Richard Dawkins says Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"

[gilliam]

Dawkins might think lots of things about God and apes, But I hardly think that tells us anything about his ideas on the implementation of a managed reproduction program.

That’s why I asked for a link.

 

[Jennifer123]

“Better” children is simply a short hand way of describing healthier, stronger, and smarter people. Does anyone know a couple that hopes for a sick, weak, and dull child? Does it take a eugenic mindset to hope for healthy, strong, and smart children? Is it better for a child to be healthy or sick? If a parent says it is better for the child to be healthy, is that a eugenic mindset?

Sure, all parents hope for health, intelligence and strength for their children. But we also must accept that there will be children born who aren’t these things, and they must be accepted and protected by parents and society, knowing that they too have inherent human dignity even though they don’t possess these qualities.

The problem is the growing belief that the absence of these things are completely unacceptable, for children and for adults. We risk becoming a society only protective of traits that equal “productivity” and “beauty”, of thinking that these are the only things that make us human. Cartainly it’s superficial and juvenile at best, very dangerous at worst.

There was one instance recently where a woman aborted a baby conceived by IVF because it was handicapped. Certainly a handicapped baby, though not “perfect”, is still a human being who deserves a chance to be brought into this world and can still make a difference in the lives of others.

I myself was advised I could abort my child based on nothing more than ultrasound evidence that my child may have Down’s. I’m sure many children have been aborted based on nothing else. My child was born healthy.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Sure, all parents hope for health, intelligence and strength for their children. But we also must accept that there will be children born who aren’t these things, and they must be accepted and protected by parents and society, knowing that they too have inherent human dignity even though they don’t possess these qualities.

The problem is the growing belief that the absence of these things are completely unacceptable, for children and for adults. We risk becoming a society only protective of traits that equal “productivity” and “beauty”, of thinking that these are the only things that make us human. Cartainly it’s superficial and juvenile at best, very dangerous at worst.

There was one instance recently where a woman aborted a baby conceived by IVF because it was handicapped. Certainly a handicapped baby, though not “perfect”, is still a human being who deserves a chance to be brought into this world and can still make a difference in the lives of others.

I myself was advised I could abort my child based on nothing more than ultrasound evidence that my child may have Down’s. I’m sure many children have been aborted based on nothing else. My child was born healthy.

While we might accept the fact that there will be kids who are healthy, strong, and smart, I hardly see that as a reason to avoid selective breeding of healthy, strong, and smart kids.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

The fact that people have used undesirable methods in the past in an effort to manage reproduction does not mean such methods are necessary. The Nazis worked factory labor to death, yet we still have factories. We do not shy away from manufacturing because the Nazis used such methods. Should we abandon manufacturing because of the Nazis?

The Nazis weren’t the only example that I provided:
GG:

forced sterilization in California, sex selection via in vitro fertilization and embryo “selection” , aborting children with Trisomy 21 and sperm banks offering a chance to get an athletic, Harvard physician.

Please provide us with examples where a eugenic program that has not violated Church teaching.

“Better” children is simply a short hand way of describing healthier, stronger, and smarter people. Does anyone know a couple that hopes for a sick, weak, and dull child? Does it take a eugenic mindset to hope for healthy, strong, and smart children? Is it better for a child to be healthy or sick? If a parent says it is better for the child to be healthy, is that a eugenic mindset?

“Better” is fairly subjective and has been used to described boys versus girls (India, China), Aryan vs Jew, tall vs short, slender vs fat, blue eyes vs green eyes, musical talent vs a tin ear (Dawkins example), etc… Would you be comfortable with a fertility clinic that guarenteed tall, smart, blue, eyed boys?

The eugenic mindset is not the desire for healthy children or smart children. The eugenic mindset is the determination to only have smart children or healthy children or only boys or whatever is the chosen trait(s).

 

[rlg94086]

Dawkins doesn’t say society has to do it.

No. He only infers that by saying “60 years after Hitler” and referring to the active breeding of cattle for milk. The cattle do not choose their mates, someone else does, and he doesn’t mention anything about individual choice for human breeding.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

While we might accept the fact that there will be kids who are healthy, strong, and smart, I hardly see that as a reason to avoid selective breeding of healthy, strong, and smart kids.

What’s your idea of a program for selective breeding? With eugenics (as most other evils) the devil is in the details.

 

[Jennifer123]

selective breeding

Emphasis mine.
By nature, most humans pick the best mate they can in order to try to assure healthy births. So I ask, selective by whose criteria? And what criteria? My opinion is that this eugenic mindset - designer babies, abortion of “defectives” - will ultimately lead to the degradation of human dignity in other areas. I argue we already have.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Sure. First, society doesn’t have to manage reproduction. It could easily be independent groups that represent a subset of society. One way is to conduct genetic testing on volunteers. Depending on the level of genetic knowledge, the pairing of certain individuals may have a higher probability of producing healthy, strong, and smart children. Subsequent marriage and mating of these people would then follow.

I think our current level of knowledge is a bit sparse, but I expect it to rapidly increase. We can dream up unacceptable ways to implement anything, but we should also look at the acceptable ways.

So, what is the ethical or religious objection to what I described? I don’t see any.

I have no particular objections other that your system is reductionistic and inhuman. Your suggestion has helped to see another problem with the eugenic mindset, the extremely narrow focus. Healthy, smart children also require parents dedicated for many years. Genetic compatibility does not help Mom and Dad to make a commitment to marry and stay together. I think that’s why artificial insemination has gained ground with single women. You avoid the complications of having another person around. Life is messy. The eugenic mindset certainly wants to eliminate any messiness.

It’s interesting that your focus has been strictly on nature and not nurture. I hate to mention the Nazis but they always seem to have made the mistakes that you have yet to work out. Part of their eugenics program included young Aryan men and women brought together for copulation and procreation. The children were then taken from the mother (the couple were never married) and then were raised in this huge orphanages. Love, romance and family were excluded from the system. Your proposal doesn’t seem too different.

 

[rlg94086]

There is also the matter of the human spirit. Great genetic potential is just that - potential. There are people with “superior” genetics who accomplish very little. There are others of “lesser” genetics who accomplish great things. This is due to many influences and the environment in which they were raised, which is a very complex calculus.

I would put up a motivated “average” person versus a pampered aryan any day of the week!

It’s interesting that your focus has been strictly on nature and not nurture. I hate to mention the Nazis but they always seem to have made the mistakes that you have yet to work out. Part of their eugenics program included young Aryan men and women brought together for copulation and procreation. The children were then taken from the mother (the couple were never married) and then were raised in this huge orphanages. Love, romance and family were excluded from the system. Your proposal doesn’t seem too different.

 

[HoppityRedux]

The Nazis weren’t the only example that I provided:

Please provide us with examples where a eugenic program that has not violated Church teaching.

“Better” is fairly subjective and has been used to described boys versus girls (India, China), Aryan vs Jew, tall vs short, slender vs fat, blue eyes vs green eyes, musical talent vs a tin ear (Dawkins example), etc… Would you be comfortable with a fertility clinic that guarenteed tall, smart, blue, eyed boys?

The eugenic mindset is not the desire for healthy children or smart children. The eugenic mindset is the determination to only have smart children or healthy children or only boys or whatever is the chosen trait(s).

The Nazis were also not the only ones to use forced labor in factories.

I can’t tell you about programs that do not violate Church teachings since I don’t know what the Church teachings are. What are the Church teachings on managed reproduction?

“Better” is subjective. However, does that mean all uses of “better” can be said to be the same? An intelligent analysis of the use of the word would consider the context and the two things being compared.

I would be quite comfortable with a fertility clinic that guaranteed tall, smart, blue-eyed boys. What’s wrong with them?

The eugenic mindset is best analyzed by examing the eugenic ideas of the individuals who are recommending eugenics. Then one is in a position to pronounce on the mind-set. One is also in a position to observe that the range of mindsets is too wide to simply claim there is only one. I have described a eugenics program that contains none of the undesirable elements you allude to.

 

[HoppityRedux]

No. He only infers that by saying “60 years after Hitler” and referring to the active breeding of cattle for milk. The cattle do not choose their mates, someone else does, and he doesn’t mention anything about individual choice for human breeding.

Society doesn’t breed cattle. Farmers do it on their own. We have no government breeding program directing all cattle breeding in the US.

 

[HoppityRedux]

What’s your idea of a program for selective breeding? With eugenics (as most other evils) the devil is in the details.

The devil is always in the details, but there is no reason to demand he be there.

I dscribed a very basic system Nov26 11:07.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Emphasis mine.
By nature, most humans pick the best mate they can in order to try to assure healthy births. So I ask, selective by whose criteria? And what criteria? My opinion is that this eugenic mindset - designer babies, abortion of “defectives” - will ultimately lead to the degradation of human dignity in other areas. I argue we already have.

The criteria could be whatever the parents choose. This would be aided by genetic analysis that assigned probability to certain characteristics of offspring from two individuals. If humans pick the best mate they can by nature, then the genetic information would allow them to make more informed choices.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I have no particular objections other that your system is reductionistic and inhuman. Your suggestion has helped to see another problem with the eugenic mindset, the extremely narrow focus. Healthy, smart children also require parents dedicated for many years. Genetic compatibility does not help Mom and Dad to make a commitment to marry and stay together. I think that’s why artificial insemination has gained ground with single women. You avoid the complications of having another person around. Life is messy. The eugenic mindset certainly wants to eliminate any messiness.

It’s interesting that your focus has been strictly on nature and not nurture. I hate to mention the Nazis but they always seem to have made the mistakes that you have yet to work out. Part of their eugenics program included young Aryan men and women brought together for copulation and procreation. The children were then taken from the mother (the couple were never married) and then were raised in this huge orphanages. Love, romance and family were excluded from the system. Your proposal doesn’t seem too different.

I do concentrate on nature. that’s how genes work.

It’s easy to conjure up an unacceptable way to do anything. I can imagine an unacceptable way to bulid a Catholic Church, but that surely doesn’t bind church builders. You can conjure up an unacceptable way to manage reroduction, but none of us are bound by such imaginings.

The practice of medicine used to include bleeding. Glad we didn’t abandon the cause because bleeding was stupid.

 

[HoppityRedux]

There is also the matter of the human spirit. Great genetic potential is just that - potential. There are people with “superior” genetics who accomplish very little. There are others of “lesser” genetics who accomplish great things. This is due to many influences and the environment in which they were raised, which is a very complex calculus.

I would put up a motivated “average” person versus a pampered aryan any day of the week!

How about a pampered Chinese?

 

[rlg94086]

LOL…I didn’t say society breeds cattle. I said the cattle don’t get to choose (i.e. someone else does the breeding). Perhaps, you should propose a selective milk breeding program, where the cattle could voluntarily decide to choose the best mates to produce the best milk.

Society doesn’t breed cattle. Farmers do it on their own. We have no government breeding program directing all cattle breeding in the US.

 

[rlg94086]

How about a pampered Chinese?

Sure, if you prefer. I would put up my motivated, genetically “inferior” person against a pampered genetically “superior” Chinese, Japanese, African, etc… What’s wrong, you don’t like Indo-Iranians as an example of perfection?

 

[HoppityRedux]

LOL…I didn’t say society breeds cattle. I said the cattle don’t get to choose (i.e. someone else does the breeding). Perhaps, you should propose a selective milk breeding program, where the cattle could voluntarily decide to choose the best mates to produce the best milk.

I support pro-choice for cattle. It’s a cow’s right to choose.

Perhaps some folks are so dull they would need someone to select their mates. It’s not so rare. Arranged marriages were the norm for hundreds of years, and all sectors of society supported them. All.

However, the more intelligent could avail themselves of genetic information and make their own selections.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Sure, if you prefer. I would put up my motivated, genetically “inferior” person against a pampered genetically “superior” Chinese, Japanese, African, etc… What’s wrong, you don’t like Indo-Iranians as an example of perfection?

I didn’t know there were perfect people. Who are your favorites?

Personally, I’d prefer the pampered surgeon who went to Johns Hopkins and had a twenty year record of success to the motivated guy who stayed at the Holiday Inn last night.

 

[rlg94086]

I didn’t know there were perfect people. Who are your favorites?

Personally, I’d prefer the pampered surgeon who went to Johns Hopkins and had a twenty year record of success to the motivated guy who stayed at the Holiday Inn last night.

Spoken like a true elitist. How do you know that the “motivated guy who stayed at the Holiday Inn last night” isn’t more successful and hasn’t done more good in the world than your pampered surgeon? Your comment explains a lot.

By the way, who sounds more dull to you? Someone who methodically chooses a spouse based on genetic information for breeding purposes, or someone who chooses a spouse based on their shared values, sense of humor, etc.? Which marriage is going to do better? Whose children will enjoy life more?