Evolution Fuels Racism

[ku]

The site below suggests that the theory of evolution fuels racism. I'm certainly not a creationist nor am I a racist, but it is interesting to note that eugenics, the rise of Adolf Hitler, etc were very much the result of (a misunderstanding of) Darwinian theory.

 

http://www.onehumanrace.com/

[Stargazer]

Exactly, it's because of misunderstanding the theory. The theory itself, of course, does not say anything about how we should treat each other. Also, the validity of a theory has nothing to do with whether we personally like it or not. Only creationists would say such things.

[Sayonara]

Like most anti-evolution "resources", that site preys on fear.

 

Hurrah for them.

[swansont]

Sponsored by Answers in Genesis, in association with GospelCom.Net and Master Books.

 

Whoah! Didn't see that one coming from 20 miles away!

[Xavier]

This comment and the web site that spawned it needs answering fully. I hope others will wiegh in as well, but here are my thoughts:-

 

Firstly, the OneHumanRace website.

The content of the site preaches anti-racism from a biblical context - so far so good - but its sideswipes at evolution seem scattered and selective, using quotations and partial notions without any understanding of the underlying concepts.

 

Deep into the web sites comes the question "How does evolution influence racist attitudes?" and the answers give a piecemeal history of the social attitudes to race through history including the way darwinian evolutionary theory was used as an anology for the human condition.

It is worth clearly pointing out that during the age of european colonisation of the rest of the world - before anyone had heard of evolution - 'racism' was accepted as right; after all the Victorian Englishman could clearly observe that the natives of the lands that he conquered did not worship the christian god, wear clothes or have good table manners so they were 'clearly inferior' and they were, of course easily conquered which proved it. The chinese, on the other hand, were much more difficult to conquer than the Africans so were considered less inferior, though they were still considered alien and dangerous.

From this context, other races fitted the analogy of animals better than humans - after all everyone knew what a human looked like whereas animals came in all shapes and sizes and they existed to be controlled and used by men. (The chinese fitted the analogy of demons or other supernatural entities quite well as they were not controllable and the inscrutable oriental became a stock villian for the Victorian horror story)

 

Then along comes Darwin and evolutionary theory and the religious Victorian society are up in arms about the idea that they are related to monkeys. Monkeys are chosen as the point of shock perhaps as it is very well known by then that blacks and whites can and do interbreed and that it is far from impossible that any Victorian actually did have a mixed race ancestry. A species is defined as a group that are able to interbreed in a natural environment, a definition that grew in importance from a mere taxanomic device with evolutionary theory and humans were clearly of a single species.

 

Social evolution was dreamed up at the end of the Victorian era as a last gasp of the notion of a clear divide between the the races within the human species and without the benefit of a genetic mechanism for evolutionary progression, it must have seemed reasonable that evolution of a society was analogous to evolution within a species. Eugenics, the dabbling in the system was way of directing human interbreeding was intended for the betterment of the human species, just like breeding programs for domestic animals.

The problem throughout is with the judgement of what constitutes 'Better': the europeans presumed they were better because their religion told them so and it was backed up by their superior technology. The social evolutionists argued that the betterment of the species was, by definition better for all the individuals - at heart, this was a misconception of the nature of evolution as having a purpose and a goal that all individuals aspired to in some subconscious metaphysical sense.

 

Currently there is a dogma that it is impossible of any human to be 'better' than any other where 'better' might be loosely defined as 'more worthy to use up his or her share of the available resouces'. This is not really our true opinion of the matter is evidenced by that fact that court cases to this day crop up where a seriously congenitally disabled persons right to have sex is being championed or challenged (which one depends on the prevailing opinions of the legal guardians), not to mention the lack of any moral concensus on the issue of genetically engineered 'designer' babies.

Those are cases where the spectre of eugenics still causes debate because there are valid arguments on the side of human intervention in natural procreation (for example preimplantation genetic diagnosis of IVF embryos to select for a baby lacking some particular defective genes).

Each person may argue differently in these very special cases but they show that the principle of absolute equality is not clear cut.

 

In fact, practically the principle of absolute equality barely gets a lok in to real life. But the most important criterion of discrimination is not anything as abstract as race; it is geography. The closer someone is to you, the more you care about them. Closeness, here can mean physical proximity, or social proximity or even just imagined closeness, such as peoples relationship with celebrities.

Race, particularly where there is an obvious viual disticntion between your race and that of another person, is just another marker in the index of closeness to another person.

 

This practice IS evolutionary in origin. It is a part of kin selection, the determination of which other individuals who are more likely to share your genes. If you aid those with whom you share genes in survival and reproduction then there will be more of your genes in succeeding generations, including the genes that promoted the behaviour of helping your gene-mates. The most obvious example of this is with families; if you know your relationship with your parent/child/sibling then you know that they carry half of the genes that you do (the other half coming from the other parent) so genes that promote helping them have a better chance of being in the next generation of bodies than genes that do not. A mother can be fairly certain about her relationship with a child and a father a little less so (a lot of animal behaviour can be explained by the male's desire to be certain that he is indeed the father of the brood he helps to nurture - though not necessarily human male behaviour) but for a sibling, they must generally assume that any individual sharing their nest is more likely than not to be a brother or sister.

In species with extended family groups (packs, tribes) the degree of relationship is not known but there is sufficient advantage to be gained (for the spreading of the genes that promote it) from spotting those who share your genes that recognition of individuals whom are often seen and even family resemblances have evolved.

 

Humans are uniquely gregarious in the number of different individuals they interactions with. Furthermore, part of their success as a species has been in large scale cooperation. The closer you are to others the more likely they are to share at least some of your genes, whether this is on the scale of your household, your village or even your nation. The communications and travel revolution over the last couple of centuries have made a mockery or this but as little as 100 years ago most inhabitants of a rural village would be related.

 

The Green Beard effect is an ethnographic thought experiment that postulates the existence of a gene that simultaneously gives a clear visible indication of its existence in a body, like having blue eyes or a green beard and also promotes giving help to any other body whose beard is green. Because you know for certain that that body has the green beard gene then, as far as your own 'green beard' gene is concerned if you risk your life to save the other fellow the payoff is the same - the green beard gene still survives. Such individuals would be closer than even siblings as you don't know for sure which genes are in your brother or sisters body - for a gene promoting any sort of sibling-helping behaviour there is a 50% chance that it is wasting its time.

 

Skin colour is a sort of reverse gren beard effect. It doesn't have the certainty of the green beard gene but it indicates the the different-coloured person is from a different sub-population (ie race) with a somewhat different genepool. Helping them is therefore less likely to get the helping-behaviour gene into the next generation than helping a same-coloured.

This is exactly the equivalent of helping someone who bears a family resemblance with you over some one who doesn't getting that behaviour-gene into the next generation; only the reason for presuming a greater genetic closeness is different.

And this is precisely the same, qualitatively, as favouring your child over a stranger!

 

Any person who claims that racial discrimination is always completely wrong must accept also that familial discrimination is also wrong. The practice of inheritance will have to be closely examined for evidence of discrimination against non-family members!

I need to qualify this statement by reminding you that there is a great difference in degree between race and family, just as there is the difference in the percentage of your genes being also in your brother compared to someone who merely has the same skin colour. However, I described the racial discrimination as 'always' and 'completely' wrong. If any sort of discrimination is entirely wrong then how can 'family values' be any less wrong?

 

Racism is an evolved trait. It increased the chance of the genes in a body that practiced racism to be more poplace in suceeding generations

I shall, for the sake of propriety restate the obvious, that ethnographt does not translate to humans as we have free will, we have societies that make the behavioural traits of our genes irrelevant, wildly out of date and in this case actually counterproductive. In the global village of the past century or so there would have been a strong evolutionary pressure against racism as worldwide cooperation becomes increasingly important, except that social pressures vastly outweigh evolutionary pressures and act on a hugely faster timeframe.

 

EVOLUTION is a fact. It is a logical sequence of events that must occur given the starting premises - there exists an entity that can replicate itself,

different forms of the entity can have a differential effect on the rate of replication of one entity over another and the replication is highly, but not perfectly, accurate - or Facility, Fecundity and Fidelity.

HOWEVER, whether evolution acted upon life on Earth to create the world we see around us is unproven, in fact the only evidence is circumstantial - it seems to fit well as a theory (of course the ame can be said of the Theory of Gravity)

BUT, given that we know that there is an entity that posesses facility, fecundity and fidelity, any competing theory must not only explain life on Earth but must also explain how it came about that no evolution took place.

 

Racism is a small part of a long, complicated logical sequence of events that was inevitable from the moment the first replicating entity appreared on the planet. To try to ignore the evolution of life on Earth because it had this inevitable consequence is foolish. To understand that there is the potential for racism inside everyone (of every race) and that it does not make them evil or wrong is preferable as it will make people more aware of the need to recast about their instinctive reactions as concsious social beings.

[Hellbender]

One thing I would like to quickly point out is that the bible (before any creationists decide to start a flame war with this) has been used to support racism in the past, as it probably still is by the KKK. Racists will usually find any reason they can to justify their belief. I could see how the misunderstanding of evolution theory could be used to support racism, becasue people tended to have a misconception about evolution being a "ladder" of "inferior" species under "superior" ones, and arbiratrarily assumed that whites were superior and say, native americans, were inferior.

[Flareon]

Xavier, I agree with much of what you said. I would just like to add a little of my point of view.

 

If innate potential of racism is beneficial to the subgroup of a species due to increased propagation of similar genes, then killing of step children, adultery, even some forms of incest should also be "beneficial."

 

Just because a concept is legitimate in the biological sense does not make it right in the social sense. And we human beings while inescapably biological are also just as inescapably social creatures.

 

Xavier, if you are speaking strictly in terms of biology, that's well and fine. But personally I believe that the line between understanding a nature and acceptance of it is frequently crossed in such a manner as you have shown. But this is not to assume any knowledge on my part of your motivations as I do not know you as a person.

[ku]

Many dispicable things are natural in a biological sense, such as the capacity for violence. The rule of law exists to mitigate the harmful consequences stemming from these natural human instincts.

[Hellbender]

Many dispicable things are natural in a biological sense, such as the capacity for violence. The rule of law exists to mitigate the harmful consequences stemming from these natural human instincts.

 

exactly. The laws of nature are obviously neutral on the topics of morality and ethics. Humans will do what they do and apparently do anything to justify doing it.

[Asian Guy]

The site below suggests that the theory of evolution fuels racism. I'm certainly not a creationist nor am I a racist' date=' but it is interesting to note that eugenics, the rise of Adolf Hitler, etc were very much the result of (a misunderstanding of) Darwinian theory.

 

http://www.onehumanrace.com/[/quote']

 

Human nature is ethnocentric, regardless of world view. In other words, 'racism' is in our genes. Humans evolved in tribal groups, and ingroup/outgroup morality was selected for - killing the outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup. Traitors were killed off, only 'racist' members were valued.

 

Regarding Charles Darwin, he was an ardent supporter of eugenics, believing that the '"scum" of society were proliferating, in his own words, see http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

 

Also, Darwin was the half-cousin of Francis Galton, the creator of modern eugenics, see http://www.galton.org/

[Fortuna]

Well, I think a good deal has been said here so far. We all understand that the theory of evolution is a theoretical model we use, and I for one cannot deny that it is a very useful model and as a framework for other models and understanding aspects of biochemistry and special areas of organic chemistry, just like gravity (as another poster says). Niether evolution nor gravity has anything to do with ethical or moral concerns. These are wooden and literal theories. But interestingly, that is what those who publish this propoganda are trying to say ?

 

I am led now to question their motivation for putting forth such a distortion of the true information. Why ? The reason is that the evolutionary model and those parts of the other sciences that use it conflicts with their worldview.

 

Obviously, if they don't like the fact that we use this model, I would ask them to create for us an equal or a (hopefully) better one. I am open to a different one, especially if it is better ! But, they don't have any. What else is there to say ?

 

Yet my irony meter is off the scale ! Racism is big in the bible. Consider that they call themselves "chosen people". Some of those stories are very racist and brutal, pillaging, stories of atrocities against Canaanite women and children, etc. I will stop now. but ..... Oivey !

 

 

In any case, I'm glad to see it being addressed honestly.

[Aardvark]

Regarding Charles Darwin' date=' he was an ardent supporter of eugenics, believing that the '"scum" of society were proliferating, in his own words, see http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

[/quote']

 

Looking at your link i can't find any quote from Darwin, esp the use of the word 'scum' to describe any people.

 

Am i missing the reference or have you made a mistake?

[ku]

Human nature is ethnocentric, regardless of world view. In other words, 'racism' is in our genes. Humans evolved in tribal groups, and ingroup/outgroup morality was selected for - killing the outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup. Traitors were killed off, only 'racist' members were valued.

Like I said in http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=148346&postcount=9, many bad things are natural. I wouldn't be surprise if a scientist claimed rape was natural.

 

Regarding Charles Darwin, he was an ardent supporter of eugenics, believing that the '"scum" of society were proliferating, in his own words, see http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

Alright, Asian Guy, are you really Asian? Because virtually all the links you've posted go to quasi-neo-Nazi sites.

[Sorcerer]

Xavier' date=' I agree with much of what you said. I would just like to add a little of my point of view.

 

If innate potential of racism is beneficial to the subgroup of a species due to increased propagation of similar genes, then killing of step children, adultery, even some forms of incest should also be "beneficial."

 

Just because a concept is legitimate in the biological sense does not make it right in the social sense. And we human beings while inescapably biological are also just as inescapably social creatures.

 

Xavier, if you are speaking strictly in terms of biology, that's well and fine. But personally I believe that the line between understanding a nature and acceptance of it is frequently crossed in such a manner as you have shown. But this is not to assume any knowledge on my part of your motivations as I do not know you as a person.[/quote']

 

I think you might be a little confused here, altruism is the balance for racism. Altruism can not only be controlled by our genes, but also by our culture. So evolution not only influences our 'sense of closeness' and kin selection, but also altruism. For example, destructive tendancies like "killing of step children" would be weeded out as the proportion of altruists increased. IE if you help someone elses child, somebody else is more likely to help your child, and even more likely if you also shun those that don't help, or even hinder (kill in this case) your child.

 

Hybrid vigor explains why incest and interbreeding (outcest?) are balanced. It has been shown that females prefer the Body Odour of males with contrasting immunity genes (someone find me a reference? Im sure its true ). Genes where the alleles are more advantages as codominant are particularly selected for heterozygousity. In the case of a more "fit" heterozygous gene, kin selection only applies to altruism between kin. The selection of a mate is influenced by different genetic makeups for the % of the genes that are more advantageous when heterozygous. But, just as altruism balances rascism, the % of dominant and recessive homozygous genes that are advantageous balances the need for incest with the need for outcest (lol).

 

Alot of people are 100% likely to share atleast one of your alleles. But, the closer the family member, the higher the probability more common genes are aided. Therefore altruism towards alot of people helps the survival of your common genes, but the closer the relationship, the higher the probability of a bigger pay-off. So if altruism is better than racism, for the community as a whole, then continuing to be altruistic is beneficial for you, your genes, and your kins genes, however it is even more beneficial for your genes and your kins genes if you divide up your investment of resources so that the closer the relation the bigger the aid given.

 

So... altruism towards kin, and selection of the 'best' mate, ensure the survival of genes in both your offspring and your parents/grand^nparents offspring. I population genetics survival strategies that influence the survival of as many of your genes as possible compete with other survival strategies trying to do the same with other genes. Game theory explains the evolution of hereditary survival strategies, be it through genes giving instinct or culture/immitation. Perhaps you could ask a guy in the math forum if you want to know more.

[Sayonara]

Looking at your link i can't find any quote from Darwin' date=' esp the use of the word 'scum' to describe any people.

 

Am i missing the reference or have you made a mistake?[/quote']

Furthermore, anyone who eats anything produced by agriculture is condoning eugenics, ipso facto, since it's essentially the method we use for husbandry and crop modification. Has been for hundreds of years.

[Hellbender]

Niether evolution nor gravity has anything to do with ethical or moral concerns. These are wooden and literal theories.

 

Exactly. Gravity has caused lots of deaths, and we don't see people running aroound saying the theory of gravity is immoral.

[Christ slave]

Evolution in essence, itself, does not necessarily fueld racism. If one can transcend the material dimension into the spiritual dimension, they can be like Jesus Christ and become one with their higher self (consciousness), which is in attunement with Christ. This is called Christhood, and it does not fuel racism.

 

Stereotyping does indeed spring about as a survival mechanism, but then again the little things often do lead up to bigger things (hence, "little things"). Likewise, the higher self (the Christ consciousness), although material and lower things are required (such as physical food and maintaining your lower self's helf, the carnal self), does indeed transcend. So, racism and stereotyping can be a stepping-stone, but that doesn't justify it nor mean we should submit to it. In fact, monkeys were stepping stones--TREES were stepping stones. I am not suggesting then that the end (humanity) justifies the means. Do not become a tree or act like a hideous monkey, throwing your dung at other people.

 

Rather, just as monkeys transcended, you also transcend. Evolution is not applicable only to this realm--evolution exists also in the afterlife, in death. Just as sure as a baby in the womb is subject to evolution and the pregnancy thereof, so the baby is also subject to evolution when it is born into the light of life. Likewise, this womb called life is subject to evolution, and we are much more educated than, say, a baby who stares at the mother's plecenta all day. However, the plecenta too is evolving, lives, and dies--it too was once a part of a conceived embryo and a fetus, and now it is born and is pregnant. So, don't be fooled. Just as sure as evolution and reality includes both the unborn (who are conceived) and also the born (the living, who are pretty much dead anyhow as we all are equally going to die just as we all equally have been born), so evolution and reality includes this life (the encasement by the belly of the womb that is death, or the universe) and the life thereafter, which is the afterlife. So, evolution is not subject only to this present life, but also spiritual.

 

So, while for some people it is notable to count every molecule of water for all eternity on hopes of saving resources, some of us can see the forest outside of the tree. Stop staring at the peanut gallery, because it takes more energy and time to save every last atom of resources than it takes to move forward and submit yourself to the greater, healthier cause. Likewise, do not stare at the peanut gallery, named Racism, because it takes more time and energy to do so than it does to submit to reality, move forward, and become a healthy, happy, and spiritually mature person.

 

The spirit is to the body what the body is to the fetus. Every womb is naturally dark; stare not at the darkness of the universe, but look for the narrow gate, named Vagina, for through it lies the outside world (the light of life) that lets you, O' fetus, be born and considered alive.

[Flareon]

I think you might be a little confused here' date=' altruism is the balance for racism. Altruism can not only be controlled by our genes, but also by our culture. So evolution not only influences our 'sense of closeness' and kin selection, but also altruism. For example, destructive tendancies like "killing of step children" would be weeded out as the proportion of altruists increased. IE if you help someone elses child, somebody else is more likely to help your child, and even more likely if you also shun those that don't help, or even hinder (kill in this case) your child.

 

Hybrid vigor explains why incest and interbreeding (outcest?) are balanced. It has been shown that females prefer the Body Odour of males with contrasting immunity genes (someone find me a reference? Im sure its true ). Genes where the alleles are more advantages as codominant are particularly selected for heterozygousity. In the case of a more "fit" heterozygous gene, kin selection only applies to altruism between kin. The selection of a mate is influenced by different genetic makeups for the % of the genes that are more advantageous when heterozygous. But, just as altruism balances rascism, the % of dominant and recessive homozygous genes that are advantageous balances the need for incest with the need for outcest (lol).

 

Alot of people are 100% likely to share atleast one of your alleles. But, the closer the family member, the higher the probability more common genes are aided. Therefore altruism towards alot of people helps the survival of your common genes, but the closer the relationship, the higher the probability of a bigger pay-off. So if altruism is better than racism, for the community as a whole, then continuing to be altruistic is beneficial for you, your genes, and your kins genes, however it is even more beneficial for your genes and your kins genes if you divide up your investment of resources so that the closer the relation the bigger the aid given.

 

So... altruism towards kin, and selection of the 'best' mate, ensure the survival of genes in both your offspring and your parents/grand^nparents offspring. I population genetics survival strategies that influence the survival of as many of your genes as possible compete with other survival strategies trying to do the same with other genes. Game theory explains the evolution of hereditary survival strategies, be it through genes giving instinct or culture/immitation. Perhaps you could ask a guy in the math forum if you want to know more.[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but if I am confused, then I am confused as to the connection between your post and mine. The content of my post was in reference to that of Xavier's in which he states that innate potential racism is biologically beneficial. I agreed with some of that, but wanted to question the validity of applying that line of biological sense to a social animal, which we are. Biologically, racism makes sense; socialologcally, it does not. Humans are not simple creatures, geared to only propagate their own genes and those alike. We are made to live in a balanced complex social system (where racism is more a bane than a boon) in order to fully manifest our species.

 

Perhaps I am dense, but I don't see your post having much relevance to mine nor to Xavier's nor to the context within which I posted. You appear to go on and on and I don't see what of my post you are refuting. I suspect that you simply read my post without first reading Xavier's and fully understanding my point.

 

The example of infanticide was brought up to illustrate something that may be beneficial to the organism that no longer must compete with rival genes, makes for an awful sociological condition for humans. Other species do practice infanticide of non-related offspring because it is biologically beneficial (lions do it for example), but humans, like I said, are not that simply wired.

 

I'm not condoning killing step children as biologically beneficial, I am stating the opposite. You seem to have taken my hypothetical premise I was using to question Xavier's argument and erroneously made THAT as my position.

[Phi for All]

Regarding Charles Darwin, he was an ardent supporter of eugenics, believing that the '"scum" of society were proliferating, in his own words, see [url']http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1[/url]

Your "scum" quote was attributable in your link to US scholar A. H. Eastabrook, not Darwin.

[AzurePhoenix]

Isn't true that evolution strives for diversity above all else? A great variety of genotypes and phenotypes ensures our continued survival, our ability to adapt. Any falling back on it as support for superiority is nothing but a perversion of most rudimentary basics of the concept.

[Mokele]

Isn't true that evolution strives for diversity above all else?

 

From the strictly technical standpoint, no, it actively reduces diversity. Natural selection can only preserve or weed-out alleles, not generate new ones (that's mutation's job). Diversity helps a species, but evolution cannot create genetic diversity, only mutation can.

 

However, in stable habitats, because competition is a problem, evolution *does* tend to favor species becoming specialized, which, it turn, results in greater diversity in that ecosystem.

 

So, yes and no, but also remember that evolution doesn't truly "strive" for anything.

 

Mokele

[Xavier]

Xavier' date=' I agree with much of what you said. I would just like to add a little of my point of view.

 

If innate potential of racism is beneficial to the subgroup of a species due to increased propagation of similar genes, then killing of step children, adultery, even some forms of incest should also be "beneficial."

 

Just because a concept is legitimate in the biological sense does not make it right in the social sense. And we human beings while inescapably biological are also just as inescapably social creatures.

 

Xavier, if you are speaking strictly in terms of biology, that's well and fine. But personally I believe that the line between understanding a nature and acceptance of it is frequently crossed in such a manner as you have shown. But this is not to assume any knowledge on my part of your motivations as I do not know you as a person.[/quote']

 

 

I agree with your assessment - up to a point. The beneficial effect of killing step children and so on is there (lion behaviour springs to mind as an example amongst many) but it is counterbalanced by other factors. In the case of humans, maintaining society is one such counterbalance as it improves the inclusive fitness of each individual within the society more than the cost of a lost breeding cycle and feeding this step child.

Incest is a special case - the behaviour tends to be bred out as the duplication of dangerous genes becomes too common (an example of species level evolution- it does happen when the shorter timescale gene level fitness traits are optimised) and the benefits of adultery are so great that it remains ubiquitous even when societies forbid it (many animals go through a veritable poker game in choosing a mate due to an arms race in 'social' behaviour to catch or avoid getting caught; estimates have been suggested that for up to 10% of births in the UK the father is not the man named on the birth certificate!)

 

The big question is how much of our preference for society is 'hard wired' into our behaviour and how much acquired knowledge or possibly even logically deduced by each new generation (nature vs. nurture vs. conjecture(?)) I consider it a highly likely that some part is hard-wired behaviour as their are many pack and herd animals whose herding behaviour has been manipulated through breeding.

 

Now I shall delve into my own opinions: from my observations of the way people behave I have come to the opinion that evolution has very little to do with our tendency towards cooperative gatherings. In fact I think that everyone must, to some extent, logically deduce the benefit that he or she personally will receive from maintaining the society, though we are all directed through this logical argument by our elders. Throughout childhood we are being taught the necessary information and nudged into coming up with the 'right' answer. 'Teenage rebellion' is the phase of life where that deductive reasoning begins to produce real world solutions that need to be tested and it ends when you get a more complete understanding of real-world risks and pay-offs. A criminal has, likewise made their deductions and decided that they can cheat a little bit and be better off even though society will thus become a little bit weaker.

Given the same facts, people will come to different conclusions as no-ones logic nor information is perfect and we are all guided slightly differently. Though I say everyone makes the logical deduction I believe that few actually manage to free themselves from the biased information and guidance received through childhood and beyond and fewer still can pull the strands together into robust, independant logical reasoning (as I am trying to do, in part, in this essay)

 

The result is, in my opinion only, that the human 'hard wired' behaviour - courtesy of evolution, is to be racist and that each and every individual will be racist unless they actively think about equality AND decide that it is, in fact beneficial to them to enlarge the cooperative gathering thus.

 

50 years ago a British person would be unlikely to see someone without white skin often enough to have an opinion about race and as a result we were strongly prejudiced against the sizable group of settlers from the West Indies and India who came to Britain at the invitation of the British government. There was no antagonism at first, merely the default view of people who had never bothered to rationalise their attitudes.

When they did start to think about it, of course, the antagonism really got going. For too many 'little englanders' the increase in the size of the cooperative appeared to be to their detriment - a shortsighted and flawed reasoning that has taken years of 'guiding' following generations' logical deductions to stamp out (we haven't finished yet).

 

The line of reasoning, given this assumption of ultimate (often faulty or absent) individual determination to oppose a biologically imposed regime of behaviour, goes a long way into politics and ends up with something between Plato's republic and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World - two brands of fascist distopia, so I stop here.

[Gnieus]

but it is interesting to note that eugenics,

 

Galton wanted to select for intelligence not race and treat the non-breeders nicely. IMO Pearson was the more aggressive one.

 

Well that's what my gf says, she studied him for quite a while. The man had imo OCD re counting.

[RedAlert]

Like most anti-evolution "resources"' date=' that site preys on fear.

 

Hurrah for them.[/quote']

 

I completely agree. Why are they so mad with Evolution anyways?

[Gnieus]

I completely agree. Why are they so mad with Evolution anyways[/i']?

 

First there was Fear then there was Religion to pretend the world isn't scary.

Then they wrote some books the once that didn't want to be afraid and face up to life. These books said the World was made by God and that God protects you and if he doesn't it still makes sense. That is if you believe that stuff in the books. Then some guys in Victorian England said: hey the books aren't correct. The ones with Fear realised they would have fear if this was true. Then they went on and said, it can't be true cause we have the book of no Fear. And they made up even weirder stuff to have no fear, even if it ment to make a step backwards and not use that neo cortex that evolutions oops God gave them.

 

That's how the story continues and they did not live happily ever after.