Genetic Superiority: Explaining Equality in Material Processes

[Les Sleeth]

Okay, today is a clearing-out day. I posted one thread about an unresolved question that came up in a thread . . . here's another.

Those who say humans are wholly a product of evolution, genetic programming and conditioning nonetheless seem to insist that the varieties humans come in -- races, gender, nose shape, boob/thingy size etc. -- are not contrary to some supposed principle of equality inherent in humanity. Consider these comments from the thread, Nature or Nurture?:

"When they have experienced one alleged scientist [beginning] a discussion by rationally talking about genetic differences between races, and winding up by saying blacks are inferior to whites, they are not going to wait for the next geneticist to finish. That next geneticist may very well be discussing the dangers of sickle-cell anemia, but as soon as he starts discussing genetic, racial differences, the audience smells racism and his message fails to reach them. It is wrong. It is unfortunate. It is also very understandable. Combatting this mentality requires not just education in science, but also education in human nature."

After reading that I said:

"What I don't understand is how someone can be certain there aren't superior races if he/she believes that humans are entirely a product of material processes. In that view, the universe hasn't guaranteed equality between the races, and there is nothing special about humanity over any other physical manifestation in creation. So why then couldn't the Black race be utterly inferior to the White race, or men superior to women, or any other twist evolution wants to give life?"


Would anyone care to explain why equality should be assumed if one believes only material processes have brought us about?

 

[Zero]

Jeez, we aren't a racist, are we?


First off, skin color doesn't make someone a mamber of a different species. This whole thing is like linking 'superiority' to shoe sixe or hair color.

Secondly, you would have to define 'superior' objectively...good luck!

 

[wuliheron]

First off, skin color doesn't make someone a mamber of a different species. This whole thing is like linking 'superiority' to shoe sixe or hair color.

Secondly, you would have to define 'superior' objectively...good luck!

Actually, I know of one such case from personal experience. My kids are of european Jewish decent on their mother's side of the family. European Jews were segregated for centuries in small ghettos and inbred as a result. My kids' mother was determined to not continue this inbreeding and to this day Jews of european descent are encouraged to at least get tested for Taysack's (sp?) disease before marrying or having children.

Similarly, sickle cell annemia is thought to be an african genetic adaptation to malaria. With modern medicine such an adaptation is no longer necessary and can be lifethreatening. Therefore, in some sense you could argue that certain races do have genetic superiority in the modern world. At least, as far as inheritable diseases are concerned.

 

[FZ+]

What I don't understand is how someone can be certain there aren't superior races if he/she believes that humans are entirely a product of material processes. In that view, the universe hasn't guaranteed equality between the races, and there is nothing special about humanity over any other physical manifestation in creation. So why then couldn't the Black race be utterly inferior to the White race, or men superior to women, or any other twist evolution wants to give life?

Because superiority in terms of evolution is not an absolute measure, but rather is dependent on the environments we live in. Superiority in this way, in the game of natural selection, is based on survivability. While, say black skin is useful in places of high solar radiation, white skin may be useful in the more northern areas. Thus, evolutionarily, white people are more survivable than blacks in the north, and vice versa around the equator. This hence does not translate to one race being "better" than the other, but rather shows how the individuality and variation of mankind came about. Everybody is well adapted to their respective environments, and absolutist concepts like superiority can not arise scientifically. So, the idea of "nothing special" special about humanity, which you used, also means there is "nothing special" about men, or whites, or whatever.

And overall, the degree of variation amongst races, and between men and women is very small. When you decide superiority, you can only decide subjectively. So while you may consider men to be superior to women etc, the concept does not exist in nature. And the method of preventing racism is to change the subjective criteria with which you decide human superiority to things that we have in common, like intelligence, shown scientifically to be independent of race, rather than skin colour. That's the only way modern society can continue in stability, with our cherished values intact.

Equality, superiority and inferiority don't exist in genetics. Subjective equality isn't an assumption. It is a goal to change the way we judge equality to make subjective equality a fact.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Jeez, we aren't a racist, are we?

No Zero, there's not a trace of that in me. My question is a practical one aimed at materialist philosophy. I believe it was last summer that some scientist proclaimed Blacks were of inferior intelligence. I don't think he was racist, but had come to that conclusion through his studies. The rest of the scientific community rose up against his hypothesis, but I remember thinking then that if we are just evolved matter, then why couldn't he be correct?

It seemed to me that the resistance and even outrage at the idea might have been our true human nature stepping up. Maybe we do have some sort of soul, for example, that at the core of our being makes us equal in the truest sense; and maybe that is why when someone tries to develop a philosophy harmful to humanity it is resisted. Of course, one could explain it in terms of survival of the species too.

Originally posted by Zero
First off, skin color doesn't make someone a mamber of a different species. This whole thing is like linking 'superiority' to shoe sixe or hair color. Secondly, you would have to define 'superior' objectively...good luck!

I wasn't talking about something so superficial as skin color, but I agree "superior" needs to be defined.

Let's say "superior" means better adapted. So the above scientist's view that Blacks intelligence is inferior to other races would means it isn't capable of operating as effectively (I repeat, I don't buy any of that, whether it is race or gender or whatever).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because superiority in terms of evolution is not an absolute measure, but rather is dependent on the environments we live in. Superiority in this way, in the game of natural selection, is based on survivability. While, say black skin is useful in places of high solar radiation, white skin may be useful in the more northern areas. Thus, evolutionarily, white people are more survivable than blacks in the north, and vice versa around the equator. This hence does not translate to one race being "better" than the other, but rather shows how the individuality and variation of mankind came about. Everybody is well adapted to their respective environments, and absolutist concepts like superiority can not arise scientifically. So, the idea of "nothing special" special about humanity, which you used, also means there is "nothing special" about men, or whites, or whatever.

And overall, the degree of variation amongst races, and between men and women is very small. When you decide superiority, you can only decide subjectively. So while you may consider men to be superior to women etc, the concept does not exist in nature. And the method of preventing racism is to change the subjective criteria with which you decide human superiority to things that we have in common, like intelligence, shown scientifically to be independent of race, rather than skin colour. That's the only way modern society can continue in stability, with our cherished values intact.

Equality, superiority and inferiority don't exist in genetics. Subjective equality isn't an assumption. It is a goal to change the way we judge equality to make subjective equality a fact.

Good points, especially since you wrote this before I defined "superior" (read my post to Zero).

Yet to some degree you make the case that some segment of humanity might indeed evolve characteristics which are better adapted than other segments. Since intelligence is on that what's-evolved list, then why couldn't some segment have higher intelligence, and other segments lower? And if this were accepted, then why wouldn't policies regarding hiring, education, etc. then be based on such scientific findings? (Although I do see and agree with your point that, "And the method of preventing racism is to change the subjective criteria with which you decide human superiority to things that we have in common, like intelligence, shown scientifically to be independent of race, rather than skin colour. That's the only way modern society can continue in stability, with our cherished values intact.")

 

[FZ+]

Since intelligence is on that what's-evolved list, then why couldn't some segment have higher intelligence, and other segments lower?

No reason, except that all races should have the same evolutionary pressure for intelligence. Remember that geographically, genetically and in terms of natural selection the entire human race was very localised until very recently, only a few million years. Even after mankind spread to take over the world, more or less, it is just as advantageous to be smart and black, and smart and white. And hence, any sort of divergence in this region is simply due to random action.
Of course, this doesn't mean there are no such variations across races. Indeed there are. But statistical studies (and that's all we have in the abscence of discovery of an intelligence gene) show that in this category at least, there is as far as we can tell no difference. Without such a link between intelligence and race, all such discrimination have no scientific basis.

But it's tougher when there IS some difference between races. Then the morality becomes more strained. Let's take lung capacity. As you may know, people from high-lying areas tend to have a larger lung capacity than those from lowland regions. Part of this has indeed been shown to be genetic, though of course exercise and living in low air pressure regions can offset that. So what happens about this? In certain athletic sports, people from the alps say do have an advantage over people without. Should we then enact discrimination?
The way most modern societies deal with this sort of situation is that they ignore it. They neither use negative discimination, nor positive discrimination. They let each athlete preform as they would. Such racial differences are assumed to be within the tolerances of individual variation. Few such athletes are around anyway, so overall we get away with it. But innately, the world is not fair.

So yes, the possibility of there being a scientific grounding for racial discrimination does exist, and some races can turn out to be better at certain jobs than others. But fortunately, in this world, that is generally not the case. An assumption of equality is fortunately not too naive, and indeed is necessary as geographical barriers of the world breaks down. But if we were unlucky enough to be in a scenario where mankind has truly diverged to such an extent that such specialisation is apparent, then society would have to make some tough decisions. The whole structure of society may be drastically different.
Read Huxley's Brave New World or Wells' The Time Machine?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
No reason, except that all races should have the same evolutionary pressure for intelligence. Remember that geographically, genetically and in terms of natural selection the entire human race was very localised until very recently, only a few million years. Even after mankind spread to take over the world, more or less, it is just as advantageous to be smart and black, and smart and white. And hence, any sort of divergence in this region is simply due to random action.
Of course, this doesn't mean there are no such variations across races. Indeed there are. But statistical studies (and that's all we have in the abscence of discovery of an intelligence gene) show that in this category at least, there is as far as we can tell no difference. Without such a link between intelligence and race, all such discrimination have no scientific basis.

But it's tougher when there IS some difference between races. Then the morality becomes more strained. Let's take lung capacity. As you may know, people from high-lying areas tend to have a larger lung capacity than those from lowland regions. Part of this has indeed been shown to be genetic, though of course exercise and living in low air pressure regions can offset that. So what happens about this? In certain athletic sports, people from the alps say do have an advantage over people without. Should we then enact discrimination?
The way most modern societies deal with this sort of situation is that they ignore it. They neither use negative discimination, nor positive discrimination. They let each athlete preform as they would. Such racial differences are assumed to be within the tolerances of individual variation. Few such athletes are around anyway, so overall we get away with it. But innately, the world is not fair.

So yes, the possibility of there being a scientific grounding for racial discrimination does exist, and some races can turn out to be better at certain jobs than others. But fortunately, in this world, that is generally not the case. An assumption of equality is fortunately not too naive, and indeed is necessary as geographical barriers of the world breaks down. But if we were unlucky enough to be in a scenario where mankind has truly diverged to such an extent that such specialisation is apparent, then society would have to make some tough decisions. The whole structure of society may be drastically different.
Read Huxley's Brave New World or Wells' The Time Machine?

Lots of good points in that post FZ.

I might point out that major adaptive changes and even speciation in other animals, such a finches, is known to happen within a few generations. Don't you think it is interesting that in the million or so years modern humans have been spreading out across the planet, in all those pockets of culture and climates (some of it radically different from any other) no significant differences in consciousness has occurred? It doesn't seem to follow the norm for evolution does it?

 

[wuliheron]

Don't you think it is interesting that in the million or so years modern humans have been spreading out across the planet, in all those pockets of culture and climates (some of it radically different from any other) no significant differences in consciousness has occurred? It doesn't seem to follow the norm for evolution does it?

This is gross error imo. Major changes in human consciousness have occured. Civilization and the invention of logic present perhaps the most demonstrable changes. Shamanistic hunter-gatherer societies are radically different from civilized ones. Until you've been immersed in cultures that have profound beliefs in everyday magic you cannot appreciate how far civilization has taken us from our roots. What civilized people consider absurd is just par for the course among primitives.

The very languages and concepts of such cultures differ as dramatically as any behavioral differences you can point to in a single species in nature. Today, shamanistic cultures are seriously threatened with extinction. Not only their lifestyles but their distinct ways of thinking are being lost.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
This is gross error imo. Major changes in human consciousness have occured. Civilization and the invention of logic present perhaps the most demonstrable changes. Shamanistic hunter-gatherer societies are radically different from civilized ones. Until you've been immersed in cultures that have profound beliefs in everyday magic you cannot appreciate how far civilization has taken us from our roots. What civilized people consider absurd is just par for the course among primitives.

The very languages and concepts of such cultures differ as dramatically as any behavioral differences you can point to in a single species in nature. Today, shamanistic cultures are seriously threatened with extinction. Not only their lifestyles but their distinct ways of thinking are being lost.

We've learned, true, and it's taken millenia. But I am talking about the potential for learning born into humanity. There are areas of the world now where such primitive conditions exist as you refer to. Take a reasonably healthy and intelligent infant from that culture (i.e., before he can be significantly affected by the environment), and place him in a home in modern society. Don't you think he has a good chance of getting along just nicely?

So I am talking about inherited ability, not the degree one's environment is prepared to help develop one's inherent potentials.

 

[wuliheron]

What you are talking about then is not intelligence or how people think, but instinct. Intelligence is the ability to learn and figure out new things. Instinct is what you aer born with.

The fact that human instincts haven't changed much is often attributed to the idea that we are so successful as a species. People do display certain physical adaptations to distinct environments, but our brains are so adaptable to differing environments, as you pointed out yourself, that adaptations our instincts have not yet been necessary.

Concidering modern humans have only been around for 100,000 years and sucessfully colonized every continent on the planet before the advent of civilization, this is a pretty believable scenario. We are by far the most successful large animals ever. There are some 14 billion birds in the world, some 10 billion bats, and 6 billion people and counting who are magnetudes larger than birds and bats.

 

[Lifegazer]

This is an interesting conversation. It shouldn't be bashed for having racist overtones.
I think the whole discussion revolves around the interpretation of two important adjectives: 'superior' and 'intelligence'.
If 'intelligence' becomes the attribute which eventually destroys our planet and our people, then it can be argued that human-intelligence is ultimately inferior to animal-intelligence. In this sense, the lower-intelligence of a being can be referred to as 'superior', ultimately.
It is difficult to establish, as fact, that intelligence is superior to non-intelligence. Perhaps it is another attribute of the mind which should be used to define the superior-branch of a species. Perhaps sensitivity (emotional) is the superior trait. I don't think that we can know which traits of humanity are superior to others. Not yet, anyway.

 

[Another God]

I do not understand why anyone ever tries to fool themselves into the belief that all humans are equal. Its a pretty absurd idea. Nature doesn't make things equal. Equality is not a natural goal.

No, the key concept is that we treat everyone equal, not believe that they are. Because it is blatently obvious to any casual observer, that Tiger woods and I are not equally good at golf, nor is someone with downs syndrome equal to Richard Feynman, nor is Brad pitt equal to how I look etc...

Equality is not inherent in nature at all. It is a social imposition on our thoughts. We choose to impose this concept onto our thoughts, because it allows us to function more fairly.

And yes, I believe that particular 'races' have particular tendencies to be a particular way, different to other races. ie: Black people 'tend' to be dark skinned, for example... So no, no races are identical, and therefore not 'equal'. Perhaps congruent is a better description.

As has already been pointed out anyway, and it is the most important point, 'Superior' is usually a subjective concept, or is only objective when put into a particular environment. And even when it is objective, chances are, we aren't able to recognize the objective nature of it...

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
I do not understand why anyone ever tries to fool themselves into the belief that all humans are equal. Its a pretty absurd idea. Nature doesn't make things equal. Equality is not a natural goal.

No, the key concept is that we treat everyone equal, not believe that they are. Because it is blatently obvious to any casual observer, that Tiger woods and I are not equally good at golf, nor is someone with downs syndrome equal to Richard Feynman, nor is Brad pitt equal to how I look etc...

Equality is not inherent in nature at all. It is a social imposition on our thoughts. We choose to impose this concept onto our thoughts, because it allows us to function more fairly.

And yes, I believe that particular 'races' have particular tendencies to be a particular way, different to other races. ie: Black people 'tend' to be dark skinned, for example... So no, no races are identical, and therefore not 'equal'. Perhaps congruent is a better description.

As has already been pointed out anyway, and it is the most important point, 'Superior' is usually a subjective concept, or is only objective when put into a particular environment. And even when it is objective, chances are, we aren't able to recognize the objective nature of it...

A very insightful post AG, thanks. I started this thread mostly to stir up trouble, but everyone resonding seems to have an excellent grasp of humanness.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I believe it was last summer that some scientist proclaimed Blacks were of inferior intelligence. I don't think he was racist, but had come to that conclusion through his studies. The rest of the scientific community rose up against his hypothesis, but I remember thinking then that if we are just evolved matter, then why couldn't he be correct?

If you are talking about "The Bell Curve" the author WAS a racist and the purpose of that book was to justify his racism. It was scientifically invalid.

There is a WORLD of difference between skin color or even sickle cell anemia and intelligence. Altering the intelligence level requires altering the structure of the brain itself. Such a change takes far longer in an evolutionary timeframe (>100,000 years) than it took for the various races to differentiate (~10,000 years).

Another God, well put. No reply necessary.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Altering the intelligence level requires altering the structure of the brain itself. Such a change takes far longer in an evolutionary timeframe (>100,000 years) than it took for the various races to differentiate (~10,000 years).

Does it?
We all agree that some people are naturally more intelligent than other people don't we? So, what happens if we take all of the stupid people, put them in north america, all of the les stupid people, put them is south america, all the median intelligence people and put them in europe asia, put all of the above average intelligence people and put them into africa, and then put all of the Brilliant people and put them in Australia. We then stop all travel between those continents completely. Leave it for 4 or 5 generations, completely forget that we ever set up the situation artificially, and take the analyse the results.

You will see that the people from north america were markedly less intelligent than the people from australia (perhaps I shouldn't have used real places...I am not actually trying to ...make fun of anyone here... [;p]) Since we had decided to completely forget that we set the situation up, we would then conclude that the Australians had evolved to be more intelligent than the north american people.

The point I am making is that evolution doesn't need a long time to do anything, it just needs a selective pressure, or an isolation event. We already have parts of our population evolved into higher intelligence than other parts. Evolution is ready for an isolation event or a new selective pressure. Perhaps in the past this has occurred to the isolated 'blacks' or to the isolted 'whites' or the isolated 'Asians' etc. I believe it to be quite possible that a race is, on average, more or less intelligent than any other given race.

Just remember, averages are just averages. They still don't mean everyone is equal.

Even if it was shown that black people were on average more intelligent than asian people for instance, then it would still be possible for the most intelligent asian to be more intelligent than the most intelligent black person...

 

[GlamGein]

I don't think many of you understand the concept of race. "Race" is purely a social phenomenon. Biologically speaking, there are definitive human races. Skin color is one of MANY human variations, why is it THE variation that decides race? Biologically speaking, there is more variation found within certain "races" (87.5% of all human genetic variation can be found within a population), while only 15% of all human variations can be found between populations. Get the difference? There is more variation found within the gray wolf population than there is in the human population. This means that we are all VERY similiar, and have a not too ancient common ancestor.
So, anyone who says that different races have different levels of intelligence, ie, some races are smarter than other races, is a racist himself. Its just not true in a biological sense.

 

[with.buddha]

well, the impact of society would have an affect on ethnic differences,, but i think russ_waters is right,, they're extremely insignificant.. or impossible to tell

take math for example..do more advanced cultures that have been using math for thousands of years have a "superior" brain structure because they have exercised that area of the brain? what about a culture that doesn't use math, but instead believes in magick?

pit in a battle against each other, it's pretty obvious who would win, mathematics leads to engineering of "superior" weapons, while the other culture would be summoning gods and casting hexes.

but the question is, would the part of the brain that contemplates math be different than the part of the brain that contemplates magick? if a baby from each culture were swapped, would there be a difference between the two?

i'd say no,, i think racial differences are tiny when intellect is concerned. the physical differences are much more obvious, but that is due to climate adaptation and besides, intellect is our selective advantage..

a very scary thought though = with bio-tech engineering, couldn't a person create a virus that would target all but a certain race? or even a certain lineage within that race??

if that were to happen, "superior" would cease to be subjective and could actually become objective in a sense - selective advantage favored the Evil Scientist who figured out how to kill all competitors!

it's scary stuff,, and you know people will try..

 

[GlamGein]

Let me repeat: there is no such thing as biological race. So no, bio-tech engineering could NOT be used to attack a certain race. It could attack a certain trait, but since traits are not racially distinct, the attack would certainly harm others not deemed to be a part of a certain race, and would NOT harm others OF the race that was being attacked.
Furthermore, superior intelligence is not necessarily a selective advantage; it depends upon context. Are you speaking of species wide advancement? What kind of population are you talking about? Superior intelligence won't save you if you live in a malarial environment and don't have sickle-cell trait.
Try to think outside of the proverbial box. We are inundated with concepts of race, etc., that are completely false.
Why can't we seem to grasp the FACT that biological race is false?

 

[with.buddha]

Right, i know what you're saying.. that the genetic make-up between the "races" are not very different - only certain traits are different.

you could take any asian person, black person and white person (each with it's own subdivisions) and trace a common ancestor within what, a couple thousand generations? it's not too far and evolution hasn't changed much,, just brought out certain traits.

but that's what I'm saying.. say i took my own DNA and created a self-replicating nano-robot that would 1.)check it's host DNA structure and a.)if the host structure is my own - shutdown or b.) if it's not my own - replicate and destroy white blood cells.

how deep could bio-engineering go? at the deepest level, there are 6.2 billion "races" - each person is different..

i don't think any certain "group" could be more intelligent and i agree that racial differences are just different traits due to heritage, but there are differences in genetic makeup..

i mean, couldn't you make a nano-machine that targeted all people who will go bald? that's not a racial trait, but it is a trait..

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Another God
Does it?
We all agree that some people are naturally more intelligent than other people don't we? So, what happens if we take all of the stupid people, put them in north america, all of the les stupid people, put them is south america, all the median intelligence people and put them in europe asia, put all of the above average intelligence people and put them into africa, and then put all of the Brilliant people and put them in Australia. We then stop all travel between those continents completely. Leave it for 4 or 5 generations, completely forget that we ever set up the situation artificially, and take the analyse the results.

You will see that the people from north america were markedly less intelligent than the people from australia (perhaps I shouldn't have used real places...I am not actually trying to ...make fun of anyone here... [;p]) Since we had decided to completely forget that we set the situation up, we would then conclude that the Australians had evolved to be more intelligent than the north american people.

The point I am making is that evolution doesn't need a long time to do anything, it just needs a selective pressure, or an isolation event. We already have parts of our population evolved into higher intelligence than other parts. Evolution is ready for an isolation event or a new selective pressure. Perhaps in the past this has occurred to the isolated 'blacks' or to the isolted 'whites' or the isolated 'Asians' etc. I believe it to be quite possible that a race is, on average, more or less intelligent than any other given race.

Just remember, averages are just averages. They still don't mean everyone is equal.

Even if it was shown that black people were on average more intelligent than asian people for instance, then it would still be possible for the most intelligent asian to be more intelligent than the most intelligent black person...

No, that doesn't work. Its a completely hypothetical "ends based" idea. Move stupid people to one place and you will find that all stupid people live in one place. Duh? Evolution does NOT work that way.

Let me repeat: there is no such thing as biological race. So no, bio-tech engineering could NOT be used to attack a certain race. It could attack a certain trait, but since traits are not racially distinct, the attack would certainly harm others not deemed to be a part of a certain race, and would NOT harm others OF the race that was being attacked.

Except that in general race is based on a single trait - skin color. So you COULD attack a race (yes, I know that's a social definition) by attaking that trait. It would work exactly the same as attaking people based on eye or hair color.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by GlamGein
Let me repeat: there is no such thing as biological race. So no, bio-tech engineering could NOT be used to attack a certain race. It could attack a certain trait, but since traits are not racially distinct, the attack would certainly harm others not deemed to be a part of a certain race, and would NOT harm others OF the race that was being attacked.
Furthermore, superior intelligence is not necessarily a selective advantage; it depends upon context. Are you speaking of species wide advancement? What kind of population are you talking about? Superior intelligence won't save you if you live in a malarial environment and don't have sickle-cell trait.
Try to think outside of the proverbial box. We are inundated with concepts of race, etc., that are completely false.
Why can't we seem to grasp the FACT that biological race is false?

Remember however, that the point of this thread isn't whether races are inferior or superior to each other, but rather to pose the hypothetical: if natural selection/genetics is what primarily determines human potential (as materialists assert), then why couldn't conditions exist, that would evolve specific features in one population more than in some other population (especially in the past when populations were separated from each other for millenia)? One of those features, for instance, might be intelligence (assuming it was a selective adantage).

 

[wuliheron]

if natural selection/genetics is all that determines a human being (as materialists assert), then why couldn't conditions exist (especially in the past when populations were separated from each other millenia), that would evolve specific features in one population more than in some other population?

They did, blacks have nappy hair and dark skin as an adaptation to the heat and ultraviolet light of the tropics, eskimos are short and round and their blood vessels are deeper under their skin as an adaptation to cold weather. Intelligence, however, is another story altogether.

The agracultural revolution and the civilization it supports is only ten thousand years old, nothing in evolutionary terms. Before that all of humanity shared a much more natural environment and lived in small hunter gather groups for millions of years. That it is difficult if not impossible to discern any real differences in brain structure or capacity comes as no surprise whatsoever given that we all lived and evolved under such similar circumstances until very recently.

In addition, modern theories of evolution are based on the principle of punctuated evolution. Periodically, so the theory goes, catastrophies occur which open up large environmental niches which surviving animals then rush to fill. In the process, evolution speeds up as they compete. Eventually animals come to dominate particular niches and stamp out all the serious short term competition for those niches. Evolution then slows to a crawl.

Humanity is such a successful species that it has no competition other than itself. Mass migrations have occurred as humanity has spread across the planet adapting physically to each new environment and as competition for available resources heats up. Over the last hundred thousand years of homo sapiens we have yet to find a single species we can't drive out of its ecological niche if we so desire.

Quite the contrary, humanity today is the cause of the greatest mass extinction of species in the history of the planet. Greater than any ice age or the demise of the dinosaurs. Within twenty years the oceans will no longer be commercially fishable and within fifty every wild land animal on the planet will either be extinct or only exist in zoos.

Nature is already having the last laugh as she rushes to fill in the countless ecological niches we are openning up with rapid adaptations of existing creatures we either cannot kill or don't care too. However, until we ourselves must adapt to nature rather than vice versa, we won't.

 

[GlamGein]

I don't think that we are thinking about the race question correctly. Someone stated earlier that this thread was hypothetical, but the fundamental question is invalid, so this thread is pointless. Let me ask, "what makes a person black"? When is skin "black"? How dark exactly does it have to be? What we think of as race is a phenotypic expression of a few alleles. To say that these are related bound to other traits thus making a race is extremely false, but easy to do. The person who said that the Inuit (eskimos) are round and have blood vessels deeper beneath the skin due to adaptation brings up a good point. Just because you are "round" and have "deeper blood vessels", does not mean you are an Inuit. Just because you have "racial characteristics" does not mean someone would think you belong to a certain race, making race undefinitive, and thus invalid.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by GlamGein
I don't think that we are thinking about the race question correctly. Someone stated earlier that this thread was hypothetical, but the fundamental question is invalid, so this thread is pointless.

Well, that was me, the author of this thread.

I probably didn't make sure my point was clear when I started this thread, so let me correct any misconceptions now. First you have to know that I am usually trying to find logic holes in materialist philosophy. In my original post the key thing I said was, " . . . the universe hasn't guaranteed equality between the races, and there is nothing special about humanity over any other physical manifestation in creation. So why then couldn't the Black race be utterly inferior to the White race, or men superior to women, or any other twist evolution wants to give life?"

I started out with "race" as a basis to claim superiority because people have done that (and still do); but it really wasn't my point. What I was suggesting is that if you believe a human being is purely, 100% a product of physical processes (i.e., no soul or other inherently "given" nature"), then why couldn't evolution shape humans anyway it selected?

I am asking you to ponder of if something is built into us all which ultimately takes precedence over the machinations of natural selection, genetics, and even conditioning.

 

[GlamGein]

Les:
Thanks for clearing that up! I did not intend to demean your post, but I will say that I am passionate about ideas of power and inequality, which I (perhaps mistakenly) read into your thread.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by GlamGein
Les:
Thanks for clearing that up! I did not intend to demean your post, but I will say that I am passionate about ideas of power and inequality, which I (perhaps mistakenly) read into your thread.

All's well that ends well . . .

By the way, I appreciate passonate debate on behalf of goodness.

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The whole genetic superiority of races really doesn't hold water.

Look at dogs. The differences between a collie and a labrador must be comparible, if not more different, to the differences between two races of people.

And yet you couldn't say which dog is superior could you.

Genetic superiority can only be applied in comparisions to different species. Cats for instance are cleary smarter than collies or labradors:E

I can hardly see how a difference in 3 DNA block can make you smarter than someone else.

 

[wuliheron]

The person who said that the Inuit (eskimos) are round and have blood vessels deeper beneath the skin due to adaptation brings up a good point. Just because you are "round" and have "deeper blood vessels", does not mean you are an Inuit. Just because you have "racial characteristics" does not mean someone would think you belong to a certain race, making race undefinitive, and thus invalid.

I agree with this, but the question was about genetic superiority, not racism. As with the genes coding for sickle cell anemia, given the right environment that can be superior. In the modern world with various treatments for malaria sickle cells are a disadvantage, inferior genes.

If perchance civilization were destroyed, sickle cells would become an advantage once again. In some sense then, the shear variety of genes is superior.

 

[FZ+]

Good post wuli. I always believe the real failing of the racial superiority theories proposed by various eugenicists is that the real asset of the human gene pool is not that some genes are good, but the sheer variety of the genes available, maximising the potential for adaptation. Man isn't where we are due to our superiority, but rather our sheer flexibility.

 

[wuliheron]

The real irony, FZ, is that these have been the findings of genetic research over the last few decades. When Chimp DNA was been compared to human it was discovered that whites are more closely related to chimps. Chimps have straight brown hair, no lips, white/pink skin, and sometimes blue eyes.

In addition, around half the human genome has been discovered to be junk held in reserve for the day the human race might need it. When fast adaptation is required we have a reserve of DNA that helps to make that possible. Such a flexible yet unimaginably complex system in a species who do not reproduce by the hundreds and thousands from a single female is difficult to manage.

 

[jammieg]

The environment is more important in shaping a person than their genes.
Perhaps the real question is, what is it about certain environments that have such a tendency to produce certain results in people? Who decides what genes would be superior and inferior?
And what are we supposed to do start handing out jobs based on genes over experience or more importantly the desire to do that job?
The belief in genetic superiority often arrises out of a lack of confidence.
The essential of racism is when a square peg believes it is better than a round peg. Who are we to play God and say some people are not worth as much as others.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by jammieg
The environment is more important in shaping a person than their genes.

Erm... take the genes of a goldfish and put it in a human environment. I don't think it would work very well.

I think you mean that the environment is more important in "differentiating a person" than their genes.

EDIT: as opposed to integrating, no doubt.

 

[wuliheron]

LOLOLOL... Bottom line, you can't have a person without an environment and vice versa. Thus, both are equally important. Instead of attempting to decide which one is more important in shaping a person the more important and personal question for us all is how to maximize both towards productive and humane purposes. Superior genes may be able to overcome inferior environments and vice versa, but these are all inferior scenarios.

Regardless of which is may or may not be more important, this is straying from the original topic.

 

[J1M]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I agree with this, but the question was about genetic superiority, not racism. As with the genes coding for sickle cell anemia, given the right environment that can be superior. In the modern world with various treatments for malaria sickle cells are a disadvantage, inferior genes.

If perchance civilization were destroyed, sickle cells would become an advantage once again. In some sense then, the shear variety of genes is superior.

This is wrong.

There are certain traits and thus genes that are inferior and will remain so forever. Example? Colorblindness. Personally, I see these genes as a throwback to when mankind was first evolving color vision but there are no environmental conditions you can possibly fantasize which would make colorblind members of society suddenly rise in power and breeding status.

This gene is just one example, there are plenty, plenty, more.

Recent research also seems to indicate that memories are stored in DNA just like instincts, so who knows a lot of this "junk DNA" may turn out to be jumbled memory storage from your ancestors. This is not important to this discussion except to say that much of this "extra" DNA could serve absolutely no useful function when put to the tests of evolution. One should not assume we all possesses latent usefulness in our genes.

As for the concept of race... nobody would deny that amongst any population there are those who are physically stronger and those who are smarter. In modern society we make up notions of "personality", "kindness", etc. and automatically grant additional quantities of these things to people lacking in the more obviously desirable traits to make things "equal".

If it is granted that there are those individuals who are better, faster, stronger, smarter, etc. why is it suddenly tabboo to try and trace the lineage of these people to a common ancestor? Stop. Think about that for a minute before continuing. Read it again if you have to.

Taking all factors as a whole into consideration it is easy to look at history and pick out different civilizations that were at their time superior (in every sense of the word, so don't bother trying to define it). For example Homo-Erectus, Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire, etc.

Again, these are all givens and utterly clear to us looking at the past. The real central question is not "Are there superior races/civilizations/genes?", but rather:

When we identify these superior traits in the present will we pretend this knowledge is false or act on it to strengthen the species?