Turn on thread page Beta

Are we really one Human Race? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Multiple human races? Erm, no? There are not different species of humans, there's just humans. Perhaps you mean race as in Caucasian, etc. but genetically speaking, there's no such thing as race - see the American Anthropological Association's statement on race.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Did you take LSD before you wrote this?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Multiple human races? Erm, no? There are not different species of humans, there's just humans. Perhaps you mean race as in Caucasian, etc. but genetically speaking, there's no such thing as race - see the American Anthropological Association's statement on race.
    Yes, I meant race as in ethnicity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lemon Haze)
    Did you take LSD before you wrote this?
    No. I was asking a serious question.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Multiple human races? Erm, no? There are not different species of humans, there's just humans. Perhaps you mean race as in Caucasian, etc. but genetically speaking, there's no such thing as race - see the American Anthropological Association's statement on race.
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poohat)
    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.
    Just from this statement alone, I know you have no idea what you're talking about. There are genetic anthropologists who literally study genetics and the development/change in genetics over time. Far from being 'not even remotely scientific' these anthropologists working in this specialized field know just as much about genetics as geneticists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Just from this statement alone, I know you have no idea what you're talking about. There are genetic anthropologists who literally study genetics and the development/change in genetics over time. Far from being 'not even remotely scientific' these anthropologists working in this specialized field know just as much about genetics as geneticists.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Multiple human races? Erm, no? There are not different species of humans, there's just humans.
    Well, TBF there were other species of human, but we're the only one that isn't extinct.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poohat)
    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.
    Anthropologists who study genetic/medical/etc. anthropology publish in biology and genetics journals. Your ignorance and bashing of the field of anthropology is merely demonstrative of your ignorance of the field.

    You realize, for example, that the study of human evolution, primatology, the evolution of SIV into HIV, etc. has all been conducted by, inter alia, anthropologists and published in highly respectable journals?

    It's not as though the American Anthropological Association is 'worthless', quite the contrary, it's quite reputable and it's the largest Anthropological Association in the world. Additionally, it's not as though their research isn't published nor peer-reviewed in a multitude of journals.

    Their statement on race isn't based on lack of knowledge of genetics. It's based on the fact of genetic variation between population and the lack of the ability to define a race based on particular characteristic trends.

    Let's also note that to try to demonstrate difference between race you quoted e.g. a study on IQ. As cultural psychologists have repeatedly highlighted, IQ tests (and optical illusions, situational problem solving, etc.) are all culturally relative; furthermore, IQ testing has long been refuted as being a measure of intelligence. The research on this in psychology is mountainous. Anyone with any familiarity with psychology would never take an IQ test as a serious or reliable methodology for judging intelligence difference between supposed races.

    If you want to play the 'this academic field is trash and this one is great' game, go right ahead. But I'm not going to play that game with you. It's childish and doesn't help you case at all. It's ad hominem fallacious argument.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Their statement on race isn't based on lack of knowledge of genetics. It's based on the fact of genetic variation between population and the lack of the ability to define a race based on particular characteristic trends.

    Let's also note that to try to demonstrate difference between race you quoted e.g. a study on IQ. As cultural psychologists have repeatedly highlighted, IQ tests (and optical illusions, situational problem solving, etc.) are all culturally relative; furthermore, IQ testing has long been refuted as being a measure of intelligence. The research on this in psychology is mountainous. Anyone with any familiarity with psychology would never take an IQ test as a serious or reliable methodology for judging intelligence difference between supposed races.
    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).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poohat)
    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
    I have a degree in psychology. I'm more than familiar with the research in the field. Anyone who has studied psychology knows that IQ tests are widely recognized as not being cross-culturally reliable. At the very least, even if you want to argue that they aren't recognized as not being reliable, their validity is continually being questioned on the basis that they make a number of presuppositions about the universalizability of findings and methods.

    (1) It's a multiple choice test. Someone could score incredibly highly just because they guessed well. The probability is low, but it's still possible.

    (2) IQ tests aren't capable of actually measuring intelligence. The problem with the test is that it tries to give us a scaled score of intelligence, but as a number of psychologists and philosophers of mind/language have pointed out, we can't even agree on what we mean by 'intelligence'. A psychological test is only as valid as is definitional parameters. IQ testing lacks appropriate definitional parameters because we don't know if what we're testing is actually intelligence or something else, or some part of intelligence.

    (3) Cultural psychologists have long been aware of the flaw of Western-test models. For example, optical illusions involving hard corners are seen as optical illusions in the west, but aren't so viewed by individuals in those developing countries where hard corners are not observed. IQ is based on past-educational exposure not simply one's intelligence. If I haven't been exposed to the type of thinking methodology required by an IQ test, then I'm unlikely to score highly. If I've been exposed to thinking in a very IQ-test like way, then I'm likely to score higher. This is like the LSAT, which tests logical thinking ability. The more individuals practice answering question types, the more likely they are to get them right.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...elligence.html

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...03390490510824

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...792D0B3.f03t04

    http://asm.sagepub.com/content/12/3/303

    Believe it or not, after studying four years of psychology at one of the top 15 universities in the world for pyschology, I'm not a moron who doesn't know what they're talking about here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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?
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

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

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