[The Sabbaticus]

So Bret Weinstein decides to basically discuss eugenics with Richard Dawkins and the latter shrewdly kept finding ways not to continue discussing the topic, for obvious reasons. The baying mobs of hysterical 'identity politics' possessed Brits would have lynched him if he had said a single word wrong.

24:00 - 29:00 (thereabouts)

[Victoribus Spolia]

What a slippery little cuck.

I can understand why though, apart from the lamarckian v. darwinian debate over environmental factors in evolution, the general premises of both systems are the same as it regards the evolutionary anthropology of nazism and dawkins.

If the selfish gene and biological self-interest drive human behavior, then genociding demographic resource rivals and genetic threats would be legitimate from the perspective of being natural.

Unless of course you seek to divorce ethics from evolution, which if you do, such ethical norms must be justified ad extra of the naturalist-system, which is of course, a contradiction.

Dawkins understands this problem, on what rational basis should a person "rebel" against their biological self-interests and where does the "norm" come from that tells them that they should? From a contradictory genetic factor? Well, if a gene exists that is telling you to contradict the genociding impulse which would benefit your survival and the survival of your genetic kin, such a gene would be a defect would it not? Like homosexuality?

Tisk tisk. It looks like Dawkins believes in God after all, or else he would have to if he were forced to continue this conversation.

[Rich]

So Bret Weinstein decides to basically discuss eugenics with Richard Dawkins and the latter shrewdly kept finding ways not to continue discussing the topic, for obvious reasons.

Its kind of sad because Richard Dawkins is the most ideological consistent, most pious and devout member the Church of England has ever had. He's the most obvious candidate to be Archbishop of Canterbury, but because of this minor, technical, obscure irrelevant detail of theological difference - he doesn't believe in God, his Church of England brethren have spurned him.

[annatar1914]

Its kind of sad because Richard Dawkins is the most ideological consistent, most pious and devout member the Church of England has ever had. He's the most obvious candidate to be Archbishop of Canterbury, but because of this minor, technical, obscure irrelevant detail of theological difference - he doesn't believe in God, his Church of England brethren have spurned him.

It could still happen. God is not done with Richard Dawkins yet, and he may well have a ''road to Damascus'' moment in the future. Anyone can.

[SolarCross]

I didn't watch the whole video just the bit where dawkins ducks out on the question. I suppose if he had a moment to think about it he could have made the case that the very reason why the holocaust, as per Bret's example, is horrifying is because darwinian processes have given us that moral compass; that morality comes from the genetics exactly because it is adaptive.. and the fact that the germans LOST that war sort of confirms the relative maladaptiveness of their particular moral view at the time

On one level it does make sense to consume the outgroup, jews being identified as an outgroup in this case, but if in doing so one is shown to be dangerously murderous to other outgroups (who might otherwise see you as a friend) then one runs the risk of becoming a persecuted pariah oneselves which is a maladaptive situation to be in. And in fact the Germans did lose the war, and not for lack of prowess or skill, ultimately the germans lost because they had more enemies than they had friends...

It's the same moral dilemma as the that of the second in line to the throne pondering whether to murder the first. If he does then he can dramatically improve his chances of gaining the throne but at the risk of being exposed as an unfriendly person who consequently cannot make friends only enemies. If he doesn't he runs no such risk but yet will still have a nice life as a prince and may just by dumb luck still gain the throne... It isn't a reasonable assessment that the first option is more adaptive than the second.

BUT, we are all nazis to someone or something.... Bret might he horrified that his fellow jews were gassed by the thousand (he could have been one of them) but without a care in the world will then go and squat on a toilet freshly sterilised of a million little lifeforms and then go for lunch where he feasts on the flesh of some poor dumb animal murdered just for that purpose...

In my view morality and game theory and far more closely intertwined than is commonly supposed.