We know that different breeds of dogs are known for different personality traits. Even though they are all 100% the EXACT same species, Canis lupus familiaris. That means that different populations of a species, can not only be different phenotypically, but also in regards to their behavior. So what if, in the not so different future, we discover indisputable evidence that black Africans possess genes that promote anti-social behavior, such as theft, rape, murder? What if we discover they have genes or a combination of genes, hormones, that push lack of social empathy, and tendensies towards anti-social feelings and other things that lead to crime? what do we do? massive gene therapy? massive human selective breeding and forced non-breeding, to promose those individuals that don't have the genes and make sure those who do, don't reproduce? its a very difficult and tricky issue, but scientific advances regarding understanding the humane genome may bring us to this point.
If we did, we would have to also ask how the black crime rate was the lowest ever pre 1950s. We'd have to wonder what triggers the genes, especially since the vast majority of black people aren't anti-social or violent. In fact, black people are pretty social people. Aside from that, I'd like to know why there is this strange fixation/obssession of "black" people comes from. People seem to overlook the other races who are far more violent absolute-wise and per-capita wise (worldwide).
the FBI crime stats on race are troubling. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43 and remember, this is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying there definitely are genetic and hormonal reasons as to why crimes rates amongst blacks are higher than for whites and Asians.
Human populations are not as genetically different as breeds of dogs, which were selectively bred, so science already indicates that this assumption isn't true. Suppose it were true. What do we do about it? That's a legitimate question. If it were true that certain populations were genetically prone to anti-social behavior and violent crime I would not support racism. I think a more humane and Egalitarian solution would be to seek a cure for their ailment such as gene therapy. We know that families can have a history of mental illness indicating that there is a genetic component to certain mental disorders. What do we do about that? Discriminate against the mentally ill? No, we have behavioral health facilities and medications for people afflicted with mental illness. If certain groups were genetically prone to being more aggressive and violent society is morally obligated to help them.
yes, I think gene therapy would be the first course of action. and maybe paying people to NOT have kids but instead adopt, if we find they possess the certain genes, is another option.
You completely dodged my point. I'm playing along, just adding in some considerations. If you want to carry on with the low-hanging fruit of an anti-black campaign and not address any real inputs, by all means carry on.
I only offer a rather weak based opinion. I happen to see the problem as culture. I can't prove it but since when we see the criminals talking, there seems to be the culture element. I looked at the FBI figures and noted that blacks indeed do commit the most crimes per capita, race taken into account. However that may be, I also would believe the vast majority of blacks are not in the criminal groups so don't see genes as the root cause.
Two reasons. First, we have the human genome bottleneck. At ten thousand years ago, we had what is supposed to be Mount Tubo supervolcano. We as a species, were winnowed down to as few as 40 mating couples. So, the incestuousness of the mating pool, at that juncture, makes variability strictly contained. Second, while nature, and the inventiveness of man can change the directions of species pressures, man has no similar function, outside of Nazi eugenics. F.U.C.K, or fornication under consent of the King, has been lackluster in it's real effects. Even Neanderthals kept the weak around past their payback, utilitywise. Much to the chagrin of Ayn Randians. Were Nazis allowed to continue their experiments on the human genome, we would have even more data available along those lines, but professional integrity stops MOSt experiments from going forward on humans.
Have you seen the genocide numbers committed by whites in the Soviet Union and the millions killed in wars and civil actions? Have you seen the number of dead in the Chinese revolutions? There is no one race that has a halo when it comes to being violent or stealing property. Have you looked at how quickly the incarceration numbers for black American women have dropped as they are ale to enter the workforce. I believe,, last I heard, the the percentage of white females in prison was going to exceed the percentage of black American women this year. All this points to sever lack of critical thinking on your part to make genetics a part of violent crime.
They're nothing compared to the crime rates in Hispanic countries. They only seem sky high because of low population areas compared to larger ones. Many Hispanic cities have the Black city crime rates dwarfed per capita and in raw numbers, but for some reason this isn't interesting to anyone. The FBI crime stats are high now for black criminals, but they were not always high and these types of crimes did not always exist in the Black community, which is why I asked the questions I did. Oh and I cite the FBI crime stats all the time. I also learned this: Much crime in black communities are super concentrated in some cities/neighborhoods while other black locales have very low crimes. Trying to blame it on genes versus environment doesn't make sense to me especially since no one ascribes the behaviors of other races on their genes.
well, I trust the crime stats in the USA, and they show blacks committing a very disproportianate amount of crime. - - - Updated - - - this is a hypothetic scenario, bro. and you are wrong, as many scientists believe higher IQ rates and unfortunately higher rates of mental illness among Ashkenazi Jews, is due to genetics, specifically the genetic bottleneck that Jews in Europe encountered around 500 AD
You are basing generalizations of black persons off the strength of a very small population within the demographic. The hypothetical would make sense if like 20-70% of black people were violent, but not even a full percent are. Then you claim this is all hypothetical but nothing you bring up is hypothetical. Just the same stereotypes and talking points even when you bring up Jews. This is just a thinly-veiled attack on black people and you can bring up all the anti-black talking points you want calling them hypothetical; it's just too obvious what this is.
dude, this is a hypothetical thread. it deals with the hypothetical scenario where we discover that many blacks possess genes or hormones that fuel aggressive and anti-social behavior, and how we would address this. are you going to address the thread, or complain that the thread exists?
I did address the hypothetical and you responded with an address to something different altogether. We'd find what the triggers were was part of my response.
You do realize that people have been actively breeding dogs to have these specific behaviors right? Of course, if you selectively breed humans over many generations there could potentially be some changes in their behavior from a biological standpoint. But this isn't science fiction, we are not the Draka. Black people have not been breed to be anti-social. That is a disgusting idea supported by charlatans and scientific racists like Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.
Are you saying blacks had a low crime rate when they were living under Jim Crow era white rule? Why do you think blacks today in the US and UK are so violent compared to other groups and other eras? - - - Updated - - - Could you support this claim with actual quotes by Charles Murray?
Rushton's thesis in Race, Evolution and Behavior was that Blacks were stupid, violent and hypersexual because of evolutionary differences between themselves and other races. In The Bell Curve the authors did endorse the views of Rushton.
These are silly questions. The Jim Crow era was a segregation era not a white rule over black people era. It was called separate but equal for a reason. Black people aren't violent. Some are. But those that are have a certain type of mindset and or environmental circumstance that makes destructive violence a lifestyle choice.
So you have a quote from Charles Murry where he either writes blacks were bred to be anti-social, or where he accepts/endorses a quote by Rushton stating that?
do you believe that all things being equal, such as poverty, education, single-parent household rate, blacks and whites would have identical violent crime rates?
I didn't say that. I said that Rushton argued that Blacks were stupid, violent and hypersexual because of evolutionary differences. I for one have no doubt that all things being equal environmentally Blacks and Whites would have the same violent crime rates.
