Famous Atheist Richard Dawkins Comes Under Fire for Touting Benefits of Eugenics
British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who has never hidden his embrace of atheism, touched off a firestorm this week by saying eugenics should not be dismissed as unworkable just because some people don’t like the concept.
Eugenics can be summarized as a method of controlling human population growth so that only certain characteristics or populations continue.
The concept was embraced by Nazi Germany, and has been considered abhorrent by most of society since that time, although it was supported by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
As noted recently by The Washington Post, however, the concept of eugenics is making a comeback as part of proposals designed to slow population growth and address climate change.
In this context, Dawkins fired off a three-tweet salvo on Sunday.
“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,” he tweeted.
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
Dawkins wanted to be sure no one confused his support for the concept with the reality of actually making it work.
“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,” he said.
He then noted that just because it would be wrong does not mean eugenics could not work.
“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,” he wrote.
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
Oh was there a reaction!
The analogy that Richard Dawkins draws here between the ideology of eugenics and the domestication of cows or horses is false, dangerous, and historically illiterate. https://t.co/pAI4rjlIg7
— Dan Hicks (@profdanhicks) February 16, 2020
This is inane (and other things) beyond words. The very notion of “work/s” is ideological. Facts are deaf to ideology in only the most superficial of understandings; ideology decides how and why and which facts are used and interpreted and acted upon.
— Hicham Yezza (@HichamYezza) February 16, 2020
This tweet was not up to our usual standards. While Galton played an inportant role in developing the science of genetics, he also advocated eugenics, a completely discredited set of ideas with no scientific basis.
— The Royal Society (@royalsociety) February 17, 2020
Eugenics “works” in a single but incredibly effective manner, in that it’s an ideology designed to spread prejudice and fear. Thank you @royalsociety for this clear statement—which frankly should be forthcoming from certain other quarters, both politicians and “scientists”.
— Dan Hicks (@profdanhicks) February 17, 2020
Eugenics does not create superior species. We turned mighty buffalo herds roaming the plains into factory farmed cows, the independent stallion into the pony, and the wild boar into the pig. We weaken the gene pool selecting for traits desirable for us but not for the subject.
— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) February 16, 2020
The gross statement that eugenics could “work” also ignores the fact that as soon as you talk about identifying “superior” or “desirable” traits, you ARE applying an ideology of some sort. But men like Dawkins think they’ve transcended ideology and only operate in facts ? https://t.co/kUOPbqTDby
— Sophie Ellman-Golan (@EgSophie) February 16, 2020
Sunday’s series of tweet was not the first time Dawkins has raised the issue of eugenics.
And you thought Francis was the “good Pope”?https://t.co/cmGIDyA8XT
Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of individual human suffering.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) June 18, 2018
Writing in The Guardian after one of Dawkins’ previous comments about eugenics, writer Giles Fraser took Dawkins to task.
“Being so obsessed with attacking religion, people such as Dawkins have lost sight of what they are supposed to be defending,” Dawkins wrote.
“And this may be because too many humanists also place the category ‘human’ quite a long way down their order of importance, with things such as rationality or choice or the avoidance of pain being deemed of greater significance. Human life can thus be easily traded away in some utilitarian calculation.”
“It so happens that, when it comes to eugenics, religion has a much better track record at defending the human than science or leftwing progressives,” he added.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
