there is the whole Jarad Diamond thesis which would imply that you need certain conditions which would trigger a culture that is capable of developing. A popular example cited is the fact that Eurasia had the advantage of the horse which could be domesticated but an African Zebra cant.Originally Posted by Dr Pat
The experience of you as one person is not exactly a firm scientific basis for your sweeping generalisation. I agree that no one likes to be discriminated against. It may well be that other animals do not like discrimination as well but does that mean we have to treat them all equally? Your stance that those with mental handicaps should therefore be treated equally must therefore have some basis other than a rational scientific one, no?
Yeah just plain old common decency I suppose. It's what is supposed to seperate us from animals although I wonder about that as sometimes animals seem to have more decency then a lot of people these days.
What do you suggest we do, throw them off a cliff at birth like they did in Sparta?
When the Social Contract is broken, a Revolution is required - John Locke (1690)
"I am Legion for we are many."
Seriously, I would recommend rerreading some of the points made on this thread already. It is through the study of ourselves and the understanding that we differ can we improve conditions for everyone. Hiding from reality will not solve anything.
The research has already begun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...HapMap_Project
What an incredible leap in logic...?BTW if in the future science can prevent people being born with genetic diseases I think that's a good thing but I don't believe that whole races should be wiped because they don't have the so called right DNA or Azales or whatever it's called.
Last edited by Telemachus; 28th January 2012 at 12:13 AM.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Of course he is right that it's unlikely that racial groups will turn out to have exactly the same powers of reason,however the suggestion that it might be so great as to cause the African tragedy is just ridiculous.There are very few racial groups on this earth who have not had periods of high civilization in their history. Presumably they still have the same genetic make up during the lower periods.This indicates very strongly that culture is by far the most important factor.Usually some natural disaster has intervened with the progress and sent them back or they reach some natural limit like lack of water or some such.The Clovis in North America ran out of prey animals so successful were their methods and organisation.Any of these peoples would do less well in tests during the low points-it's incredible that a scientist of his stature would be so slovenly in his thinking -too much time in the laboratory I think and not enough history.
There is research out there - some of it is dodgy but there are also good studies like this one -
secure.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black/interracial children adopted by advantaged white families. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of environmental and genetic factors to the poor performance of black children on IQ tests as compared to white children.
Forbidden thought --- are white victims of racist murders ignored by the establishment and the media ?
youtube.com/watch?v=CgvOAhePIcI
"Imagine" is here the operative word. Surely, the question of what is "more or less desirable" is entirely subjective, a culture dependent judgement. As cultures become increasingly homogenous, such a set of 'desirables' may likewise increase in homogeneity to create a gold standard against which men are compared and scored. I am not convinced that such a point has been reached yet or if it ever will....you who begin to understand genetics, begin to perceive that there are, in fact, different populations of humanity that are endowed with different constellation of alleles that we imagine are more or less desirable?
When scientists attempt to explain the complexities of research 'to the lady on the bus', much is lost in the distillation. If we confront the cold reality, mapping genes to traits is difficult to do. Some success has been achieved using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) but the results are certainly not comprehensive and allow few statements to be made about the underlying biological mechanisms contributing to the manifestation of characteristics. Less is known about environmetal contributions. If a group of emminent geneticists were asked to summarise their research area in a single sentence, it would be truthful of them to simply conclude that it is 'more complex than we can currenty conceive".
The notion of constructing gametes to harbour "desirable constellations of alleles" first requires the ability to identify these alleles. Should this be possible, and I contend that we are approaching a point where it is becoming more tractable in natural populations, e.g., humans, the benefits are such that we will be in a position to elucidate the mechanisms of disease. This is certainly advantageous but does nothing to counter the potential for the misuse of scientific knowledge. I believe that position, review, perspective and opinion papers from scientists, although not research, are important publications for creating debates on the potential uses of new technologies if we are to avoid the 'genetic H-bomb'. To this end, I think the oft outlandish opinions of established noble prize winners require publication.
20Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote