Could you expand on this? I've googled around and can only find two supporting bits of info:
- In 2006 he tweeted "If you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?". He immediately followed up with "I deplore a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn't mean it wouldn't work"
- In 2014 he told a woman pregnant with a baby with Down's that he thought abortion was the moral choice.
Neither of these make him an "active eugenicist" imo!
> In the first quote he's promoting eugenics as effective
He's just saying it's possible. That's not the same as promoting or advocating it. He explicitly says that he deplores it!
> in the second he's recommending it as a concrete action
He's recommending an individual action but leaving it to individual choice. That's different to recommending a broad, enforced, population-wide eugenics policy.
The thing that makes the first quote eugenicist is the fact that this possibility is a lie, and he—as a scientist—knows that. Eugenics “works” by preselecting “desired” traits. For breeding cows this is no problem as the desired traits are well defined, for eugenics, these “desired” traits pretty much boils down to upper class, white, man. What he is saying is a dog whistle and what he is promoting is scientific racism. This makes him an active eugenicist.
The second quote is a recommendation the same way as governments “recommended” the poor, the disabled, and the indigenous, to use birth control. These “recommendations” were always secret policies.
> for eugenics, these “desired” traits pretty much boils down to upper class, white, man
That's entirely your extrapolation. One can advocate for the "breeding out" of hereditary genetic diseases. Not that I would. But such a thing is certainly in the realms of possibility.
> The second quote is a recommendation the same way as governments “recommended” the poor, the disabled, and the indigenous, to use birth control.
Governments may have had such policies in the past to reduce certain populations. But Downs isn't a hereditary disease and is just as likely for "upper class white" people as the categories you mention. Such abortions would not have any measurable genetic effect on the population. He's only saying that he thinks bringing the child into the world would cause more suffering than it's worth. I'm not sure I agree 100% but I certainly sympathise. As recent parents, my partner and I had to have the discussion about what we'd do if the 20-week genetic screening revealed something like Downs. To be frank, we probably wouldn't have gone ahead with it. Many, many other parents would make that choice in that situation.
The thing that makes this eugenicist is the fact that it is none of his business whether other people do with their bodies. If he decided for him self not to give birth to a baby with Down’s syndrome, that is his choose, but if he is claiming to be a moral arbitrator of what other people choose, he may be dabbling in eugenics.
Apparently he elaborated his position a little later:
> Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort.
> For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again.
> Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort.
Could you expand on this? I've googled around and can only find two supporting bits of info:
Neither of these make him an "active eugenicist" imo!