Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is the harsh reality that we are not all equal? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Is the harsh reality that were not all equal?
    Yes, the truth is were not all equal.
    85
    85.00%
    No, were all equal.
    13
    13.00%
    I haven't got an opinion on this.
    2
    2.00%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    I understand what you're saying. However I would say that for a lot of situations, it's pretty blindingly obivous that if you do or don't do something it will have a certain consequence. Some people choose to ignore that, or simply assume somebody will step in to help them or that things will work out alright of their own accord.
    You sometimes hear stories of people coming from pretty horrible backgrounds and going on to succeed in life, if they can make life work for themselve, so should anyone else. (Annoyingly I can't think of any names off the top of my head)
    Success in life is based enormously on luck. People don't want to admit it, but it is true. The best known example is Bill Gates: he was extremely lucky in being able to learn programming at an early age. The schools he went to had computer labs when those things were still really really rare. Of course, his skill and temperament had a lot to do with it, but without the opportunity to practice working with computers, nothing would have come out of it. Plenty of people that are extremely successful software moguls today like Gates and Jobs were born in almost the same year, so there basically was this small timeframe in which they were born that led them to greatness.

    I'm not saying we should remove all responsibility and reward from people, but we should remember that personal actions are only a part of what makes a life enjoyable. We shouldn't expect anyone to do so or be so.

    regards
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    of course it's luck. rooney is lucky to be born a good footballer. Russel Brand is lucky enough to have a sense of humour, and use this to be a successful comedian. Most things, if not everything, in life is attributable to luck. It's just un-PC to say, but it's a flagrant fact of the human condition.

    I don't think anybody presumes/interprets equality to mean total equity in all aspects. We are all unique, and from this uniqueness will have different outcomes in life. If equality means equal in the eyes of the law, fine. If it means equality of opportunities, fine. Total equality is unrealistic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Equality in terms of the right to family life, education, play , love, free speech and so on .
    Diversity in that people are born with different talents, wealth and skills. No shame in this, indeed diversity is to be celebrated.
    Inequality of opportunity is a sad fact. Those who are fortunate must take advantage of their opportunities so as to try and provide for the less fortunate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People might not be equally good-looking or intelligent or whatever, but that doesn't mean that we are not all equal. Just because one person is less intelligent than another, doesn't make them less of a person, does it? We are equal, just not in all aspects of our personalities or talents. Equal doesn't mean the same. Like 5+5 and 2+8. They are both equal, because they both equal ten, but they aren't actually the same. See? It's a hard thing to explain because to do that, you have to make people realise what equality actually means. You can be unequal in terms of characteristics, like looks, but you cannot be unequal as people. We all deserve the same rights.

    I know I keep repeating myself but I'm just trying to make a point.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRevolution)
    Well obviously we are not equally endowed but does every human deserve to have their feelings respected? Absolutley imo.
    No they don't. Absolutely not at all...

    If a man comes up to me, tells me every man, women and child who isn't white deserves to be burnt, that's sure as hell one feeling I wont respect.

    I think that's what you meant, if not, I apologise for catching the wrong end.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn11)
    Perhaps in God's eyes were all equal, but right now on this planet, everything seems to be survival of the fittest.

    - People are born more attractive than others. The most attractive not only have a much better chance of mating, but not only that they can use their appearance to gain advantages. Making money, popularity or being naturally more favoured above others.

    - Some are more naturally intelligent than others. They're able to grasp calculations and theory with ease, where as most have to strive and study to get a general understanding.

    - Some are born naturally talented, whether it be music, art, or sports, whilst others have to practice and work hard just to match their level of skill.

    - Some individuals have a different levels of mental strength, by this I mean. Whilst some people's moods and emotions are easily knocked down, they become depressed and lack motivation to pick themselves up. Whilst others much more easily get back on their feet, and strive to get back on top things.

    - Probably the most common difference on TSR, is the difference is social skills.
    Whilst a lot of people find it easy to make a good amount of friends and can easily interact with the opposite sex. On a daily base there are threads from the socially awkward, who have difficulty in this area.

    - People are naturally stronger and taller than others. The fact that there are school bullies and the sort, suggests that from an early age some of us dominate the alpha-male position.

    Naturally I get there is a great deal of out environmental influence. I dunno, I'm just bored and venting my thoughts.

    What do you think?
    You should read this paper by University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn on human genetic diversity.

    A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

    The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

    We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

    Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

    Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

    Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

    Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

    This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

    Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

    For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

    Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/461726a.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We are different. The only way to uniform everybody, even if we'd still be different in terms of skills and abilities (and feelings, of course) would be putting everybody in a massive kibbutz or trying to achieve a utopic communism.
    Both have been proved to utterly fail, when tried at smaller levels.
    Then yes, we all are different. We are born different, and, apart from our abilities and skills, we are born with different chances. It is probably unfair, but nothing fairer comes to mind.
    Diversity should be celebrated, as someone above said, and as long as everyone is given a chance, we have to accept that some will have more chances than others, but that we're in a society based in meritocracy mainly, not so much in aristocracy, nepotism or a plutocracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Success ultimately only comes down to the ability to reproduce. How you interpret what is or is not successful beyond that is subjective. For example, Downs syndrome patients are known for their unusual capacity for sociability, Autistic savants have their own exceptional abilities and so on..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn11)
    I agree.
    Seems to be a possible confusion between respecting someone's dignity as a fellow person and treating people 'as equals'... the two aren't the same.

    Can you really treat someone who is a bit thick the same as someone who is very bright?

    (of course the previous government have tried that, with the 'all must have prizes' attitude towards education that has infected our schools)

    But would the world really work if that were the case? Surely not, we have to discriminate, some people are up to being brain surgeons, others are not, that's just life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As Humans i believe we are all equal in respect to being from the sape species, class e.t.c
    But as individuals of a mentally and physically powerful race, we are all different therefore it must be impossible that we are equal.
    Differences in appearance, intelligence, personality, perception of the world around us and mental stress capacity are rife within the human race and cause of inequality.
    However, not being equal to someone else or percieving someone as being inferior or superior to you should be kept as an opinion solely to the thinker.
    Respecting each and everybody and embracing differences should be a a concept every individual of this race should accept.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    'All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Seems to be a possible confusion between respecting someone's dignity as a fellow person and treating people 'as equals'... the two aren't the same.

    Can you really treat someone who is a bit thick the same as someone who is very bright?

    (of course the previous government have tried that, with the 'all must have prizes' attitude towards education that has infected our schools)

    But would the world really work if that were the case? Surely not, we have to discriminate, some people are up to being brain surgeons, others are not, that's just life.
    Yes of course you can treat a brain surgeon and a normal person the same.
    you have to give both respect regardless of profession/intelligence.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.