave owners selectively bred slaves to be physically strong and mentally weak by killing off those who were weak or could read. I wonder if the Dawkins worshipers here would ask "why is that necessarily bad?"

The thought of breeding for traits, or making "designer babies" if you will, disgusts me as a scientist. Additionally, things like this fall under the law of unintended consequences. Just look at what hormone treatments in cattle and GM food has brought. It's altered people's immune systems, had a negative impact on the environment, and, in the case of hormone laden meats, has quickened the pace of human development, particularly in preteen and teenage girls.

So, defend this all you want, whine about "quote mining", explain it away as "well, that's not what he meant"...that's your choice.

[laconicsax]

106. So nice of you to join the discussion.

You posted a link to a quote-mine. Not only that, but a quote-mine that invents its quotes. A month passes with no word from you on why you posted such a patently dishonest piece and finally, you arrive to defend the integrity of your post.

Good job showing everyone just how far you're willing to sink. By shrugging off the fact that your post is centered around 2nd-hand quote mine that even goes as far as inventing quotes, you must not mind such employing blatantly dishonest tactics when it serves your purposes.

I don't see any reason to respond to the rest of what you write here because you've shown yourself, quite conclusively, to be uninterested in honest discussion. I would suggest that you evaluate whether or not willingness to be intentionally deceitful is consistent with the morals laid out in your holy book.

[Sal316]

110. Still defending the indefensible?

You posted a link to a quote-mine. Not only that, but a quote-mine that invents its quotes.

No, it didn't "invent" the quote. All the words quoted to Dawkins in the article are his words.
But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?

Good job showing everyone just how far you're willing to sink.

Are you talking about me or your defense of Dawkins' pseudo-intellectual babble? I know you worship the ground he walks on, but I thought most ethical humans would draw the line at wondering why we shouldn't make designer babies.

By shrugging off the fact that your post is centered around 2nd-hand quote mine that even goes as far as inventing quotes, you must not mind such employing blatantly dishonest tactics when it serves your purposes.

Really? From the original link:

....no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, 'if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?'”

Now his own words:

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular....But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? - Scotland Herald

Where's the invented quote?

I don't see any reason to respond to the rest of what you write...blah, blah, blah....

Whatever you have to say to make yourself feel better. You're defending the indefensible. Dawkins has simply outsmarted himself trying to be 'edgy'. Breeding for arbitrary traits is unethical It's not a matter of whether or not there are reasons that "probably end up persuading" him.

[laconicsax]

111. If you read the response #72 you'll find the invented quote.

But since you're reading this right now, I'll repeat myself.

The title of your post here is,

Dawkins: Nazi eugenics "may not be bad"

Yet if you read what he wrote, you'll find that he doesn't say "may not be bad." He doesn't even use the words "may" or "bad." Thus, the way the article frames the piece is based on a flat-out lie. Your source attributes it to LifeSite, which it seems invented the quote (lie). Pearcey repeats the invented quote (lie) in the piece you linked to and by posting it here, you're repeating the lie as well.

Quote-mining is in itself dishonest. If you don't understand that part, let me ask you if you're still "wondering why we shouldn't make designer babies" and if you still "feel better" about humanity's future if we start "breeding for arbitrary traits."

All the words attributed to you in the above paragraph are your words.

[Sal316]

117. So, when do we argue font sizes?

You're going to nitpick and dismiss the whole thing over a headline? That's funny.

I concede the point that he didn't say what the headline says, however:

1) HE used Hitler as his reference.
2) HE didn't come out against eugenics.

In fact, he only stated that he could think of some reasons that would probably convince him we shouldn't selectively breed. Then, logically, on the flip side there are also reasons that would probably convince him it was a great idea.

You do know that mostly cloudy days can also be partly sunny, right? If something is not definitively in one camp, then there exists within it characteristics of its opposite.

So, yes, one can draw the logical conclusion that since he says can think of reasons that would probably convince him it was bad, there are also reasons he could think of that would convince him its 'not that bad'.

[laconicsax]

118. You really don't get it, do you?

Your post starts with the lie that Dawkins said that eugenics "may not be bad" and supports that lie with quotes taken out of context.

If you can't even recognize what's wrong with that, then I don't see much reason why I should take anything else you post seriously. Why should I pay attention to someone who's willing to lie to support his case?

[Sal316]

121. How's the air up there?

....high up on your pedestal?

Is that why you couldn't see that I conceded the point that the headline words weren't his?

Perhaps when you climb back down we can discuss how Dawkins' "probably convince me" leaves the door open for "may not be bad", too.

[laconicsax]

122. When you're in the sewers, everyone at street level looks like they're on a pedestal.

When Sarah Palin says that Obama's health plan (whatever that is) will create 'death panels' she's framing the debate with a lie. Before any debate can proceed, time has to be wasted showing why the 'death panel' claim is a lie and the entire discussion becomes centered around refuting subsequent claims based on the original lie.

When you say that Dawkins claims that Nazi eugenics "may not be bad," you're framing the debate with a lie. Before any debate can proceed, as illustrated frequently on this thread, time has to be wasted showing why Dawkins never said anything in support of eugenics and the entire discussion becomes centered around refuting subsequent claims based on the original lie.

You may think that you've conceded the point that the subject line of your post is a flat out lie, but you're still framing the debate around it. Dawkins wrote about discussing the moral difference between selective breeding and forcing people to develop those same abilities. The line about good answers isn't about whether eugenics is good or bad, but whether it's more moral than the other option mentioned. By framing the debate into one about Dawkins supporting eugenics, you've intentionally distorted this distinction.

Imagine that I made a post on eating meat, in which, I asked, "is there a moral difference between eating dogs and eating cows or why it's acceptable to serve ducks and geese but not parakeets? I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me." It's pretty clear that I'm talking about a moral distinction between two similar concepts and not advocating one or the other.

It's the exact same thing with the afterword excerpt that Dawkins wrote--he's talking about how close two concepts are from a moral perspective. If you really concede that the headline is a flat-out lie, then you need to step back from accepting it as the premise for discussion. Otherwise you're arguing to support a claim you've acknowledged as false.

[immoderate]

114. It appears to me you're misreading Dawkin's quote.

He is saying that he can think of reasons why training and breeding should be treated differently. I don't think you are seeing that.

--imm

[Jim__]

107. Yes, the questions should be asked.

The fact that something disgusts you is hardly sufficient to suppress all discussion of the matter. Genetic modification of human embryos will be possible (if it isn't already). People will want to insure that their children have certain traits. If some of those traits can be attained through genetic modification, people will seek that type of treatment. Should that be outlawed? What about genetic treatment in embryos to avoid deadly genetic diseases? Should that be allowed? Who gets to decide? If we allow genetic modification for treatment of diseases, where do we draw the line? Again, who decides?

It's a debate that we will eventually have. I think the earlier we have it the better. I'd certainly hate to see the debate postponed until these treatments are clearly availble as at that time, the debate will be far more emotional.

[Sal316]

108. There's a difference you're missing.

What about genetic treatment in embryos to avoid deadly genetic diseases? Should that be allowed? Who gets to decide? If we allow genetic modification for treatment of diseases, where do we draw the line?

There's a difference between targeted gene therapy to treat disease and using it to make designer babies who play piano like Mozart.

[Jim__]

109. Who gets to draw the line?

The parents? The state? You?

These questions should definitely be asked. These issues should definitely be discussed. Dawkins is right to raise the issue.

[laconicsax]

130. ...and a week later, no response from the OP.

I think he prefers discussion to be a one-sided affair where he makes an accusation and ignores everyone who disagrees with him.

[laconicsax]

131. Oops! Make that a month.

[Deep13]

112. Even if somehow Dawkins really thinks this, so what?

Atheists don't worship Dawkins as a divine being. He can be wrong about this and still be right about the nonexistence of god. Look at Michael Shermer. He's right about god and other supernatural claims even while he's dead wrong about economic libertarianism.

[sspeilbergfan90]

113. Absolutely disgusting

[laconicsax]

115. Read the subthread starting with post #6

Short version: Dawkins never said anything in support with eugenics. Someone quote-mined him to make the accusation that Sal posted.

[Lost-in-FL]

116. Kirk?? Is that you?? nt.

[gk88850]

119. Shame on Dawkins

[laconicsax]

120. Read the subthread starting with post #6

Dawkins doesn't actually support eugenics. The OP quote-mines a piece he wrote about eugenics as a controversial issue to make the accusation.

[Nihil]

128. FYI ...

... that poster was tombstoned, presumably for doing exactly what he did
in this thread: posting a moderately random comment in the header and
incrementing his post count by one ...
:hi:

[Odin2005]

123. Somebody lock this trainwreck.

[laconicsax]

124. I disagree.

Let it stand as a shining example of Sal's dishonesty.

[charlie]

125. And Dawkins worship

Once again, we're reminded that if you don't spit and curse when his name is mentioned, you're a "Dawkins worshipper".

[Silent3]

126. I can assure you that my Dawkins shrine...

...is meant in a purely ironic fashion. And it's decorative. And I only make sure the candles and incense are burning constantly, twenty four hours a day, because I just like candles and incense so much.

Well, I have to get going now. I have less than half an hour left to prepare for the mid-morning obeisance and the reading from "The Selfish Gene".

[charlie]

127. Pie Dawkins, Domine

*whump*

Dona eis selfish gene

*whump*

[laconicsax]

129. You'd better not be reading from a heretical edition!

The only true word of Dawkins is the 2nd edition Russian-language version. All others are heretical...especially the 30th anniversary English-language edition.