Is Genetic/Racial Superiority Valid?

They're on an island segregated from the rest of civilization and have been there for 40,000 years, perhaps the intelligent gene was mutated or just bread out over time?

I think the inbreeding just screwed up their genes... I mean these people are only 4.5-5 feet tall as well......

 

I don't think genetics has anything to do with drive... I mean can we genetically engineer someone who likes certain foods? I think there is a point where genes have nothing to do with personal preferences -I think that is all random.

 

Yes, but there is no attempt to teach them these things and the technological difference between a boat and how they live at the moment may be too far to bridge.

But more so, they are not really talked with or communicated with as one society may have naturally done with another in the past because there is more an emphasis on studying an ancient way of living than actually connecting with the people, which would lead to advancement. These are just my guesses though. It could possibly be that they are stupid.

The interest of the observer is to preserve this community in its current form.

 

I always detested cities, I'm an old country boy from way back when. I never could understand how people live on top of one another with no room to breath and roam. But even so, I think we all take cues from someone or somebody. In my instant is was my dad and my dad took his from my grandpa and so on. Now my kids and grand kids take cues from me.

I believe that man can be self-sufficient if he has the desire to be so. A lone wolf so to speak. But it is much easier to rely on others and put forth you 2 cents worth to live in huge groups or societies. I wouldn't live in a city for a million dollars.

 

Depedence. Layers and layers of dependence. People are or come to be heavily reliant on the services and conveniences of the city. Also, you will find a rather amusing network of stick and carrots. I guess the proper term is managed ambtion. People who wish t make something of themselves in the structure must work themselves or entangle themselves into the structure. You need money so you work. To gain better employment you indebt yourself to secure a degree. You then work for some other organization. A quarter of your labor gets taken out of your wages to support the structure. Rather than your work revolving around you life, you fit your life around your work. I could go on...

Man is never self-sufficient. He requires resources to survive. However, what he is tends to be a creature that seeks security, comfort, and convenience. We've set up these great mechanations to make a variety of things more convenient- from getting food to killing each other. These mechanations require even more resources than the individual man does. As we become more and more complicated, our wants become our needs and we need more to attain more which is why we have the current set-up where our politicians are always whipping our backs telling us we need to be better, get more, stay on top, yada yada. A simple country life would be ideal- though not without danger- but men, in general, are not so rugged.

 

Perhaps not anymore. There was a time when America took pride in the rugged individual. Perhaps we have gone soft. I do think you are right about wants becoming needs. But if you have everything you need, why all the extra? Why can't people be happy with what they have instead of wanting what they don't. I mean as long as you have the basics and can survive nicely, why have tons of other junk?

I suppose there are a lot of things I don't get when it comes to city folks. Call it the city infrastructure. The there are the mobs and mobs of people whom really have no idea what they are doing and going about that in such a hurry they have no time to smell the roses. Why spend all your time on the run?

 

Even if one is not necessarily "better" than another, there's still something to be said for maintaining lines of biodiversity within a species.

Imagine if all lines of purebred dog breeds were permanently lost and the only dogs left were all mutts. It would be devastating to rose growers if all the well-loved varieties became gone forever. They might be members of the same species, but a generic rose is not the same is a particular variety. It would be a great loss to posterity if some of these varieties disappeared.

 

Maybe you should try researching instead of ignorantly asserting it's genetic or racial. Why did communist nations fail to progress when they have the upper hand intelligence wise? Communism, duh. Why have south africans failed to progress? http://www.economist.com/news/brief...-full-democracy-1994-failure-leadership-means

There's plenty of reasons depending on the time frame, none of them genetic. I have friends who immigrated from africa from those (*)(*)(*)(*)hole places, most of them have gone to college, one of them to Georgia Tech, top engineering school in the country, and graduated with a B. The AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT allowed him to do this, AFRICAN ENVIRONMENT did not. His genetics were obviously irrelevant.

 

You mean devolving as a society? What's so simple about living in the country, tending a farm sun-up to sundown, cutting wood in the spring so it cures for winter so you don't freeze to death? That stuff takes more time, but you get less return. In modern society you can work 40 hours a week, have evenings and weekends off, and have piles and piles of unnecessary stuff just for the sake of enjoyment, there's a massive food supply, necessities are dirt cheap, and even poor people can afford cable and cell phones, all for less work. This is capitalism. Getting the maximum output for the minimum input required. Efficiency. Nobodies forcing you to do that. Go on and buy a country house and live off the land. If it makes you happy that's your choice.

 

Actually cutting wood is no chore. I just go back to the woods and cut down a few dead trees in the summer. I have two furnaces for the winter. One is electric and the other wood. That way I never have a sky high electric bill. Heck, I'm 69 now and I let the fields out. Meat, I go hunting for deer and rabbit, there is always squirrel if one gets in a pinch. I fish and stock up the freezers. I enjoy hunting so that too is no chore. I buy can goods at Sams. When my mom was alive she had a huge garden and she used to can everything, that is a lost art. Tomatoes, beans, corn. Potatoes we kept in the cellar.

I have a 20 year old TV, 24 inch I think in the living room and it is all the wife and me need. Anything more would be a waste. I have an old wall phone that works without electricity I can use in a pinch. My cell phone is 15 years old and I have it only because my daughter gave it to me. I get annoyed when it rings and usually don't answer it. If the call is important, they can leave a message and I will get back with them. We're happy without trying to keep up with the Jones. We have everything we need and more.

You are right, one should live the life that makes them happy. Mine does. I like being outside and able to grab the shotgun if I have a hankering and head back to the woods to hunt or go fishing. The thing is when you enjoy what you're doing, it really ain't work.

 

Well...that's the point. Back in the day, man generally had to deal with the rugged environment. They didn't really have a choice, per se. However, as time progresses, more and more people become urbanized.

It's also worth it to note that even those suburban and rural areas rely on a number of conveniences produced by urban socieites, like power, internet, generators, tools, and such. Unless they are crafting their own gear and producing their own power somehow, they are also dependents. In this day and age, everything is pretty much connected in some way and few people are really...truly independent. I don't think that urban life is necessarily bad thought, it's just that it typically is for the individual. In such places, it is less about the serving the public and more about the public serving the structure.

 

I realize I rely on society or the infrastructure for quite a lot of conveniences. But I could get by without electricity. The outhouse instead of being a rarely used relic of the past would get more use. I would miss the computer, but before I became, shall I say addicted to it, I read most of the time anyway instead of watching TV. It wouldn't take much to fall back into the old ways. But I imagine someone younger would have a whole lot more problems doing so than I.

It is a whole lot easier to go buy can goods than to can. But I still couldn't take living in a sea of people.

 

I kind of wonder what will become of us in the future. We evolve based on our surroundings, so when people are largely engineering our environments and the engineering is done for the purposes of societies helmsmen, then human beings now have the power to shape their own evolution. In a sense, we are slowly beginning to breed ourselves anyway.

 

Technically you're quite right, with the accuracy that natural selection actually favors a kind of superiority: adaptability [or suitability, if we prefer]. If more several "races" exists, this means that they are superior [more suitable] in something regarding the other races.

 

I kind of wonder what would happen today if another great depression hit this nation. With the rising national debt it probably is just a matter of time. But back in the 1930's, America was still full of rugged individuals who didn't rely on government for everything. We were still a rural nation back then with a lot more families living in the country than the cities. That changed sometime in the 1950's where urban dwellers overtook the rural folks. I think there would be tons of riots now.

Perhaps man has become too reliant on others. Just a thought.

 

Superiority is subjective - each race has minor biological attributes which make them better in certain environments, just as different breeds of cats have different attributes. Dark skin is better at UV protection, while light skin is better at production of vitamin D for example.

The idea though that any physiological differences justify racial supremacist policies or classifying of races as inferior however is bunk - for every dysfunctional member of a race, there is a dysfunctional member of every other race.

 

I think that as they occur naturally, there may be differences in things like intelligences, but, yeah, they probably aren't that different as to suggest one group is significantly more intelligent then the other. The differences might be neglible. However, if someone were to make an effort to force breeding by limiting the intellectual progress of a particular group- somehow- while emphasizing intellectual development over another group, I thing in time it would begin to show a significant effect, but the time it would take for this to happen and the practicality of it is questionable.

 

Similarly, consider IQ tests are visually based tests.
What if an IQ tests was more auditory based? Black people may be superior. Y'think?


Moi

r > g

View attachment 36322
There are always ativisms.​

 

The Chinese are. It's been shown that they have a particular form of tonal precision (I forget the term exactly...). Chinese people grow up studying a multitude of languages, and even their own language uses varying tones of the same word to describe different things. Because of this, Chinese people generally have a unique gift in being able to distinguish between sounds or tones much better. It's been theorized that this is the reason why Chinese people are very astute in playing music- especially when you hear their language, which sounds very much like sing-song anyway.

However, this, would be another example of the environment conditioning a change in the natural habit. I'm not sure if this distinction has become a genetic inclination yet, but it is because of the external environmental factors that the Chinese exhibit this auditory...prowess?

This may interest you...

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91512-musical-language/

 

Inbreeding doesn't screw up anything. It AMPLIFIES the original characteristics, the good AND the bad, The bad tends to outweigh the good as time goes on because while there are an infinite number of ways to get It wrong, there is rarely more than one to get it right. If you have a tough natural stone age environment to cull your offspring or more than 500 people inbreeding isn't really going to be a problem.

These people have no way of knowing that the ocean around them doesn't go on forever, as indeed it must seem to. The Egyptians never explored the Libyan desert even though they had come from there because that was where the sun set and the world ended. Why should they follow their ancestors into the lands of death?

The average Roman was 5 feet tall. We moderns eat extremely well compared to our forefathers, who are humanities natural height

 

I don't know about that. I think losing a third of the population to an uncontrollable plague at a time before there even existed a germ theory of disease, let alone any effective treatment, was more stressful than any economic upset can be today. The mortality rates, especially among women and kids, also would have made life in the past a lot more stressful on the whole. Then there's the lack of a great many comforts we take for granted today, like hot water and bathing.

People today seldom realise just how good they've got it!