I can accept that some animals are more mutatable than others, but that's different from saying that they cannot be selectively bred. In humans, it's called eugenics.
CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
I can accept that some animals are more mutatable than others, but that's different from saying that they cannot be selectively bred. In humans, it's called eugenics.
Let's do it this way. Until 5,000 years ago, all human populations lived in the stone age. So for 90%+ of the timespan of homo sapiens, all human societies were roughly equivalent. The differences in development since that time are well explained in "Guns, Germs and Steel", which I enjoyed reading too. If environment was going to stimulate evolutionary growth in intelligence, then surely it would have stimulated those groups living in harsher environments - like the Eskimo.
And would you argue that Celts were biologically less endowed than Romans, Periclean Greeks or Pharonic Egyptians??? - because my own Celtic forebears were heller less advanced than Nefertiti or Euripides!
On the same theme, do we get to argue that the Scots highlanders - who lived in primitive conditions were biologically less well endowed with intelligence than the prosperous and sophisticated Londoners in the 1700's? That'd be a pretty hard argument to make at most White Supremacist rallies, wouldn't it?
Got any real proof eugenics would ever actually produce a more intelligent human being?
With all the talk about how,... "we are all the same",... "there is only one race",... "we all evolved equally", etc., etc.,... there can not be any justification for the few here,... who insist on using racist,... as a response to any post.
But I'm sure they will be doing exactly that in their next post.
But I'm still in awe on how racism evolved from down grading some one based on a different colour of their skin,... to covering every thing from religion to disagreeing with oppression in some cultures,... and on and on.
Really quite ridiculous,... on ay level,... but a very simplistic tool,... for the very simplistic.
But I'm sure they will be doing exactly that in their next post.
But I'm still in awe on how racism evolved from down grading some one based on a different colour of their skin,... to covering every thing from religion to disagreeing with oppression in some cultures,... and on and on.
Really quite ridiculous,... on ay level,... but a very simplistic tool,... for the very simplistic.
We agree that environment is not only critical but the more important factor at work. Regarding Eskimo - their climate was harsh... perhaps too harsh to make any headway. When your environment limits you to shelters made of snow and whale blubber for food, you have less raw tools available. Still, it would have been possible, I suppose. But you'd have to look at how long Eskimo have been in that region. Evolution takes time and advancement relies on things like population density too. I suspect it's a lot less time than human migration out of Africa into other regions of the world.
I would not argue that Celts were biologically less endowed than Romans et al. based solely on their level of advancement or lack thereof. It could just as easily be the environmental factors that you talked about that allowed the Romans, Egyptians, and others to get an early start. I think about it like in business - often times you have "first movers" in an industry (an innovative or original idea, a breakthrough) which is wildly successful but not a guarantee of long term dominance/success. Sometimes those who get out of the gate first fall victim to others who learn it and are better at it.
Eugenics became an ugly word after WWII, and genetic research in that area was stopped because of it (according to oldjones this would mean eugenics is not science). I have no doubt that it is entirely possible (smart people tend to have smart kids, intelligence is largely genetic), however there are lots of ethical issues raised by this kind of research which will make it difficult to pursue (maybe for the better).There are scientists ready and willing to give it a go
The dishonest and innaccurate words you put into my mouth make it clear you don't know the difference between the objective measurements a that are the foundation of science and the personal, subjective judgements of prejudice.
Eugenics isn't science, it's animal husbandry. (Not to say dog-breeding) And it's only very tangentially connected to the still unproven proposition that there is any such objective human biological characteristics and their scientifically determined behaviours as 'race' and 'races'.
It's far from clear that it's "entirely possible", because it's never been done and there's no indication it would succeed.
Smart people have dumb kids. Dumb people have smart kids. Human intelligence is far more complex than dog intelligence. Or breeding selectively to get a terrier with a fluffier tail.
And OJ is correct in any event. Dog breeding or human eugenics is "husbandry" - i.e. selective evolution under controlled circumstances. It doesn't "prove" your thesis that Whites are smarter because somehow they evolved smarter than non-whites. (Which is really what you're trying to say, but are not quite brave enough to blurt out.)
Let's do it another way. Most of my family are academics. Now none of them has ever drunkenly leaned across the Xmas dinner table and said to me "Ya know, Unca Oagre, iss true tha' white kids are smarter than other kinds of kids. I would never-never say this in public, but iss true. White is best!"
And you know why they never say that? Because no one with actual teaching experience believes that.
Let's do it another way. 35 years ago, there were no Black quarterbacks in the NFL. You know why? Because all white people - including my dad and his drinking buddies and the lily white NFL owners - "knew" that Blacks weren't smart enough to be quarterbacks. Then someone played Warren Moon as QB and he did just fine. So suddenly everyone knows Blacks are as smart as White guys at playing QB in the NFL. So I guess evolution was equal to both Black and White when it came to spotting nickel D's and calling audibles.
35 years ago, there were no Black managers in MLB. Same reason as I set out above. No white owners or fans thought Blacks were intelligent enough to be managers. Well that changed when Cito won 2 WS rings with the Blue Jays. And I guess that means that Black baseball managers evolved pretty much the same way as White managers did.
Well, quote some cutting edge scientific study that proves IQ differences among different racial groups. There are none. All reputable research states that different sub species of humans are intellectually equivalent.
First, I've never said that Whites are smarter than non-whites, and as far as intelligence testing goes, that's NOT what the data shows. You're unaware of your biases in this discussion and that's why you've erred by putting words in my mouth.
Humans are more complex than dogs but intelligence is also highly heritable in humans.
This is a trivial anecdote which cannot be applied to anything.
Racists used to argue that Blacks wouldn't be able to play basketball because they weren't smart enough. Ditto for the more contemporary sport of MMA. Blacks are the best at both.
The difference between what your story demonstrates and what the discussion focuses on is equal opportunity. Under the same conditions, various groups show average differences in performance on a number of things including intelligence testing.
See above.
There is 100 years of IQ research (i.e. hundreds and thousands of published works in peer reviewed scientific journals) available to anyone that cares to find it.
Such IQ data was even known in the early 20th Century to politicians and it is one reason why some of them favored limiting immigration from China into the US. They knew then that Chinese posed a real competitive threat to White Americans, and would in many cases usurp them. We're talking about close to a hundred years ago. Look at your Toronto university student body today. This is not a new topic.
Ditto for the call to limit Jewish admission into universities during the 20th Century.
Your claim that "all reputable research states that different sub species of humans are intellectually equivalent" is dead wrong.
Actually, I'm not wrong.
All the earlier race stereotype "research" has been totally discredited. The intellectual climate of the early and mid Twentieth Century was full of racist ideas. By the 60's, these were considered false and out of date. This contributed to the end of immigration quotas and academic quotas. Cite that stuff if you want to. No one outside your own circle of Far Right guys is going to take it seriously.
It was that type of research that was the foundation for Hitler's ideas and Nazism, but it was also accepted in the English-speaking world for some decades.
The only direction I see you taking discussion of regional differences in human ability is to a conclusion that humans from some regions are more successfully evolved than those from other regions. I assumed that you were leading up to a "whites are smarter than non whites" conclusion as this is where most traditional racist thought leads. And it also ties in with the title of this thread.
If you're saying orientals, Jews and Northern Europeans are smarter than Arabs, Blacks and Latin Americans, you still have no currently reputable research to back you up and you're on even shakier ground.
For example: - Jews are genetically Middle Eastern and the Jewish diaspora is less than 2,000 years old - a relatively very small amount of time to develop biologically. That means their level of overall success in the Western world is pretty clearly to do with environment.
Quite frankly, what you're saying seems to be standard contemporary racist, Far Right theory. It's believed by no reputable academics or professionals and only a tiny % of the general population.
I had briefly thought that you earlier posts in this thread showed a willingness to engage in meaningful discussion yet I guess it was short lived because now your only response is to scream everyone is anti-evolution. Quite comical.
No oagre, most of that research has NOT been discredited. Findings that are not politically correct cause media outrage and hysteria and the findings and their authors are chanted down as racists, but nobody actually disputes the science. So things quiet down and journalists take a break, and people like you think the findings were discredited.
The IQ gap is not an invention of racists. It's a reality that has existed and been measured for 100 years, and can be measured today with similar results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
You also fail to provide an argument as to why peoples that evolved in different regions of the world would be identical on all metrics.
If this were a topic about something more mundane, you would have accepted the results already based on the mountain of research in the area from reputable sources. But because it's a touchy subject, you write-off 100 years of research - everything from tests to brain imaging - as some racist conspiracy. Hilarious.
What I believe is what reputable academics and professionals believe - that differences in average intelligence scores seen across races, is partly environmental and party genetic.
Isn't it funny how those racists pegged several non-White groups as being smarter than themselves. So racist they are.
I find this post interesting. When I posted about the impact of circumstances and environment on the development of modern western society you responded by screeching I was anti-science but here you are stating essentially what I did - environmental factors played a huge role in societal development.
