Yeah yeah, you reflexively winced and made a sneery face.
Defined as "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
I'm not sure how you'd control human breeding, but wouldn't it be a worthy goal to improve the human population to increase desirable heritable characteristics? No mental or physical defects, no congenital illness, no obesity, no cancer or diabetes, no violent criminals. I'm not talking about psycho Nazi stuff, but a genuine improvement in the quality of the human body and mind.
Again, not sure how we would accomplish that because humans breed in the wild, but it's interesting to me how a simple word with a benign definition takes on such a negative connotation that people universally recoil when they hear it. That Dawkins person recently made a tweet that sent everyone over the edge:
The simple answer to his question is what I said above: humans breed in the wild, not in a controlled facility. But aside from that, why get so exercised over simply asking the question or discussing it like intelligent beings? Why reject it out of hand like pitchfork wielding villagers? If there were a reasonable way to improve the human animal, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Defined as "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
I'm not sure how you'd control human breeding, but wouldn't it be a worthy goal to improve the human population to increase desirable heritable characteristics? No mental or physical defects, no congenital illness, no obesity, no cancer or diabetes, no violent criminals. I'm not talking about psycho Nazi stuff, but a genuine improvement in the quality of the human body and mind.
Again, not sure how we would accomplish that because humans breed in the wild, but it's interesting to me how a simple word with a benign definition takes on such a negative connotation that people universally recoil when they hear it. That Dawkins person recently made a tweet that sent everyone over the edge:
The simple answer to his question is what I said above: humans breed in the wild, not in a controlled facility. But aside from that, why get so exercised over simply asking the question or discussing it like intelligent beings? Why reject it out of hand like pitchfork wielding villagers? If there were a reasonable way to improve the human animal, wouldn't that be a good thing?