The Twists of History and DNA 337
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times has a piece today talking about the possible connection between genetic evolution and history." From the article: "Trying to explain cultural traits is, of course, a sensitive issue. The descriptions of national character common in the works of 19th-century historians were based on little more than prejudice. Together with unfounded notions of racial superiority they lent support to disastrous policies. But like phrenology, a wrong idea that held a basic truth (the brain's functions are indeed localized), the concept of national character could turn out to be not entirely baseless, at least when applied to societies shaped by specific evolutionary pressures."
Germans (Score:5, Interesting)
More generally, I think people are going to have to face someday that brain genetics are not somehow special. Just like certain races are shorter, taller, darker, lighter, faster, stronger, etc, certain races (and sexes...) are going to have bell curves that are different shapes. Of course, this doesn't preclude any individual from falling anywhere on the bell curve.
Re:Germans (Score:2)
> Does that mean that Richard Nixon was German? His tapes of everything, IMHO, exceeded even the Nazis.
Re:Germans (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet you would be drawn and quartered if you said that from any position of authority on a college campus, as Larry Summers discovered. Indeed, suggesting that there may be genetic differences to explain any collective group's below the average showing in any endeavor would preclude you from ever obtaining any sort of achievment in the academic world. However, if you can state that genetics might explain how one particular named group (better known as dead white guys) have unfairly gained advantage in history due to a gene of violence, or whatever, then you can write your own ticket.
Re:Germans (Score:2)
[I]f you can state that genetics might explain how one particular named group (better known as dead white guys) have unfairly gained advantage in history due to a gene of violence, or whatever, then you can write your own ticket.
Done and done. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Germans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Germans (Score:3, Insightful)
Being that I am a German and have had alot of German cultural influence as a consequence of being a German (you know: 'knackwurst, bier und sauerkraut') I can tell you that this has nothing to do with genetic
Re:Germans (Score:4, Interesting)
As a historian, trying to clasify people according to genetics or prejudices is useless. While the "Great Man" theory is a simplification, the ability of a person to change a life, a civilization and world history irregardless of how/where they were brought up and their enviornment is written all over history.
Re:Germans (Score:3, Funny)
I think you're forgetting about this little thing called World War II
Re:Germans (Score:3, Funny)
As per usual, The Simpsons provides guidance. From episode 3F06, 'Mother Simpson' [snpp.com]:
In Burns' office, Joe Friday and Bill Gannon [FBI agents sear
An interesting idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Well, having said that, I'm not sure that anything short of experiments by sadistic aliens from the planet XYZZY can explain the English, but that's another story...)
Likewise, many European nations are very young, in evolutionary terms, and spent most of the time invading each other, mixing the gene pools substantially. It's actually quite impressive that there is any "national trait" in appearance, all things considered. By all rights, that should have been totally eliminated through wars, raids, invasions and the occasional mass population migration.
I'm inclined to reverse the direction of the theory - that nations did not evolve people to fit the circumstance, but rather people evolved nations to fit their whims.
Under this theory, genetics is quite irrelevant. Rather, you start off with small bands of people espousing a specific philosophy or attitude, and that attracts like-minded people. The bands that become large enough become nations, the smaller bands become yokels to be scorned by the masses.
I do not believe that there is a "work-till-you-die" gene, for example. It's counter-productive. You end up doing less effective work, die younger and are unable to take full advantage of the skills and abilities of those who cannot physically work under such rigors. We can see that although American medicine is the best in the world, and American mental and physical healthcare is highly advanced, more people die in America from stress-related disorders (including stress-related addictions) than do so in any other technological civilization on the planet. From a purely evolutionary perspective, a more efficient, less militant work-ethic should be better adapted for survival.
Clearly, evolution isn't the determining factor in what civilization survives, or indeed becomes dominant. However, no civilization can become dominant without some advantage, and no civilization will maintain a philosophy that doesn't provide it with some payback.
America has a lot of resources, a lot of usable land, a lot of just about anything imaginable. Combine that with a rapid population growth, and you've the makings of a very respectable superpower. The payback then becomes obvious - with that much in hand, it is very easy to accrue both wealth and influence. Those factors alone are enough to describe American philosophies.
But American philosophies didn't evolve out of thin air. They came from the Puritans - known to the English as the Roundheads. The Puritans ruled England after seizing power in a military coup under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, and beheading the King for no better reason than he liked to party too much. (The Royalists were known as the Cavaliers, from which we have inherited the term to be "cavalier".) After Cromwell himself was forced from power, the Puritans fled England for America, becoming the controlling force there.
The Puritans were a strange English sect and really didn't feature much in English history prior to the English Civil War. If genetics plays any role in culture or history, the Puritans evolved in exactly the wrong place and the wrong time. England, by that time, was becoming seriously sick with endless internal religious wars. Strangely, the Puritans managed to move to about the one country in the world that could handle them. This is simply not something genetics can do for you.
I am much more inclined to believe that there is nothing here that needs explaining genetically, that the genetic makeup o
Re:Germans (Score:5, Informative)
To date, there heve been exactly zero scientific studies that point to a genetic component of personality, including the famous twins studies of the late 1990s. Yet there have been literally thousands of studies that point to a cultural component, including those that show that early childhood trauma can result in physical damage to the brain.
This is, to put it bluntly, wrong (search for personality or behavior) [nih.gov]. For that matter, most people doesn't consider early childhood trauma to be "cultural". If someone were intending to show a genetic component to personality, he or she would first have to show a physiological component to personality. That has yet to happen. So your analogy of shortness and strongness, which are physiological traits, can not be applied to personalities, which are not physiological. The brain may be genetic, but we are many, many years from proving or even suggesting that personality traits are.
This too is wrong, and sounds a lot like some sort of vitalistic voodoo; in other words, much less scientific than the notion that genes influence personality. It is also inconsistent with what you said above (where you used the causal chain [early childhood trauma] --> [physical damage to the brain] --> [personality]).
--MarkusQ
P.S. "Strongness" isn't a word. I think you were looking for "Strength."
Re:Germans (Score:5, Interesting)
Personality has an extensive physiological component, as demonstrated by numerous drugs that alter personality, as well as numerous well-documented and consistent changes to personality from brain trauma and injury. Something as simple as testosterone alters personality.
To date, there heve been exactly zero scientific studies that point to a genetic component of personality, including the famous twins studies of the late 1990s.
There are so many demonstrations of genetic components of different aspects of personality that this isn't even worth anything debating anymore.
It's kind of ironic that, just as the right wing has their creationists, the left wing has a group of people like you that, for purely ideological reasons, deny elementary facts about individual differences.
The real argument against eugenics and racism is not to deny, against scientific evidence, that there are genetic differences between individuals and groups of people, it is to respect, accept, and support people regardless of what genes they happened to have inherited.
Just a Clue-In (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:3, Interesting)
An example: the british live on a poor island, which was soon depleted of it's natural ressources. In order to avoid starving, they simply went overseas to get the essential ressources they lacked at home. Hence they developped a commercial empire, and the ability to do trading on a global scale was elevated to a "desirable national characteristic", which explains that the anglo-saxons are the most imperialistic people on Earth.
Nearby France is a rich country, overflowing with bountiful ressources. It followed Britain by constituting an empire, yes, but this was just for copycat purposes; it never vitally needed an empire just to survive, and the best illustration of this is, after World War II, when both Britain and France lost their empires, Britain sunk into decadence and decrepitude, whilst France had the highest economic growth during the 30 years following the War.
And this is also why in France, excelling in the Arts and Science is viewed as a "desirable national characteristic", whilst commerce is viewed as a vile, unwholesome, fithy activity.
Re:Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:5, Insightful)
DOn't forget that France and all the other countries in Western Europe that were occupied (including West Germany) benefited from Marshal Plan money that bought them new steelworks, railways, etc to replace the old ones that were destroyed. Britain on the other hand got squat from the Marshal Plan, and struggles to this day with pre-war infrastructure that in nearby countries was destroyed and subsequently replaced.
Re:Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:2, Insightful)
1) France has been an economic powerhouse in the second half of the 20th Century; AND
2) In France, commerce and business pursuits are reviled and seen as dirty.
How do those two add up, again? They don't--they contradict. And the OP is an idiot.
US aid to Britain during the War (Score:3, Informative)
The British got about $14 - $20 billion of war material from the US via the Lend-Lease program during 1941-1945. This was in 1940s dollars, so it really was a substantial fraction of GDP. None of this was repaid in cash; rather, in return, the US got leases on various British naval bases.
Now, the name "Lend-Lease" is a bit mislead
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:2)
Why ? The brain is just another organ and, hence, just another aspect of physical makeup. There's no reason to think the same physical attributes that make some people stronger, faster, fitter, etc are any different when applied to the brain and its mental capabilities.
This is before even getting to medical conditions that affect brain development.
Re:Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:2, Funny)
There may be something to your theory. You're an idiot, where did you grow up?
Re:Bullshit! All men are the same! (Score:2)
Are you trolling? (Score:2)
Why wouldn't brain functions be under evolutionary pressure like most important biological features built by genes?
How can you make such broad statements? Are you a troll or does this go against your religion (christianity, marxism, etc)?
(Now, which way did evolutional pressures go? We won't know much for quite a few years.)
Read Guns, Germs, & Steel (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Asians? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Asians? (Score:2)
More testosterone means more violence. It means greater muscle mass and general body size.
If food is scarce and the winning strategy is cooperation, villages full of big violent guys would starve out more often than villages with small peaceful guys.
Well, there you go. Survival of the fittest.
Re:Asians? (Score:2)
Is this particular tidbit a fact though? It sure sounds like urban legend to me.
uh, yes, it has been studied (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Asians? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, Mongol hordes conquering three quarters of Eurasia? China was basically one long war for centuries, Japan liked to play "Guess who's Shogun this week" and Korea kept coping it from both sides. Not exactly a history that suggests a lack of testosterone in any measure.
Re:Asians? (Score:2)
Also, depending on the war conditions, small fighters may be better off. War is often won or lost based on supply lines. You can't fight too well if you run out of food.
some do, but it's risky (Score:2)
See also: Kuru, Mad Cow disease, HIV/SIV, leprosy, SARS, bird flu...
Re:Asians? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because when you have a too-closely coupled food circle, you make an excellent environment for parasites, and they kill you. Cannibalism is an instinctual horror because of millions of years of evolution.
Now, before you say that you have no instinctual horror when you think of eating human, remember that you're, well, human, and your big ass frontal lobe makes instinct a little distant. But I bet it's different if you've got a big slab of sizzling human thigh in front of you.
Now that I think about it thou
Re:Asians? (Score:5, Insightful)
One can also only wonder at the evolutionary pressures producing large numbers of white boys obsessed with comparing their penis sizes to males of every other culture.
Re:Asians? (Score:4, Funny)
its the food silly...
ordered according endownment:
1. Africans (eat elephants)
2. Americans (eat hotdogs)
3. Asians (eat rice)
note: rabbits eat carrots which are about their own body-length. And now you know why they breed so fast.
Re:Asians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Promiscuous creatures tend to have large penises. Big schlongs (especially with the shape of the penis head) can remove some competitor's man-juices while insuring ideal placement of his own; and greater numbers of sperm increase his chances of reproduction, rather than some of the other guys working the same womb.
In contrast, creatures that force females into harems have smaller dicks. Males beating each other to gain alpha-male status is where all the pressure is at for these guys. The size of the penis and testicles atrophy to almost the minimum necessary in order to reproduce under nearly ideal (read: sole access to the female) conditions.
While gorillas developed huge upper bodies to do the beating, human beings may have developed culture to do the same thing (kings and the wealthy get lots of women, etc.).
As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fray.. (Score:5, Interesting)
BUT... the problem, from a scientific perspective, is that the more we learn about genetics the more evidence exists that there ARE behavioral and personality traits linked to our genes. Nobody's talking about master races or anything like that, but there's still a morally offensive (to some, at least) supposition there: Not all men are created equal.
This is a big moral problem for liberal Western democracies. Most European and North American states, and a good portion of nations in the rest of the world, are founded on the basis that every person is entitled to the same basic rights as the rest. The philosophical rhetoric that underlies these claims needs the postulate that all human beings are somewhat equal--nobody is so much better equipped, morally or intellectually or otherwise, that he can take away the political rights of self determination from other men.
Although I'm behind scientific inquiry 100%, and I don't think that these researchers should ever compromise their work for political purposes (well-intentioned or not!), I am a little worried about how this kind of work will affect the new few centuries of government and political thought.
Equal? (Score:5, Insightful)
> This is a big moral problem for liberal Western democracies. Most
> European and North American states, and a good portion of nations in
> the rest of the world, are founded on the basis that every person is
> entitled to the same basic rights as the rest. The philosophical
> rhetoric that underlies these claims needs the postulate that all
> human beings are somewhat equal--nobody is so much better
> equipped, morally or intellectually or otherwise, that he can
> take away the political rights of self determination from other men.
Well, actually it's not such a problem. To be "created" equal requires a creator. The idea is that, since none of us is the creator, we have no rights over the lives of one another, except insomuch as we mutually agree. Jefferson was not talking about intellectual, muscular, or moral equality--certainly he knew that some of us are smarter, more powerful, or more virtuous than others.
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with your point, but just for the record, that phrase by the Founding Fathers did not mean "equal in ability" or even "equal in value". It meant that no one is born divine, in the sense of more than human. This was a direct attack on the idea that kings are ordained by God.
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet for all that, I don't think that he learned the lesson of the Nazi's and their supposed "scientific evidence". Do not ask Religon for "How". Do not ask science for the answer to "Why". To the degree that he explains certain genetic traits, that is fine. But the dangerous application was when the Nazi's used science to justify their hatred of the Jews. Th
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:2)
The actual ideology was created for the purpose of grabbing power for the commercial classes from the Old Regime, not for creating an egalitarian society.
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:4, Insightful)
Bypassing that cognitive dissonance is dead simple...you just define the natives/undesirables as "sub-human" and continue on your merry way. Every successful* culture in history did and still does this.
*I think most metrics of cultural dominance can be used here
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:4, Insightful)
1. genes govern everything we are and are not, and everybody has a different set of genes (with the exception of twins). Thus, no one is actually created equal, in the sense you are suggesting.
2. although genes on the individual level can vary significantly from another (think John Holmes, think Albert Einstein), there is virtually no difference at all on the group level. This means that if you compare a distinct ethnic group (or "race" as they still call it in the US) with another, you will find a much larger variation within each group than between the groups. This is what scientists mean when they say we are all Homo sapiens sapiens (except for three tiny African tribes, who DO qualify as another sub-species (or "race" as they still call it in the US). What this basically means is that we are all the same on the group level; this is not just politically correct, but also scientifically correct. A few discrepancies such as resistance to malaria, skin color, hair color and other minute genome changes donät change this.
3. we tend to categorize people by their looks. Japanese and Chinese are all small, and this must be because of their genes, right? Did you know that the average height for a European was 150 cm in the 1500s? That it is now 180 cm is of course because of altered diet, and we now utlizie our genetic potential to the maxium. The same goes for modern Japanese and Chinese to a certain extent (do you know who Yao Ming is?), but many Asians have low protein diets and thus don't maximize their genetic potential.
4. TFA mentions that some warriors tend to have three times as many babies as non-warriors, and that this would have a social effect, making the tribe more aggressive on the whole. That is such rubbish that I can't even start to think about its national socialist roots; it doesn't work that way, since others still have babies at a significant rate. If you compare artificial selection measures like milking cows, you would see that one weeds out all the "bad" examples; that doesn't happen in real life, and that is why you don't see natural selection happen before your eyes.
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's you and I, and ten other people, all take a (12 oz) bottle of drinking water, get together, and run some scientific tests. All twelve bottles will have different mineral content, salinity, and various other factors, but despite these minor variations they are all "equal" bottles of water.
To put the rebuttal ano
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:2)
No, it's because of their diet. The distinguishing oriental characteristics are slanted eye shape and color, and "yellow" skin tone. Just like the distinguishing african characteristics are "brown" skin and a particular facial characteritics, and the distinguishing "Caucaisan" characterisics are (again) skin tone and face shape.
Sorry that's just not true. Genes do play an importa
A lesson in morality (Score:2)
When everyone is unique there is no logical justification for any particular moral system. Therefore the logical conclusion is to allow and protect every moral system to the maximum possible extent that does not hold one moral system (and therefore its adherent(s)) above another, viz a viz "natural rights".
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all;
Genetics is still in infancy, and all we're finding is statistical correlations.
There is not a single good scientific explanation (I said scientific, not just materialistic -- that is, it has to be backed by experience and have stood to scientific criticism) alive that tells, mechanically, how you get from specifi
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:3, Insightful)
It's important to note that the concepts "All men are created equal" and "All men shall be treated equally" are *not* synonymous. Just because some individuals may or may not have better inherent abilities at some tasks is *not* justification for denying equal opportunities.
Similarly, it would not be justification for excusing certain behavi
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fra (Score:2)
I would argue that not all men are created the same, but that has little or nothing to do with equality, however you choose to define it.
Re:As usual, humanity fancies itself above.... (Score:3, Informative)
The Blank Slate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Blank Slate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Blank Slate (Score:4, Interesting)
Pinker's book is not without interesting points, however I consider his qualification of "intelligence" highly questionable and in my opinion, simplistic. Eye color and other physical features are simply observed. Intelligence on the other hand is notoriously slippery. The behaviors (internal & external) we label as intelligence have everything to do with the context in which they occur.
As an example, I'd ask is someone with amazing drawing skills but lacking mathematical aptitude less intelligent than a mathematician who lacks the synaptic connections between hand & eye that lead to advanced drawing technique? Who is more intelligent - a computer scientist or a physicist? A theorectical physicist or an experimentalist?
As an over the top example I'd say that solving linear equations on board a sinking ship instead of jumping on a life raft is spectacularly unintelligent.
I don't buy it (Score:2, Insightful)
buy it (Score:5, Informative)
Take 10000 ancient babies and 10000 modern babies though, place them in equal situations, and you'll see a pattern of differences between the groups.
It's easy to prove this for physical attributes like height. The Mayan and Inca people of Central America were very short. If you brought one to the modern world, part of that difference would go away (better food) and part would remain. Maybe the guy is 5'4" instead of the average 5'10", but you couldn't say for sure if it was something particular to an ancient person. If you got 10000 of these people though, and the average was 5'4", then you'd know there was a difference.
Re:buy it (Score:2)
Sorry, still don't buy it. Considering the experiment is (unfortunately) impossible, we'll have to go about another way to prove or disprove the role of genetics in our behaviour.
Not an entirely different kind of people (Score:2)
If you read things like Seneca's letter of consolation to his mother from his exile, you find that ancient people had the same feelings and quirks that we do. You can even spot comparable personality subtypes. What was Archimedes if not a superlative nerd? Ancient politics malfunctioned in all the same ways that contemporary politics does, and the US Fou
Re:I don't buy it (Score:2)
Is this a tenet of faith, or can you cite research supporting this claim? Science doesn't advance by upholding what you think is "patently obvious".
Perhaps this is testable...find the DNA of long-dead humans and clone them. One heaping of luck/tenacity finding the DNA and one heaping of Jurassic Park semi-sci-fi...shake, stir, and repeat a statistically si
Re:I don't buy it (Score:2)
Rome was a cosmopoliton city at the heart of a large empire with a policy of granting priveleges to people who spend many years in overseas service so would have had a very wide genetic distribution even if you don't consider the importation of slaves from all over the empire.
I know very little of anthropology but have immediately seen a big hole in the argument - is this some fringe religeon pushing an agend
McEvolution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:McEvolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, you haven't been to Usenix, have you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Studies have found that we're wired to eat more food the more choices of food we see. Given unlimited refills we on average will eat just one or two servings if there's just one choice of lunch. But at a lunch buffet we can easily eat 3x or 4x the calories.
Because all of us are just a few hundred generations (at most) away from our hunter gathere
yes indeed (Score:2)
We will handle trans fats better, or we will become able to taste them and find them yucky.
Uh oh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose though, in light of our inability to view differences objectively, that it's probably for the best. Invariably, when someone points out differences, one group will use those differences to assert some sort of supreriority over the other. While it would be nice if we could discuss differences with scientific detachment and actually learn something, it seems that the most common trait among humanity -- our desire to be the best; to feel superior -- prevents such objectivity.
It isn't in a vacuum (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mythological nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Never trust work that moves from the digestion of milk (dependent on a single enzyme in adulthood) to broad cultural generalizations. Why would anyone think that East Asians have been selected for intelligence, unless they buy into a particular cultural stereotype that has been common only in the past few decades, as the East has sent its best and brightest to the West for education? A generation ago East Asians were considered much less mentally capable than Europeans. Both stereotypes are fact-free.
Here's a real howler from the article:
"It is easy to imagine that in societies where trust pays off, generation after generation, the more trusting individuals would have more progeny and the oxytocin-promoting genes would become more common in the population."
Easy to imagine, yes, at least if you are completely ignorant of how societies have actually behaved in history. It's easy to imagine the Earth is flat, if you are sufficiently ignorant.
Trust pays off most in societies that trade under the rule of law, like Rome. And we all know that generation after generation Roman families grew and grew, especially amongst the most properous classes, who benefited the most from trust...
Except they didn't.
Certain types of benefit to individuals result in decreased procreation, as we see in modern developed societies. Rome struggled with declining population amongst the middle and upper classes throughout most of its history, to the extent that laws and other social pressure requiring marriage and progeny were common features even during the late Republic.
Local genetic adaptation to a rice-based diet I can believe. Adaptation to cow's milk is plausbile. But until you show me quantitative, unbiased performance measures of "cultural types" I'll say you're telling the kind of just-so story that faux-evolutionists have been foisting off on the public for generations, starting with Spencer and coming down to the present day in the form of statistically illiterate dunderheads like Charles Murray.
Re:Mythological nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah yes, a blatantly unfounded ad hominem disguised as scientific argument. Someone doesn't like a statistic? Instead of showing how it is somehow wrong (and in the case of Murray , his statistics are rather impeccable and irrefutable), just attack someon
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
libertarianism is the same fallacy as communism (Score:5, Insightful)
communism holds that altruism, working for the benefit of the group, as something that trumps human selfishness. bullshit. likewise, libertariams holds selfishness, working only for your benefit, as something that trumps human altruism
the truth? human nature is a duality of altruism and selfishness, none superceding the other, and one ignored in favor of the other at the peril of creating a philosophy out of touch with real human nature, and therefore bound to fail as a valuable guiding philosophy in leading your life and building a society
the wisest guiding philosphies for capturing the essence of human nature and harnessing it to maximize human wealth and happiness is to be both altruistic and seflish. capitalism, with social safety nets, as in the usa, or socialism, with a capitalist engine, as in europe.
so beware dear impressionable souls: libertarianism is bunk of the same order and magnitude, in mirror image reverse, as communism. libertarianism is nothing but selfishness with a philosophical bumper sticker stuck on its ass that somehow purports to elevate it to respectability. libertarianism will succeed as soon as human nature is purged of empathy, sympathy, love for one's family, love for one's community, love for humanity itself
in other words, never
the only people who take this shit seriously are earnest but naive college students with too much philosophy classes under their belt and no real life experience, 40-something selfish assholes behind on their alimony payments, and nutjobs who horde guns in the woods and consider themselves to be part of the minutement militia, 2 centuries hence
i wish libertarians and the residual communist idiots would get together on some south pacific island, and leave the rest of us more in touch with the altruistic AND selfish parts of our human nature in peace
libertarianism = loud, useless nonsense, utterly out of touch with human nature
Re:libertarianism is the same fallacy as communism (Score:4, Interesting)
Libertarianism, in essence, is classical liberalism. Are you calling John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Hayek, and Milton Friedman supporters of selfishness? Selfishness is the last quality that I would equate with these people. Where and why do people equate libertarianism with selfishness; somebody please tell me before I go off.
And what does that make you?
Libetarianism is about civil liberties and free-market economics. The socialism that you are pandering doesn't work in the long run and restricts the freedoms of its citizens. One very fallacious error that leftists make is that they claim that government should be "compassionate" and forcibly take money from the most successful in society and give it to the poor because all rich people are selfish (or some other theme). However, governments cannot be compassionate, because governments are entities of force. You should read this article [mises.org] which further explains my viewpoint.
You need to get some books and read them before you spew all of this ignorant crap about a political philosophy that you do not fully understand.
Re:libertarianism is the same fallacy as communism (Score:4, Insightful)
Libetarianism is about civil liberties and free-market economics. The socialism that you are pandering doesn't work in the long run and restricts the freedoms of its citizens.
When government takes money from a millionaire and uses it to educate an immigrant's son, it does several useful things:
The benefits of this are obvious to the person on the street, from a high school drop-out to a mainstream economist. This is why libertarianism can never succeed. Furthermore, libertarianism is its own worst enemy. If it is ever close to succeeding it will just trigger a socialist reaction that will strengthen unions and communist parties.
The "ideal" system is one that rewards people in proportion to their individual (not familial) contribution to society. When you get very far from this ideal (as under pure libertarianism or pure communism) people will cry fowl. Their sense of justice is much stronger than their dedication to any abstraction.
Re:libertarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
You are making a classical statist mistake; conflating government with society. Government and society are two different beasts. Society is the collection of all of the human beings in a certain region. Government is a ruling body that makes and enforces law. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a societal philosophy. Even if libertarianism were a societal philosophy, there will be people who care for its citizens. Rea
Re:Egalitarianism is the enemy of human rights (Score:2)
Liberals = All men are created equal and must stay equal.
Conservitives = All men should have equal opportunities.
Lbertarianism = All men are equal if government gets out of their way
interesting find but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
men who had killed in battle had three times as many children as those who had not.
and
East Asians tend to be more interdependent than the individualists of the West, which he attributed to the social constraints and central control handed down as part of the rice-farming techniques Asians have practiced for thousands of years
I have to say it is pretty badly written. Asians are indeed more community/ society-oriented than westerners who are more individualistic (look at our emphasis on personal freedom and privacy), but that may not all be based on genetics. The level of priority for an asian is Country-> Community -> Family -> ME whereas westerners are traditionally more of ME->Family -> Community -> Country. The asian argument is that without a strong country there cannot be a safe family. However the western priority list above is not something inherent in all westerners, it is just more obvious these days and mostly only in America which the researcher assumes applies to the rest of the western civilisation. A Glance through history would reflect that the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings and even the more modern Britains and Americans have accepted that the country's welfare is in fact more important than their own personal ones, or else nobody (almost) would want to voluntarily enter the Armed forces.
A community-based individual is the by-product or perhaps even the pre-requisite of ancient civilisations. The asians were amongst the first to realise this and never found any reason to change their believe. Thats why they are what they are.
To attribute everything asian to rice is rather immature. This article tells us what we already know - adaptation and evolution happens. But nothing else is new or even believable.
The smell of Controversy in the Morning (Score:2, Funny)
I love these "controversal" articles.
'
I have to agree that we are not created equal. I also have to agree that we all have equal right to human dignity. However, the question is whether being inequal means one being better as a whole than another. What standard are we using to define what makes a human better than another? Survival? Intelligence? Physical Strength? TFA seems to be saying that there is inequality between races, but each race is best suited for their own region. So we do have a sort of equ
fundamental concepts fuzzy at best. (Score:2, Interesting)
This article is built on a foundation of sand. To begin with what's a "nation"? In what sense are distinct populations like the Basques part of the modern nation state that rules over them? Are my Alsatian ancestors "French" or "German"? Or, how do you explain the genetics of places like Poland, which went extinct and then came back?
The category of the nation is relativel
should the pale skinned wear sunscreen? (Score:5, Insightful)
in australia, a bunch of colonists from the murky british isles dropped on a brightly sunlit desert has meant soaring skin cancer cases. am i saying pale people shouldn't wear sunscreen because that would be racist? of course not. that would result in thousands of needless deaths in australia alone ever year
less melanin means you should protect yourself from the sun in other ways. duh. and... what is this supposed to mean to me? what great lessons is supposed to be drawn from this? geographic variations in biochemistry exist
so what? what does it mean? it doesn't have ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER. because race simply doesn't matter
there are many medical conditions which can be shown to be confined historically by geography. sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, lactose intolerance, HIV immunity, rhabdomyelosis vulnerability when on statin drugs, tay-sachs disease, chilblains, vulnerability to gout, etc., ad nauseum. just like nose size (arid or humid conditions), finger length (hot or cold), and skin color (melanin protection from sun), etc., ad nauseum
did you know that on the average, worldwide, men are about 10% darker than females because for females protection from the sun is less important than the critical need for folic acid during early pregnancy, and that can come from the sun? what does this all mean?
nothing!
not a fucking thing! JUST LIKE THIS FUCKING RACIST BULLSHIT
it's little scientific tidbits that don't add up to a whole. all of these little different surface features and biochemical quirks all overlap with each other. you can't draw any lines in the sand that signifies anything meaningful, because all these little quirks you add up have different geographical ranges. it's simply genetic white noise, and it's a quiet signal
meanwhile there is a strong solid tone that is a lot louder: the similarities. so how come the static of surface differences matter so much to some, when if you mapped them they would barely pierce the thick volume of similarities? to focus on these surface statistical perturbations is like someone looking at ripples on the surface of the lake, and completely missing the volume of water in the lake underneath
this is the logical fallacy of racism: ripples on the surface have lessons for us about the volume of water underneath. race is a concept that is silly shallow antiquated nonsense, for if you really truly understood what you were talking about when you bring up medical quirks and statistical anomalies, if you truly had some wisdom behind your words, then the vast volume of medical knowledge and statistics would speak to you of the similarities more than differences, by orders of magnitude
so what the fuck is this article supposed to mean? tell us how ripples on the surface of a lake means something. tell us racists, tell us the deep significance. tell me about sickle cell anemia... what is the lesson for us? what great significance are we supposed to attach to this?
this article is nothing more than a window into the filthy soul of racism, and the fallacies in the reasoning of racists that they overlook to make the evidence fit their presupposed ideas about how much we differ
when the real lesson of all medicine and biochemistry is how similar we are. focusing on the ripples on the surface, versus the volume of water underneath: the fallacy of the "logic" of racism
right (Score:2)
right before the gene for spinning the dradle and right after the gene for wearing yarmukles
pfffffffft
Gene Machines (Score:2)
I think we are more than gene machines.
Mutations (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit PC description (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect in a while people will start complaining about our unfounded notions of temporal superiority, and we will have to stop believing we are superior to past civilisations.
Re:Bullshit PC description (Score:2)
oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:4, Insightful)
Fitness is purely a function of how well you pass on your DNA. This is mostly, but not purely, about making children. Protecting close blood relatives, including siblings and grandchildren, counts toward your fitness because your close blood relatives share lots of DNA with you.
Our current environment doesn't typically feature starvation, so it's no problem to have more babies than most people consider sane. Welfare can help. You just need to make the babies. Major medical defects like diabetes are no problem. So, fitness today...
Lovely world, huh? Evolution doesn't stop, and it sure doesn't obey our desires.
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:2, Funny)
Mmm Catholic school-girls...
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:2)
A preference for incest would be a disadvantage of course. Strong aversion to it might also be a disadvantage today. If you get 1 extra kid, who probably will survive, you come out ahead. Compare:
a. N kids with non-relatives
b. N kids with non-relatives, plus a semi-defective one that can survive with medical help
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:2)
Most people would prefer not to breed with a person who is noticably defective.
Look around you. Lots of defective people manage to breed. Heck, who doesn't have a few defects?
A person who produces 7 healthy kids and one semi-defective kid is more fit than someone who only produces 7 healthy kids. Supposing the semi-defective kid is half as likely to produce grandkids, there is a 7.5 to 7 advantage to the person who produced the semi-defective kid.
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:2)
What matters is how many descendents you create. A kid with any chance of reproducing, no matter how small, is better than no kid at all.
Selection now favors those who have kids early, often, and somewhat indiscriminately.
the defects are uncommon -- some numbers (Score:2)
That's... maybe one out of 33 kids with a noticable problem. Lots of those will manage to breed despite the problem, perhaps with a similar person and thus reducing the in-breeding.
So the numbers look good. Even supposing that all defects resulted in failure to reproduce, the in-bred baby is still over 97% as geneticly useful as a regular baby.
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:3, Informative)
A good example is the Rapanui of Easter Island. Their population grew to 10,000, larger than the island could handle and soon all of its resources were used up. Why? Because instead of working together, the le
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:4, Funny)
Why do I suddenly get the sinking feeling that the next completely idiotic decision George W. makes will be to initiate a nationwide, $500 billion Giant Stone Head initiative?
Re:oooh... yes, define "superior" (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Politically Correct (Score:2)
That's not political correctness. The author is taking a clear stance on the supposed superiority of races. You seem to have ignored the distinction between a well-adapted race and a morally superior race; 'superiority' in this context implies a moral judgment that obviously can't be summarized in genetic terms.
Re:Bullshit PC description (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that you could not tell the difference between what the parent was stating the article supported and what the parent actually believes himself (which was neither stated or implied by any of the parent's statements) is telling. Especially given your apparant predilection toward antisemitism.
Obviously (Score:2)