Race, Science, Religion & Evolution - Richard Dawkins

1. 0:00 – 2:44

   The Rise of Cultural Christianity

   1. CWChris Williamson0:00

      What do you make of this recent rise of cultural Christianity, given that you were a big part of popularizing atheism over the last few decades? It seems like, uh, have we already forgotten that? Is this sort of coming back around?

   2. RDRichard Dawkins0:15

      Cultural Christianity means nothing. Um, we're all cultural Christians if we were brought up in a Christian culture. And, and I was, and you, you probably were as well. Um, it doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't mean we believe it. That's what's important, is whether you believe it or not. And I don't believe a word of it, but it is a simple matter of fact that I'm brought up in a Christian culture, so I'm a cultural, cultural Christian.

   3. CWChris Williamson0:39

      It seems that there are, uh, gradations of belief now. I think, uh, people that you might not have expected to have, uh, used it so much, Jordan Petersons of the world, the Russell Brands of the world, the Andrew Tates of the world. Uh, uh, uh, I think is it Latin Mass that is one of the quickest growing, um, denominations, especially for young people? And it's an en- an entire, uh, ceremony that no one, unless you're educated in Latin, that nobody can understand. So, beyond just the moniker of cultural Christianity, it seems like some kind of religious belief is increasing.

   4. RDRichard Dawkins1:15

      Of course, it's, uh, an advantage to be in Latin that nobody can understand, 'cause if you can understand it, you realize what nonsense it is. (laughs)

   5. CWChris Williamson1:25

      Uh, th- some people would say that the reason that they like it is that it's got this sort of, uh, uh, like a pomp and s- and, and ceremony and, uh, it makes them feel connected to sort of the roots of what's going on.

   6. RDRichard Dawkins1:41

      Yes, I get that.

   7. CWChris Williamson1:42

      Mm.

   8. RDRichard Dawkins1:42

      I can imagine that.

   9. CWChris Williamson1:43

      Mm. But it does seem, it's interesting to me that what was rebellious and sort of revolutionary and a, a bit kind of, uh, cutting edge was the atheism, uh, conversation only not so long ago. And there has been, uh, some rebranding, whether it's, uh, uh, men getting their passports and, and talking about wanting to convert to Islam, which I think would've been a very surprising thing to have heard, or, uh, Christianity too. It seems like that's the, uh, on-trend, du jour way to live your life.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins2:20

       You follow trends in society. I'm not that interested in trends in society. I'm interested in what's true. And if there are trends this way, trends that way, that'll be different in, in a few years' time anyway.

   11. CWChris Williamson2:32

       Mm-hmm. I do think that they are leading indicators of what we may see, uh, in future.

   12. RDRichard Dawkins2:39

       That is possible, or, or the reverse.

   13. CWChris Williamson2:43

       Also true as well.

2. 2:44 – 5:13

   Dealing With a Shattered Worldview

   1. CWChris Williamson2:44

      I think, uh, we spoke about this last night, and obviously, uh, I do need to call it out. We had a great conversation on stage for 60 minutes and then another 30, uh, so some-

   2. RDRichard Dawkins2:54

      I do rather wonder how we're going to cover something else. (laughs)

   3. CWChris Williamson2:57

      (laughs) Something new.

   4. RDRichard Dawkins2:57

      Yeah.

   5. CWChris Williamson2:57

      We covered a lot of ground last night.

   6. RDRichard Dawkins2:59

      Yeah.

   7. CWChris Williamson2:59

      Um, yeah, but one of the topics I really wanted to touch back on was, uh, much of people's, uh, beliefs and worldviews, uh, were pulled apart by, uh, typically where they would have got their worldview from, being religion, if that is, uh, no longer as prevalent, if it's been, uh, uh, disproven, if it's been, uh, criticized to the point where someone can't hold onto their belief anymore, that causes a vacuum. That causes them to not have something to believe in in the same way. What do you, what do you say to people that sort of miss h- have, th- their life being imbued with meaning in a way where maybe they can't take it from rationality immediately, like you do?

   8. RDRichard Dawkins3:45

      I think it's rather demeaning to humanity to suggest they need anything like that. It's rather disrespectful, I think, of humanity to say, "You have to have some crutch to buoy you up in life, and if you haven't got Christianity, you'll turn to something else." Why assume, wh- why denigrate hu- humanity in that sort of way?

   9. CWChris Williamson4:07

      I think the problem is, and I agree, and I, I, I very much appreciated your answer last night. Uh, the rational perspective on human psychology is to understand its irrationality a lot of the time, and that is a sort of an odd circle to try and square. I think this is what is true and this is what you should believe, but then there's this other branch which is what we tend toward, stories and narrative and personification.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins4:37

       Yes, yes. I was very impressed, uh, with b- both in Dallas and here in Austin with the number of people who come up to me and say they thank me for helping them to get rid of their religious crutch. And I've, I'm very heartened by that. I guess maybe they're the people who do come up to me and, uh, and then once-

   11. CWChris Williamson4:57

       A little bit of a selection effect, perhaps, yes.

   12. RDRichard Dawkins4:59

       A bit of a selection effect, but it, it is very encouraging and, and I, I do find that en- enormous numbers of people do seem to be turning against religion and not turning to some other kind of nonsense.

   13. CWChris Williamson5:11

       Mm-hmm.

3. 5:13 – 10:47

   Why Religion Arises in Every Culture

   1. CWChris Williamson5:13

      How... Why do you think it is? We were talking about convergent evolution-

   2. RDRichard Dawkins5:19

      Yeah.

   3. CWChris Williamson5:20

      ... last night. Uh, religion seems to be a, would you call it a convergent meme-olution?

   4. RDRichard Dawkins5:28

      You could. I mean, yes. Um, you, you could say that. Oh, by the way, talking of convergent evolution, I looked up the crabs that you, that you-

   5. CWChris Williamson5:36

      Yes, brilliant. Okay.

   6. RDRichard Dawkins5:37

      ... you-

   7. CWChris Williamson5:37

      A little bit of a primer for everyone that wasn't there last night. Um, I, (laughs) I asked whether crabs are the pinnacle of evolutionary trajectory because apparently lots of creatures go to it. What's true? Had I been PSYOP'd? Is this-

   8. RDRichard Dawkins5:50

      Okay, no. Uh, I looked it up. It's an article in Scientific American.

   9. CWChris Williamson5:55

      Okay.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins5:55

       Uh, and, uh, it simply is that there are a, a l- an, a fair number of about half a dozen separate lineages of decapod crustaceans which are converging.... on the crab way of doing things, which is to, as it were, lose the abdomen, cur- cur- make the abdomen very small and curl it up underneath the, um, the- the big carapace. Um, and it's just happened half a dozen times, which is convergent evolution, and that's very nice. I mean, that- that's- that's a nice example but talk about the pinnacle of evolution. (laughs)

   11. CWChris Williamson6:26

       Doesn't mean that humans in a few thousand years are going to become...

   12. RDRichard Dawkins6:29

       No.

   13. CWChris Williamson6:29

       Okay. Well, that's a, that's a shame. Uh, religion as a independently arising system that humans seem to abuse culturally.

   14. RDRichard Dawkins6:39

       It does seem to arise all over the world, everywhere in- in the world. Um, anthropologists tell us that people converge upon some kind of supernatural belief, and that's very understandable psychologically I think. Um, but it- it does seem to be a- a con- a convergent thing, and I can well believe it. I can understand it. People hunger for explanation. And when they didn't have science, they would naturally turn to, oh, uh, th- the spirit of the river and the spirit of the mountain and the spirit of the waterfall and- and all that kind of thing. Um, and then that graduated into gods like Thor and Wotan and Zeus and Apollo and- and then graduated into the monotheistic religions. Um, but- but there's no reason to believe any of them.

   15. CWChris Williamson7:28

       Is that, uh, tendency towards supernatural explanations when we don't have one that we can grasp onto firmly a byproduct of the fact that most of our lives are lived through story and personification and death and battle...

   16. RDRichard Dawkins7:44

       Yes. Yes.

   17. CWChris Williamson7:44

       ... and so on and so forth?

   18. RDRichard Dawkins7:45

       And- and also the- the- the- the- the desire, the hunger for agency, um, we- we- we want there to be agents that, uh, that are responsible for things. So rather than just say, "The weather is due to the laws of nature. Earthquakes are due to the laws of nature," um, you actually want it to be an agent. You actually want it to be some kind of conscious being. And that sort of does make sense because, um, when you live a perilous existence, uh, as our ancestors did, then any kind of, um, random change in the environment could be danger, and the specific ki- specific kind of danger that they would have feared would have been predators, um, would have been enemies. Um, so, um, rather than say, "Oh, it's, uh, a fact of nature that there's an earthquake or a volcano or- or a s- or a hurricane," it had to be a deliberate, uh, agency of- of some kind.

   19. CWChris Williamson8:43

       There's an idea called compensatory control, which is interesting, in psychology. So, um, if somebody is given, uh, uncertain news, like a- uh, uncertain medical diagnosis in a lab setting, they're more likely to see patterns in meaningless random static. And (clears throat) what...

   20. RDRichard Dawkins9:01

       Yes.

   21. CWChris Williamson9:01

       ... it appears to be that when we don't feel like... when we feel like the world is chaotic and outside of our control, we begin to personify and create stories around it, I think this very much e- even before the, uh, lab leak hypothesis had maybe been given more of the- the- the research and- and the grounding that it perhaps now has, a lot of people turn to that because I think it's m- oddly more comforting to believe that a global pandemic is caused by a maligned scientist than just chance mutation of a silly little microbe.

   22. RDRichard Dawkins9:34

       Yes, I think that's another aspect of what I was just saying. I- I th- I... yes, that's right.

   23. CWChris Williamson9:41

       Is there such a thing as a- a kind of belief structure, uh, a story that you tell yourself about the world, uh, which doesn't involve the, uh, historical inaccuracies that- that you, uh, criticize but that does sort of add comfort? Is there a way to view the wor- is there a halfway house between rationality and- and religion in your view?

   24. RDRichard Dawkins10:08

       I can't think what it would be if there is. Can you think of what it might be?

   25. CWChris Williamson10:12

       Uh, people talking about energy, uh, the sort of...

   26. RDRichard Dawkins10:14

       Oh, yeah.

   27. CWChris Williamson10:14

       ... more yogic side of things, even if it's not energy between people but, you know, channeling senses of themselves, better versions of themselves, you know, imbuing them. Uh, you know, you could look at it maybe from the lens of positive psychology if you wanted to actually do this thing, that they're maybe projecting a version of themselves into the future, that they're using the- the expectation effect, as David Robson would call it. What about that?

   28. RDRichard Dawkins10:37

       Uh, energy rather makes me reach for m- my revolver, (laughs) I'm afraid.

   29. CWChris Williamson10:42

       Perilously close to woo.

   30. RDRichard Dawkins10:43

       Yes. Yes. Yeah.
4. 10:47 – 18:01

   Biological Sex is an Obvious Binary

   1. CWChris Williamson10:48

      what was that article that you wrote recently in Quillette? You said, "Race is a spectrum. Sex is pretty damn binary."

   2. RDRichard Dawkins10:56

      Okay. Yes. That was, uh, republished from somewhere else. It's just come out in- in Quillette as well. Um, everywhere you look in life, in human life, in biology, you see continua. Uh, tall and short, there's a continuum between them. Fat and thin, there's a continuum between them. Black and white, continuum between them. The one place where there is no continuum is sex. Sex really is a binary, just about the only binary we've got in human biology. Um, male versus female really is an either/or. It's excee- it's extremely rare to come across some creature, um, some human certainly, which is neither, uh, uh, male nor female.

   3. CWChris Williamson11:39

      Does that exist?

   4. RDRichard Dawkins11:41

      It depends how you define it. I mean, there- there are, uh, people of... with ambiguous genitalia. There are people, um, who, um, uh, don't fit quite neatly into, uh, the diagnostic features which a doctor might use, like XXXY chromosomes, for example. There are people with XXY, um, or X0, um, and they- they usually come out, um, pretty clearly one or the other. I mean, X- XXY comes out as male. X0 comes out as female. Um, and, um...The point I would make, the most important point I think I would make is that, uh, never mind about X and Y chromosomes, never mind because that's just... that applies to mammals and a few other things as well. Birds have the XX, XY system, but it's back to front. Um, in, in birds, it's the female sex that is XY, or the equivalent of XY, and the male sex which is the equivalent of, of XX, so that, that's not a universal. What is universal is gamete size. There really is a disjunct between large gametes, which we call eggs, and small gametes, sperms, and right the way through the animal and plant kingdoms you have this divide between male gametes and, and female gametes. Um, there are hermaphrodites like earthworms and snails who, who do both, so they have both male gonads and female gonads. Uh, but the, the origin, it's, uh, it's called anisogamy, the, the unequal gametes.

   5. CWChris Williamson13:15

      Mm-hmm.

   6. RDRichard Dawkins13:15

      And it's very interesting mathematical models which I, which I could talk about because I think it is interesting. Um, there is a system called isogamy which is sh- which is found in certain algae where the gametes are equal sized, so you just have, um, medium-sized gametes which fuse together. Now economically speaking, you need two isogametes to make a full, a full-sized zygote. Um, and, uh, mathematical modeling has shown that isogamy is unstable in evolution. If an individual produces slightly smaller than average isogametes, then they need to pair with a, with a slightly larger one in order to produce a fully equipped zygote with an... all the necessary economic res- we're talking economics now, the economic resources to make a, to make a zygote. So, you have a tendency for a runaway selection, runaway evolution towards half the isogametes getting smaller and smaller, and the other half getting larger and larger. And this has been shown mathematically, it's a plausible mathematical model. And the end product of this runaway process is eggs and sperms, eggs being the large ones and sperms being the small ones. So, um, although isogamy does exist in algae and some fungi, um, it's unstable, and in the vast majority of animals and plants, you have anisogamy, meaning large gametes and s- and small gametes. And that's the fundamental difference between the sexes, that's the one you can always rely upon anywhere in the animal kingdom. Sex really is binary.

   7. CWChris Williamson15:06

      There's no such thing as a human that would produce both large and small gametes? That would be impossible?

   8. RDRichard Dawkins15:11

      Uh, I think that is true, but even if it wa- wasn't true it would be a very insignificant, uh, f- minor fact. It would be a, a, a, a kind of freak fact.

   9. CWChris Williamson15:23

      Would that... No. Well, I mean, binary would assume that there is never any crossover between-

   10. RDRichard Dawkins15:27

       I suppose it would, but, but, um, if you think about it as a frequency distribution, think of it as a, as a frequency histogram.

   11. CWChris Williamson15:33

       Mm-hmm.

   12. RDRichard Dawkins15:34

       Um, and you, and you class it and you s- set up a histogram with unambiguous males, unambiguous females, um, I think I calculated once that the, um, that if the... that you couldn't possibly plot that histogram on paper 'cause the, the number of inter- intermediates, if there are any, would be so rare. I, I represented it as, um, the New York, the, the Twin Towers, um, of the World Trade Center. If one of them is male and the other one is female, then the intermediates, if there are any which is itself dubious, would be the size of a molehill.

   13. CWChris Williamson16:09

       Compared with the Twin Towers?

   14. RDRichard Dawkins16:11

       Compared, compared with the, with the Twin Towers, yeah.

   15. CWChris Williamson16:13

       Wow, yeah. It is interesting, um, I guess we: we get into sort of lexical jujitsu a little bit where what you actually mean by binary, and if you can find edge cases if there are any like that, uh, does that outlier disprove the fact that you can roll the dice-

   16. RDRichard Dawkins16:35

       Well, okay-

   17. CWChris Williamson16:35

       ... so many times and it ends up-

   18. RDRichard Dawkins16:36

       Yeah.

   19. CWChris Williamson16:36

       ... always falling the same way?

   20. RDRichard Dawkins16:37

       Let's make a distinction between bimodal and, and binary, um, bi- bimodal would be, uh, where, where you have a distribution like, like that, a sort of twin, two mountains with a sort of valley in between. Um, and, um, there are plenty of examples of that. But, uh, binary would be that the, the intermediates it is virtually nonexistent or, or non-existent so it's not, not, not a sort of gentle undulating curve like that but a huge-

   21. CWChris Williamson17:03

       Two Twin Towers.

   22. RDRichard Dawkins17:03

       Yes.

   23. CWChris Williamson17:04

       We'll get back to talking to Richard in one minute but first I need to tell you about AG1. You are not eating enough fruit and vegetables and you know it, and this is going to help. I tried every greens drink I could get my hands on over the space of about three years, and I settled on AG1 because it is the best. They genuinely care about holistic health which is why I've got my mum to take it, and my dad to take it, and tons of my friends as well. And if I found anything better, I would switch, but I haven't which is why I still use it. Best of all, there is a 90-day money back guarantee so you can buy it and try it for 89 days, a full three months every single day, and if you don't like it for any reason, they'll just give you your money back so you can try it completely risk-free. Right now you can get a year's free supply of vitamin D3 and K2 plus five free AG1 travel packs and that 90-day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to drinkag1.com/modernwisdom. That's drinkag1.com/modernwisdom.

5. 18:01 – 25:43

   Race From an Evolutionary Perspective

   1. CWChris Williamson18:01

      What was that Fleming article that troubled Darwin?

   2. RDRichard Dawkins18:06

      Ah, uh, Fleming Jenkins, yes. Um, he was a Scottish engineer and he, um-... pointed out wrongly, because in those days everybody believed in blending inheritance. They believed that, um, when male m- mated with female, you got an intermediate, um, you got, say, if black mated with white, you got, um, or p- red with blue, you get purple. It, it, it's a, it's a blending, which is how they thought heredity worked. And it doesn't work like that. Um, Mendel showed that, Gregor Mendel showed that. But in the time when, in Victorian times, when people thought heredity was blending, Fleming Jenkins argued that natural selection couldn't work because as the generations go by, variation would disappear. Everything would disappear into a kind of smear of gray, um, and therefore there'd be no variation to, to work on. Well, that's obviously not true because as the generations go by, you don't get a smear of gray. Variation is, as a matter of fact, maintained, and, um, the, uh, what, what Fleming Jenkins got wrong, and everybody got wrong, was thinking that heredity was blending. It's not blending. Genes are either there or not there. Every, every single one of your genes you got from either your father or your mother, and every single one of your genes you will either pass on to any particular child or you won't. They don't blend, they don't mix, they don't fuse. And, um, because of that, the entire argument, Fleming Jenkins' entire argument disappears. Um, Hardy and Weinberg showed that.

   3. CWChris Williamson19:55

      Did that trouble Darwin though?

   4. RDRichard Dawkins19:57

      It did trouble Darwin, yes. And if only Darwin had read Mendel, he would have got the answer. But what's interesting is that although Darwin hadn't read Mendel, he came very close to discovering Mendel's laws himself, to discovering that actually g- um, well, they didn't call them genes in those days, um, um, the, the particles of heredity really are particles, they really don't blend. Darwin actually did experiments on peas, which is what Mendel did as well.

   5. CWChris Williamson20:25

      Edible peas?

   6. RDRichard Dawkins20:26

      Yes. Well, actually s- sweet peas.

   7. CWChris Williamson20:28

      Right. Okay.

   8. RDRichard Dawkins20:29

      Uh, no, I think edible t- peas too.

   9. CWChris Williamson20:31

      Oh, okay.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins20:32

       Uh, and, um, he found that, um, the progeny were either or.

   11. CWChris Williamson20:37

       Mm.

   12. RDRichard Dawkins20:37

       They, they, they were not, um, they didn't, they didn't blend-

   13. CWChris Williamson20:40

       Mm.

   14. RDRichard Dawkins20:40

       ... which is, which is Mendel's, uh, Mendel's laws. Um, and then he said something very significant. He said, "But I do not consider this any more remarkable than the fact that when you get a m- when a male mates with a female, you get either male or female offspring." See, that is pure Mendelism, and all that anybody had to do, all that Mendel had to do, all that Darwin had to do, all that Fleming Jenkins had to do was to say, "What goes for sex goes for everything." Um, 'cause when you get, when a male mates with a female, you do not get an intermediate hermaphrodite. You get either a male or a female offspring. That's just Mendel's principle at large. And, and all that Mendel did was to show that the same thing applies to everything, not just sex.

   15. CWChris Williamson21:28

       What has this got to do with race in the discussion of

   16. RDRichard Dawkins21:31

       ... oh, well race, race is, is interesting because race really does appear to be blending. If, if a Black person mates with a white person, you tend to get an inter- intermediate, um, and you ... and that's why so-called African-Americans are a complete spectrum from, from white to black. Uh, and what's that, what's going on there is, is polygenes, that's to say lots and lots of small genes having a ... each one having a little additive effect. So although each one of those genes is Mendelian, is either there or not there, it's a particulate, either there or not there, does, it doesn't blend. The effect of having lots of genes summating their effects is to ma- is to look as though it's blending. So rather than thinking of mixing black paint and white paint and you get gray, what you're doing is mixing black beads, black balls with white balls and, and you get, and you get a ... What, what, there's, they are still black and white in the, in the bag that you're mixing them-

   17. CWChris Williamson22:31

       Mm.

   18. RDRichard Dawkins22:31

       ... but the e- effect from a distance looks gray.

   19. CWChris Williamson22:34

       Oh, that's interesting.

   20. RDRichard Dawkins22:36

       And that's polygenes.

   21. CWChris Williamson22:38

       So I don't know, but I'm going to guess that being transracial or identifying, uh, u- using how you feel to say that you're a different race, I ... some people seem to have done this and then other people said that they couldn't do this. I don't know how prevalent that is, but I'm going to guess that there would be significantly more pushback against that than there would be about ...

   22. RDRichard Dawkins23:00

       (laughs) You could put that right.

   23. CWChris Williamson23:02

       ... identifying yourself as transsexual.

   24. RDRichard Dawkins23:03

       Yes, yes.

   25. CWChris Williamson23:03

       Despite the fact that based on-

   26. RDRichard Dawkins23:06

       Yeah.

   27. CWChris Williamson23:06

       ... your position, the evidence actually allows somebody to be-

   28. RDRichard Dawkins23:09

       Yes, yes.

   29. CWChris Williamson23:09

       I am both-

   30. RDRichard Dawkins23:10

       Yeah.
6. 25:43 – 28:04

   Is Social Justice a Replacement for Religion?

   1. CWChris Williamson25:43

      Can you or can we draw a line between an increased focus on identity politics and a decline in religiosity? Is this people grasping at something, trying to find their meaning elsewhere?

   2. RDRichard Dawkins25:55

      Well, that's often said, and- and, uh, I think you brought it up earlier, that- that, um, those of us who opposed Christianity and- and attempted to dissuade people from being Christian are to blame for-

   3. CWChris Williamson26:08

      Uh, not quite. I mean, we asked whether the vacuum had sucked people in. Yeah, yeah.

   4. RDRichard Dawkins26:10

      L- Look, some people have said that, some people have said that, that- that we're- we're to blame for opening the door to a new kind of nonsense.

   5. CWChris Williamson26:18

      Mm. And what do you think about that?

   6. RDRichard Dawkins26:21

      Well, I- I- it's ridiculous. Um, I mean, I'm- I'm- I'm an all-purpose just, um, enemy of- of irrationality wherever you find it.

   7. CWChris Williamson26:32

      Do you think that there could be a, um, compulsion, uh, disposition, predisposition that humans have to, uh, look for those kinds of answers, and with that religion dropping away, that they would find it somewhere, social justice, activism, so on and so forth?

   8. RDRichard Dawkins26:51

      Well, so they tell me. I mean, the- I- I- en- enough people have said that, that there may be something in it.

   9. CWChris Williamson26:57

      Mm.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins26:57

       It doesn't ring plausible to me, but- but still.

   11. CWChris Williamson27:01

       Temperature plays a huge role in how well you sleep, but traditional bedding often fall short. Just add the brand new Pod 4 Ultra to your mattress like a fitted sheet, and it will automatically cool down or warm up each side of your bed up to 20 degrees. Plus, it's got integrated sensors that track your sleep time and your sleep phases and your HRV and your snoring and your heart rate with 99% accuracy. Eight Sleep has been clinically proven to increase total sleep by up to one hour every night, increase deep sleep by up to 2.5 hours a month, and reduce wake time by up to three hours per month. Best of all, they ship to the US, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Plus, they offer a 30-day sleep trial, so you can buy it and sleep on it for 29 days, and if you do not like it, they will give you your money back. Right now, you can get $350 off the brand new Pod 4 Ultra by going to the link in the description below or heading to EightSleep.com/modernwisdom and using the code MODERNWISDOM at checkout. That's E-I-G-H-T Sleep.com/modernwisdom, and MODERNWISDOM at checkout. Speaking of

7. 28:04 – 33:50

   Darwin’s Marriage Wish List

   1. CWChris Williamson28:04

      Darwin, did you ever see, read the list of reasons that Darwin wrote down when he was deciding whether or not to become married?

   2. RDRichard Dawkins28:12

      Yeah. (laughs)

   3. CWChris Williamson28:13

      I- I wanted to read this out to you. It's one of my favorite things.

   4. RDRichard Dawkins28:14

      Oh, is it? Wha- oh, Better than a Dog anyway, isn't it? Yeah.

   5. CWChris Williamson28:17

      Phenomenal. So, uh, Darwin, uh, he got married a little bit later in life 'cause he'd been away on voyages and stuff, and he's in Victorian England.

   6. RDRichard Dawkins28:25

      Yes.

   7. CWChris Williamson28:25

      So people, he, people, the expectations, and I think he nearly... sort of had a pen pal relationship maybe a couple of times, maybe a cousin, something like that, and then that didn't happen. And then finally, he needs to make the decision. He's going to make the call. Document has two columns, one labeled marry, one labeled not marry, and above them, circled are the words, "This is the question." On the pro-marriage side of the equation were, "Children, if it please God. Constant companion and friend in old age, who will feel interested in one. Object to be beloved and played with." After reflection of an unknown length, he modified the foregoing sentence with, "Better than a dog, anyhow."

   8. RDRichard Dawkins29:04

      (laughs)

   9. CWChris Williamson29:04

      (laughs) He continued, "Home and someone to take care of house, charms of music and female chitchat. These things good for one's health, but terrible loss of time." Without warning, Darwin had, from the pro-marriage column, swerved uncontrollably into major anti-marriage factors, so major that he underlined it. This issue, the infringement of marriage on his time, especially his work time, was addressed at great length in the appropriate not marry column. "Not marrying," he wrote, "would preserve freedom to go where one likes, choice of society and little of it, conversation of clever men at clubs, not forced to visit relatives and to bend in every trifle, to have the expense and anxiety of children, perhaps quarreling, loss of time, cannot read in the evening, fatness and idleness, anxiety and responsibility, less money for books, and if many children, forced to gain one's bread." Such a... (laughs) so fascinating.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins29:56

       Im- immense selfishness. Um, y- yes, well, times change, don't they?

   11. CWChris Williamson30:02

       (laughs)

   12. RDRichard Dawkins30:02

       Um, yes, the shifting moral zeitgeist, I- I... yeah. I was actually asked to read that at- at somebody's wedding.

   13. CWChris Williamson30:13

       Oh, fantastic.

   14. RDRichard Dawkins30:15

       Yeah.

   15. CWChris Williamson30:15

       What a morbid way to begin a marriage.

   16. RDRichard Dawkins30:17

       Yeah. Yes, yes, yes.

   17. CWChris Williamson30:18

       Did you accept or no?

   18. RDRichard Dawkins30:19

       Well, I did, but, uh, I- I- I think it got a few laughs anyway.

   19. CWChris Williamson30:23

       So good. What, uh, you know, we- we're going through a- a population decline, uh, fewer people being, uh, bothered about getting into relationships, uh, lowest rates of marriage that we've seen ever on record, uh, childlessness, so on and so forth. What do you, uh-What do you make of that? What do you think about the ... ?

   20. RDRichard Dawkins30:44

       Yes, you wrote this last night. I was not aware of it and I haven't had time to look it up, so, so I'm, I've, I'm, I'm not, can't say anything more than I did last night.

   21. CWChris Williamson30:51

       Go, yeah.

   22. RDRichard Dawkins30:51

       Nothing.

   23. CWChris Williamson30:51

       Yeah, true. Well, the population thing, like I say, is, uh, an interesting, uh, question. The marriage thing, you know, just the companionship, because you can see there's this degree of responsibility bringing another life into the world, especially if you were, uh, during your formative years, during COVID, and under-socialized and you're risk averse and helicopter parenting and screens and social media and all that stuff. Like, well, I, you know, I can kind of see it. I would like to think that the on- one of the only two things we need to do, survive and reproduce, I'd like to think that the reproduce thing was sufficiently powerful to kind of overcome that. So it's kind of impressive in a way that it's not. But when it comes to the, uh, marriage side, and even pulling back from that in survey data, there's a lot of, uh, young people that say they're just not fussed with dating. They're sort of working on themselves, or they're not ready to meet somebody or whatever it might be. And, um, given that there's very little financial responsibility, at least in a, a relationship that's not married, uh, it's very surprising. I, I kind of feel like... I don't know, I feel like there's something else going on that I, even though I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, I still feel like there's something that I'm not seeing.

   24. RDRichard Dawkins32:03

       Yes, I, I have nothing to say about that really.

   25. CWChris Williamson32:06

       Hmm.

   26. RDRichard Dawkins32:06

       I, I, I don't, um, uh, I'm not a sociologist and I don't quite understand why it is that there are certain trends that, that seem to, to go through society-

   27. CWChris Williamson32:19

       Hmm.

   28. RDRichard Dawkins32:19

       ... like that.

   29. CWChris Williamson32:20

       There's definitely one, uh, this wouldn't necessarily explain the casual relationship thing, but it would explain at least part of the marriage thing, that if in order to be able to have sex you need to first become married, there is quite a high, uh ...

   30. RDRichard Dawkins32:39

       Well, in past centuries, th- that would have been the case, yes.
8. 33:50 – 40:56

   Richard’s Message to Evolution Sceptics

   1. CWChris Williamson33:50

      over the last few years, I've talked about evolutionary psychology, biology on the channel a lot, and maybe in the last five, I've seen an increasing number of evolution-skeptical comments. Uh, I don't know whether that's the, uh, part of an underlying trend that's going on. Uh ...

   2. RDRichard Dawkins34:10

      That is disturbing. Um, where do you see these comments?

   3. CWChris Williamson34:14

      On YouTube. Uh, also in discussions that happen on something like Twitter, uh ...

   4. RDRichard Dawkins34:18

      Are they religiously motivated?

   5. CWChris Williamson34:21

      It's hard to tell. Uh, I would guess, at least in part, but then there'll be a l- a small, perhaps non-insignificant portion of people that are sort of largely skeptical about lots of things. Skeptical about whether Australia exists or Antarctica exists or the Earth is flat.

   6. RDRichard Dawkins34:39

      Yes. Yeah.

   7. CWChris Williamson34:39

      You know, you mentioned yesterday about, um, uh, belief structures clumping together in reliably predictable ways. Uh, but I kind of wanted to... You're the guy. If anyone's a guy, you're the guy. If people have a skepticism about the accuracy of evolution, what explanation or evidence do you tend to take people through-

   8. RDRichard Dawkins35:04

      Well-

   9. CWChris Williamson35:04

      ... when you're-

   10. RDRichard Dawkins35:05

       Okay.

   11. CWChris Williamson35:05

       ... wanting to-

   12. RDRichard Dawkins35:05

       I was going to say, before getting onto that, um, it's hard to see what you could, what you could possibly put in its place. I mean, if- I don't see how you could be anything but religious if you object. I mean, you've got to have some explanation for the extraordinary complexity of life and the apparent design of life, which is just phenomenal. Uh, uh, per- some people are not even aware of it, but if you, if you actually v- are aware of the prodigious complexity of living things down to the very cellular level, biochemical level, then, um, you, you cannot be sane and, and not seek for some kind of explanation for that. And if it's not evolution, it's got to be presumably, it's got to be-

   13. CWChris Williamson35:53

       Some story.

   14. RDRichard Dawkins35:54

       ... God.

   15. CWChris Williamson35:55

       Yeah.

   16. RDRichard Dawkins35:55

       Um, so, so I, I think if, if anybody calls himself an atheist and a non-evolutionist, he's probably not really thought, thought it through very hard. Uh, okay, but you were asking me about, um, how to convince people?

   17. CWChris Williamson36:10

       Yeah. You're, you're explaining to somebody the, the, uh, evidence of evolution.

   18. RDRichard Dawkins36:15

       Well ...

   19. CWChris Williamson36:15

       What's your favorite way to-

   20. RDRichard Dawkins36:16

       Of course, there's an enormous amount of it, of, of convincing e- evidence. Um, I think that the evidence of geographical distribution is one that doesn't first spring to mind, but is an important one. Um, why are all the mammals, all the native mammals in Australia, except bats, uh, marsupial? Um, when, when Noah's Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, why would all the marsupials-... march in a column to Australia and not leave any f- relics or fossils behind on the way. Um, I mean, that, that would be w- a, a, a very simple, um, e- elementary thing. But perhaps a more serious, um, piece of evidence would be, um, molecular genetics. If you, if you actually look at the, um, at the, uh, the data of DNA sequencing in different a- in different animals, it, it forms a perfect hierarchy. Uh, and what could that hierarchy be? I mean, a b- a branching hierarchy, what could that be but a family tree? So, so you, you find that, um, uh, if you take, say, um, shrew and mole, uh, w- what... and you looked at their molecular sequences, they would be very, very close. They, they're, they're very, very close cousins in, on the evolutionary in- interpretation. And, um, all the different molecules agree. So it's not, it's not that, uh, that half the molecules make them dis- uh, uh, close cousins and the other half make them distant cousins. They, they all, um, agree with very few exceptions, which are interesting in themselves. Um, for example, if you looked at, uh, those genes specifically involved in hearing, you would find a, an apparent cousinship between bats and toothed whales because they both use echoes. So, so that's a, that's a sort of exception that proves the rule. Um, but, but mostly, the tree of cousinship is an obvious signature of a pedigree. Um, those are two... I mean, and you can do the same thing not with molecules but with bones and, and anatomy generally, which is what Darwin had available to him, of course. Dar- because Darwin didn't have access to molecular information. Uh, what, what Darwin had access to was comparing things like the, the, the limbs of vertebrates, so the, the hand of a, of a human, the, um, the, the, um, f- flipper of a turtle, the, the, the, the leg of a horse and so on. Um, and nowadays, we can do the same thing with e- enormously more data. He was looking at either protein sequences or, or DNA sequences. Um, so those are things... I mean, those are, um, f- fascinating pieces of evidence, and the fossil record is, is very nice evidence as well because you get, um, sequences. There are, there are not fossils in the wrong place. When J.B.S. Haldane was asked for, um, what would be convincing falsifying evidence of evolution, he promptly said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

   21. CWChris Williamson39:45

       Mm-hmm.

   22. RDRichard Dawkins39:46

       They don't happen. There, there are, there are, there are no fossils that, that are out of place, out of the, out of the sequence. What-

   23. CWChris Williamson39:53

       In other news, this episode is brought to you by Shopify. Look, you're not going into business to learn about how to code or build a website or do backend inventory management. Shopify takes all of that off your hands and allows you to focus on the job that you came here to do, which is designing and selling a cool product. Businesses that sell more, sell on Shopify, and that is why they're the global force behind Gymshark and Skims and Aloe and Newtonic. When it comes to converting browsers into buyers, they are best in class. Their checkout is 36% better on average compared to other leading commerce platforms. And with Shop Pay, you can also boost conversions by up to 50%. Best of all, their award-winning support is there to help you every step of the way. So upgrade your business today and get the exact same checkout that we use at Newtonic on Shopify. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at the link in the description below, or shopify.com/modernwisdom, all lowercase. That's shopify.com/modernwisdom to upgrade your selling today. What's the current

9. 40:56 – 45:49

   The Link Between Primates & Humans

   1. CWChris Williamson40:56

      status of the missing link, uh, from, uh, primate to human evolution? I remember... This is old stuff, and it's not something that I've looked into very much. But the, the, uh, uh, lineage, maybe fossil record, I'm going to guess, uh, there's, uh, certain chunks that seem to have large, uh, blocks, uh, missing. Is there such a thing?

   2. RDRichard Dawkins41:20

      No.

   3. CWChris Williamson41:20

      No?

   4. RDRichard Dawkins41:21

      Not, not missing anymore. Um, it-

   5. CWChris Williamson41:23

      What was the status? Was that when you began your studies? Was that the case?

   6. RDRichard Dawkins41:26

      No, no, no.

   7. CWChris Williamson41:26

      Oh, this is a long time ago?

   8. RDRichard Dawkins41:27

      D- d- n- no, long before that, um ...

   9. CWChris Williamson41:28

      Right.

   10. RDRichard Dawkins41:29

       ... in, in, in Victorian times, um, in Darwin's own time, um, there, there were, there were no fossils, uh, to speak of. Now, we have lots of fossils ...

   11. CWChris Williamson41:40

       Mm-hmm.

   12. RDRichard Dawkins41:40

       ... in Africa, as Darwin predicted. Darwin guessed that foss- that, that Africa was the place to look, and so, so it proved.

   13. CWChris Williamson41:46

       Why? Why did he choose Africa?

   14. RDRichard Dawkins41:48

       Uh, because of resemblances between humans and chimpanzees and gorillas, which are the African apes, as opposed to orangutans and gibbons, which are the Asian apes. And, uh, so anyway, that, that's wha- that has proved to be the case both in, in East Africa and South Africa. Uh, very rich fossil record now, uh, of, of ancestral humans. Not of ancestral chimpanzees, uh, but, but there are of ancestral humans.

   15. CWChris Williamson42:15

       Have you got a particular, uh, favorite or, uh, ancestor of ours that you're fascinated with? Some other branch off the...

   16. RDRichard Dawkins42:26

       Not really, no. I don't know. Um ...

   17. CWChris Williamson42:28

       I r- I was reading a, a really great book, uh, about Australopithecus.

   18. RDRichard Dawkins42:32

       Yes.

   19. CWChris Williamson42:33

       Uh, I thought that was really cool. That seems like a... you know, if you're gonna be one of the... Being us isn't bad. Homo sapiens is pretty cool. But Australopithecus seems like a cool, uh-

   20. RDRichard Dawkins42:43

       Yes, uh, they're, they're, they were, um, they were, uh, upright walking, but they had brains not much bigger than a chimpanzee. So, so it was like a... they were sort of upright walking chimpanzees.Um, and, uh, yeah, they're pretty charismatic. I mean, Mrs. Ples, and they've got names like Mrs. Ples Dear Boy, um, Lucy, uh...

   21. CWChris Williamson43:09

       I remember reading as well about, I think it was only, when- when was the last other homo, uh, branch still alive? It was only 12,000 years ago or so. Is that right?

   22. RDRichard Dawkins43:21

       It depends how you define it. Um, the- the preceding homo species, uh, is often thought to be Homo erectus, but then there are various other ones which are dubiously assigned specific status, like Homo rhodesiensis, Homo heidelbergensis. These are, um, I mean, as you would expect, they're all intermediates. I mean, why wouldn't there be? It would be worrying if there weren't inter- intermediates.

   23. CWChris Williamson43:45

       Hmm.

   24. RDRichard Dawkins43:46

       But- but the- the widespread one is Homo erectus, um, which originally was meant by- went by the names like, um, Peking Man and Java Man, but they existed all over- all over Asia and- and Africa.

   25. CWChris Williamson44:04

       Was there a, uh, shorter, smaller version of us? Was that over in-

   26. RDRichard Dawkins44:11

       Oh, you're thinking of Homo floresiensis.

   27. CWChris Williamson44:14

       That's it, yes. Indonesia?

   28. RDRichard Dawkins44:15

       Well, yes, there's a- there's one island, Flores, um, in- in- in the Indonesian archipelago where these little midgetty, um, cr- creatures lived, and it's a bit controversial. Some people think that they were- they were not a different species at all, but just- just freak examples of- of, um, Homo sapiens. Um, but, um, uh, some people think that they were a- an island version of Homo erectus.

   29. CWChris Williamson44:45

       Hmm.

   30. RDRichard Dawkins44:45

       It's fairly common for island mammals to be either giants or dwarfs, and, um, uh, for example, on the Mediterranean islands like Cyprus and- and Crete, there were dwarf elephants, uh, which must have been very sweet.
10. 45:49 – 51:42

    Biology’s View of Consciousness

    1. CWChris Williamson45:49

       your latest thinking around the hard problem of consciousness? Where are you at with that?

    2. RDRichard Dawkins45:57

       You're asking the wrong person. Um, uh, I'm a humble biologist, and I- I don't, um, aspire to the philosophical heights. I- I rather doubt whether philosophers actually succeed in that either, but- but, um, I think it- it is called the hard problem for a good reason.

    3. CWChris Williamson46:17

       Mm-hmm.

    4. RDRichard Dawkins46:18

       And, um, uh, I don't have anything to contribute.

    5. CWChris Williamson46:23

       Even from a what does biology have to say about consciousness? Does it have anything to say?

    6. RDRichard Dawkins46:28

       It ought to. I mean, one day it will, because it is obviously a biological problem. It-

    7. CWChris Williamson46:34

       Mm-hmm.

    8. RDRichard Dawkins46:34

       It-

    9. CWChris Williamson46:34

       Why haven't the philosophers taken over?

    10. RDRichard Dawkins46:38

        I suppose it's just very difficult to see what- to see what evidence would- you could bring to bear on it, and it- it clearly has something to do with brain activity. It clearly has something to do with the immense complexity of the brain, the- the huge numbers of neurons, the even huger number of- of connections between neurons in the brain, um, and, uh, I don't even know what a theory of consciousness would look like. I- I- I can sort of see in the case of the other great baffling thing at the moment, which is the origin of life, I can see the kind of answer that- that would have to be. Well, we don't know what the answer is, but I- I know the sort of answer I would expect. But in the case of consciousness, I'm not even sure what it would look like.

    11. CWChris Williamson47:23

        Traveling should be about the journey, not... Uh-huh, the chaos of packing. That is why I've partnered with Nomatic. They make the best backpack on the planet. This thing is absolutely glued to me, and it's phenomenal. It is the 14-liter travel pack, and it's a complete game changer. They've got compartments for everything, your laptop, your shoes, your sunglasses. It is so well organized that even your toothbrush will feel important. It's like the Marie Kondo of luggage. Everything has got its place. No more folding your T-shirts up into a burrito to make them fit into wherever it needs to go. Best of all, their products will literally last you a lifetime with their lifetime guarantee, so this is the last backpack you will ever need to buy. And you can return or exchange any product within 30 days for any reason. So buy it, fill it with your contents and possessions, and if you don't like it, they will give you your money back. And they ship internationally. Right now you can get a 20% discount off your first purchase when you go to the link in the description below or head to nomadic.com/modernwisdom. That's nomadic.com/modernwisdom. From an adaptive explanation, what use is consciousness to humans?

    12. RDRichard Dawkins48:34

        Well, even that's controversial, because, uh, there have been people who've argued quite reasonably that, uh, you could have a robot which was unconscious which could behave in all ways necessary to survive and reproduce, uh, and- and yet didn't have self-awareness, and, um, so, uh...I, I think it must have a use. I think consciousness must have a use. But, uh, not everybody thinks so, and, and, and there are people who think that, well, I mean, the, the rather prodigious feats of, that, that ChatGPT and other, other, um, artificial intelligences that we have now, um, if they were com- if they were controlling the behavior of a robot animal, um, it, it, it could very well survive-

    13. CWChris Williamson49:34

        Hmm.

    14. RDRichard Dawkins49:35

        ... and do a very competent job surviving.

    15. CWChris Williamson49:36

        An effective p-zombie.

    16. RDRichard Dawkins49:37

        And ... we could ... yes. And, and, and, um, so I, uh, I mean, uh, people have worried about, about what consciousness is for, um, for a long time.

    17. CWChris Williamson49:50

        My favorite ... I mean, this is total bro science from me as the least educated person out of two people that don't specialize in consciousness. But, um, uh, my favorite explanation is it seems like, uh, human brain size is at, at least, uh, partly driven, maybe largely driven, by our requirement to be able to track the size of the social groups that we were in, the complexity-

    18. RDRichard Dawkins50:14

        Yeah.

    19. CWChris Williamson50:15

        ... of that. And that, m- to me, seems like a fundamental driver of what humans needed to do was, uh, related to our social environment. Therefore, our ability to have a phenomenological experience, a sense of being us, allows us to have a sense of what it's like to be somebody else.

    20. RDRichard Dawkins50:38

        Yeah.

    21. CWChris Williamson50:39

        And that theory of mind predicting I know Richard, I know Richard's demeanor, but Richard's not friends with Derek, but Derek's friends with John-

    22. RDRichard Dawkins50:46

        Right, yeah.

    23. CWChris Williamson50:46

        ... and John's friends with Richard, so-

    24. RDRichard Dawkins50:48

        Yeah.

    25. CWChris Williamson50:48

        ... and actually, but John's a little bit more friends with Richard than he is-

    26. RDRichard Dawkins50:51

        Right, yes.

    27. CWChris Williamson50:51

        ... with Derek.

    28. RDRichard Dawkins50:51

        Yes.

    29. CWChris Williamson50:52

        That to me just seems like, okay, and then the sense and the ability to do math and consider the universe and all the rest of it is maybe a bit spandrelly, and it just sort of-

    30. RDRichard Dawkins51:03

        A, a, a bit im- just im- emergent properties.
11. 51:42 – 54:16

    Why Behavioural Genetics is Still Controversial

    1. CWChris Williamson51:42

       One other area, we touched on this a little bit last night, uh, behavioral genetics, uh, were about what, I think, on the cusp of, uh, gene embryo selection, uh, then probably getting into just outright, uh, manipulation of genes for humans. Where would you, uh, get people to start if ... I, I, I do think that behavioral genetics and properly understanding that, or at least having a baseline understanding in tha- of that, in the way that most people do or many people do about evolution is important. Behavioral genetics seems to be something that I don't think has had a, necessarily a Richard Dawkins yet format.

    2. RDRichard Dawkins52:21

       Oh, well, y- but are you talking now about, uh, genetic manipulation? Or, or, or-

    3. CWChris Williamson52:26

       No, in terms of the fact that we have heritable, heritable, uh, traits from a behavioral perspective.

    4. RDRichard Dawkins52:31

       Okay. Oh, it's a fairly flourishing field.

    5. CWChris Williamson52:33

       Mm-hmm.

    6. RDRichard Dawkins52:33

       Um-

    7. CWChris Williamson52:33

       Bloemen and-

    8. RDRichard Dawkins52:34

       Yes.

    9. CWChris Williamson52:35

       ... so on.

    10. RDRichard Dawkins52:35

        Yes. Uh, I, I don't think I had, I don't, don't have a problem with it.

    11. CWChris Williamson52:41

        Mm-hmm.

    12. RDRichard Dawkins52:41

        Do you have a problem?

    13. CWChris Williamson52:42

        Not at all. I, I just w- uh, for some reason, it doesn't ... there seems to be a lot of pushback against it. Maybe it's just that the work is more recent. Uh, maybe it's that people seem, for some reason, to think that it gets perilously close to eugenics because that's-

    14. RDRichard Dawkins52:59

        Oh, I think that's probably the reason. Uh, y- yes, I think it's politically f- s- um, scary, uh, to some people. Um, they don't like the idea of, um ... I mean, there p- there are still people who hanker after a blank slate and, and, and, uh, hanker after the i- idea that the human mind is sort of open to sort of ... and you can pour anything into it and, and, uh-

    15. CWChris Williamson53:23

        Does that make you want to sort of face-palm yourself into eternity?

    16. RDRichard Dawkins53:26

        A bit, rather, yes. A bit. And I'd, I, I, I, I don't understand the hostility, for example, to evolutionary psychology, which, which, um, uh, as you know, flourishes here in Austin. Um, I, um, I mean, e- every other species has a perfectly good behavioral genetics. There's no reason why humans shouldn't.

    17. CWChris Williamson53:50

        Yeah, I, I guess the, many of the same people that would have a problem with heritable, heritability explanations for behavior, uh, also have a hypoallergenic cockapoo for a dog.

    18. RDRichard Dawkins54:05

        Yes, quite. Yes.

    19. CWChris Williamson54:07

        Uh.

    20. RDRichard Dawkins54:08

        Yes.

    21. CWChris Williamson54:08

        What do we think this is?

    22. RDRichard Dawkins54:09

        Exactly.

    23. CWChris Williamson54:09

        Like, what's that?

    24. RDRichard Dawkins54:10

        Exactly, yes. Exactly.

    25. CWChris Williamson54:11

        If it's not-

    26. RDRichard Dawkins54:12

        Yes.

    27. CWChris Williamson54:13

        ... the same over here, which is, yeah, oddly interesting.

12. 54:16 – 1:04:37

    The Ethics of Embryo Selection & Manipulation

    1. CWChris Williamson54:16

       Uh, what's your sense around the ethics of gene embryo selection for humans, and then if we were to take it one step further-

    2. RDRichard Dawkins54:24

       Yeah. Yes.

    3. CWChris Williamson54:24

       ... to the outright manipulation, getting into the heart of it.

    4. RDRichard Dawkins54:26

       I don't see any problem with a, a ... I don't think anybody else should see any problem with, um, attempting to, uh, remove, um, dysgenic i- effects like hemophilia, uh, um, where, um, you can do it with, without draconian me- measures. You can do it with in vitro fertilization, where, um, the, the current procedure is to, uh, supra ov- have the woman supraovulate, and then, and then you have a, a, a dozen or so, um-... embryos, pro- zygotes in a, in a petri dish, and you choose one at random and implant it back into the woman. Well, why choose at random? Why not choose non-randomly? In those cases where there is a danger of a- an, a her- hereditary disease like hemophilia, um, you can, uh, examine the genes of these, uh, very early embryos and instead of choosing at random, choose one of the, uh, say 50%, um, that, that don't have the deleterious gene in question. And even if- if only that could have been done for the Tsarevich, um, who, who, who, who, um, Alexei, who, who... when- and, and similar, I mean, other, other members of the Euro- European royal families, it would have been a wonderful thing to do.

    5. CWChris Williamson56:02

       Iceland has, I think, completely eradicated Downs syndrome in the country. Uh, obviously not through IVF with screening. Uh, I don't think that that's the way that every woman's getting pregnant.

    6. RDRichard Dawkins56:15

       No. Well, Downs syndrome actually is not hereditary. Um...

    7. CWChris Williamson56:19

       What is it that... Oh, so this is-

    8. RDRichard Dawkins56:21

       Well, no, I mean, it, it, it's, it's, it's an effect of, of, um, of, uh... an e- an embryological defect, but it's not... it doesn't- there's no hereditary tendency to ha- to, to get Downs syndrome.

    9. CWChris Williamson56:38

       That's interesting.

    10. RDRichard Dawkins56:38

        And so it, it would not be a, a eugenic. It's- in the strict sense, it would not be eugenics. Um...

    11. CWChris Williamson56:44

        Do you know if, uh, two, uh, Downs syndrome parents are more likely to have a Downs syndrome child?

    12. RDRichard Dawkins56:51

        I think not, but I don't-

    13. CWChris Williamson56:53

        No way.

    14. RDRichard Dawkins56:53

        ... I don't know. Um...

    15. CWChris Williamson56:54

        That's fascinating.

    16. RDRichard Dawkins56:56

        Um, well, you- don't, don't, don't be too-

    17. CWChris Williamson57:00

        If it's true.

    18. RDRichard Dawkins57:01

        Yes. Okay, right.

    19. CWChris Williamson57:02

        If it's true. I haven't, uh, pinned-

    20. RDRichard Dawkins57:04

        Yeah.

    21. CWChris Williamson57:04

        ... pinned your colors to the flag of that-

    22. RDRichard Dawkins57:05

        Yes.

    23. CWChris Williamson57:06

        ... that particular claim. Don't worry. Um, yeah, I think this is... I've had a number of conversations with, uh, guys who are philosophers in this space, who are, uh, geneticists in this space, a couple of them that are spinning up companies as well to do this, uh, to bring this service to, uh, the general public. Not cheap. But, um, I think this is probably going to be one of the big frontiers. I think, uh, gene embryo selection and large language models and whatever they end up growing into-

    24. RDRichard Dawkins57:38

        Yeah. Yeah.

    25. CWChris Williamson57:38

        ... will be two huge forks. But I- who is talking about sort of gene embryo selection that much in comparison?

    26. RDRichard Dawkins57:46

        Well, uh, I- I was talking about getting rid of dysgenic effects like hemophilia.

    27. CWChris Williamson57:51

        Mm-hmm.

    28. RDRichard Dawkins57:51

        It becomes more controversial when you're talking about, um...

    29. CWChris Williamson57:55

        Taller, stronger, smarter.

    30. RDRichard Dawkins57:56

        S- that, yes, and musical genius and that, that sort of thing. Um...
13. 1:04:37 – 1:05:52

    What’s Next for Richard

    1. CWChris Williamson1:04:37

       Richard Dawkins, ladies and gentlemen. Richard, I, I've had so much fun. Yesterday was fantastic. Today's been really great as well. We've got a new book as well.

    2. RDRichard Dawkins1:04:44

       Yes, good.

    3. CWChris Williamson1:04:46

       Uh, that'll be available, uh, what, once you've got your tour out of the way, which I'm aware you've still got quite a few dates and a few continents to get through, what are you interested in working on next? Have you got anything in your mind?

    4. RDRichard Dawkins1:05:00

       Uh, yes. I'm working on another book, um-

    5. CWChris Williamson1:05:04

       Not Like You.

    6. RDRichard Dawkins1:05:05

       ... um, T- Tales from Haeckel. Um, Ernst Haeckel was, um, a German biologist and artist. Uh, he was sometimes known as the German Darwin. He was, he was Darwin's greatest disciple in Germany. And he was also a very good artist. And so I've got, um, I'm, I'm using his pictures and, and basing each chapter around one of his, e- each, each chapter is based upon a different one of his animal pictures.

    7. CWChris Williamson1:05:37

       Richard, I really appreciate you. Thank you for having me last night and for being here today.

    8. RDRichard Dawkins1:05:40

       Thank you very much indeed, Chris.

    9. NANarrator1:05:42

       (instrumental music)

    10. CWChris Williamson1:05:42

        Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that episode, you'll love my chat with Mr. Sam Harris, which you can watch just there. Go on.

Episode duration: 1:05:52