3 ms·

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)?

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)?