August Spies

well I was going to point out the problems you didn't address once again, but Gurdur already did and youve displayed perfectly your unwilliness to argue decently.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Zar
Why were Eastern and Middle-Eastern empires (China, Muslim Empire) essentially technologically ahead of or equal to european peoples for certain time periods? Was it genetic then, but not now? What happened? Did their genetic advantage/equality just evaporate?

China brought about it's own downfall. Too much peace. Change upsets the apple cart. Without any apparent need for change (they were so big that there were no external threats) the emperors made a system without much change. Eventually the folly of this became apparent but by then it was too late.

And also, not every immigration/emigration of people produces a wonderous empire or ruling/superior subgroup in their new land, do they? Sometimes they just...migrate.

We aren't talking about migration. That does little to change the population. We are talking about a fairly small portion of the population going to new lands. That improves the quality of the population.

Loren Pechtel

Those who emigrate to better conditions tend to be the best of the lot.

FoE

Wouldn't it make slightly more sense that the Africans that have survived such brutal diseases and so forth would be tougher genetically? Anyone that manages to survive and reproduce in such harsh condidtions must have some advantage right? The places we "industrious" North Americans managed to flee from were still easier to live in than Africa

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Aerion
those who have few spots. If I continued this practice of selective breeding long enough, eventually I would produce dalmations where most, if not all, did not have any spots.

Agreed. Basic evolutionary genetics. We had only one round of selection, though. I don't think the genetic differences are all that much.

I think Elwood is right here on both counts. I think his "Cultural Work Ethic" point is another significant factor and probably has as much, if not more, to do with America as my genetic suggestion. I hadn't thought about this angle before. Thanks, Elwood!

This is where my thoughts lie, also--it's mostly culture.

There has been lots of research into whether behavior is a product of genes or environment. Unless there has been some new data I haven't seen, the general consensus is that both are factors in varying degrees depending on circumstances.

Copycat seems to put more evidence on the environment.

I also think whatever genetic benefit early Americans might have had is probably largely gone now. Too many immigrants coming here have a different set of priorites and backgrounds and the present culture has changed the dynamics.

Agreed. The earlier groups were assimilated and thus pretty much got the cultural advantages. The later groups that haven't assimilated haven't gained that benefit. The Orientals brought their own similar attitudes, the hispanics and blacks didn't. Thus the differences in our society now.

Loren Pechtel

Merely separating is a cull, you don't need to actually kill off the ones not selected.

Loren Pechtel

Surviving such situations gives resistance against disease, not industriousness.

Loren Pechtel

Please try to confine your posts to the topic, not attacking the poster!

Gurdur

Actually, no.

As for external threats, they always had them; and in fact were over-run by the steppe nomads who would found the last Imperial Dynasty of China.
The prejudice against change was in fact the result of cultural reaction to the eternal threat from the steppes.
Later, China found itself with two different threats --- the threat from the land (the steppes), and the threat from the sea (the Japanese against Korea in the mediaeval times, then later Britain, the USA, France and whatnot).

The choice was made to concentrate on the threat from the steppe hinterlands, and ignore the threat from the sea.

Moreover, there was a huge mistrust of the Chinese people by the ruling (originally nomad) ruling Imperial Dynasty --- when the foreign invasions came from the sea, the dynasty refused to arm the people out of fear of revolt.

Gurdur

What I'm waiting for is someone here to make a case that "industriousness" is genetically based.

Edited to add:
Whooops, sorry, Loren, I see you've already made that point that it's not genetically-based.
Sorry not to have seen that.

I made the point to ElwoodBlues way back in this thread that you can have one industrious generation, then two generations later the descendents are living the high life as lazily as possible ---- both industriousness and the lack of it are products of culture, not genetics ---- though by the way, I'll also add the point that what looks like indolence is often the effect of disease and parasite infestation ---- a very good example being the lower Nile valley, where repeated bilharzia infection leads to clinical depression and overall bad health, or in central Africa, where sleeping-sickness (carried by the tsetse fly) can cause half a village to simply doze to death.