1. Comment #9388 by One Eyed Jack on November 24, 2006 at 4:49 pm

I think Mr. Smith just proved Professor Dawkins's point. The topic is still taboo. All he did was mention the possibility of a dialogue. Look at the reaction.

2. Comment #9395 by rob on November 24, 2006 at 5:00 pm

Wow, bizarre how he could twist Dawkins words into saying he "supports" eugenics. He clearly does not, he simply supports having a dialog.

As to the dialog, I think there is one and only one way that any form of eugenics would fly: if it is done by selectively picking genes themselves, as opposed so selecting who should or shouldn't breed.

For instance, if a potential mother knows that she could pass along a gene that might make a daughter susceptible to breast cancer, she could substitute a "good" copy of the gene, possibly from the set of genes in her's and the fathers chromosomes, or possibly by bringing in a 3rd party's genes/chromosomes. So she could still pass on her own DNA to future generations, but she is just making sure that the subset of "problem DNA" is not passed on.

I can't see big moral objections to that, but it is a form of eugenics.

3. Comment #9428 by walter on November 24, 2006 at 6:39 pm

I think eugenics is a great idea!

I don't just want to live in a world where all the rich people THINK they are better than me I want to live in a world where they actually ARE!

4. Comment #9456 by Randy Ping on November 24, 2006 at 8:45 pm

#9447

I wonder myself. What a waste of bandwidth.

5. Comment #9462 by goddogit on November 24, 2006 at 8:57 pm

I would bet a month's salary that, if we pressed this guy about his claims, we would find a simple Animal Farm catch, with "some animals (including himself) have more equal 'moral worth' than others."

6. Comment #9491 by Chris on November 24, 2006 at 10:50 pm

#9489
I posted a comment to this effect on the blog, interestingly Mr. Smith appears to be a lawyer. Seems strange to make such an outrageous claim.

I recenlty read something by Dawkins specifically stating that the practice of breeding humans for particular attributes was highly undersirable. I think it was the God Delusion but it might have been in one of his many recent interviews - he used high jumpers as an example, does anyone remember?

7. Comment #9524 by Richard Dawkins on November 25, 2006 at 2:36 am

This is the real Richard Dawkins, and of course I did NOT write Comment #9492. Nor, by the way, did I write any such article in the Sunday Herald, as Wesley J Smith alleges. I wrote something similar as the Afterword to a book by John Brockman (What's your Dangerous Idea?) but that book is not yet published. If any Scottish readers can explain to me the origin of the rumour that I wrote an article or a 'Letter to the Editor' (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html) in the Sunday Herald (allegedly 19th November 2006) I'd be glad to hear. Was this 'Letter to the Editor' written by yet another impostor like the one who wrote Comment #9492?

8. Comment #9547 by Clive Bradley on November 25, 2006 at 5:02 am

Assuming comment 9524 is the real Richard Dawkins, and still left wondering what he thinks about eugenics, I am intrigued to know what the various members of the RD fan club leaping to the defence of their hero now think, knowing he evidently didn't write it in the first place.

9. Comment #9556 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 5:30 am

Richard,

Why don't you get Josh to set up a special way (IP address based perhaps) for you to make comments and then ban all other IP's calling themselves Richard Dawkins? If there is another real RD, then he can just change his name.

Unfortunately, this format allows mental midgets to hide their cowardly intent, their self esteem must be non-existent.

10. Comment #9558 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 5:38 am

I'm Scottish, but I don't take the Herald. I'll go to my local library on Monday morning, perhaps they'll have a copy of it.

11. Comment #9619 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 9:22 am

Smith says, "How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics" and "Richard Dawkins, the proselytizer for atheistic materialism, apparently supports human breeding programs". Smith seems to miss the point or to be intentionally misrepresenting. As Smith quotes, Dawkins says that he "can think of some answers … good ones … why it is acceptable to train fast runners … and not to breed them". Clearly, the Dawkins quote shows that he doesn't necessarily support human breeding programs and in fact can think of reasons to no support them. It is apparent, rather, that Dawkins is raising the issue of whether it is unethical to even talk about the issue. It seems clear that he is simply proposing that there be a dialogue flushing out what the ethics indeed are on the issue.

12. Comment #9645 by Starfall on November 25, 2006 at 10:57 am

Ironically, Wesley Smith (of the Discovery Institute), undermines his own credibility by first asserting that Dawkins supports eugenics, and then directly quoting Dawkins, on whether there are reasons that eugenics is wrong, "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?"

Smiths makes a false assertion and then provides a quote that proves him wrong!

This dog food makes its own gravy.

13. Comment #9696 by Jared on November 25, 2006 at 3:19 pm

I'm beginning to understand how the other side does its dirty deeds. They disagree with Dawkins, but are too afraid, incapable, or intellectually lazy to actually take his logic to task in any way. I have no doubt that someone who fits neither of those three categories would be capable of making an interesting rebuttal to The God Delusion, this piece about eugenics, or anything else that he has written.

However, as Dawkins's logic is generally QUITE good and his arguments are very well thought out and executed, rebutting with selective quoting, mischaracterization, and out-and-out ad hominem attacks just aren't going to cut the mustard.

Sadly, a lot of readers will take these clowns' word for it and disregard the actual arguments Dawkins makes, which is a shame. While I happen to agree, for the most part, with Dawkins, I'd be quite happy to read a REAL rebuttal with good logic. After all, we rationalists shouldn't just take ANYONE's word as truth, on any subject. Besides, I'm confident that Dawkins's logic is strong enough to come out on top anyway.

14. Comment #9758 by walter on November 25, 2006 at 9:59 pm

"Hitler was not the cause of eugenics-he was the product of it. Indeed the fundamental premise of eugenics holds that some human beings have greater value and worth than other human beings, based on their capacities or innate characteristics."


Back in the 1930's much was made about just how short Hitler, and many of his henchmen, fell of their own 'ayrian ideal'.
Perhaps some of these guys had inferiority complexes of some kind and saw eugenics as a way of making up for it.

15. Comment #9787 by Richard Dawkins on November 26, 2006 at 1:25 am

Mike C #9750 writes: "I know the professor believes in some sort of social heriarchy as he let people who would purchase his book(s) cut line at RMWC while I had to wait in line (before fininshing the second leg of my 300 mile roundtrip. . . How unfortunate of me to have bought my book ahead of time . . . "

I am mortified and distressed to learn that Mike thought I deliberately let people go ahead of him in the line. Does he think authors control such matters? Signing lines, in my experience, are entirely handled by others. Presumably the local bookshop who are selling the books? I suppose it would be in their interests to favour new buyers rather than those who bring their own. But I certainly would not. I can assure Mike that I knew nothing of any queue-jumping, either at RMWC or anywhere else.

16. Comment #10235 by Michael C. on November 27, 2006 at 2:27 pm

In response to Comment #9787

It makes me feel much better to know that the queue-jumping was not under your (Professor Dawkins)control. As a highly respected author (one of the best in my mind) maybe you could flex your muscle a wee bit and lay the law down to let the queue-herders know that you will not allow or do not approve of such shenanigans as line-cutting (very taboo in America). Anyone wanting to purchase a book would do so in good order regardless of the extra jump in line.

I would be lying if I said it didn't hurt my feelings as I had a precaiously long journey ahead (600 miles in one day).

I jumped to conclusions and thought "wow he really must be raking in the cash but isn't this a bit greedy to let people cut?"

What I am also saying is that I rely on you as a spokesperson for atheism. It is my hope that you share certain social standards that many people respect. Sometimes the messenger helps the message (not that your message needs any help). The case in point being that everyone should be treated equal including waiting their turn in line.

Honestly, my mind wandered as I was very eager to get home. I thought to myself is this great intellect on some sort of ego trip? Is he allowing the line to be cut for the sake of increasing sales (greed)? I would hope not as I have seen the "Root of All Evil" and know that you would be opposed to profiteering off of religion.

I am glad I was wrong and that you are still holding up my atheistic beliefs to such a standard that no one could or should ever call you arrogant, haughty, or elitest.

In my defense you can see how the mistake could be made?

Warmest Regards,

Michael C.

17. Comment #11594 by iota on December 5, 2006 at 8:00 pm

Wesley Smith apparently has a strong tendency to read what he wants the writer to have written, as opposed to what actually was written. This is certainly the case with this latest "Dawkins supports eugenics" nonsense, in which Smith makes all sorts of assumptions and misinterpretations just so he can feel like he is justified in his bogus claim.

Smith's ability to misinterpret text to his own advantage seems to be a skill that he can summon at will. I recently had a private email exchange with Wesley Smith about the eugenics post above (this whole exchange has been posted in the comments section of Smith's post). In it, I pointed out the contradiction between Smith's claim that Dawkins supports eugenics, and Smith's own quote of Dawkins saying he can think of good ideas why eugenics might be bad.

Smith misinterpreted this email, which was very brief, as an accusation that he was ignorant of the Dawkins quote. Any reasonable reading of my two-or-so line email would not have given him this impression, since I clearly acknowledge Smith's quoting of Dawkins.

I suspect that this kind of sloppy reading is a habit of Smith's.

Other Comments by iota

18. Comment #11607 by waxwings on December 5, 2006 at 11:14 pm

Once again Dr. Dawkins (or is it Richard? I really would like to know how you prefer to be addressed/referred to) is pasted for what he didn't say, while some useful or interesting thing he did say goes totally ignored by the critic.

Anyway, I'd say you're way ahead of the game, Dr. Dawkins. If we develop technologies to genetically manipulate both ourselves and our offspring, as it seems we inevitably must, it would serve us well to start having the conversation about it now.

Ignoring the subject seems a sure-fire way to assure that such technologies end up restricted to the wealthy elite, while the less fortunate find themselves even less fortunate than usual as a new form of class warfare emerges.

http://cabbiewisdom.blogspot.com

Other Comments by waxwings

19. Comment #11939 by Clive Bradley on December 8, 2006 at 10:19 am

Comment 9554 by Richard Dawkins: "Clive Bradley seems to be making a nasty little insinuation that what I said requires 'defence'."

Nasty insinuation wholeheartedly retracted, if that's what it was. The question you are asking, as a question, is perfectly reasonable. You are, of course, treading into very controversial territory, though, so the outrage seems a bit disingenuous.

What I was referring to, anyway, was a tendency I detect on this site for some people to treat the Professor a bit too much like an infallible hero.

Other Comments by Clive Bradley

20. Comment #11943 by The Spaghetti Monster on December 8, 2006 at 11:45 am

Contrary to popular belief – I cannot fly. And another thing…. I am uncooked…. So enough with the "wet noodle" jokes…..

Listen up pseudo intellectual meat bags….. right now you might be "chuckling" a little bit due to the mental image that just appeared in your hollow coconut but, I am not here to entertain you.

Nope, I'm here to remind you of that which is of the utmost importance. I'm here to make sure that you don't stray from the course. Indeed your efforts to dissolve the "myth" of god are noble and challenging. But remember, these are just the first steps. Keep your focus on the larger picture. This debate or dialog revolving around Eugenics is a distraction…. That's all; furthermore is a snore fest…. Ya know one of my favorite writers and a very wise man once wrote (something to this effect) "the measure of a person's ignorance is their depth of belief in other peoples suffering". You people have your marching orders….. Dismantle organized religion, lay to rest the belief in a mythical god and put forth the truth in regard to "freedom". Oh yes….. you didn't forget did you? Well just take a look around….. America has a president who claims we need to "spread freedom". The founding fathers of America claim that all humans have a right to "liberty"…. And these ideals should be guarded at all costs….. Well, we know better.

It goes like this incase you don't remember. Freedom represents hope… just like god or religion, but we know these "things" don't exist in the real world. Every living cell on this planet is a slave to someone or something….. We are here to "serve" - not to be served. So serve the cause….. after all, you have no choice but to serve. You have no so called "free will" and this freedom that is held in such high regard is just an illusion.

So really, just stick to the program…. Debunk god and religion – debunk free will and freedom.




S i P p Y

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

21. Comment #16070 by Fanusi Khiyal on January 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Well, if you really want a reason as to why eugenics - breeding for a given characteristic - is a moral abomination it is that it violates the idea that every human individual is an end unto himself. Or herself.

The horrors of human history all result from a violation of this principle. Nazism believed the individual could be sacrificed to the "higher" goals of the race. Communism believed that the individual could be sacrificed to the "higher" goals of "the People". Religion believes in human sacrifice, pure and simple. And so on.

When we say it's "good" to breed "for" a given quality, we are ignoring the context - that human beings would have to sacrifice their right to sire offspring with someone they choose to do so. It's a grotesque violation of that person's right to their own life.

Note that this moral objection _doesn't_ apply to the possibilities of genetic improvement of our children by gene therapy. Because that _doesn't_ violate this criterion. Quite the opposite.

What would be profoundly immoral is if someone decided to have a child with another _only because they thought it would have good genes_. Or, far worse, if someone thought that they had the right to _force_ that on others.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal