Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tisonlyi
Out of my depth? that's lovely. 
You sir, are trying to tie your understanding of science to your understanding of the one true way that an economy and a society can be run.
I, sir, am trying to point out that using science - and specifically genetics and biology - to make a case for your political views is flawed at best and downright dangerous at worst. It's been tried many times, by many shades of political opinion, rarely to any good end. |
Yes Eugenics was popular among many people in the early 1900's including many who are considered heros by their nations today, lest someone assume it is only the Nazi's and their ilk who supported such policies.
But their mistakes do not mean science has no place in understanding human behavior or what sort of political systems mesh well with what we have been evolved to do.
I would hope that the tens and perhaps 100 million killed by their own governments in the name of communism would show that regardless of what the theory behind it is, in practice it does not work well with human nature and results in the most horrific and oppressive form of government to ever blight the human race.
Perhaps Matt Ridley was not the best choice for running his fathers bank, I really haven't looked into that aspect of his life, but you on the one hand tell me to read Richard Dawkins as some authority that can teach me the folly of my ways (something you will not find in his works) and then when I mention an author who tackled this problem directly you give an ad hominem attack on the author. This author in fact contributed a chapter to one of Dawkins more recent books.
Funny how that all worked out.