Must Read - EARTHLINGS

[a-guitarist]

Altruism in babies

Looks to me that Altruism is inherent in the human system.... does this mean greed is learned?

a-g

[Pali]

I will. Llamas in the south' date=' and buffalo in the north.[/quote']

I meant within Central America, the area we were discussing.

However, the African elephant is hardly able to domesticate considering that all it gives you is: meat, bones, and fat. Even so, the Native Americans as well as the Africans still made great use out of only that. The entire Native American life revolved around the buffalo. And then they were demolished by the Europeans. Why? Because they're inferior? Because they're stupid? No. Because the EU had stronger and more effective weapons. Why? Because the EU were able to mine for them. List of things that the Native Americans could have mined for: Coal and Iron. But wait! Coal + Iron = Steel! We've all played Runescape. But why didn't the Natives harvest their natural resources? By golly, I'll tell you why (and I'll do it without inserting an offensive .gif and stupid quote afterwards!), because they, as a people, were from the start able to live in harmony with what was around them. That does NOT make them inferior for thinking a different way than a group of people thousands of miles away from them. In fact, even comparing Native American, African, and European cultures is like (wait for it...) comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. =O

The llama and buffalo both were not useful for quick long-distance travel, nor for assisting agriculture. Europeans had domestic animals useful for both.

EDIT: Also, Native Americans did not "live in harmony" with nature any more than other tribal groups did. They moved around all the time because they'd kill off all the buffalo in an area, and they fought each other plenty.

EDIT #2: Another realization... your reduced intelligence argument does not fit your given data in regard to Native Americans, Val. As there is no breakdown of Native American brain sizes, it becomes logical to assume they are similar to Oriental skull sizes (after all, that's who they are descended from), which are the largest you gave. Do you have information regarding Native American skull sizes that shows them to be smaller as well? If they are similar in size to Oriental skulls, then why did Central and North America fail to develop large agricultural civilizations?

EDIT #3: Also, if Oriental skulls are the largest and therefore they are the smartest, why didn't Orientals end up dominating the world instead of Europeans?

[Quigt]

The llama and buffalo both were not useful for quick long-distance travel, nor for assisting agriculture. Europeans had domestic animals useful for both.

EDIT: Also, Native Americans did not "live in harmony" with nature any more than other tribal groups did. They moved around all the time because they'd kill off all the buffalo in an area.

I didn't mean to argue with you, but the Natives were migratory and allowed enough buffalo to live. This differs from the way the settlers did when they rampantly slaughtered them all.

I meant within Central America, the area we were discussing.

Oh. Well then yes, you're right. There were llamas in Central America, but not as many compared to South America.

[Cycel]

Our greatest asset as a species toward survivability is our ability to work' date=' act and think as a team.[/quote']

Until recently, wolves in Yellowstone National Park were on the endangered list and kept in a controlled environment. A pack of wolves also has the ability to work, act, and think as a team. So do chimpanzees, gorillas, and fireants; numerous species have that same ability, but it does nothing to affect survivability. Our greatest strength is not our capacity for intradependence, but our greatest weakness as a species is our inability to work interdependently.

While I don't care to comment on this topic anymore with the direction it is heading, I would like to point out that I was speaking in terms of species, rather than ethnicity or culture. Whole packs of wolves will still fight amongst each other.

Overall, I would think that the survivability of the human species as a whole is benefited by cooperation between all factions therein, even though those individual factions may not agree. On a tangent, I think this is more a result of the proliferation of dangerous weapons rather than simple species-reductionism.

I think it was also pointed out that Llamas are not especially good beasts of burden. They may be able to work as pack animals, but they're not going to plow any fields anytime soon.

[Twinblades713]

Yes, but the Rubik's Cube wasn't invented until 1974.

[Pali]

Altruism in babies

Looks to me that Altruism is inherent in the human system.... does this mean greed is learned?

a-g

You'll also find plenty instances of greed in babies too. Both are inherent.

[Pali]

I didn't mean to argue with you' date=' but the Natives were migratory and allowed enough buffalo to live. This differs from the way the settlers did when they rampantly slaughtered them all.[/quote']

Forgive me, I typed that up too quickly. What I meant to say was that it was not a universal trait to all Native Americans. Many tribes were smart enough to not overgraze. Some weren't, and tended to do badly because of it. There's a fairly common idea that tribal societies lived more peaceful and happier lives... I was reacting more against this idea than what you actually said, sorry.

[Mali]

I'm going to present a few simple points for people that are following these posts to consider:

1. Race is not a valid scientific concept. Ancestry is the term because it more accurately describes our varied origins. Most of the information in regards to brain size that was posted by Valsgarde refers to "the three races" of "black, white, and oriental". Consider for a moment how many different people live in this world, how large it is, and the constant in and out migration that occurs in every part of the world. You will see the absurdity of grouping all people into three categories. Furthermore the statistics that were posted are not accurately backed up. I'd like to see the math behind it and then i'd like to see how that data comes to racial supremacy. Virulent ideas like these can easily be discredited and have often masked themselves behind a scientific front. The nazis, for one, had many doctors and anthropologists committed to spreading an ideology and always concluded, regardless of the data, that they were a superior type of creature.

2. Altruism is not synonymous with primal instinct. As a group we need to get acquainted with certain terms and phrases so that everyone can understand what we are talking about. Altruism at a basic level is sacrificing ones own fitness or survivability for another. For example, a bird may see an owl and give a warning call to a group of its kin at the risk of getting noticed and eaten by the owl. A dog that sacrifices itself in protection of its owner is exhibiting this type of altruism. There are other more complex variants that do not directly involve the sacrifice of individual fitness. For example the practice of philanthropy and nation to nation food sharing is seen as indirect global altruism. It is beneficial to us and can be seen in most of the creatures of the earth, including humans, and therefore has been positively selected for throughout the years because of its value to the survival of the species.

3. Do some research. This is directed to the general group of readers out there as well as to you Valsgarde. If you have even a basic understanding of the scientific process and can find a few good books on anatomy, psychology, and anthropology (not the german kind) you will soon be able to see through most of the jibber jabber in the previous posts about racial theory.

4. The fact is most anatomists that have done this kind of brain measurement research are not qualified to extend the scope of their statistical data and imply that it has some significance to the study of human intelligence, genetic fitness, or to the explanation of cultural phenomenon. Correlation does not equal causation.

5. There are some really interesting projects going on right now that are of interest to this topic. The national geographic genographic project is one, and the work regarding mitochondrial dna and the "african eve" theory is another http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature2/index.html?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com

Those projects could shed some light on modern humans for those who'd like to know more. Very interesting stuff in my opinion.

[Pali]

All good points, Mali.

[corpsestomp]

I didn't mean to argue with you' date=' but the Natives were migratory and allowed enough buffalo to live. This differs from the way the settlers did when they [b']rampantly slaughtered them all.

Actually, it wasn't settlers, it was the railroad companies. They would hire people to kill buffalo because they'd tear up the tracks. Settlers did kill lots of them, but they used them for food, whereas people were hired to ride the trains and just shoot as many as they could.

[Mali]

Additional reading: The Meaning of Race in Science--Considerations for Cancer Research from the National Cancer Institute.

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/09apr97.htm

the presidentially-appointed, three member Panel, convened a group of nationally recognized experts in such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, philosophy, biology, genetics, and epidemiology to present testimony. Across all disciplines present, it was agreed that the biological concept of race is no longer tenable.

and

the revised UNESCO Statement on the Biological Aspects of Race, developed by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, was shared publicly for the first time. It concluded, in essence, that the concept of a biological basis for racial classification is no longer acceptable.

[Valsgarde]

They did not develop it. They obtained it from others.

Developed land? The only people the Indo-Europeans obtained land from were the Proto-Europeans, who were way less advanced; and even if the land was "developed", land doesn't just stay that way, it has to be constantly maintained and cultivated properly for high yields.

Uh, no, all over the place. Altruistic behavior's pretty much a human universal... it's found in every culture on the planet.

Pfft, what? No it's not.

Difference in IQ is not resultant of race or supremacy. It isn't.

Please tell me you're not trying to refute the global study of a Professor of the University of West Ontario with opinions.

It is NOT impossible for a black person to be born with a brain that is larger than any white man who ever lived.

The study never says that.

Evolutionarily, there isn't even a difference in race at all, in any way.

Yes there is. Basic knowledge of anthropology will cure you of this dismal misunderstanding you carry.

You're under the disposition that all other animals function ONLY under primal instinct, and that no animal other than humans have a consciousness. Which is entirely false. In fact, that entire idea is about as false as you can get. I'd be worried if that's what you really thought.

It is what I think because that's how it is. "I think, therefore I am." Kind of excludes animals.

...such studies do not include enough information for me

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's classic.

Another realization... your reduced intelligence argument does not fit your given data in regard to Native Americans, Val. As there is no breakdown of Native American brain sizes, it becomes logical to assume they are similar to Oriental skull sizes (after all, that's who they are descended from), which are the largest you gave. Do you have information regarding Native American skull sizes that shows them to be smaller as well? If they are similar in size to Oriental skulls, then why did Central and North America fail to develop large agricultural civilizations?

On hand, no, I don't have information on Amerind skull sizes. And a handful of notable Central American cultures had perfectly fine agricultural civilizations. But a big noggin doesn't neccessarily equate to any given social development. Indo-Europeans for example were without the written word until the Runes, and the earliest Runestone we have is from around 250 B.C., and they were used for magical purposes instead of purely a form of written language until after the Angles/Saxons/Jutes/etc conquered what is now England.

Also, if Oriental skulls are the largest and therefore they are the smartest, why didn't Orientals end up dominating the world instead of Europeans?

Why does the nerdy, smartest kid in the school get picked on and not get the girls? Their brains aren't too terribly larger, and the Teutonic body is just WAY larger than the run of the mill Asian body. Overall, the European just seems to be the winning combination of brains and brawn. Even still - if the Mongols hadn't been stopped in Eastern Europe in the middle ages, the Orient may have become the dominant umbrella-region in the world.

Race is not a valid scientific concept

According to who? YOU? And what, pray tell, are your scientific qualifications?

Most of the information in regards to brain size that was posted by Valsgarde refers to "the three races" of "black, white, and oriental". Consider for a moment how many different people live in this world, how large it is, and the constant in and out migration that occurs in every part of the world. You will see the absurdity of grouping all people into three categories.

It distinctly says the three "major" races. Now you're just nitpicking instead of dealing with the facts presented. You're losing ground. It's showing.

Furthermore the statistics that were posted are not accurately backed up

According to who? YOU? And I posted ONE chapter from ONE study from ONE professor. Get real.

The nazis, for one, had many doctors and anthropologists committed to spreading an ideology and always concluded, regardless of the data, that they were a superior type of creature.

I strongly urge you to not pitch your hat into that ring. Which one of us do you think honestly knows more about NSDAP rhetoric and studies? You're about to step into a realm of information you are completely unprepared to go into. Ask Grim Reefer, I was an active nazi for years. He's known me since he was a sophomore in highschool. He'll tell you himself - you're going to make a giant fool of yourself butting heads with me on that of all issues.

Do some research. This is directed to the general group of readers out there as well as to you Valsgarde.

All I do is read. Don't patronize me by assuming that I haven't "done research" when it's blatantly apparent that I have. I'm the only one in this conversation that has taken steps to pitch anything out there other than uncited "facts" and opinions for crying out loud.

If you have even a basic understanding of the scientific process and can find a few good books on anatomy, psychology, and anthropology (not the german kind) you will soon be able to see through most of the jibber jabber in the previous posts about racial theory.

German kind? First, German doesn't equate to racist. Secondly, is there something wrong with German information? Information is information. It doesn't have a nationality. And the only studies you're going to find that refute it are studies that were started for the PURPOSE of refuting it (which goes against Scientific Method from the very start), and is politically motivated using politically motivated math and politically motivated sources. I.E., egalitarian propaganda.

[Mali]

Please see my post in regards to The Meaning of Race in Science--Considerations for Cancer Research from the National Cancer Institute, which can be found at the top of this page.

the Statement on the Biological Aspects of Race, developed by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, was shared publicly for the first time. It concluded, in essence, that the concept of a biological basis for racial classification is no longer acceptable.

Mali says: Race is not a valid scientific concept

Valsgarde says: According to who? YOU? And what, pray tell, are your scientific qualifications?

I am an Anthropologist and have worked with the C.A pound human identification laboratory to examine human skeletons of individuals with various backgrounds. I also spent some time working with the medical examiners office district 8 in Florida.

http://web.anthro.ufl.edu/capoundlab.shtml

Valsgarde says: Ask Grim Reefer, I was an active nazi for years.

That is why I am comparing your evidence to the nazi's... in an attempt to discredit this junk science that has appeared on a game forum.

[Valsgarde]

I am an Anthropologist and have worked with the C.A pound lab human identification laboratory to examine human skeletons of individuals with various backgrounds.

If that's true, then as another person that isn't blissfully ignorant to anthropological studies, I'm even more baffled at how the facts can stare you in the face and you can just totally not only ignore them, but assist the consensus of contemporary academia in SPINNING it.

Valsgarde says: Ask Grim Reefer, I was an active nazi for years.

That is why I am comparing your evidence to the nazi's... in an attempt to discredit this junk science that has appeared on a game forum.

Bogus - You were comparing it to nationalist rhetoric before I made that gem known.

Secondly, it's not my evidence, it's the evidence of Professor J. Phillipe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, evidence that has acclaim from the New York Times, The Bell Curve, National Review, Evolutionary Anthropology, Contemporary Psychology, Politics and Life Sciences, and all other manner of reputable publications and published works.

Junk Science? Tell that to the considerable list of notable names in the anthropological field that praise his work.

As for the "game forum" comment, it's textbook Catch 22. If you don't, you're just spewing out nonsense without facts or sources to back it up. If you do, you're blah-blah-blah on a game forum. Pick a side and stick to it.

*rolls eyes*

[Mali]

You have made your points and I have made mine. Let us put the issue to rest.

[Raargant]

As mature an end as can be hoped for, I think. This seems to be a good wrapping up point.

[Malchaeius]

Great. FL has Nazis.

[Anume]

I've stopped reading anything Valsgard posts after his last one where he stated the KZs of Germany were something that was made up and never happened.