My Authors
Read all threads
I’ve been ignoring this latest just-sayin’ nonsense from long-standing reactionary bigot Richard Dawkins, who’s been spouting racist tripe since I was in grad school but now feel its my obligation as a biologist to respond. I think we all should.

SHORT THREAD 1/
First of all Dawkins slyly misuses the term eugenics, acting as though it simply refers to the selective breeding of desirable heritable traits—as in livestock or food crops—and of course that principal would in theory be workable for humans.

But that’s not eugenics. 2/
The term eugenics was coined by Charles Darwins’ cousin, Francis Dalton, 24 yrs after Origin of Species (1859) in book called Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.

Eugenics exactly refers to the attempt to breed racially superior traits IN HUMANS. 3/
That book and its conclusions, and others it influenced, contributed the intellectual basis for the Nazi programs of extermination, racial hygiene, and all the rest. Eugenics animates the black heart 20th C fascism. It was never a term for plants/animal breeding techniques. 4/
Dawkins knows this. 5/
Second: Dawkins is wrong to say eugenics is based in facts. It is ideological to its core in that it 1) presumes to judge which human traits are superior; and 2) it (falsely) presumes these traits—like intelligence, social rank, brutishness, criminality—are heritable. 6/
One of Dalton’s main recommendations in his book that coins and defines eugenics is that couples of high social rank in Victorian England should be encouraged to marry early. 7/
Let’s set aside for a minute the fact that eugencists believed as an article of faith that some human beings come from more superior “stock” than others and treat the term, as Dawkins tries to do, as a innocuous synonym for selective breeding. (It’s not but hear me out.)... 8/
Selective breeding of desirable traits in dogs, sheep, roses, tomatoes requires breeding many many generations of offspring and choosing a few individuals w the desired traits (short hair, thick wool, disease resistant) to reproduce. The rest are culled, eaten, or sterilized. 8/
So causally suggesting “hey we could do that with humans you know...not that we would want to of course! ...” is a chilling thought exercise that serves no cause but to raise the spector of fascism. 9/
Richard Dawkins is a shameful human being and should be given no quarter within the community of biology.

Now I’m going back to fighting climate change, a real threat to all humanity which will require all of our myriad skill sets and all of our diversity of traits to solve. FIN
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Dr. Sandra Steingraber

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!