Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Aerion · 01-30-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Those who can trace their families back more than a generation or two are fat, greedy, stupid and extremely insular.

Amen-Moses

Which would include probably every American posting on this board including myself. Are you calling me "fat, greedy, stupid and extremely insular"?

HaysooChreesto! · 01-30-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
I'll also add that any such crap claim that somehow "primitive cultures" are genetically caused wholesale ignores the development of mathematics both in ancient India and in the early mediaeval Arab Middle East and Persia; ignores the Pyramids, built when Europeans were still squabbling over how best to build a mud hut; ignores the universities of North Africa, which far predated the European universities; oh, and also ignores the effects of long-term parasites and diseases in tropical countries.

But doesn't that point more to culture and elements of evolution in man's ability to think and reason? And then the decline of culture's that were caused by religous fundamentalism? I hesitate to say more because I'll admit to being fairly ignorant of this topic and I don't want to hijack this thread with accusations towards religion.
I don't think anyone is talking about inferior genetics, but more of cultural breakdowns.

seanie · 01-30-2003, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
I don't think anyone is talking about inferior genetics, but more of cultural breakdowns.

Try reading the thread again.

Monkeybot · 01-30-2003, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
No I'm saying that if you think that the population of the US is somehow genetically superior then you are mad,

Here I agree...

Quote:

the only thing driving innovation in the US is a constant supply (or brain drain as we call it) of new bodies from Europe and Asia.

Questionable, but OK...

Quote:

Those who can trace their families back more than a generation or two are fat, greedy, stupid and extremely insular.

...Excuse me? All of them?

It's a real shame, AM. You could've had a good argument to make, but you decided to substitute slurs for a reasoned comment. I'll be the first to admit that there's plenty to criticise about American society, but this sort of stereotyping is just asinine.

Amen-Moses · 01-30-2003, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Monkeybot
It's a real shame, AM. You could've had a good argument to make, but you decided to substitute slurs for a reasoned comment. I'll be the first to admit that there's plenty to criticise about American society, but this sort of stereotyping is just asinine.

I'll let you in on a little secret, I was pulling Aerion's chain, or to put it another way just giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Unfortunately I've discovered that around here people ignore smileys so I forget to use them, they work on other forums but PD'ites may be a little thicker skinned or something.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 01-30-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aerion
Which would include probably every American posting on this board including myself. Are you calling me "fat, greedy, stupid and extremely insular"?

Don't feel too bad, I'm sure the "hardworking, industrious and adventurous" genes make up for it somewhat don't they?

Amen-Moses

August Spies · 01-30-2003, 08:21 AM

Aerion please address this:

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the cultures of Africa and South America, it seems that tropical climates seem to breed the most primative cultures. Interesting stuff to ponder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah... those Incans, Aztecs and Mayans were sooooo primative. (not to forget arab nations and indian civilization, all of which where ahead of the "west" at one time or another)

there are numerous examples of "tropical climates" being more advanced than their counterparts during different historical periods. How does this fit your "analysis"?

August Spies · 01-30-2003, 08:29 AM

Aerion:

Quote:

"we also had a population built of hard working, industrious and adventurous immigrants from Europe. This gave the United States a boost in the gene pool. "
[...]
No, the "Industrious gene" difference isn't huge and by itself wouldn't make a big difference. But when taking in combination with all the other factors, it made a difference.
[...]
If as Gurdur suggested that the land itself was the reason then the native americans would have been a superpower long before the Europeans settled the Americas.

Correct me if im wrong, but your argument goes something like this:
Tehre is a gene, or at least a couple genes, that make up our quality as workers? This gene is like spot genes on a dog. Meaning this personality trait is as genetic as physical characteristics.

the USA got our genes from europe. Europeans have better genes, in this sense at least, than the other ehtnicities. As you claim, native americans have worse "industrious genes".

-------
so first you are racist. as you are claiming one ethnicity is superior to others. But this does not make your claim wrong or right... but, you provide NO evidence for your claim. Do you have any scientific evidence that this type of thing is true? How would this explain Europe being behind native americans at other periods of time? did they not selectivly breed this gene until the later?

Aerion · 01-30-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Aerion:

Correct me if im wrong, but your argument goes something like this:
Tehre is a gene, or at least a couple genes, that make up our quality as workers? This gene is like spot genes on a dog. Meaning this personality trait is as genetic as physical characteristics.

the USA got our genes from europe. Europeans have better genes, in this sense at least, than the other ehtnicities. As you claim, native americans have worse "industrious genes".

At a high level, what you are saying here is basically true but don't jump on this statement out of context. ALL RACES of people have that same gene!!! Let me repeat: ALL RACES of people have that same gene!!! It is not unique to Americans or even Europeans or native americans!! I only suggested that for a relatively brief period of history, Americans possessed that gene in SLIGHTLY higher amounts and gained a marginal advantage from that along with a myriad of other factors.

There are many, many other factors involved as I've conceded in a number of other post. Please stop taking this one point out of context, ok?

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
so first you are racist. as you are claiming one ethnicity is superior to others. But this does not make your claim wrong or right... but, you provide NO evidence for your claim. Do you have any scientific evidence that this type of thing is true? How would this explain Europe being behind native americans at other periods of time? did they not selectivly breed this gene until the later?

To say this theory is racist or elitist is adding value judgements I didn't make. Along with the "Industrious Gene" (TM)

there was other factors like ruthlessness and bloodthirstiness that were there as well as evidenced by the way those Europeans er... displaced (again the absense of a value judgement) the native americans.

I'm not sure how much evidence can be gather to either prove or disprove my theory. Genetic breeding is well understood and has been for centuries but proving or disproving this was the case 200 years ago would be problematic.

My next post will helpfully clarify my theory as I answer seanie's question.

Aerion · 01-30-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Monkeybot
Native Americans may have had the land... but what good is that when there's nothing to farm?

Europe was geographically close to, and heavily influenced by, the Fertile Crescent (thousands and thousands of years ago). The Fertile Crescent had an overwhelming number of grains (wheat, barley, etc.) and domesticable animals. Hence, it was easy for agriculture and livestock to spread throughout Europe, from Iran to Ireland, in a relatively short period of time. This gave rise to non-nomadic peoples, which in turn allowed for all the goodies that come with a sedentary society -- technology, writing, greater political complexity, etc. Additionally, the proximity to livestock caused numerous diseases in humans -- bad in the short term, but in the long term, giving Europeans much greater resistance to the common infections that would later kill off the Native Americans in droves.

This and the rest of this post was excellent. Thank you!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.