The Eugenics Wedge
by MikeGeneJames Watson is a eugenicist. His views are discussed in an article by Ralph Brave.
Let's consider a few excerpts:
But what exactly are Watson's eugenics intentions? How would he design better human beings? The germ-line intervention that he and other advocates most often mention is improvements to the immune system. There is a gene, for example, which provides absolute resistance to the AIDS virus. If it were possible to safely implant such a gene into an embryo, who would object? Or a gene that similarly protected someone against SARS or an even more deadly emerging infectious disease?
Such germ-line alterations are viewed cynically by Watson, though, as a means to other ends: the wedge that will open the door to further engineering. "I think that the acceptance of genetic enhancement," he writes in his new book, "will most likely come through efforts to prevent disease."
My, it looks like we have another "wedge." As scientists advance technology with things such as human cloning and embryonic stem cells, are they opening the door to a new world of neo-eugenics? Many think so. Brave talks about the Trojan horse strategy some more:
Discussion of this agenda is something Watson is not interested in conducting, whether it's with a journalist or with Congress. "I'm afraid of asking people what they think," he admitted in 1998. "Don't ask Congress to approve it. Just ask them for the money to help their constituents. That's what they want … . Frankly, they would care much more about having their relatives not sick than they do about ethics and principles. We can talk principles forever, but what the public actually wants is not to be sick. And if we help them not be sick, they'll be on our side."
By keeping the focus on "curing diseases", the eugenicist can piggyback his agenda on the back of this noble cause. Why? The very technology being pursued to cure a genetic disease would make old school eugenicists salivate. As Brave further notes:
Once again, treating genetic illness is as much a ploy as it is a therapeutic achievement: If Watson and friends keep our DNA trains running on time, the argument goes, then we'll let them proceed with germline genetic enhancements.
And how shall we "enhance" the human gene pool?
The range of potential genetic enhancements at this point is almost entirely a matter of speculation. But Watson is not shy about suggesting his own eugenic targets. In a British documentary on his life and work to be broadcast in the U.S. this fall, Watson announces that he'd like to genetically treat the 10 percent of children whom he considers "stupid" and prevent the birth of ugly girls. "If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease," Watson says. Furthermore, "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
The eugenicists have a long history of being displeased with the "stupid." They used to have various scientific categories- idiots, morons, feeble-minded, etc. Some scientific advances just never go away, I suppose.
But Watson doesn't want to simply stop with the existing human genetic repertoire. Remember, Watson wants to "add genes," meaning genes from outside the existing human gene pool. Just to make certain that I wasn't mistaken on this, I tracked Watson down in February at the Time Magazine "Future of Life" conference. By adding genes, were you referring to genes from other plant or animal species or even artificial genes created in the laboratory? I asked Watson. "Anything!" he spat back, and turned away as if the question were not even worthy of discussion.
Watson proposes that we alter the human gene pool and when asked about it, he responds with dismissive elitism. Surprised?
Watson also appeals to more scientists to "stand tall":
"My view," he concludes, "is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line gene therapy. I only hope," he plaintively appeals, "that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism … If such work be called eugenics, then I am a eugenicist."
Finally, Brave includes a most illuminating quote:
Rescuing the word eugenics from its pernicious past, Watson knows that inevitably the connection with Naziism will arise. But he's well prepared for this. "Here we must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for," he wrote a few years ago. "Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."
That darn Hitler really threw a kink into the eugenic agenda! Come now people, at least when it came to eugenics, Hitler got that part right!
May 6th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your spin on this important topic. I especially thank you for the link. That way I can put the article in context. One of the article's opening paragraphs is…
I think it is safe to say, this isn't a puff piece attempting to provide support for Watson's cause. Did you notice the term "Wedge" was the author's word, not Watson's.
In a comment last night, I wrote to you… I am concerned that you don't realize you already are using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons.
This is a good example for highlighting what I was talking about since I have no interest in defending eugenics, just an interest in provoking you to think about what you are doing.
I believe you are one of the "good guys", at least I hope you are. Please take this as a friendly observation.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us statement, "We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 6, 2007 @ 11:27 am
May 6th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
The logic of eugenics is inevitable in a materialist world. Let's not forget that Richard Dawkins recently published an article in which he suggested that the debate regarding eugenics be reopened.
Comment by Jehu — May 6, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
May 6th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
So what's wrong with ridding the human gene pool of genes that cause misery? Why accept "euphenics" (the almost fascist obsession with a healthy phenotype) but not eugenics?
Comment by Raevmo — May 6, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
May 6th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Mike Gene
Consider for a moment the current discord over abortion. While people will sincerely fight against abortion, they remain largely silent on fertility clinics which create and destroy embryos by the thousands. This inconsistency belies the relative immaturity of the discussion.
The abortion controversy is nothing compared to impending ethical and moral dilemmas brought about by modern genetics. Hyperventilation on abortion does not portend a balanced appraisal of the risks and benefits.
Monumental changes in genetics are inevitable. In a multinational world (especially with a weakened international system), technical progress is difficult to control, impossible to stop "” while the advantages may likely be decisive. Natural evolution is a walk in the park by comparison: people will wax nostalgic for plain old-fashioned Darwinism.
(As to Watson. intelligence is not always an indicator of wisdom.)
Comment by Zachriel — May 6, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
May 6th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You write:
I think this is an excellent point. I'm afraid some of the dilemmas will entail the erosion of choice, as at some point, I can envision health care providers (government or insurance companies) being unwilling to treat the signs/symptoms of "preventable" genetic diseases.
Comment by MikeGene — May 6, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
May 7th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Jehu said,
What follows is a short version of a longer post in the NOMA thread.
When speaking of the propensity of academics toward eugenics, we must make an important distinction concerning genetics and heredity. There are two broad approaches, or theses, concerning heredity. One is the Darwinian thesis, the other is the Mendelian. They are not compatible. The Darwinian thesis is false, the Mendelian one is correct. The Darwinian picture of heredity is what makes eugenics plausible. Some (beginning with Wallace) are vaguely aware of this, e.g., Paul Ehrlich, and H.G. Spencer, who published a paper in 2001 called Did eugenics rest on an elementary mistake?
We must insist on this distinction because, in truth, Mendelian genetics is a science, which can be used or abused like anything else, while Darwinism is a rubber science whose very use is nothing but an abuse.
Although the Darwinian picture of heredity is false, and known to be false, most, if not all Darwinians still subscribe to it today. It is what makes evolutionary psychology possible. It is what makes Dawkins and Dennett possible. It is what makes eugenics possible. 140 years of science has not been able to extirpate this thesis, upon which many scientists base their careers.
Dawkins is sliding into eugenics because eugenics is able to penetrate every sphere influenced by Darwinism. And this is so because, as has been said, Darwinism teaches a fundamental, specious error which makes eugenics plausible. The necessary facts refuting eugenics have been known since the time of Mendel. But if one accepts that, one must also throw out the Darwinian conception of heredity. This is something few are willing to do, because if this be admitted, then perhaps up to a million pages of Darwinian speculations reduce to worthless drivel. Now you know why Mendel lay in so-called obscurity for so long, and why he was opposed by Wendel, Pearson, etc.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 7, 2007 @ 2:17 am
May 7th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Vladimir, the "modern synthesis" seems to have passed you by.
Comment by Raevmo — May 7, 2007 @ 2:50 am
May 7th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Raevmo said,
If the Modern Synthesis corrected the error, nobody seems aware of it. The eugenist Julian Huxley, author of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, continually employed the same erroneous line of reasoning about heredity before the Modern Synthesis, and after the Modern Synthesis.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 7, 2007 @ 3:11 am
May 7th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Raevmo wrote:
Raevmo, are you aware of anything ever having passed you by?
Presumably, and ex hypothesi, not.
But let me assure you that a great deal has.
Neither what Darwin or Mendel thought is, by itself, very important. But ideas have consequences.
Vladimir Kondran understands the implications of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and of reductionistic materialism more generally, as you, sadly, do not.
To paraphrase from Orwell's 1984:
"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine that burning babies for fun turns out to be adaptive…"
….
Winston Smith: It's not so much staying alive, it's staying human that's important. What counts is that we don't betray each other.
Julia: If you mean confessing, we're bound to do that. Everybody does. You can't help it.
Winston Smith: I don't mean confessing. Confessing isn't betrayal. I mean feelings. If they can make me change my feelings. If they can stop me from loving you, that would be real betrayal.
Julia: They can't do that. It's the one thing they can't do. They can torture you, make you say anything. But they can't make you believe it. They can't get inside you. They can't get to your heart.
………
Winston Smith: I know you'll fail. Something in this world… some spirit you will never overcome…
O'Brien: What is it, this principle?
Winston Smith: I don't know. The spirit of man.
O'Brien: And do you consider yourself a man?
Winston Smith: Yes.
O'Brien: If you're a man, Winston, you're the last man. Your kind is extinct. We are the inheritors. Do you realize that you are alone? You are outside history. You unexist. Get up.
[Winston gets up and O'Brien shows him his reflection in a mirror. Winston is disheveled and beaten]
O'Brien: *That* is the last man. If you are human, *that* is humanity.
………..
O'Brien: If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
Comment by stunney — May 7, 2007 @ 3:22 am
May 7th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Vladimir:
I might have missed something you wrote in another thread, but what erroneous line of reasoning about heredity do you mean specifically? Blending inheritance?
Comment by Raevmo — May 7, 2007 @ 5:46 am
May 7th, 2007 at 5:54 am
stunney:
Thanks, but I already was quite sure of that. But let me assure you that I share (to some extent anyway) your feeling of dread contemplating what technological developments will do to humanity. I am quite convinced though that a "human" a thousand years from now will be quite different from humans as we know them now. Once humans control their own evolution, there's no stopping them.
Comment by Raevmo — May 7, 2007 @ 5:54 am
May 7th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Vladimir Krondan
Eugenics is primarily Mendelian, mostly the removal from the gene pool of 'undesirable' alleles. Cull the black sheep to make dyeable white wool. When Hitler ponders the Master or Aryan Race, it is in the context of existing traits to be preserved and propagated. Pure breeding.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2007 @ 7:35 am
May 7th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Hi MikeGene,
Are you proposing that we should ban genetic treatments to prevent disease to prevent a slide down a slippery slope? Do you really think that in a world full of open borders and lax governments genetic engineering can be stopped if people want it?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 7, 2007 @ 8:36 am
May 7th, 2007 at 8:47 am
It's funny that where Aagcobb reads "wedge" he also reads "ban"
Comment by bipod — May 7, 2007 @ 8:47 am
May 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am
In the early twentieth century, an old man and his son are leaning on a fence outside an old farm house. A new convertible automobile with a laughing young man and a woman with her hair loose to the wind, speeds down the dirt road leaving a cloud of dust in its wake.
Old man: Those new-fangled contraptions are going to change everything.
Son: I guess they will, Pop. [wistfully watches car pass]
Old man: They're gonna pollute the air. They'll either tear up the roads, or they'll have to pave everything in sight.
Son: Sure, Pop. You're right.
Old man: They'll speed up the pace of living, increase stress, change our very way of life!
Son: Gee. I bet someone'll put artillery on those things, too, and beat up on any little country that don't got 'em. Things are going to change, that's fur sure. [looks down the road at the receding dust cloud]
Old man: You're darn tootin', they are. [spits]
Son: Oh, Pop. Where did you want me to put your new truck?
Old man: Just park it over by the barn next to the tractor. You're a good son, Son.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2007 @ 11:30 am
May 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
Because it isn't a "wedge" we are talking about. It is the great, big boulder of inevitability. History shows that it takes drastic measures to even attempt to slow it down. Like when the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, or when Intellectuals were purged, or when scientists were threatened with excommunication.
Good or evil, right or wrong, the boulder keeps coming. We can try to deal with the reality by stalling and/or praying, but it won't go away and keeps baring down on the future.
This is my two-cents. It isn't as good as Zachriel's subtle contribution, but it is what I came up with.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 7, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
May 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Vladimir,
Could you explain what you mean that Darwinian understanding of genetics doesn't match Mendelian?
Comment by onething — May 7, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Impressive. You have taken what is evidently a rudimentary knowledge of the distinction between blending (i.e. Darwinian) and particulate (Mendelian) inheritance and expanded it into a pompous and long-winded diatribe suggesting that the advent of the particulate theory inheritance undermines Darwinism and much associated evolutionary science. The truthiness and air of authority you manage to evoke in your posts is commendable. You go on to lament that decades of effort have failed to extirpate the Darwinian theory of inheritance from academia. Have you ever considered, however, taking a step back and asking of yourself, maybe I shouldn't expend energy expounding on topics about which I have only a cursory understanding? Maybe if I had read just a little further in the high school biology textbook, I might have discovered a number of genetic phenomenon and architectures that largely reconcile Darwinian and particulate inheritance? I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but go ahead and finish those chapters. Preferably from a book published after 1983. It will save you considerable amounts of time and grief.
Comment by great_ape — May 8, 2007 @ 12:11 am
May 8th, 2007 at 3:12 am
I second onething. Vladimir, what on earth are you talking about? It's as if you left out the first paragraph of your post, where you actually explain the different between "Mendelian" and "Darwinian" views of heredity. Or perhaps that's where you actually say what the fundamental error in the "Darwinian" view is? I didn't see it in the other thread; perhaps you could enlighten us. Or are these claims similar to the claims about the "self-correcting nature of religion" you were making over there?
Comment by grendelkhan — May 8, 2007 @ 3:12 am
May 8th, 2007 at 6:09 am
onething asks,
Yes.
Germplasm is an old term for the 'stuff that makes heredity work'. It has come to be identified with chromosomal matter, genes, DNA, and so on. That is how a geneticist or a molecular biologist would understand the term 'germplasm'. We will see that it means something different to a Darwinian. Leaving aside soft-genetic and epigenetic issues, Mendelism basically says this: you can't inherit something that isn't in the germplasm. Whatever is inheritable corresponds to genic or polygenic factors in the germplasm. Or, if you prefer, it is futile to talk about the biological heredity of things which have no corresponding genetic factors.
H.H. Newman pointed something out in his 1921 textbook: "Johanssen was selecting on the basis of somatic variations, the fluctuating variations of Darwin, that are merely due to more or less favorable growth conditions and are not represented in the germplasm, i.e., are not hereditary. Each germ cell in a pure line is supposed to have the same hereditary units, and, if that is so, selection would not be expected to effect any modification that would persist." Then, Newman discusses variations: "Character differences either represent something specific in the germ or they are merely the effect of external stimuli upon the individual soma. In the first case they are inherited, although they will not reappear necessarily in all later generations or in all the progeny. In the second case they will not be inherited… According to heritability, variations are either germinal or somatic."
Considerations like these eventually led to the Modern Synthesis, which provides mechanisms whereby new genetic factors can appear in the germplasm.
Now let us turn to a typical Darwinian manifesto, from an essay by Nutting, appearing in Newman's 1921 textbook Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics:
For the sake of argument, we grant all these, especially the first, because natural selection cannot work without inheritance. Turning to a more recent work, Ernst Mayr's What Evolutions Is (2001), we find essentially the same thing: "Every species produces vastly more offspring than can survive from generation to generation." "All the individuals of a population differ genetically from each other. They are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce." "The progenitors of the next generation are those individuals among their parents' offspring who survived owing to luck or the possession of characteristics that made them particularly well adapted for the prevailing environmental conditions." etc.
Now we come to the difference between Mendelism, or genetics, which is a science, and Darwinism, which is a rubber science. Fix attention to Nutting's phrase
And Mayr's
These presuppose that characteristics which are adaptations arising from selection must correspond to genetic factors in the germplasm. How can it be otherwise? Geneticists may or may not know about the existence of these genetic factors in the germplasm, but Darwinians do, because, as has been said, they must be there. This is an example of what can be called ab posse ad esse style reasoning. Wielding it, Darwinians can display amazing power, easily discovering an endless number of things that are supposedly in the germplasm. Despite the fact that there are what, 25,000 genes, one can put together, say 100,000 examples of things Darwinians discovered in the human germplasm. We might as well begin with Darwin. All these examples are from Descent of Man, chapter 5.
Man's moral and intellectual faculties are in the germplasm.
Sympathy is in the germplasm.
Love of praise, dread of blame, and all social instincts are in the germplasm.
Energy, restlessness, and courage are in the germplasm. And so on.
To make a new discovery about what is in the germplasm, it suffices for a Darwinian to claim that something is an evolutionary adaptation. This rich tradition continued with Romanes, Haeckel, the Huxleys, Wilson, the eugenists, the sociobiologists, the evolutionary psychologists, and, culminating in, Dawkins, who says that everything is in the germplasm. Not only that, his germplasm contains non-corporeal substances as well. He calls them memes.
If one believes what the Darwinians say, one will come to believe that prostitution, criminality, undesirability, immorality, homelessness, unemployment, poverty, and even political ideas can be considered as "adaptations", and hence they must correspond to something in the germplasm. As Popenoe writes in Applied Eugenics:
To say that natural selection can do this, is to say that these traits are in the germplasm, for they must be, in order for natural selection to do anything. And if you believe that, you may come to believe in the plausibility of eugenics after all.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 8, 2007 @ 6:09 am
May 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Raevmo,
What exactly is "almost fascist" about euphenics? The terms refers to manipulating our environment, rather than our genotype, in order to maximize human health and well being. Classic examples are non-insulin dependent diabetes and hypertension. A eugenic approach would be to genetically engineer people who can better tolerate high fat diets. A euphenic approach would be to improve diet.
Are you using "fascist" as a synonym of "something I don't like," or do you assume that improving nutrition, preventative healthcare, education, etc, must inevitably be coerced?
Comment by Nick — May 8, 2007 @ 11:01 am
May 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Nick:
And there I thought I had invented the word "euphenism" myself. Googling it yields few hits though, mostly misspelled "euphemism". But I was expressing my discontent with the intolerable level of government interference with what people wish to do to their own phenotypes. Outcasting of smokers, prohibition of recreational drugs, fat tax, that sort of thing.
Comment by Raevmo — May 8, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
And there I thought I had invented the word "euphenism" myself. Googling it yields few hits though, mostly misspelled "euphemism".
Your original post used "euphenics" rather than "Euphenism" Googling the former gives 900 hits and several sites that give a definition.
The terms was apparently coined by Joshua Lederberg in 1965 or thereabouts and later used by Jim Neel. Neel believed that much modern disease is caused by the maladaption of our genetic heritage to our modern environment, and he recommended, where possible, that we modify our environment rather than our genes. Basically, it is the polar opposite of eugenics. Neel was a vocal and longterm opponent of eugenics and critic of the sloppy "science" carried out by old-style eugenicists. Towards the end of his life, he also criticized the pie-in-the-sky arguments of neo-eugenicists who want make everyone shiny and happy through germline modification and embryo selection.
(disclosure: when I was a wet-behind-the-ears grad student, Neel was a distinguished professor emeritus in my department, so I heard his views on eugenics and germline alterations first hand)
But I was expressing my discontent with the intolerable level of government interference with what people wish to do to their own phenotypes. Outcasting of smokers, prohibition of recreational drugs, fat tax, that sort of thing.
That's what I figured, but government coersion is really a separate issue. One can support euphenics but reject government prohibition, though the issue becomes complicated if government pays medical bills. On the flip side, there are people who support germline gene modification and embryo selection (i.e. eugenics) but think that it should be a private issue.
Comment by Nick — May 8, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Thanks for setting me straight Nick. Speaking of straight, when I did google the right word, the #2 hit said
I don't suppose that's what Neel had in mind.
The #1 hit gave a medical definition and an interesting illustration:
In a case like this, I think the "eugenics" treatment (assuming it exists) would be preferable over the "euphenics" treatment. The latter requires sticking to an unpleasant diet and one can still transmit the disease to one's children; the former would eridicate the disease once and for all (assuming again that this is possible). It's my impression that many people are against any kind of genetic modification for rather irrational ideological reasons. And I'm not just talking about religious reasons ("playing God") but also those championed by groups such as Greenpeace.
Comment by Raevmo — May 8, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hi Raevmo,
Quoting a google hit you wrote…
Then you wrote…
Oh what a slippery slope you are on when you start presuming the ends justify the means. Even if almost anyone would agree with the particular exception.
I do not mean to accuse you have anything. I am just pointing to more evidence of the inevitability of eugenics.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 8, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I don't suppose that's what Neel had in mind.
Probably not, although that does illustrate that the controversy can also depend on exactly what you define as a problem or disease and it quickly becomes political. See also Watson's crude comments about "Stupid" people, or the controversies surrounding treatments for deafness.
Neel was focusing more on multifactorial diseases of abundance (e.g. diabetes, heart disease, etc) as well as diseases of deprivation (malnutrition, infectious disease, etc).
The latter requires sticking to an unpleasant diet and one can still transmit the disease to one's children; the former would eridicate the disease once and for all (assuming again that this is possible).
Yep, a potential downside of somatic cell therapies is the likelihood that the disease will then be transmitted to another generation. While googling euphenics, I ran across a paper that Neel wrote towards the end of his life which touches on all these issues:
Neel, J.V. (2000) Some ethical issues at the population level raised by 'soft' eugenics, euphenics, and isogenics. Human Heredity 50:14-21
Comment by Nick — May 8, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
TP:
It's happening as we speak.
Comment by Raevmo — May 8, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Thought Provoker:
Dicovery Institute/P. Johnson's Wedge strategy:
Watson's Wedge(Brave's words)/Trojan Horse(MikeGene's words):
Discovery Institute:
Watson:
Pretty interesting when you read them side by side. Not exactly an earth-shattering revelation here. Not that I expect such from any blog I visit…, but I don't believe MikeGene or Brave over-reached, or overly spun, anything. Their point wasn't nearly as obtuse as was your criticism of it. Unless this is still about their 'about us' page, and any fight picked with MG will do.
Putting aside MikeGene's alleged "socio-political and/or religious" ID blog agenda, for the moment. What's the big deal here for someone such as yourself, whom has, "no interest in defending eugenics"
What/where's the beef, exactly?
A wedge is an effective strategy, is it not. What's the strategy of the pro-eugenics crowd, as you know it? Why are MG and/or Brave so far off, and also why does their characterization of it as a wedge/trojan horse trouble you?
Regards.
Here's another quote from the DI's 'wedge' that I thought was relevant:
Comment by Rob R. — May 8, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hi Rob R,
You wrote…
Good question. Did you miss the part where I told MikeGene "I believe you are one of the "good guys", at least I hope you are. Please take this as a friendly observation." ?
And did you also miss my comment in another thread where I said…
"…we have managed to avoid finger pointing in the Eugenics thread while voicing some interesting insights in this sensitive subject." ?link
So I will turn the question around to you.
"What/where's the beef, exactly?"
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 8, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
TP:
Why sure:
Here you call it spin:
This may be my misunderstanding, but "spin" always carries a negative connotation. Atleast I can't think of an example where it's used to compliment someone. So I saw the "thank you" as being facetious. You then followed that with:
Then, there's the disclaimer you like to tote, from time to time, which was included along with your comments:
So I did some math, not my strong suit, and figured this was related to your issues with TT's 'about us' page and not about the article and/or its being linked to the DI's 'wedge.' In other words, picking a fight, just for the sake of it. If it was something else I missed it. So I asked, and attempted to contribute something on-topic in the process.
If I misconstrued your comments, issues, and /or accusations I apologize.
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — May 8, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Are you proposing a laissez-faire approach to genetic technology because of some sense of fatalism?
Comment by MikeGene — May 8, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
May 8th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Hi Ron R,
You wrote…
I think this has been a misunderstanding, because to me, "spin" is just a political reality. Problems occur when you say you don't "spin" when you do. You start believing the simply telling your version of the truth is not "spin".
I like MikeGene. I think he is one of the "Good Guys". I would like him to stay that way.
As for my disclaimer. It might not be needed any more, we'll see.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 8, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
May 9th, 2007 at 6:50 am
stunney asks,
We can ask a Darwinian that question. Why is he, at times, aware of Mendel, genetics, the Modern Synthesis, Watson and Crick, &c, while at other times it is as if all that never happened? But it's best not to bother - no straight answer will be forthcoming.
The problem started with Darwin. Darwin's way of reasoning about heredity was too addictive to abandon. It leads to effortless explanations - that is why it remains a principal method of Darwinism today. Horatio Newman considered some objections to Darwin:
But this is not quite true. Rather, all the variations Darwin wanted to be heriable, were heritable, and all the ones Darwin didn't want to be heritable, were not. When it suited him, a variation was heritable. Remember his story about the bears? Of course those big mouths were heritable variations. Why? Because Darwin wanted it so. Darwin knew, or sometimes pretended to know that acquired variations were not heritable. Other times, when it suited him, he conveniently forgot about this. All this is, of course, very convenient when explaining how things arise by natural selection. Whatever needs to be in the germplasm must be in the germplasm - natural selection would not work otherwise. Eugenists would say 'Jewishness' and 'Prussian-ness' is in the germplasm, or chronic unemployment and prostitution is in the germplasm. Why? Because they will it so. Eugenics would not work otherwise.
Biological germplasm is something real (i.e., chromosomes, genes, DNA, and all that). Darwinian germplasm is an imaginary substance.
DGP - Darwinian GermPlasm!
It's late at night and your still thinking about that ev psych paper. You've been trying to explain a puzzling biological phenomenon: why is it that we humans like nice, pleasant people more than we like dickheads? There must be an evolutionary reason for it. And you've found it. But… there's that annoying guy in your department, the guy with the earring and the Buddy Holly glasses. He keeps pestering you with questions like 'right Jim, so where is all that stuff your talking about? What chromosome is it on?' And now you got the Mendel blues. Beer isn't helping.
But there's hope, Jim! Stop using that greasy biological germplasm, that's kid stuff! What you need is DGP ™ Darwinian GermPlasm! Yes, Jim, just watch what DGP can do! Presto!, Altruists Attract. See, Jim, they beat you to it, because they used DGP Darwinian GermPlasm and you didn't. Imagine what DGP Darwinian GermPlasm can do for your career, Jim!
Yes! Full-strength, industrial grade DGP Darwinian GermPlasm can accommodate genetic factors for even the most fantastically outrageous adaptations. It's got elbow room for anything you can imagine! No limits, Jim, no limits, like Dennett says! Once you try DGP Darwinian GermPlasm, you'll never bother with anything else! Look here!…
Songs, advertising, elaborate ornamentations, you name it, DGP Darwinian Germplasm can do it. But that's peanuts Jim, small time stuff. DGP Darwinian Germplasm is so resilient, you can drive a truck through it! It can accomodate the 'character of the American people', nay, the very 'progress of America' herself!…
See? But that's not all. With DGP Darwinian GermPlasm, you are in complete control. You get to say what goes in, like, oh, magic stretchy-neck tissue
And you get to say what stays out of DGP Darwinian GermPlasm, like all the rest of the details,
Not only that, industrial grade professional GDP Darwinian GermPlasm can even accommodate the the most subtle abstractions!
Yes, Jim, DGP gives you genetic factors for 'uncanny illusions of design'! All you have to do is pretend they are there! Presto, DGP does the rest! DGP promises you no limits, and DGP delivers! It's even got genetic factors for inanimate objects - stones, planets, even stars and the whole cosmos!
Jim, DGP Darwinian GermPlasm is so strong, so tough, it's way better than Kryptonite. It's so amazingly persistent, impervious, and elastic, it can survive being rammed down a black hole and spit out into a shiny new baby universe!
So get your can of DGP Darwinian GermPlasm today, and watch your career take off like Huxley's, Dawkins's and Dennett's.
DGP - the GermPlasm Darwinians believe in.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 9, 2007 @ 6:50 am
May 11th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Biologists of Darwin's day were quite aware of heritable traits through their experience with breeding, e.g. pigeons. However, they didn't know the exact mechanism of heredity"”the discovery of which led to the Modern Synthesis of genetics, population dynamics and evolution.
Today, even more is known; and the relationship between heredity and selection has been extensively explored.
Comment by Zachriel — May 11, 2007 @ 8:01 am