Immigration And The Unmentionable Question Of Ethnic Interests

[Asian Guy]

I do know that Japan, China, and the Koreas have very strict immigration laws. Even with Mexico, it is about 1000 times more difficult for an American to move there than vice versa:

 

October 27, 2004

 

Immigration And The Unmentionable Question Of Ethnic Interests

 

By Kevin MacDonald

 

Arguments over immigration are usually limited to cultural or economic factors. Political scientists like Samuel Huntington point out that the culture of the country will change dramatically if there is a continued influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants. And economists like George Borjas have demonstrated that large masses of newcomers depress wages and create enormous demands on the environment and on public services, especially health care and education.

 

These lines of argument are, of course, legitimate. But there always seems to be an element of timidity present. No one wants to talk about the 800-lb. gorilla sitting over there in the corner—the issue of ethnic interests.

 

[ . . . ]

 

Complete article is at http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_041027_immigration.htm

[Ophiolite]

Two points:

1. What is your point? Do you want us to debate these views, agree with them, become informed? It would be helpful to know how you, as the thread initiator see the thread developing?

 

2. Central to McDonald's argument is the belief that ethnic differences are real, consistent, genetic and important. Since he is wrong on almost every count I shall be placing his arguments in the file marked R for Racism. I'll be happy to debate the issue with anyone who has the impression that what he is saying makes sense or is based on credible science.

[Asian Guy]

Racism

 

Exactly, everyone around the world is ethnocentric. I personally know from experience about how many Asians view themselves as above other ethnic groups. Currently, the most open people are the Europeans, they have the most Liberal immigration policies.

[Mokele]

Exactly, everyone around the world is ethnocentric.

 

Wrong. For instance, I don't even subtly consider myself "better" because of my race. The only group I consider inherently "better" are those that have earned that title by ruling the planet for 200 million years, until some little fuzzy upstarts got in during a moment of weakness. But, thanks to global warming and extinction, things will be back to their proper order soon enough. (25% of mammal species are at least threatened, while that same number for reptile is 5%).

 

Bow before the master-race, milk-sucker!

 

Mokele

[Asian Guy]

For instance, I don't even subtly consider myself "better" because of my race.

 

So I take it you are going to marry someone different from your race? Why is it that inter-racial marriages are very rare? Whites generally marry Whites, Blacks generally blacks, asians generally asians, and so on, even in multi-ethnic nations like America. People naturally have an affinity for their own kind, this is inborn ethnocentrism. As the saying goes, "Birds of a feather flock together." It is no accident that people evolved to form groups and oppose those that are different.

[Mokele]

So I take it you are going to marry someone different from your race?

 

No, but it's sheer coincidence that she's of my color and nationality. We met over the internet, ergo I didn't actually know her race at first.

 

"Race" is nothing but culture. There is no genetic basis for it, ergo it is a fiction of our minds. People "group together" by culture, because of similar ways of thinking and interacting. Doesn't matter if they're the same skin color or not. I'm more comfortable interacting with someone of a different skin color of the same culture as me than of the same skin color and different culture, simply because I don't understand them, their customs, what things mean, what I'm supposed to to etc.

 

Aversion to social awkwardness does not equal ethnocentricity.

 

Mokele

[Asian Guy]

"Race" is nothing but culture. There is no genetic basis for it, ergo it is a fiction of our minds. People "group together" by culture, because of similar ways of thinking and interacting. Doesn't matter if they're the same skin color or not. I'm more comfortable interacting with someone of a different skin color of the same culture as me than of the same skin color and different culture, simply because I don't understand them, their customs, what things mean, what I'm supposed to to etc.Mokele

 

So, you are saying that my Asian race does not exist, we are just an illusion. I guess I should go ahead and break the news to my fellow Asians.

 

And I guess that the NAACP should break up as well since Blacks don't exist also.

 

What about dog breeds/races, do they exist, or are they just a cultural illusion as well? Do collies, bulldogs, and doberman pinchers exist, or are they just social contructs based on dog racism of the dominant dog social grouping?

[Coral Rhedd]

So' date=' you are saying that my Asian race does not exist, we are just an illusion. I guess I should go ahead and break the news to my fellow Asians.

 

And I guess that the NAACP should break up as well since Blacks don't exist also.

 

What about dog breeds/races, do they exist, or are they just a cultural illusion as well? Do collies, bulldogs, and doberman pinchers exist, or are they just social contructs based on dog racism of the dominant dog social grouping?[/quote']

 

I wonder how much you actually know about dog breeds? You probably think that dogs that look similar are naturally more closely related. Would it surprise you to know that a Pekinese is more closely related to a wolf than a German Shepherd -- despite the Shepherd's seeming physical similarity to the wolf?

[Mokele]

So, you are saying that my Asian race does not exist, we are just an illusion. I guess I should go ahead and break the news to my fellow Asians.

 

And I guess that the NAACP should break up as well since Blacks don't exist also.

 

Correct. It's all social. When you look at humans from the standpoint of population genetics, there are no races. There are no isolated populations within the species. We are a highly mobile species, and, as a result, there is a very high gene flow between populations. Don't think of human populations as isolated little ponds, but rather "deep spots" in one big lake. The flow of fish between the "deep spots" prevents any truly meaningful differences from accumulating.

 

This can be backed up phylogeneticly: there are no synapomorphies for any human race. None. There are *no* derived traits that originated once and only once in a population, and distinguish that population. There's been too much gene flow between populations.

 

Take "blacks". No such race. If we neglect the massive gene flow, there are *far* more differences between African tribes than there is between "whites" and "asians". Furthermore, other populations left africa multiple times, meaning that "black" is a paraphyletic grouping, and therefore biologically meaningless. Of course, that's all neglecting the gene flow, which, in and of itself, effectively negates the entire point.

 

"Race" or "sub-species" is defined by levels of reproductive isolation between populations. Two reproductive isolated populations that can still easily interbreed when artificially united yet have major morphological distinctions are "sub-species". Lesser morphological distinctions are "races". But there's always an element of reproductive isolation. This is clearly not true for humans. The color of our skin no more makes us "distinct races" than the variations in the color of mice throughout a large population that spans heterogeneous habitat.

 

What about dog breeds/races, do they exist, or are they just a cultural illusion as well? Do collies, bulldogs, and doberman pinchers exist, or are they just social contructs based on dog racism of the dominant dog social grouping?

 

See above; it's about reproductive isolation. Dog breeds were produced by isolating a population of dogs and breeding for specific traits. Human populations, in contrast, have not undergone such isolation. Ergo, no races.

 

Imagine, if you will, a map of the world, and the land is colored in by the skin color of those that live there. Do you see sharp boundaries? Do you see rigid demarcations? No. You see one big smear of color, varying by environment but each color blending seamlessly into the adjacent colors.

 

--------------

 

Now, to summarize:

 

Gene flow. I win.

 

Mokele

[YT2095]

actualy, Imigration (even the temporary sort with 6 month work visa/permits etc...) have been shown to be of Financial bennefit to the county hosting these people!

 

and when Asked, Most of these guys DON`T actualy want to stay here, they`de sooner be back in their home land (often to get back to the families they left behind for a while) just a little bit better off than before they left.

 

sure we pay better than some other countries, but the jobs done by this workforce make a profit for us too, I say let them in!

 

they go back home happy, the host country is happy, the ecomomy is booming, what`s the harm done?

 

I AM against the Scrounger sort that come only for free NHS treatment or the Organised crime gangs, that`s well out of order in ANY country.

I Love my England as much as the nexy guy, I see no arg against leting these workers in, temporarily or permanent. if it wasn`t for a good many of them, our NHS would crumble into nothing anyway!

 

they deserve acknowledgement and recognition for their efforts!

 

 

 

geez my spelling sux today!

[Asian Guy]

Correct. It's all social. When you look at humans from the standpoint of population genetics, there are no races.

 

Here is an excerpt from "Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to talk about it," by Jon Entine (January, 2000):

 

Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.

 

For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.

 

Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.

 

From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.

 

In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.

 

Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.

 

Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize.

[Asian Guy]

January 04, 2004

 

Routing The Race Deniers (Not That They’ll Notice)

 

By Steve Sailer

 

Read mensnewsdaily.com interview with Steve Sailer...

 

Many intellectuals pride themselves on how remote their theorizing is from mundane reality.

 

After all, if daily life could provide answers to lofty questions, we might not need so many intellectuals.

 

And that subversive thought must be suppressed at all costs!

 

Consider the topic of race. The trendiest idea among intellectuals is that Race Does Not Exist – what we at VDARE.COM call “Race Denial.” Last year, a three-night PBS documentary summed up this new orthodoxy under the title Race: The Power of an Illusion.

 

That this idea, no matter how trendy, strikes the vast majority of Americans as self-evidently stupid only heightens its appeal to those who view themselves as superior because of their ability to juggle esoterica.

 

Now Vincent Sarich, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Berkeley, and Frank Miele, senior editor of Skeptic magazine, have stepped in to this debate with a new book Race: The Reality of Human Differences. They document overwhelmingly that the weight of scientific knowledge is on the side of the man-in-the-street's commonsense view of race.

 

[ . . . ]

 

Complete article is at http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

[Asian Guy]

And the last link I'll post supporting the claim that race is a valid concept: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/miele.htm

 

I'll let you have the last word.

[Mokele]

You might as well have just handed me the win in this arguement. Especially since your reply has amply demonstrated that you don't know a) anything about evolutionary biology or population genetics and b) that you didn't understand my point.

 

Here's a breif review, for the biologically incompetent:

1) Race (noun)- an geneticly isolated populations with significant synapomorphies that distinguish it from other populations.

2) population (noun) - a group of organisms of a species which interbreed. May have gene-flow with adjacent populations via migrations of any life-stage or gametes.

 

Now, are there human races?

There's two criteria from the definition above:

1) geneticly isolated. Obviously not the case, I've already shown, at length, just how great the gene-flow in our species is.

2) synaphomorphioes. None. There are *NO* genetic or phenotypic traits that are restricted to one and only one "race" and are diagnostic of that. Seriously, look at the anthropological literature. They've fallen over themselves trying to find one, and they came up with *nothing*. They went so far as to chemically analyze the *ear-wax* of various "races" and still found nothing. Let's repeat that, so you're clear: There are no shared, derived traits unique to particular races. None.

 

So, that's 0/2. I win.

 

Now, let's look at your objection: that there's genetic variability between "races". Which proves *nothing*. You know why? Because your logic is false.

 

News flash: just because there's genetic variation and distinctions does *NOT* make a race. There are *lots* of populations that have genetic variation across their range.

 

Let's look at an example. Let's say we're looking at a bunch of mice I've collected. One mouse is grey, the other is dark brown, the other is light brown. They can interbreed, but display other variations, such as mean litter size, behaviors, and physiological capabilities. Does this mean they are races? NO. If we have 1 big population of mice, which spans an area including city, woods and fields, all three of those variants can exist within a single population. They're all connected via interbreeding and geneflow from one end of the population to the next. The differences that appear are a function of the strength of selection of the various traits versus the gene flow that dilutes those traits. If the selections is strong enough (like, say, hawks who can easily spot a mouse that's a conspicuous color), then regional differences will persist in spite of the gene flow within a population.

 

Let me sum this up for you: Genetic differences between *populations* of humans do not prove "race". Single populations, especially ones with a range as huge as ours, can easily have variation within them via the mechanisms described above. Since both races and populations have variation, it cannot be used as evidence that one or the other is the case.

 

In fact, the only things that *can* be used as evidence for "race" status, as opposed to populations, are genetic isolation and synapomorphies. Both of which FAIL when applied to humans, as we saw above.

 

---------------

 

So, with that said, I would like to recommend that you actually learn something for yourself, rather than parroting some poorly-reasoned webpage.

 

It helps to actually know what you're talking about, kid.

 

To re-iterate: Gene Flow. I win.

 

Mokele

[Douglas]

Wrong. For instance' date=' I don't even subtly consider myself "better" because of my race. The only group I consider inherently "better" are those that have earned that title by ruling the planet for 200 million years, until some little fuzzy upstarts got in during a moment of weakness. But, thanks to global warming and extinction, things will be back to their proper order soon enough. (25% of mammal species are at least threatened, while that same number for reptile is 5%).

 

Bow before the master-race, milk-sucker!

 

Mokele[/quote']I thought the master race was the cockroach, I think they've been around for 300 million years....virtually unchanged.

[Aardvark]

actualy, Imigration (even the temporary sort with 6 month work visa/permits etc...) have been shown to be of Financial bennefit to the county hosting these people!

 

And you actually believe that?

 

It's fairly common knowledge that the Home Office and Treasury have had to massage research to 'demonstrate' the 'benefits' of mass immigration.

 

and when Asked, Most of these guys DON`T actualy want to stay here, they`de sooner be back in their home land (often to get back to the families they left behind for a while) just a little bit better off than before they left.

 

And yet the great mass of immigrants never do return to their original homelands.

 

sure we pay better than some other countries, but the jobs done by this workforce make a profit for us too, I say let them in!

 

Forcing down wages by importing large numbers of unskilled workers whilst several million of the indigenous population are economicaly inactive.

 

That may make profits for some businesses but at the expense of the original population.

 

they go back home happy' date=' the host country is happy, the ecomomy is booming, what`s the harm done?[/quote']

 

Most of them don't go home, the economy is more dependant on low wages rather than improved efficency and mechanisation.

 

Who exactly is supposed to be happy here?

 

I AM against the Scrounger sort that come only for free NHS treatment or the Organised crime gangs, that`s well out of order in ANY country.

 

With virtually unlimited immigration that is exactly what you will be getting.

 

if it wasn`t for a good many of them, our NHS would crumble into nothing anyway!

 

Several million unemployed and Britain needs to poach medical staff from third world countries. This strikes you as a good thing?

[ku]

It's all social. When you look at humans from the standpoint of population genetics, there are no races.

And even if there are, who cares?

 

actualy, Imigration (even the temporary sort with 6 month work visa/permits etc...) have been shown to be of Financial benefit to the county hosting these people!

It depends on a number of factors, such as immigrant skills, the resources the host country is endowed with, etc. But more often than not, immigration is good (just not all the time). Immigration is essentially an issue of free trade because immigration is simply the free trade of labor. Free trade is mutually beneficial most of the time but not all the time.

 

And yet the great mass of immigrants never do return to their original homelands.

It depends on how hard it is to get in. If entry is difficult, an immigrant wouldn't risk going back home if he won't get back in again.

 

Forcing down wages by importing large numbers of unskilled workers whilst several million of the indigenous population are economicaly inactive.

 

That may make profits for some businesses but at the expense of the original population.

These unskilled workers are still valuable because they have a low reservation wage. They are willing to work for less, leading to greater cost savings for those who hire them. The cost savings lead to higher incomes, higher consumption, and further job creation. Those native workers who lost their jobs to immigrants becuase they weren't productive enough can move to another job created from the consumption of the labor owner when he makes more money by hiring immigrants.

 

Several million unemployed and Britain needs to poach medical staff from third world countries. This strikes you as a good thing?

Very good. Because perhaps those unemployed people are unskilled, too lazy, or demand high wages. In Australia, as in many other developed countries, there is a shortage in both skilled and unskilled labor. Including the "hidden unemployed" which includes people on disability, single mothers, etc, the real unemployment rate is about 10 to 12 percent. If I had a choice between hiring some lazy, unskilled native or an enthusiastic skilled foreigner, I'd take the foreigner anyday. In fact, my dad's factory hires heaps of foreigners. Both skilled and unskilled.

 

And finally, Asian Guy, admit it. You're not Asian. Many of these people you cite are so racist they'd be more than happy to relocate all Asians in America to Asia. If you care about "your people" you wouldn't support them.

 

__________________________

Is Capitalism the Cure for Racism?

[Aardvark]

It depends on how hard it is to get in. If entry is difficult, an immigrant wouldn't risk going back home if he won't get back in again.

 

Even after immigrants have permanent citizenship the rate of return to home countries is low.

 

It is a well observed phenomenon that first generation immigrants tend to have a fantasy of returning to the home country with the wealth they have earned in the host country, but in reality they have settled down too much and few do return.

 

These unskilled workers are still valuable because they have a low reservation wage. They are willing to work for less, leading to greater cost savings for those who hire them. The cost savings lead to higher incomes, higher consumption, and further job creation.

 

Nice theory, but not how things work in practice. The lower reservation wage leads to lower average incomes, the economy becomes labour intensive as opposed to capital intensive resulting in lower economic returns. The migrants simply displace native workers into unemployment

 

 

Those native workers who lost their jobs to immigrants becuase they weren't productive enough can move to another job created from the consumption of the labor owner when he makes more money by hiring immigrants.

 

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for large numbers of those native workers to simply move onto unemployment or invalidity benefit and become economically inactive.

 

 

Very good. Because perhaps those unemployed people are unskilled, too lazy, or demand high wages. In Australia, as in many other developed countries, there is a shortage in both skilled and unskilled labor. Including the "hidden unemployed" which includes people on disability, single mothers, etc, the real unemployment rate is about 10 to 12 percent. If I had a choice between hiring some lazy, unskilled native or an enthusiastic skilled foreigner, I'd take the foreigner anyday. In fact, my dad's factory hires heaps of foreigners. Both skilled and unskilled.

 

That's the crux of the matter.

 

If there are sufficent immigrants to hire then there is no incentive to make natives in unemployment work. That results in millions of people being trapped into futile lives of state dependency.

 

Rather than relying on migrants it would be far better to force the unemployed to actually do work. If we need labourers then stop peoples dole if they won't take a labouring job. If we need nurses then train young unemployed people to nurse.

 

Not just leave people on a human rubbish heap and make up the difference with migrants.

 

And finally, Asian Guy, admit it. You're not Asian. Many of these people you cite are so racist they'd be more than happy to relocate all Asians in America to Asia. If you care about "your people" you wouldn't support them.

 

I'm wondering about that too.

[ku]

The lower reservation wage leads to lower average incomes, the economy becomes labour intensive as opposed to capital intensive resulting in lower economic returns.

How does an economy being labor intensive result in lower economic returns?

 

Nice theory, but not how things work in practice.

In Australia at least there is empirical evidence that immigration has a positive effect on the economy, even with unskilled labor. In America the effect is positive but, from what I hear, negligible, not often negative, even though the skill level of immigrants into America are lower, because the American labor market is a lot more flexible and relatively less generous in terms of welfare. But definitely bringing in more PhDs will help.

 

Rather than relying on migrants it would be far better to force the unemployed to actually do work. If we need labourers then stop peoples dole if they won't take a labouring job. If we need nurses then train young unemployed people to nurse.

Fair enough. The labor owners wouldn't care who they hire so long as they get someone. But realisitically, such a policy seems too cruel for most people and will never become a reality.

[Aardvark]

How does an economy being labor intensive result in lower economic returns?

 

An example is Britain in the 1950's. Large numbers of migrants were brought in, primarily to provide cheap labour for industry. As a result British industries, with textiles being a particular example, became more labour intensive than foriegn rivals and invested less in machinery and other capital intensification.

 

In the long run (about 20-30 years) this resulted in serious competitve disadvantage. Foriegn industies which had been forced to become more capital intensive were able to out compete British firms.

 

 

In Australia at least there is empirical evidence that immigration has a positive effect on the economy, even with unskilled labor.

 

Not wanting to be trite, but the plantation owners of the Deep South could have made the same claim about slavery. Unskilled immigration can lead to higher profits for a privileged few but can result in wider economic distress.

 

To a certain degree Australia can be seen as an exception due to its vastness and relative undevelopment.

 

 

But definitely bringing in more PhDs will help.

 

True.

 

Fair enough. The labor owners wouldn't care who they hire so long as they get someone. But realisitically, such a policy seems too cruel for most people and will never become a reality.

 

I hope you are wrong. Leaving people to spend their entire lives as state dependants living on handouts seems cruel to me.

 

Forcing the feckless and lazy to actually work would be a case of being cruel to be kind.

[Sayonara]

I'll let you have the last word.

I find that quite ironic, seeing as you seem to let other minds speak for you.

[-Demosthenes-]

Two points:

...

 

2. Central to McDonald's argument is the belief that ethnic differences are real' date=' consistent, genetic and important. Since he is wrong on almost every count I shall be placing his arguments in the file marked R for Racism. I'll be happy to debate the issue with anyone who has the impression that what he is saying makes sense or is based on credible science.[/quote']

Not genetic, not at all? How has it happened that my white parents gave birth to white children, was it genetics or what it magic?

But, thanks to global warming and extinction, things will be back to their proper order soon enough. (25% of mammal species are at least threatened, while that same number for reptile is 5%).

If you are suggesting that reptiles will rule the earth then you might want to know. Reptiles don't have the metabolism to support a large mamalian brain that would be required to rule the earth as humans do.

Not wanting to be trite, but the plantation owners of the Deep South could have made the same claim about slavery. Unskilled immigration can lead to higher profits for a privileged few but can result in wider economic distress.

Just because they used the same idea doesn't mean that immigrants are slaves.

[Mokele]

I thought the master race was the cockroach, I think they've been around for 300 million years....virtually unchanged.

 

But they aren't cool enough. Reptiles are also the pinacle of coolness.

 

Biased, me?

 

If you are suggesting that reptiles will rule the earth then you might want to know. Reptiles don't have the metabolism to support a large mamalian brain that would be required to rule the earth as humans do.

 

True, but why is intelligence needed for dominance? They did fine last time, after all, giant space rocks excluded.

 

On a more serious note, while reptilian metabolism probably does limit intelligence, there are many reptiles (like monitor lizards) that display suprisingly high cognitive capabilities for their brain size. It's reminiscent of the problem of the octopus, which also displays unusual congitive capacity for such a small brain. I tentatively hypothesize that both "pull it off" because they have "outsourced" more of their functions to the rest of the nervous system, thereby making what's in the brain count more for "intelligence" than it would in mammals, who have a very centralized nervous system in comparison. But that's so tentative I'm hesitant to even call it a hypothesis.

 

Mokele

[-Demosthenes-]

Yes, they could rule in the way that they are the biggest and the badest, or maybe they could find a more efficient way for brain function, but I'm getting off subject.

[Auburngirl05]

If you are suggesting that reptiles will rule the earth then you might want to know. Reptiles don't have the metabolism to support a large mamalian brain that would be required to rule the earth as humans do.

.

 

I would place a wager that a Troodon could outsmart my airheaded yet mammalian Golden Retriever any day of the week.