Keeping whites seperate from your coloureds?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher
There have been threads showing mental differences between man and woman, why would it stop there?

Because there are huge biological, physiological and biochemical differences right down to chromosome structure, and there are evolutionary reasons why each sex would have mental differences, as the biological requirements for each to pass on their DNA is radically different.

There's nothing that indicates someone with a different propensity for getting sunburned should have different brain structures, different organs, fundamentally different distributions of hormones, or any other physical difference.

[Elok]

Well, what do you propose that we do about "the race problem?" Selective breeding to take maximum advantage of traits? Sounds a little too eugenic for me.

I'm not proposing that somebody who suggests the existence of black people should be stoned to death, just that we as a society need to collectively stop caring one way or another instead of babbling about heritage like it's some secret society open to the worthy. Da Vinci was white, Da Vinci was a genius, but Da Vinci was no ancestor of mine and there's nothing to suggest that his genius and his honkiness were related, so I'm not especially proud on Da Vinci's behalf. He can only make me "proud" insofar as he shows that being white is not a definite limiting factor to one's creativity, and I've never had any reason to suspect as much.

'Course, getting everybody to ignore race is easier said than done, but as long as we're holding discussions about the future of the human race from the comfort of a few desktops, I see no need to be practical about this.

[Japher]

There's nothing that indicates someone with a different propensity for getting sunburned should have different brain structures, different organs, fundamentally different distributions of hormones, or any other physical difference.

Yet

You cannot rule out that the amount of natural pigment, body structure, disease immunization/susceptibility, social tendencies etc. ARE biological, physiological and biochemical differences, whether huge or not. These differences can be taken to the genetic level as well. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What is biologically meaningful that some people with ancestors from areas with more sun exposure usually have darker skin? What's biologically meaninful about lumping them into five categories? (especially when there's hispanics lighter than me, and hispanics darker than most American blacks)

Social and cultural constructs, yes, biological significance? No. Even sickle cell, the most commonly cited example, is not in fact racial, it's tied to latitude and humidity of ancestral regions, so you have members of all "races" who have sickle cell issues, and you have members of all "races" who don't. I.e. the genetic propensity of Xhosa is about the same as that of Finns.

The "modern" concept of race originated with social issues (justification of slavery, and treating non-white populations as subhumans) before modern biology had progressed to considering any real reasons for population differences. It was all either they were sub-human savages, or God had punished them by making their skin black - after all, the entire human population was descended from two white people, so how could these other things exist? Then you morph that forward to the era of pseudosciences like phrenology, and that's the background that the notion of three or five races comes from.

What I'd like to see is that we acknowledge genetic differences as genetic differences, and we acknowledge cultural and social differences as cultural and social differences. In other words, we separate what is really physical (mostly of medical significance) from what is behavioral.

As you know, I see things differently. We could go over this again ad nauseam, but I doubt either of us will change their mind, so what's the point? I'd rather discuss other angles of the racial issue.

Such as...

If evidence arose that convinced you that you were wrong, and you realised that there are significant differences between the racial groups - do you think this would affect the way you treat people? Knowing that the differences are only average differences and say nothing about any particular individual, surely you would still treat others the same way you do now?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Several scientists believe it does, and so do many intelligence experts.

If there is any large-scale genetic component, which has never been shown (isolating it from culture and economics and other individual conditions is virtually impossible) intelligence as we measure it is a function of environment, i.e. people surviving in primitive conditions in radically different environments might have different mental abilities favored by natural selection, but if those differences exist at all, they should be extremely subtle. (not that much variation in primitive hunting techniques, a bit more in primitive shelter, and some variability for more specific than broad "race" categories as to how much socialization was a factor in survival, even though socialization abilities aren't part of traditionally measured intelligence)

I totally agree. It's not exactly an accomplishment to be born a certain way is it?

Not unless your a southerner.

Exactly. It's this kind of mentality that leads people to believe that all whites in the US should give money to blacks to pay for slavery.

That's not a "race" or genetic issue, that's a social issue (i.e. vote pandering, sponging and money-grubbing )

I don't see any harm, in the interests of science, in researching differences. Gaining a greater understanding of the human race can only be a good thing.

No harm at all, but researching actual measurable differences takes you from three or five "races" to thousands of genetically similar population groups occupying additional thousands of social contexts.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, what do you propose that we do about "the race problem?" Selective breeding to take maximum advantage of traits? Sounds a little too eugenic for me.

I don't have a problem with non-coercive eugenics. After all, eugenics is merely the science of improving the human gene pool. If people want to choose (without coercion) to improve their genes, I don't have a problem with that.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If there is any large-scale genetic component, which has never been shown (isolating it from culture and economics and other individual conditions is virtually impossible) intelligence as we measure it is a function of environment, i.e. people surviving in primitive conditions in radically different environments might have different mental abilities favored by natural selection, but if those differences exist at all, they should be extremely subtle. (not that much variation in primitive hunting techniques, a bit more in primitive shelter, and some variability for more specific than broad "race" categories as to how much socialization was a factor in survival, even though socialization abilities aren't part of traditionally measured intelligence)

Lets leave this for another thread eh?

Not unless your a southerner.

Or a New Zealander.

That's not a "race" or genetic issue, that's a social issue (i.e. vote pandering, sponging and money-grubbing )

Yep.

No harm at all, but researching actual measurable differences takes you from three or five "races" to thousands of genetically similar population groups occupying additional thousands of social contexts.

You know...I'm holding myself back from jumping into this discussion again because it's ultimately fruitless.

[Japher]

No harm at all, but researching actual measurable differences takes you from three or five "races" to thousands of genetically similar population groups occupying additional thousands of social contexts

One can acknowledge or embrase diversity without being a racist or labeling that race. I say we call people isotopes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher


Yet

You cannot rule out that the amount of natural pigment, body structure, disease immunization/susceptibility, social tendencies etc. ARE biological, physiological and biochemical differences, whether huge or not. These differences can be taken to the genetic level as well. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

I don't rule that out at all. I just disagree with the notion of a handful of arbitrary groups, and you whiteys go in this group, you darkies go in that one, and you in the middle go into those two. It's a human species of 6 billion individuals from thousands of gene pools (some shallower than others ) and thousands of physical environments and social structures, not a friggin' laundromat.

By the normal "race" classifications, my Norse and Scots ancestors are lumped into the same category as most Afghanis (For the other Afghanis, it depends on whether you have a separate "race" category for "Asians" in the Indian subcontinent, or lump them in as "Asians" or "Caucasians."

That's the sort of absurdity I object to. They're in the same category as me, although they're genetically more similar to central Asians, we're both genetically more similar to northern African caucasians (arabs and berbers, etc.) than to each other, and those northern African caucasions are genetically more similar to Ethiopean (blacks) than they are to our white Aghan or Norse-Scot-northern Kraut southern white boy asses. Yet we're lumped into "race" categories that contradict the relative level of genetic difference, which is miniscule in any event.

And our mitochondrial DNA indicates we're all black, just some of us went through the laundromat with too much hot water, so some of us have faded more than others.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher


One can acknowledge or embrase diversity without being a racist or labeling that race. I say we call people isotopes.

As long as we have enough of them, sure. Just get rid of the "five elements" nonsense and move on to the periodic table.

[Sandman]

Skin colour and facial topography cannot possibly have any physical link to intelligence, unless our understanding of neurology is seriously lacking. You think with your brain, not your skin.

Or would a low intelligence white person be 'mixed race', since low intelligence is supposedly a black trait?

[Japher]

Skin colour and facial topography cannot possibly have any physical link to intelligence, unless our understanding of neurology is seriously lacking. You think with your brain, not your skin.

I, nor anyone else, ever said anything to the contrary. We are saying, however, that if there is one very obvious difference could there not be other differences as well? There is a certain gene that regualtes the amount of peptin your body releases, what other effects does peptin play besides skin color? What about other genes? Are there smart genes?

It's funny how when some is growing slowly we give them hGH, what if people mature slower or have slower brain development? Wouldn't be nice to be able to help?

Yes, we currently do not relate this to race, but that does not mean to eliminate race as a factor. You can start making such assumptions so early in a study.