Hi.
I am wondering about this. I saw this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=298779
and it seemed a fair number of the posters there came out in favor of the notion of a "race" concept of some form or another existing biologically, not just socially. In this thread, I am curious to explore the contours of that belief.
In particular, if you believe in "race", what would you say about the following propositions? Agree, or disagree?
1. The human species can be divided into a number of biological groups, definable by both being reproductively isolated and sharing a common ancestor, that is, clades,
2. The geographical boundaries between these groups are relatively sharp, tending to follow natural barriers, instead of being fuzzy and fading together,
3. The number of such groupings is relatively small, and the groupings are continental in scale of their geographic distribution,
4. These continental groupings correspond approximately to the traditional races of the racist anthropologists of the 19th and earlier 20th centuries,
5. Differences between these groups result in non-trivial biologically-based differences in abilities and behavior, not just appearance or disease patterns,
6. These differences in abilities and behavior take the form of a substantial difference in general ability, where "general ability" means the overall ability (the whole smörgåsbord of cognitive, physical, emotional, verbal, etc. abilities and skills required) of the group to develop and sustain a society considered "successful" and "prosperous" as those terms may be defined in modern international discourse, such that a ranking of the races on that would be possible,
7. These differences in general ability form a hierarchy with a clear "supreme" race and "underling" race,
8. These differences in general ability imply that some continental-scale regions will be forever condemned to lag behind others barring some sort of biological-style intervention, whether that be genetic engineering, eugenics, or mixing with "superior" groups,
9. That, as a result of such differences, it would be reasonable to discriminate or pre-judge candidates for jobs and other social positions on the basis of their group membership, at least if such pre-judgment is not final,
10. That behavioral differences may make the "inferior" groups less suitable to live among the "superior" ones,
11. Finally, a general pessimism toward the future prospects of the races with lowest biological "general ability ranking" across all domains.
I'd say someone who accepts all 11 of these is a "biological racial supremacist" for the race at the top of the hierarchy in point #7.
Now I'm not saying anyone here actually believes in all 11 points, nor am I saying I believe in it either, but I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on the position outlined above, or at least on the individual points. Note that not all the points are logically independent, e.g. you can't have 4 without 3.
I am wondering about this. I saw this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=298779
and it seemed a fair number of the posters there came out in favor of the notion of a "race" concept of some form or another existing biologically, not just socially. In this thread, I am curious to explore the contours of that belief.
In particular, if you believe in "race", what would you say about the following propositions? Agree, or disagree?
1. The human species can be divided into a number of biological groups, definable by both being reproductively isolated and sharing a common ancestor, that is, clades,
2. The geographical boundaries between these groups are relatively sharp, tending to follow natural barriers, instead of being fuzzy and fading together,
3. The number of such groupings is relatively small, and the groupings are continental in scale of their geographic distribution,
4. These continental groupings correspond approximately to the traditional races of the racist anthropologists of the 19th and earlier 20th centuries,
5. Differences between these groups result in non-trivial biologically-based differences in abilities and behavior, not just appearance or disease patterns,
6. These differences in abilities and behavior take the form of a substantial difference in general ability, where "general ability" means the overall ability (the whole smörgåsbord of cognitive, physical, emotional, verbal, etc. abilities and skills required) of the group to develop and sustain a society considered "successful" and "prosperous" as those terms may be defined in modern international discourse, such that a ranking of the races on that would be possible,
7. These differences in general ability form a hierarchy with a clear "supreme" race and "underling" race,
8. These differences in general ability imply that some continental-scale regions will be forever condemned to lag behind others barring some sort of biological-style intervention, whether that be genetic engineering, eugenics, or mixing with "superior" groups,
9. That, as a result of such differences, it would be reasonable to discriminate or pre-judge candidates for jobs and other social positions on the basis of their group membership, at least if such pre-judgment is not final,
10. That behavioral differences may make the "inferior" groups less suitable to live among the "superior" ones,
11. Finally, a general pessimism toward the future prospects of the races with lowest biological "general ability ranking" across all domains.
I'd say someone who accepts all 11 of these is a "biological racial supremacist" for the race at the top of the hierarchy in point #7.
Now I'm not saying anyone here actually believes in all 11 points, nor am I saying I believe in it either, but I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on the position outlined above, or at least on the individual points. Note that not all the points are logically independent, e.g. you can't have 4 without 3.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1L6gwpi
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire