3 ms·

Not that I’m aware of, and it seems unlikely. You may be thinking of his agent John Brockman who was indeed involved. The only connection I found after 10 min o

Not that I’m aware of, and it seems unlikely. You may be thinking of his agent John Brockman who was indeed involved. The only connection I found after 10 min of googling was when Dan Dennett went with other clients of Brockman (Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins; I know, weird trio, but this was back in 2002, well before Dawkins’ outing as a right wing weirdo) that attended a TED conference at Epstein’s island in 2002. https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-science-eugenics-sexual-abuse-researchers.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-science... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets-parties-and-eugenics-jeffrey-epsteins-bizarre-world-of-scientists https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets...

giraffe_lady 3y ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 3y ago
  This is well before Dawkins was an active Eugenicist and before it was known that he was an Islamophobe. Also while Pinker certainly has problematic views on colonialism and class, as well as suffering from euro-centrism, I wouldn’t claim he is in scientific racism. Also this is in 2002 and Pinker hasn’t come out as a liberal democrat (i.e. capitalist ideolog) either. I think it was only in 2005 when he first sided with an anti-feminist on the gender equality issue (aside, that anti-feminist was ultra-capitalist Lawrence Summer, who was also involved with Epstein). I think the only connection here is with Brockman, however, Brockman represented a lot of successful science writers, including in addition to Dennet, Pinker and Dawkins: Jared Diamond, Daniel Kahneman, David Gelernter, Brian Greene, Marc Hauser, Alan Guth, Jordan Pollack, Jaron Lanier, Lee Smolin, Martin Rees, Craig Venter, John Maddox, Chris Anderson, and Rupert Sheldrake.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    > Dawkins was an active Eugenicist Could you expand on this? I've googled around and can only find two supporting bits of info: - In 2006 he tweeted "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?". He immediately followed up with "I deplore a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn't mean it wouldn't work" - In 2014 he told a woman pregnant with a baby with Down's that he thought abortion was the moral choice. Neither of these make him an "active eugenicist" imo!
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      I think the only thing to disagree with here is what "active eugenicist" means. In the first quote he's promoting eugenics as effective, in the second he's recommending it as a concrete action. He's a noted public figure with some degree of scientific authority in the public perception and he's using that platform to advocate for eugenics. What else are you looking for? This is actively practicing eugenics he doesn't need to literally be the one holding the syringe.
      - n4r9 3y ago
        > In the first quote he's promoting eugenics as effective He's just saying it's possible. That's not the same as promoting or advocating it. He explicitly says that he deplores it! > in the second he's recommending it as a concrete action He's recommending an individual action but leaving it to individual choice. That's different to recommending a broad, enforced, population-wide eugenics policy.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        It's certainly close enough for me!
        n4r9 3y ago
        If someone decides to have an abortion due to a genetic condition, would you say that they're practising eugenics?
        runarberg 3y ago
        The thing that makes this eugenicist is the fact that it is none of his business whether other people do with their bodies. If he decided for him self not to give birth to a baby with Down’s syndrome, that is his choose, but if he is claiming to be a moral arbitrator of what other people choose, he may be dabbling in eugenics.
  - moopoo 3y ago
    So do you have reason to disagree with the thoughtful criticisms of Islam that Dawkins has expressed? Not sure why you mentioned that otherwise.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      How is comparing the number of Muslim nobel prize winners to that of Trinity Collage[1] a thoughtful criticism of Islam? How is sharing a silly video meme[2] (irony intended) of nonsensical comparison between Muslims and feminists thoughtful criticism? Recently he even tweeted about the cultural importance of Christianity while continuing to attack Islam. He had been careful about this in the past, claiming to attack all religion equally. His anti-religious views are at odds with the scientific consensus around culture, which is very ironic coming from the scientist that first described the meme. And the fact that he attacks Muslim culture more then others seems to suggest that he has a problem with Muslim people rather then the Islamic religion. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-tweets-islam-muslim-nobel https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richar... 2: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vd...

giraffe_lady 3y ago

[flagged]

runarberg 3y ago
This is well before Dawkins was an active Eugenicist and before it was known that he was an Islamophobe. Also while Pinker certainly has problematic views on colonialism and class, as well as suffering from euro-centrism, I wouldn’t claim he is in scientific racism. Also this is in 2002 and Pinker hasn’t come out as a liberal democrat (i.e. capitalist ideolog) either. I think it was only in 2005 when he first sided with an anti-feminist on the gender equality issue (aside, that anti-feminist was ultra-capitalist Lawrence Summer, who was also involved with Epstein). I think the only connection here is with Brockman, however, Brockman represented a lot of successful science writers, including in addition to Dennet, Pinker and Dawkins: Jared Diamond, Daniel Kahneman, David Gelernter, Brian Greene, Marc Hauser, Alan Guth, Jordan Pollack, Jaron Lanier, Lee Smolin, Martin Rees, Craig Venter, John Maddox, Chris Anderson, and Rupert Sheldrake.
- n4r9 3y ago
  > Dawkins was an active Eugenicist Could you expand on this? I've googled around and can only find two supporting bits of info: - In 2006 he tweeted "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?". He immediately followed up with "I deplore a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn't mean it wouldn't work" - In 2014 he told a woman pregnant with a baby with Down's that he thought abortion was the moral choice. Neither of these make him an "active eugenicist" imo!
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I think the only thing to disagree with here is what "active eugenicist" means. In the first quote he's promoting eugenics as effective, in the second he's recommending it as a concrete action. He's a noted public figure with some degree of scientific authority in the public perception and he's using that platform to advocate for eugenics. What else are you looking for? This is actively practicing eugenics he doesn't need to literally be the one holding the syringe.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      > In the first quote he's promoting eugenics as effective He's just saying it's possible. That's not the same as promoting or advocating it. He explicitly says that he deplores it! > in the second he's recommending it as a concrete action He's recommending an individual action but leaving it to individual choice. That's different to recommending a broad, enforced, population-wide eugenics policy.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        It's certainly close enough for me!
        n4r9 3y ago
        If someone decides to have an abortion due to a genetic condition, would you say that they're practising eugenics?
        runarberg 3y ago
        The thing that makes this eugenicist is the fact that it is none of his business whether other people do with their bodies. If he decided for him self not to give birth to a baby with Down’s syndrome, that is his choose, but if he is claiming to be a moral arbitrator of what other people choose, he may be dabbling in eugenics.
- moopoo 3y ago
  So do you have reason to disagree with the thoughtful criticisms of Islam that Dawkins has expressed? Not sure why you mentioned that otherwise.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    How is comparing the number of Muslim nobel prize winners to that of Trinity Collage[1] a thoughtful criticism of Islam? How is sharing a silly video meme[2] (irony intended) of nonsensical comparison between Muslims and feminists thoughtful criticism? Recently he even tweeted about the cultural importance of Christianity while continuing to attack Islam. He had been careful about this in the past, claiming to attack all religion equally. His anti-religious views are at odds with the scientific consensus around culture, which is very ironic coming from the scientist that first described the meme. And the fact that he attacks Muslim culture more then others seems to suggest that he has a problem with Muslim people rather then the Islamic religion. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-tweets-islam-muslim-nobel https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richar... 2: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vd...