Is race biological, or important to you?

Post Reply New Topic

Ahh, some fellow anthropologists (student, for my part here <.<). My take about "race", even though it's been previously mentionned, is that besides our minor differences, we are all part of the same biological race. The minor changes between ethnic groups are actually pretty negligible, when you consider that there is MORE genetic diversity within a group than between them. =/

And for the record, i know a "few" of those skeletal differences, they really don't amount to much. (nasal "spike" unique to europeans... ) But they are helpful when trying to identify a victim, in such cases as forensics.

The take about dogs is pretty much that they use much of their gene pool working on getting those "desirable" traits that humans have conditionned into them (regarding "pure" breeds). Cross-breeds only work half as hard for those traits ( at least it would make sense), which gives them some leftover genetic versatility to overcome and adapt to whatever may come to them, such as disease.

what I learned at school(from the Bill Nye the Science Guy videos) is that all humans are the same exact color(excluding albinos as they lack pigmentation) we are ALL brown but it varies between light and dark brown

Races do not exist objectively.

There is simply no one group of humans that hasn't extensively bred with other groups in over 150,000 years.

It's been found that there is greater genetic difference between different groups of chimps than there is among the various human races.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think there is a certain knee jerk revulsion to the idea of there being any differences between the population groups that we vaguely describe as races (or within races). But nothing in nature is egalitarian. It just doesnt care about our values. It's not fair that some groups have genetic advantages but that's just how it is. The full extent and nature of those advantages is unknown today but I don't think wishing them away is a viable strategy. Better to place them in context.

Why should this be so important?
Even if you say that there are biological differences which you can prove - so let's say black people do better in sports. I don't rule that out. But if you compete with a black friend, you wouldn't say "well, it isn't fair, you're black" if he wins, right?
Basically people who are devout to sports and lead a professional life are the ones who succeed. Perhaps statistically there are more black people with genetic athletic abilities (it is often said, and I guess it might be true, but I honestly don't care). Still, it's not like athleticism is a trait that all black people are born with, and others can't achieve.

These supposed racial-traits are not like subspecies as in the non-human-animal kingdom, where you can say that individuals of some subspecies usually have great hearing, and others have great vision, because they live slightly different. Basically, human beings today are still evolving, in my opinion, but not as different species. If anything, we used to evolve differently, but less so today. For example, the different skin colours and "tanning ability" that different people have. In the past you could say that people in the north are whiter, but today with immigration and all, it's not really like that.

It does matter in terms of medicine, as some diseases, etc., can affect different groups of people, but in our everyday life, society and culture play a much bigger role than biology.

I never said the differences were significant. But they are measurable in some ways, mostly on a statistical level. That's why it's important to place these differences in context. We arent talking laser vision and third arms.

You can train your whole life and a trained Tibetan will beat you to the top of Mount Everest every time. Is that important? No. But it's a difference. West African speed advantages might be established genetically one day. But we are talking 10/ths of a second ahead of the best European times. Not bionic man stuff.

Frankly, I'm surprised people need to research this to know it's true.

When it comes to "race" it's not just a gene controlling skin color. Breeding habits also factor in.

There are some very intelligent and successful African-Americans. What percent of the total population of African-Americans do they represent?

If two stupid people breed, what are the odds of producing a smart kid?

Of course, this applies more to a question of the culture. A community that strives for excellence and where the women have standards of who they will take as a mate leads to children more disposed to be successful and intelligent. A community that tolerates indiscriminate breeding for the sake of pleasure likely produces more children of questionable potential.

Over time, cultural standards wind up determining the overall potential of any given member of a racial group.

Dumb white people = high chance of dumb white children.

Smart white people = high chance of smart white children.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... genics-796