-
almost every example of selective breeding for specific traits in animals comes with pretty negative consequences for the well-being of the animals, since it turns out that we actually don't know as much about what works as we'd like to imagine.
Very true, and that alone is a good counterargument. I think a lot of people are reading it in the worst possible way (i.e., eugenics = optimisation), whereas it could be read as eugenics = genetic drift/selective breeding. It's a bit worrying if people don't believe that human genes aren't mutable.
it can embolden and legitimize people who think maybe the Nazi's had the right idea actually.
Well, he does go on to say that he deplores it and it's bad. Denying that human genetics theoretically could change would be such a step that it could embolden those people in a "look at the libs denying obvious facts" type way.
ffm-
Well, he does go on to say that he deplores it and it's bad. Denying that human genetics theoretically could change would be such a step that it could embolden those people in a "look at the libs denying obvious facts" type way.
Killing babies would solve Climate Change by reducing the demand on the planets resources.
But wait, I'm not saying we should actually kill all babies. I'm just stating a fact.
No one here is denying the fact that genetics can change, they are questioning his interpretation/application of the phrase "work", and anyone who thinks this equates to"look at the libs denying facts" is willfully misinterpreting things, and is unlikely to actually change their opinion
(note I'm not saying you are thinking that - just that modifying your behavior to try and limit that interpretation will never lead anywhere because the people who hold that view fundamentally don't want to change it)
branwen
I think there are a number of things wrong with it, the biggest being the use of "works".
It worked for the Nazi's when they tried it (which is why the tweet is getting so much flack). So without defining what he means by "works" its an entirely empty statement which is pointless at best, and potentially pretty harmful since it can embolden and legitimize people who think maybe the Nazi's had the right idea actually.
Saying it "works" for animals is also misleading - since as often as not it doesn't, almost every example of selective breeding for specific traits in animals comes with pretty negative consequences for the well-being of the animals, since it turns out that we actually don't know as much about what works as we'd like to imagine.