Of all that can be said about famed atheist Richard Dawkins (author of “The God Delusion”), credit should be given for his philosophical consistency, even if that consistency has led him to some abysmally dark places.
In a bizarre Twitter post on Sunday, Dawkins said that the practice of eugenics – an offshoot of social Darwinism – has a scientific logic that would actually work if implemented, arguing that people should oppose it strictly on moral grounds.
“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,” tweeted Dawkins. “Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
Just so nobody would ever believe that he was actually advocating for the second coming of the Third Reich, Dawkins clarified that he abhors eugenics while admitting that such “a policy would be bad.”
“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he said. “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.”
“A eugenic policy would be bad,” he continued. “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.”
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.
14.4K people are talking about this
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.
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.
1,717 people are talking about this
To sum up those ruminations succinctly, the atheist who believes that human beings descend from a primordial soup and are the byproduct of chaotic chance argued the practicality of eugenics in one breath and then denounced its immorality in another.
Atheists just simply are not making any sense.
Of course, Dawkins himself has previously advocated for eugenics … for children in the womb. In 2018, when Pope Francis denounced abortion as a means to kill babies with birth defects, Dawkins defended the practice to prevent “human suffering.”
“And you thought Francis was the ‘good Pope’?” mocked Dawkins on Twitter. “Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of individual human suffering.”
Dawkins also advised families pregnant with Down syndrome babies to just “Abort it and try again” in 2014 when one Twitter follower asked what to do about her situation. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he said.
The crystal ball that is Europe has been leading the charge against babies with Down syndrome, signaling what the United States could possibly become if the abortion of such children becomes commonplace. In 2006, Denmark had just four babies born with Down syndrome; in the neighboring country of Iceland, abortion of Down syndrome babies has reached near 100%. France has gotten in on the race, too; most recently, the country banned a television commercial featuring Down syndrome children because it upset mothers who previously aborted children with Down syndrome.
Post a Comment