Dieoff starting in Africa

[Ludwig]

It is not safe to leap to any hasty conclusions from the above data. The way humans behave is at least as dependent on cultural heritage (nurture) as it is on genes (nature.) There are also ecosystem-related reasons why civilisation did not arise first in sub-saharan Africa (e.g. problems associated with tropical diseases/parasites and the non-domesticability of animals which evolved to fear humans). It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world. It's nurture and nature.

I assumed that was what you meant. And though I wouldn't express it as provocatively as you do, I actually largely agree with you. Why should humans be any different from dogs or horses in having different characteristics between "breeds"? I'm not saying I know this to be the case, but it is wrong to claim that the question isn't scientifically valid. Whether - as James Watson said - we should actively research the genetic basis for things like intelligence between different races is perhaps another matter. Personally I think science should leave this particular subject alone, because I can't think of any applications of the knowledge that wouldn't be negative.

That all said, education and upbringing are of prime importance. Uneducated and undisciplined white people are just as much savages as primitive Africans, as one can see in this country without looking too far.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I'm pretty sure simply discussing the existence of races in the context of better than/worse than is racism.

I'm also pretty sure that would be a criminal offence under the guise publishing or distributing racist materials.

[Ludwig]

I'm pretty sure simply discussing the existence of races in the context of better than/worse than is racism.

It depends what you mean by "better than/worse than". Despite what you perhaps think, nobody is less racist than me. I think all people are of equal worth. But I'm not going to say I am certain that there are no genetic temperamental differences between races, because I'm not, and neither are you.

This is a scientific question, not a moral one. And as I said, I happen to think science should leave this question alone. I wouldn't say that if I were racist. But I won't deny that there is a question, even if it were to be answered negatively.

I'm also pretty sure that would be a criminal offence under the guise publishing or distributing racist materials.

Well, I don't know. "Racism" is a pretty elastic term. I hesitated about replying to UE's post because this is such an incendiary issue, but I'm also prone to saying what I think because I'm confident enough that my intentions are not malign.

By all means say as subject is off-limits because it might offend too many people, but don't pretend that such a banning of discussion of a subject is based on science rather than emotional factors.

James Watson says that he would be uncomfortable with any evidence that there were significant mental differences between races. He says that shouldn't stop us from looking into the matter; I differ from him, I think there are limits to what science should investigate. But all we're doing here is discussing it on an Internet forum.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm pretty sure simply discussing the existence of races in the context of better than/worse than is racism.

I did not use any generalised forms of "better" or "worse". I said "better adapted to modern civilisation." I could equally have said that the black races are better at running fast, which is a non-controversial, scientifically-explained fact. It is not racism (against non-blacks) to say that blacks can run faster. It's just the way things happen to be.

Racism is discrimination based on race. I am advocating no such thing.

I'm also pretty sure that would be a criminal offence under the guise publishing or distributing racist materials.

Well, it isn't. Not unless you want to criminalise scientists for doing their job.

[Lord Beria3]

JavaScriptDonkey - your an absolute disgrace! UE is talking about scientific advances in the understanding of our genetics, that has NOTHING to do with race.

[UndercoverElephant]

JavaScriptDonkey - your an absolute disgrace! UE is talking about scientific advances in the understanding of our genetics, that has NOTHING to do with race.

It has plenty to do with race, but that doesn't make it racism. If there are significant genetic differences between races then that is a scientifically-establishable fact which has nothing to do with ethics. It becomes an ethical question, and racism, when the suggestion is made that these genetic differences are a legitimate basis for discriminating against individuals based on their race.

I am not discriminating against anyone based upon race. I would take exactly the same attitude as I have done in this thread with respect to what is happening in the horn of Africa at the moment if it was happening anywhere else on the planet where people have been reproducing at a wildly unsustainable rate. I don't care what colour people's skin is. I care about how many extra humans they have added to the population. I do not believe humans have any right to have seven or eight children, and I have no sympathy for anybody who does this and then has to watch those children die of starvation.

[Snail]

JavaScriptDonkey - your an absolute disgrace! UE is talking about scientific advances in the understanding of our genetics, that has NOTHING to do with race.

Sorry, but unless UE is a scientist with expert up-to-date knowledge in genetics then he shouldn't be saying anything, especially with the confident air he has done. This issue is too emotive and even dangerous for the enthusiastic amateur to shoot opinions from the hip. I'm not an expert, but know enough to understand genetics is very complex and a science that is constantly changing and evolving. Apologies if UE is a genetic scientist.

[AndySir]

It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world. It's nurture and nature.

This is not science. This is racism trying to masquerade a science. Behavioural genetics is limited at the moment to case studies on twins. There is no evidence for genetics affecting political behaviour, not even the first glimmers. Any attempt to suggest that is starting with the conclusion.

I have logged back in here for the last time as I was completely disgusted to see not only these comments, but the lack of the immediate, strong condemnation from the board members that I would have expected. This kind of pseudo-scientific speculation has no place on this board, much less in the context of the slow, tortuous death from starvation of tens of thousands. The ban hammer must be wielded if this forum is to survive in any recognisable form. Even then that will be too little, too late for me.

[biffvernon]

But I think Biff's outright refusal to lay any of the blame on the people of Africa for the suffering of Africans is not realistic.

Oh do stop being silly. I've never refused anything of the sort. It's just stating the bleedin' obvious that many African nations are run by corrupt idiots. We all know that. And the weather can be dreadful. Africa has the world's biggest desert. The point I've made is that a great deal of the responsibility for the state of Africa should be laid outside that continent, colonialism of both the old-fashioned and modern variety is not always easy to recognise. Most of Africa's problems can be traced back to European and American origins, even though bad weather and bad governance appear to be the proximal causes.

[Snail]

It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world. It's nurture and nature.

This is not science. This is racism trying to masquerade a science. Behavioural genetics is limited at the moment to case studies on twins. There is no evidence for genetics affecting political behaviour, not even the first glimmers. Any attempt to suggest that is starting with the conclusion.

I have logged back in here for the last time as I was completely disgusted to see not only these comments, but the lack of the immediate, strong condemnation from the board members that I would have expected. This kind of pseudo-scientific speculation has no place on this board, much less in the context of the slow, tortuous death from starvation of tens of thousands. The ban hammer must be wielded if this forum is to survive in any recognisable form. Even then that will be too little, too late for me.

I agree, the lack of response is troubling. There must be knowledgeable forum members who've read the above comments.

[nexus]

+1 to what Andy said

I have read what UE, Ludwig and Beria have written and it has no basis in science (and is properly offensive to boot).

For example UE wrote:

It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world. It's nurture and nature.

UE - show us some peer reviewed science for this ridiculous assertion.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world. It's nurture and nature.

This is not science. This is racism trying to masquerade a science.

It is neither science nor racism. I've explained exactly what science I'm referring to and I've also explained, very clearly. that no hasty conclusions should be drawn from that science. What you have quoted above is opinion, and not based purely on science. It's not racism because I have quite explicitly stated that there is no justification for discriminating against any individual based upon race.

Behavioural genetics is limited at the moment to case studies on twins.

I have not referred to any behavioural genetics.

There is no evidence for genetics affecting political behaviour, not even the first glimmers. Any attempt to suggest that is starting with the conclusion.

I never said there was any evidence for genetics affecting political behaviour. All I have provided is what might be described as "circumstantial evidence". I have not claimed that I have scientific evidence to support the belief that genetics affects political behaviour. What I have claimed is that there is no evidence to support the opposite - that there is no justification for claiming that genetics is not relevant.

Most of the science that could theoretically have shed some light on these issues has never been done.

I have logged back in here for the last time as I was completely disgusted to see not only these comments, but the lack of the immediate, strong condemnation from the board members that I would have expected.

Perhaps they aren't reading things into what I've posted which aren't actually there.

This kind of pseudo-scientific speculation has no place on this board, much less in the context of the slow, tortuous death from starvation of tens of thousands. The ban hammer must be wielded if this forum is to survive in any recognisable form. Even then that will be too little, too late for me.

So you are demanding that I am banned from this board for pointing out that it is a myth that all humans are genetically equal?

How bizarre.

Many, probably most, of the people who post on this board are expecting/fearing the slow, tortuous death from starvation of millions, possibly billions. If you're troubled by this debate, I suggest you stay away from this board, because things are going to get a lot nastier than this.

Oh...and it's odd that you should be demanding that I am banned just one week after I had a big dispute with you about a totally unrelated topic.

[Ludwig]

This is not science. This is racism trying to masquerade a science. Behavioural genetics is limited at the moment to case studies on twins. There is no evidence for genetics affecting political behaviour, not even the first glimmers. Any attempt to suggest that is starting with the conclusion.

I don't know whether UE is a latent racist or not. As I said, the tone of his comments, if not their content, left a sour taste in my mouth. But to argue that merely to debate whether there might be innate temperamental differences between races is invalid, is political correctness masquerading as science.

I'm not sure I want to commit myself to taking UE's side here, because there were undertones to his comments that troubled me somewhat. But neither am I going to side with those who say this is not a valid scientific question.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world. It's nurture and nature.

This is not science. This is racism trying to masquerade a science. Behavioural genetics is limited at the moment to case studies on twins. There is no evidence for genetics affecting political behaviour, not even the first glimmers. Any attempt to suggest that is starting with the conclusion.

I have logged back in here for the last time as I was completely disgusted to see not only these comments, but the lack of the immediate, strong condemnation from the board members that I would have expected. This kind of pseudo-scientific speculation has no place on this board, much less in the context of the slow, tortuous death from starvation of tens of thousands. The ban hammer must be wielded if this forum is to survive in any recognisable form. Even then that will be too little, too late for me.

I agree, the lack of response is troubling. There must be knowledgeable forum members who've read the above comments.

Perhaps they have read them and realise that what I am saying is not racism, even if it happens to be highly controversial. I believe a lot of controversial things, Snailed Off. For example, I believe it would be a good thing if six billion humans died of an extremely aggressive virus next year. I think die-off is inevitable, and that the sooner/faster it happens, the better.

[biffvernon]

I didn't respond to the obviously racist comment as I hoped it would be removed by the moderators before anyone drew attention to it. I thought it must have been an accidental result of eating too much of the wrong sort of mushroom. As you know, I like to think the best of people.