Dieoff starting in Africa

[UndercoverElephant]

+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).

What I have said about the human genome project and the history of Homo sapiens is scientifically non-controversial. I can't help it if you find it offensive. Some people find Darwinism offensive, and that's not my problem either.

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.

The above is a negative claim, not a positive claim. I did NOT say "there is scientific evidence to support the claim that the problems associated with black populations are significantly caused by genetic factors." I said "there is no scientific reason to believe that genetic factors are not involved" and I have offered circumstantial scientific evidence do support that view.

The available science does not support either the conclusion that genetics is significant or the conclusion that it is not. There is no direct scientific evidence. The circumstantial evidence can only tell us about how the different races are related to each other, and how genetically diverse certain populations are relative to the others.

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

If "latent racist" means "would be happy to legitimise discrimination against black people if he thought he could get away with it" then I am not a latent racist. I believe this would be unethical and cannot see what reasonable purpose it could possibly serve.

I certainly don't believe that whites are a "master race." I think the whole of humanity has failed in its opportunity to build a sustainable civilisation without wrecking the Earth's ecosystem, and that as a result, the whole of humanity is going to be thrown back into the process of natural selection - survival of the fittest. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out completely, evolution is going to have another go at shaping a hominid which can do better than we did. It was white Europeans who screwed up the planet, not Africans.

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

What do you think "racist" means, Biff?

If I say black people can, on average, run faster than non-blacks, is this racist?

[Ludwig]

+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).

I've had arguments with feminists about whether there are fundamental general temperamental differences between men and women. On this issue, unlike the issue of race, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that there are. Despite my pains to point out that I didn't think this made men better than women or vice versa, my comments were found offensive.

I can't speak for UE, but my argument is that, just as there are physical genetic differences between races, so there may be psychological ones. This is plain to see in domesticated animals, and if people refuse to entertain the possibility of it in humans, it can only be because the mere possibility makes them uncomfortable. I'm not making value judgments, I'm simply talking about differences.

Like it or not, human beings are not blank slates. My two nieces behaved completely differently from one another from the day they were born.

As usual, to ask the questions that most people don't gets you branded a lunatic or a sociopath.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Oh dear.

My earlier comments concerning legality were meant as a warning beacon. Comments posted on public forums live forever in Googleland.

Throw away the shovel gentlemen.

[Snail]

Domesticated animal have been purpously bred over many generations to maxamise certain desirable traits. Human beings have never been genetically bred in this way.

Saying blacks are, on average, faster runners IS racist. Simply as its a generalisation. West africans, for instance, have genes favouring sprinting. Eastern africans are better at distance running. Even this is a generalisation. They've evolved to suit their environment.

Which doesn't support the belief that blacks are less suited to adapt to the modern world. Like you said, lots of genetic difference exist between black people, as well as white or brown etc. The modern world hasn't existed for long, and all groups have evolved co-operative living. The last few thousand years isn't enough time for significant evolutuon.

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh dear.

My earlier comments concerning legality were meant as a warning beacon. Comments posted on public forums live forever in Googleland.

Throw away the shovel gentlemen.

If you think I have broken any laws then please inform the relevant authorities. They will tell you that you are wasting their time.

I am breaking some people's taboos, not any laws.

[UndercoverElephant]

Domesticated animal have been purpously bred over many generations to maxamise certain desirable traits. Human beings have never been genetically bred in this way.

That doesn't mean that speciation/diversification isn't taking place. Nobody purposely bred neanderthals to maximise certain traits. It just happened naturally.

Saying blacks are, on average, faster runners IS racist. Simply as its a generalisation. West africans, for instance, have genes favouring sprinting. Eastern africans are better at distance running. Even this is a generalisation. They've evolved to suit their environment.

Eh? So something is racist because it is a generalisation?? That's silly. It means that saying "black people have darker skins than white people" is racist. If that's racism then sure, I'm a racist.

Regards eastern africans and distance running, this is usually attributed to the fact that they live and train at high altitude, which gives them advantage both at altitude and at sea level.

Also, I've already explained why "black" is a misleading category because there are several "black" races, not just one.

Which doesn't support the belief that blacks are less suited to adapt to the modern world. Like you said, lots of genetic difference exist between black people, as well as white or brown etc. The modern world hasn't existed for long, and all groups have evolved co-operative living. The last few thousand years isn't enough time for significant evolutuon.

The differences between the different races of humans go back a lot further than "the last few thousand years." For example, the line leading to aboriginal Australians diverged from the rest of humanity as long as 70,000 years ago.

I think that many of the people accusing me of racism in this thread are doing so simply because I've raised the issue and I'm discussing it. Smacks of "thought police" to me.

[Ludwig]

Domesticated animal have been purpously bred over many generations to maxamise certain desirable traits. Human beings have never been genetically bred in this way.

That makes no difference. The "breeding", if you want to call it that, has been done by nature rather than artificially. Or do you think that the different body types of people in different parts of the world are some kind of optical illusion?

Saying blacks are, on average, faster runners IS racist.

Oh dear oh dear. How far from common sense we have strayed.

Simply as its a generalisation. West africans, for instance, have genes favouring sprinting. Eastern africans are better at distance running. Even this is a generalisation. They've evolved to suit their environment.

What difference does it make where you draw the genetic distinctions?

How can you talk in anything other than generalisations when you are discussing genetic groups of people?

No doubt you would accuse me of sexism for arguing that men are, on average, more aggressive than women, and women are more nurturing than men? This is not to suggest that there are not aggressive women and nurturing men, but I guess for you the exception disproves the rule?

Which doesn't support the belief that blacks are less suited to adapt to the modern world. Like you said, lots of genetic difference exist between black people, as well as white or brown etc. The modern world hasn't existed for long, and all groups have evolved co-operative living. The last few thousand years isn't enough time for significant evolutuon.

I would not go so far as UE does in claiming that black people might be less adapted to the modern world. I'm not even saying I think there necessarily are major temperamental differences between races. But I'm not going to pretend that the issues UE raises haven't crossed my mind as well. Haiti, which has a mostly African population, is a hellhole of tribal warfare, while the adjacent, mostly Hispanic Dominican Republic is a not-totally-unstable country with a not-altogether-bad record of tackling environmental and social problems in a sensible (if sometimes very hard-headed) way. The very possibility that there might be a genetic aspect to this makes me very uncomfortable, but I am quite prepared to feel uncomfortable rather than deceive myself that certain questions have never crossed my mind.

Perhaps there is no genetic component, It seems quite plausible that the factors are entirely cultural and environmental. But I don't know that, and the sin here seems to lie merely in asking the question.

[Snail]

I meant that until relatively recently, different groups lived in a similar, pre-civilisation way. In tribes etc.

I think people started mentioning racism because you seem to be using science to explain why african countries are largely failures. Which is fine, except for the fact you've started, or appeared to, to generalise about 'black' people. You mightn't have stated anything, but your comments followed older comments, and people read between the lines. It's okay discussing things and asking questions but your comment was posted in a provocative way. Generalising about large numbers of people is provocative/risky if you follow that generalisation with a negative.

Tapping this on phone, so hope this sounds o.k.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think people started mentioning racism because you seem to be using science to explain why african countries are largely failures.

No, it's not quite that simple. I can understand why it might have looked that way to somebody who wasn't following it very carefully, or doubted my motives, but I didn't say that science can explain these failures. There are multiple causes, and there's a lack of relevant science.

Which is fine, except for the fact you've started, or appeared to, to generalise about 'black' people. You mightn't have stated anything, but your comments followed older comments, and people read between the lines.

That's exactly the problem. People are reading between the lines, but I'm not in control of what they are finding between the lines, because I didn't put it there. I'm not a racist. I'm an uber-doomer fundamentalist green who is interested in the origins and fate of the human race, and who can't stand political correctness and lies. If I joined the BNP, I suspect the members would also be horrified by some of the things I believe.

It's okay discussing things and asking questions but your comment was posted in a provocative way. Generalising about large numbers of people is provocative/risky if you follow that generalisation with a negative.

Is there anything inherently wrong with acting in a provocative/risky way?
Is there anything inherently wrong with generalising?

I think Ludwig's comment is a good summary:

The very possibility that there might be a genetic aspect to this makes me very uncomfortable, but I am quite prepared to feel uncomfortable rather than deceive myself that certain questions have never crossed my mind.

Like Ludwig, I'd always rather feel uncomfortable about something rather than deceive myself. Unlike Ludwig, I care more about the fate of the non-human ecosystem than I do about the fate of the majority of humanity. We both believe civilisation is doomed, but I guess I feel more angry towards humans in general about this, whereas Ludwig feels pity.

[RogueMale]

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.

There's a good chance that the modern world isn't going to be around for very much longer, so being less able to adapt to it might not be much of a problem.

It's nurture and nature.

It may well be, but you can't decouple the two cleanly, as I've already explained in previous posts.

[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.

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.

I'm not a geneticist. I do have a lot of background in this. My relevant academic credentials don't go beyond three science A-levels and a degree in philosophy and cognitive science, which included relevant modules taught by the biology department including genetics and evolution. I've always been fascinated by evolution and human evolution in particular. For me, the human genome project was a bit like the Voyager grand tour of the outer planets - an amazing one-off scientific journey of discovery.

So no, I'm not a PhD expert in genetics, but I don't think I have to be. Genetics does get very complicated, but none of the things I've claimed in the name of science in this thread is particularly complicated, or scientifically controversial. The controversy is to do with ethics, politics, psychology and society, not science.

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

There's a good chance that the modern world isn't going to be around for very much longer, so being less able to adapt to it might not be much of a problem.

Agreed.

[Snail]

Fair enough ue and ludwig. we've all asked ourselves difficult questions from time to time. Why did haiti experience such chaos/looting/violence but Japananese so calm and peaceful. What annoyed me is the lack of response to your scientific musings. Much more knowledgable people on this forum than me yet no-one wanted to 'take you on' or even to discuss what you were saying. Just agreement or disagreement(not even that) but no real use of science to support their viewpoint if you know what i mean. I've only read pop science books, so hardly an expert. Given time, i could probably put up a convincing counter-point. I'll definetely start learning more about it. But this is a large forum, so why didn't someone else with the knowlede already?

I view myself as an individual. I've been 'grouped' before and don't like it. That's one of the reasons i view myself as an outsider.

Using the term 'black' is usually divisive. Especially as white/black/yellow don't really exist as seperate groupings.

I think you're wrong, and genetics isn't sufficient to explain african failure. It seems more simple and realistic for me to lay the blame on Western exploitation, rather than genetics. Genetics is a science which even scientists don't know much about. So when i see it used to forward an argument, i get worried.

I don't think you or anyone is a racist, i never even said the word. But its a touchy subject. and touchy subjects should be treated with caution. if you're not an expert in genetics, i don't think you should use it so confidentially. Nothing wrong with giving an opinion, as long as you're careful. You weren't as careful as you could have been, imo.

When i say expert i mean someone who keeps up-to-date with all the research/conclusions etc. Just read you're above post. You obviously do.