Human Genetic Variation not Ethnically related

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

There is an odd sort of implication (not that anyone here is racist) that a bit of bigotry against Smolzoids would not be out of the question. This is why we try so hard to deny the differences between peoples.

That's one possible reason why we might do so. Another possible reason though, is that such a view is the one best supported by the genetic evidence.

I don't see the observed lack of diversity across our species as particularly good news, actually. A rich stockpile of genetic variation is good insurance against the little surprises nature loves to spring.

But humans don't need race distinctions to play the us-and-them game anyway. There are a million other ways to do it: crips vs bloods, surfers vs jocks, protestants vs catholics, greasers vs preps, hillbillys vs flatlanders, skeptics vs woo-woos...

If we somehow replaced the world's population with clones from a single individual, I'll bet they'd still do it. They'd still kill each other over it.

Why can't we all just get along?

It's not our nature to get along. We seek the security of belonging to a group, and we seek status within that group, mostly through competing against each other in accordance with accepted sets of rules. 'Getting along' often means breaking only those rules you can get away with breaking. The value of belonging to a particular group, and therefore the value of achieving status within that group, depends on there being other groups to provide contrast. In order for it to mean something to be one of us, there has to be a them.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Dynamic,
I agree with Your post , especially the part about diversity . After all how better to ensure propagation then through diversity. The selfish gene and all that.

The problem here ( as elsewhere) ) is the mere raising of the issue of study , let alone results , published or not , of topics such as the one in this thread , not only creates conflict but engenders hostility amongst many. That is not science.

The fact that I took the tract that I did about suspicions of motivations were not entirely internal, like I said there was, is and continues a trend to be "sensitive" to certain sensablitiies in relation towards research , not just in the Genetic community but also in much of mainstream science. My exceptions with the papers thrust appear to be less founded on it's science after reading it then the cited ( by Eos ) and published abstract in the "Nature" website.The fact that the headlines trumpeted the lack of relation of genetic differences as a cause De Jour and that Eos sited a specific paragraph ( dismissing the next paragraph that placed limits on the expression of differences in re the paper ) Were the cause of my discomfort and not the paper and it's authors.

I made more then several attempts to distance myself from any intellectual chicanery disguising itself as innocuous inquiry plainly and still the specter of racism and bigotry rears it's ugly head....... a white elephant in the living room indeed. Again this is not science, and constraints of inquiry or conclusion ( provable ) of areas of study that discomfort many is not an excuse to ignore or deny the methods of science .....no matter where they lead.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


The problem here (as elsewhere) is the mere raising of the issue of study, let alone results, published or not, of topics such as the one in this thread, not only creates conflict but engenders hostility amongst many. That is not science.

Yes. Absolutely.

My exceptions with the papers thrust appear to be less founded on it's science after reading it then the cited ( by Eos ) and published abstract in the "Nature" website.

I can definitely go along with you there as well.

I find it easy enough to accept (even if only as unavoidable) the idea that scientific knowledge becomes most meaningful as it is applied, whether in its broadest implications at the level of all of human culture, or it impact (often unnoticed) at the level of everyday existence for the individual.

I find it harder to accept (but impossible to avoid) the conclusion that new ideas in science are primarily products of the culture out of which they arise. Cultural preconceptions influence the process of scientific inquiry from its very beginning, providing the conceptual framework on which everything is built. The questions asked, the way those questions are framed, the assumptions that are left untested, the questions left unasked -- these are all predetermined to a great extent.

I find it repulsive the way hard-won insights in science are distilled down to bite-sized factoids and packaged for mass consumption. Mind candy. The details reduced to so much fine print nobody is expected to actually bother reading.

The truth is that there is always a little more to it. And, maybe, the truth is that (for us at least) the truth never gets any better than a clear view...

...from a particular angle.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I believe we find complete accomidation.