Also, I don't see him comparing eugenics to evolution. He's went on to say, 'just because it's morally wrong, doesn't mean it's not possible', which was the point he was making.
I agree, that's how I read his statement. But that statement is wrong. It is not possible. Eugenics is an incorrect theory. The idea that it is correct but morally repugnant is a terrifyingly ignorant stance (though commonly held).
See my reply to the sibling comment -- briefly, variety is the driver of evolution, not selection. The more you constrain variety, the worse off the population is from an evolutionary perspective. Any attempt is net negative, a large-scale attempt would be disastrous, regardless of the moral or ethical implications.
See my reply to the sibling comment -- briefly, variety is the driver of evolution, not selection. The more you constrain variety, the worse off the population is from an evolutionary perspective. Any attempt is net negative, a large-scale attempt would be disastrous, regardless of the moral or ethical implications.