Our 7 favourite reactions to Richard Dawkins’ thoughts on eugenics
Scientist Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist with a number of highly lauded books under his belt, and he was the Oxford Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.
However, he’s more widely known for being an outspoken atheist with a bit of an issue with Islam in particular.
On Sunday, he had some thoughts about eugenics – the science of “improving” the gene pool by removing elements considered to be less desirable.
He shared them with Twitter, as you do.
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.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020
For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020
A eugenic policy would be bad. I’m combating the illogical step from “X would be bad” to “So X is impossible”. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose – or at best derail – the argument.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020
His thread caused a Twitter storm to rival Dennis, but not everybody had a problem with his comments; geneticist Adam Rutherford asked Twitter to find a better diversion.
1) Dawkins explicitly didn’t endorse eugenics
2) that doesn’t mean he’s right. Genetics is wicked complex
3) for heavens sake go & do something else. It really doesn’t matter. It was a pointless thing to say, it’s pointless to go batshit about it. Go stroke a dog. Or something.— Dr Adam Rutherford (@AdamRutherford) February 16, 2020
Some people were horrified that he’d even broached the subject as a topic for discussion.
As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown
Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible pic.twitter.com/n1eKtr0hmw
— Dr Julie Blommaert 👩🏼🔬 (@drjulie_b) February 16, 2020
The year is 2020 and eugenics is trending on Twitter. Appalling.
— Greg Jenner (@greg_jenner) February 16, 2020
Quite a few took great issue with the idea that eugenics works on animals.
RICHARD DAWKINS: eugenics works in practice. It works for dogs.
GERMAN SHEPHERD: I was bred to work. I want to work. But my hips and joints are a wreck, I might have a clotting disorder, and may lose the use of my back legs. Not sure what I did to deserve that, but– yeah. IDK. pic.twitter.com/cqjWBu6Egq— BoosHund (@BoosHund) February 16, 2020
While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders.
— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) February 16, 2020
It doesn't work for any of them. We have tried. It leads to inbreeding & horrendous mutations.
Dawkins like always is actually shit at science due to his scientism. https://t.co/4q9uSJjlLI
— A gaze association of Pebbles🏴🏴☠ (@aPebbleInTheSky) February 16, 2020
Others simply mocked him.
1.
I mean, the biggest problem with Richard Dawkins take on eugenics is that he'd probably consider his own traits to be superior and then the world would be full of insufferable assholes.
— Nick Jack Pappas (@Pappiness) February 16, 2020
2.
No one:
Absolutely fücking nobody:
Seventy years pass and STILL NO ONE:
Richard Dawkins: Eugenics are totes doable, eh wot? pic.twitter.com/sSAqMBAq3X
— Rachel McGonagill (@RachelMcGonagi1) February 16, 2020
