Migrant watch (merged topic)

[AutomaticEarth]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 75989.html

More dead migrants/refugees......

[biffvernon]

Oh yes, David Wheatley was brilliant and this film would be well worth re-broadcasting.

[3rdRock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 75989.html

More dead migrants/refugees......

AE, thank you for continuing to draw our attention to the latest news on migration into Europe and for resisting the temptation to vilify these poor, unfortunate people.

[3rdRock]

Oh yes, David Wheatley was brilliant and this film would be well worth re-broadcasting.

It is rumoured that the film has been censored by the United Nations - because it casts them in a bad light re: the migration of Africans into Europe.

[jonny2mad]

Migrants or refugees? Language is important.

They could be both. 'Migrant' refers to somebody who moves; 'refugees' are a subset of migrants, the word implying a motive for the movement.

+1. Does anyone else remember a prophetic BBC film made by David Wheatley in 1990?

'The March - We are poor because you are rich'.

Well worth watching - while you still have a chance.

This film has been withdrawn - no VHS or DVD is currently available even though this was one of the most expensive films ever made by the BBC.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpUVHQu8-xY

Well the med hasnt dried up yet, and the we are poor because you are rich is nonsense. Africa before european contact didnt have the wheel . if you look at national IQ that will tell you why africa is poor .

If a person scores below 70 on a I.Q. test, he or she is in the bottom 2 percent of the American population and meets the first condition necessary to be defined as having mental retardation.

Australian aboriginals have a average IQ of 62 for example most african IQ's are under 70's going down to a average of 59 in one country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_th ... of_Nations


http://www.photius.com/rankings/nationa ... ranks.html

[jonny2mad]

28 Zambia 79
29 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 78
29 Nepal 78
29 Qatar 78
30 Comoros 77
30 South Africa 77
31 Cape Verde 76
31 Congo, Republic of the 76
31 Mauritania 76
31 Senegal 76
32 Mali 74
32 Namibia 74
33 Ghana 73
34 Tanzania 72
35 Central African Republic 71
35 Grenada 71
35 Jamaica 71
35 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 71
35 Sudan 71
36 Antigua and Barbuda 70
36 Benin 70
36 Botswana 70
36 Rwanda 70
36 Togo 70
37 Burundi 69
37 Cote d'Ivoire 69
37 Ethiopia 69
37 Malawi 69
37 Niger 69
38 Angola 68
38 Burkina Faso 68
38 Chad 68
38 Djibouti 68
38 Somalia 68
38 Swaziland 68
39 Dominica 67
39 Guinea 67
39 Guinea-Bissau 67
39 Haiti 67
39 Lesotho 67
39 Liberia 67
39 Saint Kitts and Nevis 67
39 Sao Tome and Principe 67
40 Gambia, The 66
41 Cameroon 64
41 Gabon 64
41 Mozambique 64
42 Saint Lucia 62
43 Equatorial Guinea 59

notice anything about the lowest IQ's in the world if you gathered up people with IQ's of 59 in the uk and then put them in a country how well do you think they would do ?

[3rdRock]

When you discriminate against anyone, you discriminate against everyone.

It's a display of terrible intolerance.

[the_lyniezian]

To suppose that IQ is responsible for poverty seems to me to suggest that the possibility of it being the reverse is not being considered. Could poor diet be leading to lack of brain development? Could lack of education imply the mind is not properly stimulated in order to develope the correct thinking skills? And so on. Can anyone enlighten me?

[biffvernon]

Migrants or refugees? Language is important.

They could be both. 'Migrant' refers to somebody who moves; 'refugees' are a subset of migrants, the word implying a motive for the movement.

But more important is why we have created conditions in which these people could not catch a train like we can.

https://www.change.org/p/request-bbc-us ... ant-crisis

We kindly request that the BBC use the term Refugee Crisis instead of Migrant Crisis when referring to the current crisis in Europe. The word Migrant is not an accurate description in any English language dictionary. Only by properly describing the problem can we correctly address it and find a real solution. One word can make all the difference.

Why the BBC?

The BBC is one of the world’s most influential and respected news sources and it is not appropriate that they misreport on the current crisis in Europe. By asking them to use the correct word hopefully other news agencies will follow their example.

Why the word Refugee?

All the prominent English language dictionaries define a migrant as someone who moves from one country to another in search of work and better living standards. A refugee, on the other hand, is defined as someone who is forced to leave their country in order to escape war and persecution. It is evident that almost all these people are fleeing war-torn regions, particularly the current war in Syria.

Why is wording important?

As the author Barry Malone writes: "It is not hundreds of people who drown when a boat goes down in the Mediterranean, nor even hundreds of refugees. It is hundreds of migrants. It is not a person – like you, filled with thoughts and history and hopes – who is on the tracks delaying a train. It is a migrant. A nuisance."

The term migrant does not properly describe the horror currently unfolding in the Mediterranean. Nor does it properly describe these people’s motivation for risking their lives to cross the sea or try to pass under the channel tunnel. It dehumanizes. Only by saying what it really is, a Refugee Crisis, can we have any hope of understanding the issue and finding a real, long-term and humane solution.

[the_lyniezian]

I think the term "migrant" is apt, in the sense that none of them have been awarded legal refugee status until their case has been accepted anyway, and it is not proven that some are not simply economic migrants taking advantage of the crisis to get into Europe easily. Or, worse still, militants undercover seeking to to perpetrate attacks within Europe, though some experts have claimed this is unlikely.

"Migrant" is not perjorative, it is a neutral term used to describe one who is migrating, who is travelling from one place to another in order for more than a mere flying visit.

[Little John]

To suppose that IQ is responsible for poverty seems to me to suggest that the possibility of it being the reverse is not being considered. Could poor diet be leading to lack of brain development? Could lack of education imply the mind is not properly stimulated in order to develope the correct thinking skills? And so on. Can anyone enlighten me?

It's both. But, make no mistake, there is a heritable component to IQ. In the UK and other Western countries, 60% of the variance in IQ can be said to be heritable. Whereas, it is more or less the obverse for personality traits. In countries where relatively larger sections of the population are malnourished/undernourished we might expect a greater proportion of the variance in IQ to be environmentally driven. However, even so, the average difference in IQ between populations whose primary genetic heritage is African as compared to Caucasian, is sufficiently great as to be not fully explainable in environmental term, even given differences of nourishment. Like it or not, the bald fact is that people of African descent, both those living in Africa as well as those who have lived in Western countries for a number of generations, are statistically likely to be an average of 15 IQ points lower than people of Caucasian descent. I make no moral, economic or other inference from this. I simply state it as an indisputable statistical fact.

It also is very much worth emphasising that these are statistics relating to averages of populations. The fact is, there is massive overlap of such populations in terms of IQ. But, the highest, say, 20% of the combined IQ distribution will be predominantly non African descent people and the lowest, say, 20% will be predominantly African descent people.

Do I think this means, as people like J2M undoubtedly thinks it means, that such people are somehow less entitled to and capable of life love and happiness? The answer is no, of course not. There will always be variance on any number traits in any human population and this natural variation is just part of what makes up the human population. If we have an economic system such that, unless one's IQ is over, say 100, then one is condemned to a grinding life of poverty, then the problem lies in the system that fosters such conditions of life, not with the individuals who are forced to suffer under those conditions.

Finally, under the capitalist system there will always be a portion of the population who will be in poverty. To "blame" those who must exist in it is to miss the point that if they were to be all magically removed from the system, they would be economically replaced in short order by those that lay directly above them in the socio economic strata.

[UndercoverElephant]

To suppose that IQ is responsible for poverty seems to me to suggest that the possibility of it being the reverse is not being considered. Could poor diet be leading to lack of brain development? Could lack of education imply the mind is not properly stimulated in order to develope the correct thinking skills? And so on. Can anyone enlighten me?

The reality is that it is so politically-incorrect to even consider that genetically-determined differences in IQ might be an important contributory factor to why some parts of the world are suffering more severe societal problems than others, that the suggestion is usually rejected without ever being properly evaluated.

IMO, there is enough evidence pointing to this being the case that it is reasonable to believe it, regardless of how politically incorrect it is. The bulk of human evolution took place in Africa - that is a scientific fact. Then at some point over the last 150,000 to 200,000 years, (a) small group(s) of proto-modern humans left Africa and colonised the rest of the world. Why did all the major civilisations, and eventually modern civilisation, arise in the other parts of the world, while sub-saharan Africa remained firmly locked in the Stone Age? There must be an answer to that question, but how often do you hear it asked, or answers suggested? And why did modern civilisation take off 10,000 years ago, and not at some other point in the previous 100,000?

One thing to consider is how relatively small differences in average IQ (genetically determined) might make to the emergent behaviour of whole societies. 10 or 15 points in IQ doesn't sound like much of a difference when you are talking about comparing two individuals, but what about when it is the whole tribe, or the whole civilisation?

It seems to me that there's a very obvious theory available, but nobody is willing to articulate it for fear of being branded a racist. The theory is that the group of humans who left Africa were slightly more adaptible, because they were slightly more intelligent, and that this slight advantage, multiplied over a whole society, meant modern humans passed a "tipping point" where complex civilisation became possible. And when that form of civilisation was imposed later on the population of sub-saharan Africa, it didn't quite work, because - and there's no politically correct way of saying this - they just weren't and aren't quite up to it, biologically.

There's nothing scientifically controversial about this sort of theory. If it concerned any species other than humans then scientists would happily be considering it, talking about it and seeing if it could be fleshed out and improved upon, or at the very least they'd be providing scientific reasons for rejecting it. But because it is so politically unacceptable, not only is none of that happening, but no scientist would risk saying anything remotely like it in public.

Regardless of that, if something like this is true then it will, eventually, make a big difference to what happens, where it happens, and when it happens.

[jonny2mad]

in 2007 nobel prize winner Dr Watson one of the people who discovered DNA told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

He lost his job, he couldnt give lectures, they wanted to take him to court and jail him he sold his gold nobel medal for money this is a man in his 80s .

And he had to not fight his corner, which he could have done but instead back down, otherwise he would have ended up in court and jail .

So much for science. You have one of the most successful scientists of all time. And he can't state a politically incorrect statement even though factual, without being fired and maybe getting jailed for some sort of race crime.

This would make me think hmm maybe everything I am being told is a pack of lies, because telling the truth isnt in fashion .

if you have what third rock and biff want you would basically retard the IQ of the people of this country, if you import millions of people with a much lower IQ to a country, and IQ is inherited which it largely is your going to make the children of that country less intelligent .

Which is what we have been doing

This really is not rocket science mix two groups of people one with a average IQ of 59 with a group of people with IQ of 100 on average, and your going to get IQ scores closer to the middle which will be less than if the people with the average IQ of 100 had kept seperate .

I'm sure there is a cocktail of chemicals a person could drink to make their child and that childs children more stupid or you could have a child with someone with a really low IQ . yup thats a smart thing to do for the sake of equality and such like .

if you keep your populations largely seperate, you would still have countrys with people intelligent enough to develop hi tech , I think again if you look at invention there is a link to IQ .

[vtsnowedin]

And why did modern civilisation take off 10,000 years ago, and not at some other point in the previous 100,000?

One thing to consider is how relatively small differences in average IQ (genetically determined) might make to the emergent behaviour of whole societies. 10 or 15 points in IQ doesn't sound like much of a difference when you are talking about comparing two individuals, but what about when it is the whole tribe, or the whole civilisation?

I would look at the end of the ice age 10 to 12 thousand years ago as a most likely trigger.
Also I would consider that the IQs of a given population would be distributed in a statistical bell curve with the bulk near average and a few extreme out layers in both directions. Plot the curve of two groups side by side and they will overlap by a lot with the smartest of the lower group well ahead of the average of the smart group.
Perhaps advancing into the north before the end of the ice age proposed challenges that winnowed out those less adaptable increasing the chances of smart mating with smart. while those left in Africa has more stable climate and food sources and big dumb jock got all the females year after year.
But no matter the cause, people are all different and you can't make their outcomes all equal. As long as there is equal "Opportunity" that allows everyone to show how smart and ambitious they are through their efforts we will have done as much as can be done.

[biffvernon]

This is not an English newspaper's front page. Obvioulsy.



http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9220395/ge ... ant-crisis