This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by death metal black metal, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    I don't think that war in inherently wrong. I support my country's presence in Afghanistan.

    Since the advent of liberal democracy, the degree of violent death has decreased exponentially. Yes, when major conflicts occur, they are far more devastating. However, if the same proportionate amount of people died at the hands of their fellow humans in the 20th century as in the pre-modern period, there would have been two billion deaths from warfare. Not 100 million. You can literally see that deaths from violence are decreasing by the decade, world-wide.

    I don't think that you can say that war is a natural inevitability either, it's too recent a practice to have been shaped by natural selection. If it is inevitable it is because of tribalism and nationalism, that is select ingroups fighting over scarce resources.
     
  2. Έρεβος

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Maine, United States
    Since the advent of liberal democracy (and communism: they have the same effects) population has also exponentially increased. Which is worse, violent death, or mass early death due to over-consumption of resources? The level of violent death in earlier ages helped off-set the unnaturally destructive increase in population we are experiencing now.

    Also, the type of violence was not wholly unhealthy as is it is in modern warfare; in fact, it was extremely biologically beneficial. The healthiest, strongest, most intelligent, most fit specimens survived to the greatest degree: it was positively selective. Modern warfare is impersonal, relying on technology rather than individual prowess and strategical genius. It kills without discrimination: fit and unfit alike.

    But, anyway, this has nothing to do with the systems of gov't or societal organization. The numbers have to do with primarily technology. Modern advancements allow for quicker wars with less overall casualties. Whilst ancient methods of warfare were much more to-the-last-man, as one man could hold out against many. It doesn't matter if people live in tribes, nations, or a global society: swords require much more unmitigated methods of battle than bombs and guns. Communication and transportation advances also greatly expedite conflicts. It has little, to nothing at all, to do with the basic form of social organization & government.

    Not to mention the massive cheapening of life liberal democracy has brought.

    Too recent a practice? Warfare has been practiced since recorded human history. What has tribalism and nationalism have to do with it? Nationalism is national pride & identity, and the belief in its preservation: nothing negative to or intrusive upon other societies. It hasn't a thing to do with thinking your nation or ethnic group has any more of a right to exist than any other. That ideology has simply existed parallel with, but still not tied to, nationalism, to a historical extent so great that we've wrongly associated the two: it stems out of nationalism, but goes far beyond it, making assertions which require a nationalistic base but are not in themselves nationalistic. And, again, what logical tie does tribalism have with war? They are separate entities entirely, associated as they are due to another massive misconception: just because they've existed together to a great extent we tie the two together without any reason aside from that. It's like saying long hair defines someone as being female.

    Warfare stems from mammalian and human nature, not nationalism, not tribalism. Mammalian nature is to compete, with violence, over resources (habitat and food) and mates. Human nature to organize into social large social units (tribes, states, nations, etc.), which develop an identity and work together for survival. In a way, these units become living organisms in their own right, with specialized parts working together for the health of the whole. And as is mammalian nature, these units compete, with violence, over resources; which on the large scale, as it occurs naturally with the human species, is called war.
     
  3. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    This seems a terribly flimsy proposition. Racial and ethnic groups the world over openly express preference for their offspring to mate within their own 'kind.' Surely that doesn't make one a xenophobe or bigot.
    All the same, I suppose I would be very disappointed with the scenario you describe - just as I suspect the Hindu man's family would likely be. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is a concern for some of us - I make no apologies for that.
     
  4. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Έρεβος, why is the clever development and use of new technology not a product of "individual prowess and strategical genius"? The entire three first paragraphs of your post are swords and sorcery romanticism. I can't take it seriously.

    How has liberal democracy, the first ever system to put the individual human life and its rights at the centre of the legal system, cheapen life exactly? Individual lives in the premodern society were for burning at the altar of the gods, and meaningless to the health of the tribe.

    "Since recorded human history". Do you realize how brief a timespan this is? Ten thousand years is a blink in the eye of evolutionary time. Our chimplike ancestors practiced raids, but organized warfare had to wait until the dawn of human culture. Your description of the mammalian tendency towards "war" which is as unique a human concept as agriculture or music, once again belies your lack of comprehension of evolutionary theory.

    Old Scratch, yes that does make you a xenophobe. Sorry. The "kinds" you mention bely an emotional need from the infancy of our species that would be best cast aside
     
  5. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    Are you serious? The "kinds" I mention are universally acknowledged ethnic groups of people, not some needy emotional throwback! Or are you now suggesting all of humanity is already one big meaningless mishmash ready for ultimate dilution into one utterly non-distict people? Japanese, Italian, Scandinavian, Haitian...all the same?
     
  6. Justin S.

    Justin S. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,007
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Scratch, you know better than to listen to poon.

    :zombie:
     
  7. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    :erk:
     
  8. Έρεβος

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Maine, United States
    If by "evolutionary theory" you mean the sort of bull-shit that labels race a social construct, sure, I lack comprehension of it entirely, and all other forms of idiocy.

    And I never said mammalian tendency towards war. I said mammalian tendency towards conflict for territory, food, and mates. That translates to war for a large-scale social species, duh.
     
  9. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Well it depends if you mean in terms of genetics or in terms of culture. Genetically, humanity has been through a serious bottleneck. We are what biologists call (perhaps ironically) a "small species". Any two chimpanzees might be more different genetically than a Japanese, Italian, Scandinavian, Haitian etc. Confucius said that by nature men are very much the same, but in practice they are very far apart. I think he was on to something.
     
  10. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    All differences are important. Natural selection puts all creatures in a metaphorical centrifuge. We should not try and push together creatures that are naturally pulling away from earlier forms. All that international mass mongrelization does is to tangle up branches of evolution, throwing the situation into violent chaos, and necessitating that many more wars and more suffering will be necessary in order for the different ethnicities to once again separate themselves and move in their respective directions. Why impose that on humanity? We should work with Mother Nature, not against her.
     
  11. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Your statements reveal that you know very little about natural selection. There is absolutely no foresight involved whatsoever. There is no progressive development in mind with an ubermensch as the end product, there is no defined path ahead. Evolution is a mindless algorithmic process, and it is our defiance of it which defines us as a species.

    Would you expose your child to the elements if it was sickly? Have you ever had protected sex?

    As for the metaphorical centrifuge, how do you explain convergence? Why is the skull of the now extinct tasmanian dog virtually identical to that of our modern canines, despite the fact that it was more closely related to kangaroos? What of the similarities between ancient ichthyosaurs and modern fish? Organisms are shaped by their environment, like a key fits a lock. Humans living on different continents all have had the same mutations, they have simply been beneficial and selected for in different environmental circumstances. There is no reason to assume that intelligence has been selected for in Europeans moreso than in others, and there is no reason to believe that people of different races can't flourish and co-operate within a society.
     
  12. Έρεβος

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Maine, United States
    I thought about responding again, but no, no, it's entirely pointless, and not even remotely stimulating of thought.

    And I've no clue how that can even possibly be responded to. It's kind of like arguing against someone declaring god's existence; there's no flawed logic, there simply isn't any at all. It's like every logical fallacy inherent of liberalism magnified to a numbing degree, making everyone else dumber for the experience.

    Justin's got it right.
     
  13. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    All I am saying is that brute facts from the field or the laboratory have no effect on human life as a whole. What we know won't change us. Twisting Darwin's beautiful theory to justify irrational fear and hatred of those who look different from us is a tragedy.

    Evolution does not occur on the level of the group! If anything, you are competing with members of your own ethnic group, not as a member of your group against others. Evolution occurs on the level of the gene. If anyone here could point out where there are any logical fallacies in my arguments, Im all ears. Everything I've defended is established scientific fact. All I get here is misinformed ranting.

    What do you loathe and fear about liberalism?

    Έρεβος, you have not once responded to any of my criticisms of the useless fallacies that you've spouted in your posts in this thread. You think that ancient Greeks lived better than we do? You think liberalism cheapens life? You think that primitive warfare was more a reflection of individual fitness than modern warfare, and was less gruesome? You think that race is solid enough an issue to justify prejudice? Explain yourself then! Is the only thing you find stimulating that which accords with your views? Do the black kids at your school pick on you or something?
     
  14. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    Actually, the reasons to believe either of those are manifold - you simply chose not to believe or agree with those reasons. That is fair, but does not mean different conclusions cannot be reached by others. Either way, this thread is more than tedious by this point and we are surely not going to convince one another to change our respective minds. So, let's move on...
     
  15. cryosteel

    cryosteel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    The sickle cell mutation reflects a single change in the amino acid building blocks of the oxygen-transport protein, hemoglobin.

    How unfortunate that all the races equally acquired the sickle cell mutation.

    Tay-Sachs disease is very rare in the general population. The genetic mutations that cause this disease are more common in people of Ashkenazi (eastern and central European) Jewish heritage than in those with other backgrounds.

    How unfortunate that all the races equally acquired the tay-sachs mutation.

    Can you give the haters examples of how Europeans have only shown a level of intelligence that is exactly the same as that of non-European genetic clusters? The haters also need to realize that thousands of years inhabiting an Ice Age freeze had no effect on European intelligence differing from non-Europeans living in more accomodating climates.

    Also in the interest of promoting the egalitarian religion, the haters can attain salvation once they understand people of different races have flourished and cooperated consistently within the same society throughout history. The haters just need some examples of our past multicultural utopias that they seem to be ignoring.
     
  16. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    I agree that this discussion is past its best before date, but the mutations you mention are good examples of what I'm talking about. Sickle-cell anaemia propagated amongst africans as a response to malaria, which is more common in Africa than elsewhere. There is some serious indication that Tay-sachs might be tied with high intelligence, and that it is how it came to be prevalent among ashkenazi jews. Genetic weaknesses wouldn't spread through an entire ethnic group unless it was ultimately contributing to adaptive fitness in the environment.

    Your ice age theory leads one to wonder where all the Eskimo and Siberian scientists are.
     
  17. cryosteel

    cryosteel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    You left out the north Asians. Still, scientists doesn't substantially prove intelligence more than ready access to accredited modern universities. Rather, it lends weight to biological determinism.

    Why aren't we asking what madness took hold of those tribes who chose to venture out of accomodating climates into a deep freeze, enduring, giving their later decendents the ability to intelligently plan and organize for the long term? Compare with the present conditions of those people whose ancestors did not make this extraordinary choice.
     
  18. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    I understand natural selection perfectly. Of course I know there is no conscious foresight involved! The centrifugal force, which makes every difference into a potential starting point for speciation (by which process many millions of species evolve from a smaller number) is no more conscious than the fact that water naturally runs downhill.
    Multiculturalists are working against the natural force for differentiation and speciation on the same logic as someone who thinks water can be made to run uphill. It can be forced, but it is working against the natural flow. If defiance of nature is what defines humanity as a species, then humanity is truly doomed. But perhaps a new species, one that has adapted to work WITH nature, will emerge. Perhaps we can call that the Superman.

    The Tasmanian dog is not a modern canine. Do you think I am suggesting that speciation involves entirely novel physical forms emerging? Of course not. Mammals will continue to have two eyes, one brain, etc. It doesn't mean they aren't diverging in other significant ways!

    There is reason to suggest that intelligence has been selected for in those species that have needed that intelligence to survive (eg Ice age conditions) and/or who sexually select for intelligence rather than looks or random copulation.
     
  19. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    There's the crux, there is no natural force or flow. Indicating that humans would have further diverged had they not developed to the level where they could cross the oceans and the mountains is moot. We evolved to be the species with culture and appreciation of meaning. You are imparting some direction onto evolution, one which can be forcibly rejected, despite the fact that you said that you know it completely lacks foresight.

    I think that your superman already exists, and it's called Gorilla.
     
  20. Έρεβος

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Maine, United States
    Sure there is, but I believe the more accurate terminology would be natural balance. Things in nature evolve in balance; if something becomes unbalancing, it dies, or kills its environment and then dies. Living in accordance with the flow of nature means living in balance with our environments, with the other species of living organisms which we are dependent on for survival, and progressing (evolving) along with them.
     

Share This Page