Are we really one Human Race?

Watch
bolly_mad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Are we really supposed to be one human race sharing a planet? Or are we multiple human races competing on one planet.

We've been here a long time and we're not united (or even close). And I'm confident we will never see a future where the human race is united (only in fiction). The thing is....Maybe we aren't supposed to be. Maybe we're supposed to compete and fight (and kill) until only one race dominates and thrives. Isn't that what nature teaches us?

Why do we lie to ourselves and pretend we're supposed to get along. Maybe we aren't. Maybe we're going against nature. Different groups will always seek to dominate others whether covertly or overtly. Why not just have it out in the open?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by bolly_mad)
Are we really supposed to be one human race sharing a planet? Or are we multiple human races competing on one planet.

We've been here a long time and we're not united (or even close). And I'm confident we will never see a future where the human race is united (only in fiction). The thing is....Maybe we aren't supposed to be. Maybe we're supposed to compete and fight (and kill) until only one race dominates and thrives. Isn't that what nature teaches us?

Why do we lie to ourselves and pretend we're supposed to get along. Maybe we aren't. Maybe we're going against nature. Different groups will always seek to dominate others whether covertly or overtly. Why not just have it out in the open?
While we are the same species it is in our nature to act like pack animals. We are a selfish species which tends to act in the interests of only those we have an emotional connection to and we continue to argue about religion and politics at the end of a gun.

I too don't see us uniting for at least a century and i dare say that if a nation developed the technology to nullify nukes, the imperial age would begin anew under the guise of bringing order to chaos.
0
reply
Lemon Haze
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Did you take LSD before you wrote this?
0
reply
bolly_mad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
Yes, I meant race as in ethnicity.
0
reply
bolly_mad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Lemon Haze)
Did you take LSD before you wrote this?
No. I was asking a serious question.
0
reply
bolly_mad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Rakas21)
While we are the same species it is in our nature to act like pack animals. We are a selfish species which tends to act in the interests of only those we have an emotional connection to and we continue to argue about religion and politics at the end of a gun.

I too don't see us uniting for at least a century and i dare say that if a nation developed the technology to nullify nukes, the imperial age would begin anew under the guise of bringing order to chaos.
I don't think we'll be united even two centuries from now. So called attempts to unite groups, such as the E.U, for example, will always have one or more elements dominating it, and thus others, in this case Germany and Western Europe over Eastern Europe. Same can be said for UN, G20, etc.

One could argue imperialism has never really gone away. It merely evolved, made more use of economy, education, trade, media, than military. Race/identity is always a factor in all of these, even if subtly.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
This is incorrect, genetic differences exist between races and have impacts on many traits. You should avoid listening to anthropologists (which is a joke field and not even remotely scientific) and listen to biologists and geneticists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929707605...5456365728fd74

. Consequently, it has become increasingly controversial whether proxies are sufficient and accurate
representations of groups inferred from neutral genetic variation. This raises three questions: how many data are
required to identify population structure at a meaningful level of resolution, to what level can population structure
be resolved, and do some proxies represent population structure accurately? We assayed 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms
in a heterogeneous collection of ∼565 individuals, ∼200 of whom were also typed for 60 microsatellites.
Stripped of identifying information, correct assignment to the continent of origin (Africa, Asia, or Europe) with a
mean accuracy of at least 90% required a minimum of 60 Alu markers or microsatellites and reached 99%–100%
when 100 loci were used.
http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.short
The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...sen30years.pdf
The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50%
genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences
in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence:
the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain
size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related
life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables.
The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in
Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the
discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes
will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model
(i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics)
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...a6360abccb.pdf

. Recently, though, some evidence has emerged indicating that a rare allele of the MAOA gene—that
is, the 2-repeat allele—may have effects on violence that are independent of the environment.
The current study builds on this research and examines the association between
the 2-repeat allele and shooting and stabbing behaviors in a sample of males drawn from
the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that AfricanAmerican
males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other
genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors and to report having multiple
shooting and stabbing victims.

(...)
Last, the analyses for the current study were confined to African-American males because
of the low base rate of Caucasian males carrying the 2-repeat allele which precluded the
ability to calculate any multivariate statistical models. Future studies should expand on these
findings and examine the effects of MAOA for African Americans, Caucasians, and other
racial/ethnic groups. (...)approximately 5.5 % of African-Americans and less than 1 % of
Caucasians carry this rare allele
etc
2
reply
MoshiMarlo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
You seem to be confusing taxonomy with politics.

The reason for human conflict is not a disparity between our genes, but one between belief systems and selfish competition for resources and other such excuses to sate our primal need for violence and destruction
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Yes, there are some serious people in anthropology (just like there are some serious people in fields like sociology, cultural studies, etc) but that doesnt change the fact that many/most of the prominent people in these areas are doing fairly dubious work, and are driven more by activist politics than science. The biggest area of anthropology is (socio)-cultural anthropology, which has very little interest in empirical science, and is pretty much garbage. Biological anthropology is obviously more legitimate, but it is still influenced by the broader trends in the field and I would still view it with a bit of suspicion.

Regardless, the views of the American Anthropological Association are beyond worthless - the field hasnt been anywhere near active enough in expelling/silencing its lunatics, it is still influenced more by politics than by science, and it has very little credibility. Stick to biology/genetics/psychology journals, where people actually care about science/truth rather than promoting political ideologies.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Well, TBF there were other species of human, but we're the only one that isn't extinct.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by bolly_mad)
Are we really supposed to be one human race sharing a planet? Or are we multiple human races competing on one planet.
What do you mean by "supposed to be"? Morality dictates what we ought to do.

Humans are not a single race; they are a single species.

(Original post by bolly_mad)
We've been here a long time and we're not united (or even close). And I'm confident we will never see a future where the human race is united (only in fiction). The thing is....Maybe we aren't supposed to be. Maybe we're supposed to compete and fight (and kill) until only one race dominates and thrives. Isn't that what nature teaches us?
Nature cannot tell us what ought to be the case. Humans are much more united now than they were even decades ago, never mind centuries ago.

Whilst I'm skeptical of some of his points, Steven Pinker makes a good argument that humans are the most moral and united they've ever been in his book The Better Angels of our Nature.

He makes the case that Humans are slowly getting rid of, or combatting, primitive ideologies such as racism, sexism, imperialism, conservatism and nationalism. Women have the right to vote; slavery is no longer legal; segregation and apartheid are illegal in more countries than they are legal in, and so on.

(Original post by bolly_mad)
Why do we lie to ourselves and pretend we're supposed to get along. Maybe we aren't. Maybe we're going against nature. Different groups will always seek to dominate others whether covertly or overtly. Why not just have it out in the open?
Because morality and logic dictate that we're supposed to get along. Again, nature is irrelevant; you're making fallacious appeals to nature.

The other problem with your argument is that it's not "races" which seek to dominate each other anymore, it's states, and states include a mixture of all "races".

Most people don't want to have anything out. Most people want to live in peace.
0
reply
Iwouldliketoknow
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by bolly_mad)
Are we really supposed to be one human race sharing a planet? Or are we multiple human races competing on one planet.

We've been here a long time and we're not united (or even close). And I'm confident we will never see a future where the human race is united (only in fiction). The thing is....Maybe we aren't supposed to be. Maybe we're supposed to compete and fight (and kill) until only one race dominates and thrives. Isn't that what nature teaches us?

Why do we lie to ourselves and pretend we're supposed to get along. Maybe we aren't. Maybe we're going against nature. Different groups will always seek to dominate others whether covertly or overtly. Why not just have it out in the open?
Yes biologically we are. No 2 due economic advantage race was made think slavery. Colonialism et.c however to say one race will dominate is problematic, who is that race- white? But do they deserve it and why should someone else accept less if they know they are more?
Would you ask this question if you were non white?
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
Literally every single sentence here is incorrect, and at odds with the actual science. If you have an honest interest in this area then I would seriously advise you to stay away from humanities fields/journals (e.g. anthropology) which tend to be an activist political mess, and stick to the actual sciences

Your views on IQ are utterly ridiculous and show a total lack of knowledge about the field. IQ testing has not been 'refuted' and it is the single most reliable and robust field in all of psychology. If you want to correct your misunderstandings, I would advise you to start here: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...mainstream.pdf

also here: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/r...telligence.pdf

The latter is the result of a task force commission by the American Psychological Association to report on the current state of intelligence testing while the former is a position paper signed by most of the top scientists in the field, in a bid to correct popular misunderstandings of intelligence (i.e. your post).
0
reply
Studskate
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
i think everyones dividing up in that human race people are labelled as other things like with religion,race,country and that but everyone has different personalities, people with twisted personalities, nice personalities caring personalities, selfish personalities etc and i just dont know anymore but ofcource we're all part of one race and thats the human race but if some people choose to do things differently compared to others then it should be allowed , its their own thing, you'd want to do what you like too so just leave everyone to their own thing and just do your own?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (24)
6.09%
Uncertainty around my education (44)
11.17%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (46)
11.68%
Lack of purpose or motivation (52)
13.2%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (20)
5.08%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (18)
4.57%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (41)
10.41%
Financial worries (27)
6.85%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (16)
4.06%
Exposure to negative news/social media (25)
6.35%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (11)
2.79%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (39)
9.9%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (31)
7.87%

Watched Threads

View All