Challenge thread: Charles Darwin was racist... so what?

[DamianWarS]

And does it not follow that an environment that selects for critical thinking would then also tend to produce changes in hereditary traits related to the brain, even if they are slight or difficult to measure?

physical characteristics are the obvious and needed difference to sustain these environments. In both environments the strongest survive and their "strongness" is passed down to the next generation. Comparing the strongest in different environments to see who is superior may be too difficult to measure.

Pluralism encourages critical thinking over segregation regardless of environmental factors but pluralism also increases the gene pool since more intermarry.

So the act of pulling someone out of their environment both stimulates critical thinking and increases the gene pool of their off spring, the latter may make race superiority immeasurable. Comparing strickly while still in their environments also is not fair because of critical thinking differences which are environment fostered.

If there are differences today it certainly is not big enough to matter that races don't naturally intermarry within pluralistic environments. Even within x environment the rich and powerful tend to interbreed with the rich and powerful producing off spring that are rich and powerful. But there's no special ingredient in their DNA that make them rich and powerful and most of the advantage is an environment that fosters the right thinking to keep them rich and powerful. X race may adopt Y race babies and they grow up as intelligent as as their adopted race is.

Hypothetically there could be a difference but our modern world is too pluralistic that the gene pool balances enough that the difference is not measurable. In fluid dynamics the process is called infusion and essentially it's the same thing happening with people. Over enough time it all balances out and there is no difference. Pluralism taken to the farest level will eliminate race all together and the other differences will be environmental.

 

[Leaf473]

Hi everybody,

I had some difficulty accessing the site Friday and Saturday. Maybe everybody did.

Sundays are usually busy for me with church and family stuff.

I hope to be back on Monday with renewed vim and vigor. Or at least vim.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Or at least vim.

How about emacs?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How about emacs?

Heretic!

mv /usr/bin/emacs > /dev/null

 

[Tinker Grey]

Heretic!

mv /usr/bin/emacs > /dev/null

Actually, I'm a vi guy.

 

[Leaf473]

You are ignoring that they aren't distinct and any hypothetical average is merely a trend and not a trait of the group.

So, yes, defining racial groups as if trends or patterns are inherent traits of that group IS racist.

I'm sure you'll agree that there are differences in physical traits between races.

Of course, I don't think we'd want to assume that the differences are all on the exterior. Some races are better at resisting malaria for example.

Why would we assume there would not also be differences in the brain, given the different environments they adapted to? I'm not saying there's evidence of this. I'm just saying that given evolution, every part of every organism is constantly adapting.

 

[Leaf473]

If it is 'very likely', then how about you take a shot at nominating one 'race'?

how about not. I can't see how it would affect the logic of the argument, and it would probably lead to hurt feelings.

What's your motivation for asking, my man?

 

[Bradskii]

how about not. I can't see how it would affect the logic of the argument, and it would probably lead to hurt feelings.

What's your motivation for asking, my man?

I think what you're suggesting is nonsense. So let's examine it.

 

[Leaf473]

How does an environment select for critical thinking?

My guess would be something like if the environment provides a lot more food with complex planning.

We are obviously better at critical thinking than members of the ape family
(or, other members of the ape family, if you prefer).

Given evolution, something in an environment somewhere must have brought this about.

 

[Larniavc]

It is very likely that one race is more intelligent than the others.

But it is not true, though.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm sure you'll agree that there are differences in physical traits between races.

Of course, I don't think we'd want to assume that the differences are all on the exterior. Some races are better at resisting malaria for example.

Why would we assume there would not also be differences in the brain, given the different environments they adapted to? I'm not saying there's evidence of this. I'm just saying that given evolution, every part of every organism is constantly adapting.

You've said that you're sure I'll agree... But I don't.

Even if the racial groups were separate (and they're not), a statistical likelihood is not a racial trait.

And more importantly, trading a group as a whole as if it were a single unit based on a perceived (or even real) trend is text book racism.

The examples you've presented seem to be either undemonstrable, like a racial genetic trend for intelligence; a statistical likelihood like sickle cell anaemia; or a tautology like dark skin being the defining racial marker and the direct cause for the effect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My guess would be something like if the environment provides a lot more food with complex planning.

We are obviously better at critical thinking than members of the ape family
(or, other members of the ape family, if you prefer).

Given evolution, something in an environment somewhere must have brought this about.

But to support that, you'd need to show that the environment is something that can plan, is capable of complex planning.

Humans have bigger brains because we had a historical diet that was rich in protein, which is something that aids in brain development, thus allowing us to be better at critical thinking and complex planning. How did we get that protein? By eating meat. LOTS of meat.

 

[Leaf473]

No. Certain ways of thinking and doing things and viewing the world can be taught from generation to generation as in culture, but it would not become genetic.

Why would it not become genetic? Given evolution, *something* must have brought about the large and sophisticated brains in humans.

 

[Leaf473]

physical characteristics are the obvious and needed difference to sustain these environments. In both environments the strongest survive and their "strongness" is passed down to the next generation. Comparing the strongest in different environments to see who is superior may be too difficult to measure.

Pluralism encourages critical thinking over segregation regardless of environmental factors but pluralism also increases the gene pool since more intermarry.

So the act of pulling someone out of their environment both stimulates critical thinking and increases the gene pool of their off spring, the latter may make race superiority immeasurable. Comparing strickly while still in their environments also is not fair because of critical thinking differences which are environment fostered.

If there are differences today it certainly is not big enough to matter that races don't naturally intermarry within pluralistic environments. Even within x environment the rich and powerful tend to interbreed with the rich and powerful producing off spring that are rich and powerful. But there's no special ingredient in their DNA that make them rich and powerful and most of the advantage is an environment that fosters the right thinking to keep them rich and powerful. X race may adopt Y race babies and they grow up as intelligent as as their adopted race is.

Hypothetically there could be a difference but our modern world is too pluralistic that the gene pool balances enough that the difference is not measurable. In fluid dynamics the process is called infusion and essentially it's the same thing happening with people. Over enough time it all balances out and there is no difference. Pluralism taken to the farest level will eliminate race all together and the other differences will be environmental.

Wouldn't the complexity of the brain be a physical characteristic, even if it's too small to measure?

Differences in critical thinking ability could theoretically exist, then. Give an evolution, that seems like it would be possible imo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would it not become genetic? Given evolution, *something* must have brought about the large and sophisticated brains in humans.

When Fire Met Food, The Brains of Early Humans Grew Bigger

 

[Leaf473]

How about emacs?

I'm lucky if I can make sense out of nano.

But I do have a good friend who says that once you get the hang of emacs, it is the ownage.

 

[Leaf473]

I think what you're suggesting is nonsense. So let's examine it.

Well, that's a good motivation.

Is there something wrong with the logic that I've presented?

I believe I've already implied that data would be difficult to collect. And I'll add that historical evidence will tend to be subjective.

I think I've also said that the question
Is the theory of evolution racist?
is difficult to deal with. It's kind of like asking
Is the theory of general relativity communist?

So instead I'm answering a somewhat different question
If evolution happened, would it lead to situations that, if written out in words, most people would associate with racism?

 

[Larniavc]

How did we get that protein? By eating meat. LOTS of meat.

Also we have a lot of amylase; that our nearest cousins lack.

 

[Leaf473]

You've said that you're sure I'll agree... But I don't.

Even if the racial groups were separate (and they're not), a statistical likelihood is not a racial trait.

And more importantly, trading a group as a whole as if it were a single unit based on a perceived (or even real) trend is text book racism.

The examples you've presented seem to be either undemonstrable, like a racial genetic trend for intelligence; a statistical likelihood like sickle cell anaemia; or a tautology like dark skin being the defining racial marker and the direct cause for the effect.

I'm getting the sense that you don't believe race can be defined.

I agree that it can't be carefully defined. But it does have a general meaning among English speakers.

Are you saying that there are no groups of people who demonstrate a particular genetic trend?

 

[Leaf473]

But to support that, you'd need to show that the environment is something that can plan, is capable of complex planning.

Humans have bigger brains because we had a historical diet that was rich in protein, which is something that aids in brain development, thus allowing us to be better at critical thinking and complex planning. How did we get that protein? By eating meat. LOTS of meat.

I don't think the environment itself would have to be capable of planning.

An example that doesn't involve intelligence, but does show how an environment can require planning is ancient Egypt. Dealing with the irrigation systems related to the flooding of the Nile produced an early civilization. Or so I've read.

If a protein-rich diet leads to a bigger brain, then the cat family would have bigger brains than ours imo.