6 ms·

Dawkins was a huge influence on me as a youth, but his recent musings [1] have made me realize that he does not really have more than a shallow understanding of

Dawkins was a huge influence on me as a youth, but his recent musings [1] have made me realize that he does not really have more than a shallow understanding of evolution. This in turn has made me reluctant to revisit the books (Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker) that influenced me so much, for fear that I'll see more of the same shallow thought that equates evolution with selective breeding. In this link the problem I see is that he is too focused on the mechanic of change. The trick of evolution is not random mutations, etc., but has to do with statistical properties of large population groups. A population that is of sufficient size will have variation within the constraints of the fitness function. How those variations are achieved is not really even that important except as regards the rate of evolution, rather than the effect of it. But the fitness function is extremely complex; it's not just changing a few parameters. A population of land-dwellers is largely indifferent to the ability to float; so some creatures can float better, others float worse, but it doesn't matter. But at some point the floaters get good enough at floating that they can actually swim, and now there's a whole new fitness landscape to explore. And the fitness function can change over time. The most important thing is variation -- that's the "anti-fragile" hook that makes life so tenacious. [1] https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512 https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/122894368695366451... -- "It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."

champagneben 6y ago
Why do you think his "musings" are wrong? Seems like something very obvious to me, but I'm a complete lay person in this regard.
- jaquers 6y ago
  Also, I don't see him comparing eugenics to evolution. He's went on to say, 'just because it's morally wrong, doesn't mean it's not possible', which was the point he was making.
  - andrewla 6y ago
    I agree, that's how I read his statement. But that statement is wrong. It is not possible. Eugenics is an incorrect theory. The idea that it is correct but morally repugnant is a terrifyingly ignorant stance (though commonly held). See my reply to the sibling comment -- briefly, variety is the driver of evolution, not selection. The more you constrain variety, the worse off the population is from an evolutionary perspective. Any attempt is net negative, a large-scale attempt would be disastrous, regardless of the moral or ethical implications.
    - jaquers 6y ago
      thanks for the thoughtful response.
- andrewla 6y ago
  The trick of it is that you can certainly practice selective breeding on humans. If you want taller humans, you can breed taller humans. Unethical, etc., but would work. That is not what eugenics is. Dawkins might just have misunderstood what eugenics was as an applied science, but it would be egregious in itself if so. Eugenics is the idea that we can "improve" the human stock through selective breeding, especially by excluding "undesirables". Any attempt to do this (unless you are omniscient) actually has the opposite effect -- variety is the fuel of evolution, not selection. Attempts to limit variability do things like create monocultures and other very dangerous and fragile systems. Acceptable risk for agriculture because our use cases are narrow (dangerous but mitigated by the fact that different strains are kept active for different purposes for most food stock), but for humans it would be a disaster. It's a mistake to think that ethics is the only thing that prevents us from engaging in large-scale eugenics -- it's just an application of a misunderstanding of the underlying science; like trying to create a Maxwell's Daemon for your perpetual motion machine.
  - bobcostas55 6y ago
    >Any attempt to do this (unless you are omniscient) actually has the opposite effect Doesn't seem to have had the opposite effect in all the farm animals and plants we've been artificially selecting for millennia now...
  - sgillen 6y ago
    Couldn’t you bake in variety as one of the desirable characteristics to pass on to the next generation? And also from that tweet it’s not even clear that Dawkins would disagree with you.. it seems like you are disagreeing with the common criteria for good that people will come up with rather than if eugenics itself would work. You even say yourself that if you were omniscient that eugenics could work... Like I do understand what you are saying, but it seems weird to me to take this one tweet you disagree with and conclude that Dawkins has only a shallow understanding of evolution, especially when it seems like you only disagree on the nuances of a definition.
    - andrewla 6y ago
- yters 6y ago
  If evolution is successful because it is unguided, then by guiding evolution we negate what got us here in the first place. On the other hand, if evolution is successful because it is guided by a supreme mind, then our physical properties are only a small facet of what makes us who we are. Thus, a eugenics breeding program is unlikely to make a big difference. And, if we do selectively breed a bunch of attractive, athletic, high IQ individuals, then that could lead to a moral disaster.
Udik 6y ago
Dawkins has always stressed the divide between the way things are and the way they should be from a moral or ethical standpoint. Describing reality for what it is doesn't imply endorsing it: murder is a natural human act, cancer is a natural occurrence in our bodies, etc This seems to be exceptionally hard to grasp for a lot of people. Here is a little theory/ observation (sorry for the very broad strokes, just an idea): right-wing ideologies tend to justify ethical positions with contingent realities (for example "natural family" vs "marriage against nature"). Left-wing ideologies tend to deny reality when it goes against some perceived value (for example, the natural tendency to work for personal gain, when collective ownership for the common good is the value to be promoted).
- runarberg 6y ago
  I find these comparisons between the supposed left and right wing ideologies silly at best. The right wing political spectrum is just as guilty (or even more so) of being "out of touch with reality" as the left. Just look at the climate disaster and the supposed right wing solutions to it (if they are even willing to admit its real). Now back to Dawkins, but he is often wrong on both ethical and fundimental grounds. This tweet is an example of that (there is a sibling comment explaining the scientific reason for why he is wrong), as is almost always the case when Dawkins attacks religion. Furthermore, quite often the moral argument can’t simply be detached from a statement. As an example look at the climate disaster again. It is morally wrong to pollute, but also stuff brakes badly if you pollute too much. You can’t put the moral argument out side of the bracket and say: “I’m only arguing that increased carbon emission are good for the economy”, then you are guilty of stacking the rules of the debate into your favor, and Dawkins does this all the time.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > there is a sibling comment explaining the scientific reason for why he is wrong If you're referring to andrewla's comments, I don't agree, his 'scientific' argument is that 'variety is the fuel of evolution'. Which is a pretty vague statement. Any selective pressure is acting on existing variety to squeeze it. Evolution needs variety precisely to select traits- that is, kill off parts of that variety. Dawkins' consideration still holds true: we practiced eugenics on dogs for millennia, and they did evolve in a direction that was desirable to us. Technically, it works. > The right wing political spectrum is just as guilty (or even more so) of being "out of touch with reality" as the left. Regarding climate change, I do think that (while the right is certainly in denial) the left is projecting on the issue of climate change a vast series of ethical issues that it conflates with the reality of climate change. The issues of poverty and inequality, of capitalism vs collective good, etc. And I think that the right's denial might be in part a reaction to this confusion between a scientific fact and the way it was framed by the left. Why I don't see climate rallies asking for the construction of hundreds of new nuclear plants? That would help in solving climate change much more than everything we did so far.
Myrmornis 6y ago
You're overthinking it. Dawkins was just saying that it is theoretically possible to breed humans for any given trait, just like we do with other animals.
- andrewla 6y ago
  This is not his first musing on eugenics; he is using the word deliberately and with full meaning behind it. He just isn't grasping why it doesn't make sense, because his notion of evolution is strictly about expanding Darwin's notion of individual selection to a notion of genetic continuity, admirably in itself, but really just naval-gazing about mechanics, rather than actually dealing with the dynamics.
  - Myrmornis 6y ago
    I do agree with you that Dawkins doesn't know much about population genetics. (Which I think is one thing you're saying, right?) At least, I've never seen much evidence from him that his understanding of population genetics is at all deep, and I know how difficult and large that subject is. (And he often admits that he's not very mathematical). I don't know whether you're right that "it doesn't make sense". I think what he was saying is basically: - humans are sexual organisms. They're a bit slow to get to sexual maturity but otherwise they're like horses. - We can breed horses for traits. - There is nothing in our understanding of the mechanics or dynamics of horse breeding to say that it wouldn't work for humans, given sufficient time and disregard for ethics. Now, are you saying that "eugenics" isn't simply "horse breeding", but rather that "eugenics" is defined to mean a specific type of manipulation of reproduction within the population? I'm not going to argue about the definition of "eugenics" -- I expect neither of us are very invested in that. But maybe you could clarify again what it is you're saying wouldn't work or "doesn't make sense" for humans, and also clarify whether it would work for horses/cows etc? I.e. is there something about the human species which makes it not make sense, or does it not make sense due to general population genetic considerations that would apply to any mammal (or indeed sexual organism)?

champagneben 6y ago

Why do you think his "musings" are wrong? Seems like something very obvious to me, but I'm a complete lay person in this regard.

jaquers 6y ago
Also, I don't see him comparing eugenics to evolution. He's went on to say, 'just because it's morally wrong, doesn't mean it's not possible', which was the point he was making.
- andrewla 6y ago
  I agree, that's how I read his statement. But that statement is wrong. It is not possible. Eugenics is an incorrect theory. The idea that it is correct but morally repugnant is a terrifyingly ignorant stance (though commonly held). See my reply to the sibling comment -- briefly, variety is the driver of evolution, not selection. The more you constrain variety, the worse off the population is from an evolutionary perspective. Any attempt is net negative, a large-scale attempt would be disastrous, regardless of the moral or ethical implications.
  - jaquers 6y ago
    thanks for the thoughtful response.
andrewla 6y ago
The trick of it is that you can certainly practice selective breeding on humans. If you want taller humans, you can breed taller humans. Unethical, etc., but would work. That is not what eugenics is. Dawkins might just have misunderstood what eugenics was as an applied science, but it would be egregious in itself if so. Eugenics is the idea that we can "improve" the human stock through selective breeding, especially by excluding "undesirables". Any attempt to do this (unless you are omniscient) actually has the opposite effect -- variety is the fuel of evolution, not selection. Attempts to limit variability do things like create monocultures and other very dangerous and fragile systems. Acceptable risk for agriculture because our use cases are narrow (dangerous but mitigated by the fact that different strains are kept active for different purposes for most food stock), but for humans it would be a disaster. It's a mistake to think that ethics is the only thing that prevents us from engaging in large-scale eugenics -- it's just an application of a misunderstanding of the underlying science; like trying to create a Maxwell's Daemon for your perpetual motion machine.
- bobcostas55 6y ago
  >Any attempt to do this (unless you are omniscient) actually has the opposite effect Doesn't seem to have had the opposite effect in all the farm animals and plants we've been artificially selecting for millennia now...
- sgillen 6y ago
  Couldn’t you bake in variety as one of the desirable characteristics to pass on to the next generation? And also from that tweet it’s not even clear that Dawkins would disagree with you.. it seems like you are disagreeing with the common criteria for good that people will come up with rather than if eugenics itself would work. You even say yourself that if you were omniscient that eugenics could work... Like I do understand what you are saying, but it seems weird to me to take this one tweet you disagree with and conclude that Dawkins has only a shallow understanding of evolution, especially when it seems like you only disagree on the nuances of a definition.
  - andrewla 6y ago
yters 6y ago
If evolution is successful because it is unguided, then by guiding evolution we negate what got us here in the first place. On the other hand, if evolution is successful because it is guided by a supreme mind, then our physical properties are only a small facet of what makes us who we are. Thus, a eugenics breeding program is unlikely to make a big difference. And, if we do selectively breed a bunch of attractive, athletic, high IQ individuals, then that could lead to a moral disaster.

Udik 6y ago

Dawkins has always stressed the divide between the way things are and the way they should be from a moral or ethical standpoint. Describing reality for what it is doesn't imply endorsing it: murder is a natural human act, cancer is a natural occurrence in our bodies, etc This seems to be exceptionally hard to grasp for a lot of people. Here is a little theory/ observation (sorry for the very broad strokes, just an idea): right-wing ideologies tend to justify ethical positions with contingent realities (for example "natural family" vs "marriage against nature"). Left-wing ideologies tend to deny reality when it goes against some perceived value (for example, the natural tendency to work for personal gain, when collective ownership for the common good is the value to be promoted).

runarberg 6y ago
I find these comparisons between the supposed left and right wing ideologies silly at best. The right wing political spectrum is just as guilty (or even more so) of being "out of touch with reality" as the left. Just look at the climate disaster and the supposed right wing solutions to it (if they are even willing to admit its real). Now back to Dawkins, but he is often wrong on both ethical and fundimental grounds. This tweet is an example of that (there is a sibling comment explaining the scientific reason for why he is wrong), as is almost always the case when Dawkins attacks religion. Furthermore, quite often the moral argument can’t simply be detached from a statement. As an example look at the climate disaster again. It is morally wrong to pollute, but also stuff brakes badly if you pollute too much. You can’t put the moral argument out side of the bracket and say: “I’m only arguing that increased carbon emission are good for the economy”, then you are guilty of stacking the rules of the debate into your favor, and Dawkins does this all the time.
- Udik 6y ago
  > there is a sibling comment explaining the scientific reason for why he is wrong If you're referring to andrewla's comments, I don't agree, his 'scientific' argument is that 'variety is the fuel of evolution'. Which is a pretty vague statement. Any selective pressure is acting on existing variety to squeeze it. Evolution needs variety precisely to select traits- that is, kill off parts of that variety. Dawkins' consideration still holds true: we practiced eugenics on dogs for millennia, and they did evolve in a direction that was desirable to us. Technically, it works. > The right wing political spectrum is just as guilty (or even more so) of being "out of touch with reality" as the left. Regarding climate change, I do think that (while the right is certainly in denial) the left is projecting on the issue of climate change a vast series of ethical issues that it conflates with the reality of climate change. The issues of poverty and inequality, of capitalism vs collective good, etc. And I think that the right's denial might be in part a reaction to this confusion between a scientific fact and the way it was framed by the left. Why I don't see climate rallies asking for the construction of hundreds of new nuclear plants? That would help in solving climate change much more than everything we did so far.

Myrmornis 6y ago

You're overthinking it. Dawkins was just saying that it is theoretically possible to breed humans for any given trait, just like we do with other animals.

andrewla 6y ago
This is not his first musing on eugenics; he is using the word deliberately and with full meaning behind it. He just isn't grasping why it doesn't make sense, because his notion of evolution is strictly about expanding Darwin's notion of individual selection to a notion of genetic continuity, admirably in itself, but really just naval-gazing about mechanics, rather than actually dealing with the dynamics.
- Myrmornis 6y ago
  I do agree with you that Dawkins doesn't know much about population genetics. (Which I think is one thing you're saying, right?) At least, I've never seen much evidence from him that his understanding of population genetics is at all deep, and I know how difficult and large that subject is. (And he often admits that he's not very mathematical). I don't know whether you're right that "it doesn't make sense". I think what he was saying is basically: - humans are sexual organisms. They're a bit slow to get to sexual maturity but otherwise they're like horses. - We can breed horses for traits. - There is nothing in our understanding of the mechanics or dynamics of horse breeding to say that it wouldn't work for humans, given sufficient time and disregard for ethics. Now, are you saying that "eugenics" isn't simply "horse breeding", but rather that "eugenics" is defined to mean a specific type of manipulation of reproduction within the population? I'm not going to argue about the definition of "eugenics" -- I expect neither of us are very invested in that. But maybe you could clarify again what it is you're saying wouldn't work or "doesn't make sense" for humans, and also clarify whether it would work for horses/cows etc? I.e. is there something about the human species which makes it not make sense, or does it not make sense due to general population genetic considerations that would apply to any mammal (or indeed sexual organism)?