quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
It's not about lay people misusing science, it's not about a lack of knowledge. Galton, Darwin, Haeckel, Lorenz, Plavsic etc. weren't lay people but they still drew eugenic consequences from Darwinian theory, to a very large degree. In my opinion the theory should be cleaned up, in the way I proposed before, with a general theory of reproduction. Aside from that people like Dawkins should be coerced in to providing formal treatments of their theory, and present them for peerreview. So in short I would propose to do away with messy concepts (stuggle for existence, differential reproductive success, selfish genes, innate aggression etc.), and that way it would be easier to distinguish between moral and neutral statements.
...then you should familiarize yourself with not just Dawkins' version of evolution. Try some Gould instead. He's more into contingency as a major evolutionary force.
[QUOTE]
The comments from Dawkins you mention, and there are several more like those, are duplicit, in that he first says not to want make a morality, and then continues to make a morality. To believe that you have to conquer your genes is a morality, and a pretty farreaching one potentially, once it would become established and widespread. Society would look different if the people in it were all convinced that they would have to conquer their selfish genes to become moral persons.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree completely. Society would look different if only people knew that their genes can be defeated by their own moral choices, instead of falling back to the naturalistic fallacy and follow blindly their genes to hell.
[QUOTE]
I think your comments about lay people are not only demonstrably false, I think they are also a bit elitist. Please write down what thoughts come up with you on account of Darwinism. I think you are just like everybody else, and would also come up with racist and genocidal ideas when considering Darwin's "the races of man encroach on each other until some finally become extinct", as some kind of law of Nature.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]
Okay, so I should elaborate. What I mean by 'laypeople' are those who do not know much about evolution, either educated or not. But I also think that the elite, which may (or may not) have some knowledge about evolution, is more dangerous if they want to hijack evolution for their own ends, because it truly can lead to eugenics/racist/apartheid policies.
"the races of man encroach on each other until some finally become extinct" I won't defend Darwin on that quote (from Descent of Man?). Well, the great man was not flawless, and DoM is a rather racist-smelling book. However he was only trying to present facts. Maybe he's wrong. We can do simulations about that... I've heard of one simulation by Dr. Ezra (cant remember the last name...) which came up with the result that if two variant populations coexist at the beginning, in which one has 2% superiority (not specified) over the other, then the superior one will displace the other in 1000 years...
™ Version 4.2
