What is your view on social Darinism ?

Terrlock

Hi Guys,

What are your views on social Darwinism.

I seen an interesting Documentary on social Darwinism and it seem to spawn an excuse for white people to exterminate other races they viewed as inferior.

I'm new to this topic of Social Darwinism. Is it true that the whites are the more evolved race on the planet and are more intelligent.

Very interesting documentary, a lot of it I've never learnt in the history books in school.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPwwvyHEUk

Absolam

I saw a documentary that said trolls died out as a result of social darwinism, but I can't find a link at the moment...

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I saw a documentary that said trolls died out as a result of social darwinism, but I can't find a link at the moment...

Probably because of bad camouflage. If they stand out too much, they just aren't going to breed.

Turtwig

Absolam wrote: »

I saw a documentary that said trolls died out as a result of social darwinism, but I can't find a link at the moment...

Did you check under the bridge?

BlaasForRafa

Turtwig wrote: »

Did you check under the bridge?

Everybody always forgets the viaducts...

Turtwig

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Everybody always forgets the viaducts...

Really? You'd have thought it'd be hard for people to get over them.

Delirium

What is your view on social Darinism ?

Not really a fan of sewing :P

Penn

Terrlock wrote: »

Is it true that the whites are the more evolved race on the planet and are more intelligent.

No.

Brian Shanahan

Terrlock wrote: »

Hi Guys,

What are your views on social Darwinism.

I seen an interesting Documentary on social Darwinism and it seem to spawn an excuse for white people to exterminate other races they viewed as inferior.

I'm new to this topic of Social Darwinism. Is it true that the whites are the more evolved race on the planet and are more intelligent.

Very interesting documentary, a lot of it I've never learnt in the history books in school.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPwwvyHEUk

It is an unscientific prejudice used for two reasons and two reasons only, 1) by racists to try and promote their hatred into something legitimate, and 2) by fundie christians to try and blacken the name of science and Charles Darwin. Often times it has been used by christians to justify their mass rapes, murders and enslavements in non-christian lands (mainly in the time before Darwin, so the racism took a more overtly religious tone, and wasn't called Social Darwinism, but religious duty amongst the heathen) and was the main cause for the creation and exponential rise of modern racism (before the 1600s most people didn't classify others on the colour of their skin, and most discrimination was exclusively religious. After, suddenly Africans, Asians, Native Americans and all the other non-European peoples became sub-human). It literally has no relation to Evolutionary events or the scientific Theory of Evolution.

The whole idea of Social Darwinism (and its antecedents) is a religious and racist phenomenon.

Edit: I note that you link to a video put up by one racist for other racists to gloat over. Nice.

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

I saw a documentary that said trolls died out as a result of social darwinism, but I can't find a link at the moment...

I've a wonderful proof of this, but this site is too small to contain it.

Dades

Terrlock wrote: »

I seen an interesting Documentary on social Darwinism and it seem to spawn an excuse for white people to exterminate other races they viewed as inferior.

That's not far off the reality.

It misrepresents a phrase like "survival of the fittest" to validate the worst human behavior throughout history. It suggests that the nature has deigned that the weaker can be removed by reason of natural order.

The corollary of this is that we are no better than animals, and have no control over our instincts. Which of course is an insult to animals, and somewhat plays down the uniqueness of human beings.

Terrlock wrote: »

I'm new to this topic of Social Darwinism. Is it true that the whites are the more evolved race on the planet and are more intelligent.

No. And it's that type of bullshit generalisation that people use to act like dicks.

Orion

We could ask Dav to get a second hamster to accommodate the proof. Think the current hamster is light coloured - maybe a dark one might work harder.

Terrlock

Orion wrote: »

We could ask Dav to get a second hamster to accommodate the proof. Think the current hamster is light coloured - maybe a dark one might work harder.

Funny you say that.

A friend of mine had 5 newly born chickens, 5 of them were white and 1 was black.

All the white ones ganged up on the black one and killed it.

Maybe this racist hate we have is not just in humans.

a lot of people were killed in the name of Christianity as the English use the excuse that they were un civilized, more were killed in the name of social Darwinism and Eugenics. Blacks and actually also the Irish were thought to be less evolved. I guess it made it easy for them to reason that it was OK to allow us to starve to death in the famine when there was actually plenty of food.

Why do man hate each other so much. A lot of people still hold strongly to Eugenics and use it as an excuse to push for more abortions and sterilization in Black communities then white.

We can see religions around the world killing each other just because in their few they don't worship their so called God.

Will this insanity ever stop?

Absolam

Orion wrote: »

We could ask Dav to get a second hamster to accommodate the proof. Think the current hamster is light coloured - maybe a dark one might work harder.

Might be tricky... I'm not sure trolls can tell the difference between goats and hamsters, and as any mill owner will tell you, you don't want a troll chasing a goat in your mill wheel. There's no stopping that kind of insanity. Except with a wall, which is where it usually ends. Messy all round really.

Dades

Terrlock wrote: »

Will this insanity ever stop?

Not until we we get holodecks, tbh.

We've culturally and technologically evolved much faster than our biological evolution. We're still essentially the xenophobic tribesmen we once were (and primates before that... and so on). Only now we have nuclear weapons and the means to eliminate whole "tribes" at the push of a button (of course some tribes still rely on AK47s and machetes). Coupled with that we also have ideologies which are as much to blame as technology - just ask any suicide bomber. A "gift" to us from our bigger brains which are so easily manipulated, but also led by the baser instincts we haven't yet shed.

It's the reason I'm reluctant to declare myself a humanist. While I've faith in the values and agency of many humans, as a species we're a mess.

robindch

Orion wrote: »

Think the current hamster is light coloured - maybe a dark one might work harder.

Which Star Trek Original Series episode had the crew landing on a planet where the inhabitants had their faces painted white on one side, black on the other?

Can't remember anything about save something similar to the following unbeatable line:

Some Inhabitant to Kirk wrote:

But Captain! You don't understand! I'm white on the left side of my face!

magicbastarder

Dades wrote: »

It's the reason I'm reluctant to declare myself a humanist. While I've faith in the values and agency of many humans, as a species we're a mess.

i would have thought decribing yourself as a humanist is a declaration of what you aspire to, rather than a statement on the state of the human race.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

We're still essentially the xenophobic tribesmen we once were [...]

Which is why stuff like the current deluge of xenophobia, homophobia, heterophobia in all its forms produced by Russian state-controlled media is so frightening - if the country didn't have a large population or nukes, it would matter less. But it has both.

Less controversially (or maybe not), here's the excellent Jane Elliott and her famous "Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes" social experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQAmdZvKf6M

Pherekydes

Terrlock wrote: »

A friend of mine had 5 newly born chickens, 5 of them were white and 1 was black.

Math un-good.

Troll un-good, too.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would have thought decribing yourself as a humanist is a declaration of what you aspire to, rather than a statement on the state of the human race.

Can't speak for Dades, but I'm reluctant to describe myself as anything. It's a much more easily defensible position, both internally and externally, to say that one holds views of one kind or another - and keep them separate from one's identity.

Turtwig

Well, I have noticed that mods tend to post in darker text more often when they ban people.

Mr. CooL ICE

I'm not racist. I have a coloured TV

kyogger

I suppose any discussion of that topic will be inherently 'racist'. But to be fair to the OP I don't see why that has to be interpreted as him 'hating'. I agree maybe the question could be asked in a more neutral manner.

It is potentially an interesting topic and it could be an interesting thread if the topic was discussed with maturity.

Is it racist for me to say "I think Asians are better at arithmetic than Caucasians" (given I am Caucasian).

Yes, as Dades points out with Barrack Obama picture above it is not an absolute. I am not saying that ALL Asians are smarter than ALL Caucasians. Rather, perhaps the AVERAGE Asian is stronger at Arithmetic than the AVERAGE Caucasian. Giving examples of where the observation is not the case is a red herring and a waste of time really.


It's a sensitive topic, but people can get wound up the wrong way and misinterpret and some times it is immaturity demonstrated by the audience rather than the person posing the question with genuine interest.

I think with a bit of maturity an interesting question can be asked, for example:

Is it possible one race is more evolved than another and that explains some of the conflict we see today between races? (terretorial competition, mating competition, etc)

silverharp

kyogger wrote: »

I think with a bit of maturity an interesting question can be asked, for example:

Is it possible one race is more evolved than another and that explains some of the conflict we see today between races? (terretorial competition, mating competition, etc)

Probably useful to define evolved. It doesn't have to mean stronger faster smarter or at least natural selection doesn't , its purely a numbers game.

Also looking back in history other cultures like the Egyptians or Chinese had more advanced societies when Europeans were largely living in mud huts. So the idea that Europeans are made if better stuff, I don't think so

kyogger

silverharp wrote: »

Probably useful to define evolved. It doesn't have to mean stronger faster smarter or at least natural selection doesn't , its purely a numbers game.

It is another interesting question, how do we define or measure evolution. Are monkeys really less 'evolved' if they don't have any actual biological need for iPhones or skyscrapers. Perhaps the general consensus of evolved (the laymans interpretation) when it comes to humans is meausred by factors such as intelligence, crime, societal structure, technology, unemployment etc.

Maybe from a biological point of view the race that provides the best conditions and environment for reproduction is the most evolved? (Optimise probabilty of human race surviving)

silverharp wrote: »

Also looking back in history other cultures like the Egyptians or Chinese had more advanced societies when Europeans were largely living in mud huts. So the idea that Europeans are made if better stuff, I don't think so

Yes, again it may not be the case that what we consider the most 'evolved' society might no always have been.

But at least today, can we look at specific areas of Africa, or the Middle East, and say that their race is 'less evolved' as defined above. And so is it soemthing programmed into our beings to avoid interaction with people of that race, not mate with them, not give them a job etc to help make that race extinct? Ie is one of the roots of racism a Darwinian survival of fittest mechanism?

silverharp

kyogger wrote: »

It is another interesting question, how do we define or measure evolution. Are monkeys really less 'evolved' if they don't have any actual biological need for iPhones or skyscrapers. Perhaps the general consensus of evolved (the laymans interpretation) when it comes to humans is meausred by factors such as intelligence, crime, societal structure, technology, unemployment etc.

Maybe from a biological point of view the race that provides the best conditions and environment for reproduction is the most evolved? (Optimise probabilty of human race surviving)


Yes, again it may not be the case that what we consider the most 'evolved' society might no always have been.

But at least today, can we look at specific areas of Africa, or the Middle East, and say that their race is 'less evolved' as defined above. And so is it soemthing programmed into our beings to avoid interaction with people of that race, not mate with them, not give them a job etc to help make that race extinct? Ie is one of the roots of racism a Darwinian survival of fittest mechanism?

Comparing societies is much more complicated than animals as its more to do with social capital , access to resources etc. For instance Egypt depended on the Nile so it was much more of a command and control economy but with world beating agriculture at the time.
Greece on the other hand having such a large coastline couldn't be too centralised as people wouldn't cooperate and there was no way of forcing them. Natives in indonesia would be unlikely to have any kind of critical mass to develop any kind of advanced society.
So special genetics? No , had aliens come and switched the american Indians out with the Europeans several thousand years ago , they probably would have developed like Europeans did. You would then be down to accidents of history for instance the Chinese retreating into themselves in the middle ages when they were in the verge of creating ocean going ships. They might have reached america before the European (Indians) ;-)

Turtwig

Hang on,

Are some people trying to make a serious discussion out of this thread?

kyogger

Turtwig wrote: »

Hang on,

Are some people trying to make a serious discussion out of this thread?

Why not?

It may well be the case that there is no race more 'evolved' or 'better' than each other, but what is the problem with discussing it? For me, that beats roaring 'racist' and 'troll' every time a discussion regarding 'races' crops up.

silverharp

Turtwig wrote: »

Hang on,

Are some people trying to make a serious discussion out of this thread?

Either way I dont think we are having one that the op intended.....

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

I've a wonderful proof of this, but this site is too small to contain it.

Ah, so that's where you've ended up M. Fermat!

legspin

Turtwig wrote: »

Hang on,

Are some people trying to make a serious discussion out of this thread?

Makes a nice change alright.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Which Star Trek Original Series episode had the crew landing on a planet where the inhabitants had their faces painted white on one side, black on the other?

Can't remember anything about save something similar to the following unbeatable line:

Let that be your Last Battlefield, where two advanced aliens take over the ship in their continued fued over which alien is better, the black on left side kind or the black on right side kind.

Classic episode.

Brian Shanahan

kyogger wrote: »

Is it possible one race is more evolved than another and that explains some of the conflict we see today between races? (terretorial competition, mating competition, etc)

No. Race is a fake categorisation, created specifically to put in place a false superiority of Europeans, and those of mainly European descent over the other peoples of the world. The apparent differences are based solely on superficial, insignificant differences in skin pigmentation.

Take a look at the video Robin posted on the brown eyes, blue eyes experiment, and you'll see how pernicious and evil a categorisation racism is.

Dades

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would have thought decribing yourself as a humanist is a declaration of what you aspire to, rather than a statement on the state of the human race.

I always assumed it involved an element of 'faith' in the inherent good of humanity, and what we can achieve.

Turtwig

kyogger wrote: »

Why not?

It may well be the case that there is no race more 'evolved' or 'better' than each other, but what is the problem with discussing it? For me, that beats roaring 'racist' and 'troll' every time a discussion regarding 'races' crops up.

Absolutely no reason why not. Just that this thread didn't have that intention.

Discussions such as whether women are better than men at something or vice versa, or whether one race has some advantage over another are obviously sensitive issues. That doesn't mean you can't discuss them. In fact, they often can be very interesting discussions.

Now the mods, are in that awkward position of nailing down the quantised state of this thread. Is it in messrs state or is it in serious discussion state? Suffice to say this thread has now caused quite the moderation headache. The very definition of trolling. Only logical conclusion is therefore to ban all posters in this thread.

kyogger

Turtwig wrote: »

Absolutely no reason why not. Just that this thread didn't have that intention.

You reckon the OP was intentionally trolling with the black/white thing? I am not so sure but maybe.

Turtwig wrote: »

Discussions such as whether women are better than men at something or vice versa, or whether one race has some advantage over another are obviously sensitive issues. That doesn't mean you can't discuss them. In fact, they often can be very interesting discussions.

Glad you can relate that despite the sensitivity of those topics they are definitely interesting. It would be disappointing if we refused discussion of these topics as boards seems to be an ideal platform (it is moderated so we can get rid of any trolling etc as you seem to be on alert for, however it provides a certain amount of anonymity for those that make some unintended mistakes).

Turtwig wrote: »

Now the mods, are in that awkward position of nailing down the quantised state of this thread. Is it in messrs state or is it in serious discussion state? Suffice to say this thread has now caused quite the moderation headache. The very definition of trolling. Only logical conclusion is therefore to ban all posters in this thread.

The question should have been asked more neutrally to begin with, without singling out any race. But the question does remain. Can it be good for the human species in their quest to advance and evolve to be less favorable towards certain races on the planet? (ignoring the horribleness/moral dilemma the process would entail).

kyogger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No. Race is a fake categorisation, created specifically to put in place a false superiority of Europeans, and those of mainly European descent over the other peoples of the world. The apparent differences are based solely on superficial, insignificant differences in skin pigmentation.

Take a look at the video Robin posted on the brown eyes, blue eyes experiment, and you'll see how pernicious and evil a categorisation racism is.

If race is a fake categorization why do people take such offence to it?

Again, there are surely observable measurable differences between the races (mental,physical, attitude) etc.?

For example, (and I hope this doesn't set some people off again), is it true that there is a difference between the average penis size of one race and another race?

If this is the case, the categorization is not fake. If the categorization is not fake then there are differences between the properties of the races. Properties of which may impact evolution?

PopePalpatine

kyogger wrote: »

You reckon the OP was intentionally trolling with the black/white thing? I am not so sure but maybe.

Terrlock's a young Earth creationist, whose previous hits include hit & run posts in evolution threads and his horror at Christmas being "paganised".

Nodin

kyogger wrote: »

If race is a fake categorization why do people take such offence to it??

Because it's fake.

kyogger wrote: »

Again, there are surely observable measurable differences between the races (mental,physical, attitude) etc.? ?

Not enough to really justify the term apparently.

shruikan2553

Turtwig wrote: »

Only logical conclusion is therefore to ban all posters in this thread.

Including yourself? Is that like dividing by 0?

Absolam

Turtwig wrote: »

Hang on, Are some people trying to make a serious discussion out of this thread?

Well, if we are, then Social Darwinism is a societal theory, whereas Darwinism is a biological one.
So the inclusion of race by the op is misdirected; whilst it might be arguable which societies are more evolved than others from a Social Darwinism point of view, no one race is an exclusively distinct society. Many societies are composed of multiple races, and many races participate in multiple societies, making race largely inconsequent in Social Darwinism compared to features such as technology, education, access to raw materials etc.

Arguably, race is not (possibly yet) even a feature of Darwinism; all races belong to the same sub species, and no race is likely to evolve into a separate sub species (never mind species) given that whilst populations once diversified to form races as a result of separation, they are now homogenising as a result of greater access to travel.
I would suggest that race being a sufficiently significant feature in natural selection over the next few (hundred) thousand years to establish a new sub species or species is doubtful.

Anyway, my view on Social Darwinism is that it was a novel and entertaining theory in its' day.

Brian Shanahan

kyogger wrote: »

If race is a fake categorization why do people take such offence to it?

Did you even bother to read my post, or are you so set in your ideology that the meaning of it didn't filter into your brain?

I have stated why people take offence at racist descriptions of themselves. Go back and read the post.

Absolam

kyogger wrote: »

If race is a fake categorization why do people take such offence to it? Again, there are surely observable measurable differences between the races (mental,physical, attitude) etc.?

In fairness race isn't a fake categorisation; racial characteristics are easily defined and it's quite easy to categorise quite a large proportion of the worlds population as belonging to distinct races. But people don't take offence to the existence of races, they take offence to (or more accurately at) racially based stereotypical characterisations which are (usually) unflattering.

kyogger wrote: »

For example, (and I hope this doesn't set some people off again), is it true that there is a difference between the average penis size of one race and another race?

Are you offering that as an example of someone giving offence, or an example of the surely measurable differences between races?

kyogger wrote: »

If this is the case, the categorization is not fake. If the categorization is not fake then there are differences between the properties of the races. Properties of which may impact evolution?

Which properties of which race do you think are likely to impact evolution? Bearing in mind that if the entire population of the world became racially australoid over the next say, 1000 years, the entire population would still belong to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. There's no reason (though perhaps you've thought of one?) to think that any race of combination of races becoming more dominant than others is likely to result in a new species?

Shrap

Terrlock wrote: »

A friend of mine had 5 newly born chickens, 5 of them were white and 1 was black.

All the white ones ganged up on the black one and killed it.

Just to clear that up for you as you appear to be reading something into the colour of the deceased chicken. I have kept chickens for 10 years and "hen-pecking" is an actual thing. If you had 5 black chickens and one buff, they could easily gang up on the buff. I had 6 cockerels hatched out of many broods all at the same time on one occasion. One of them was white, and all the other cockerels (of varying colours) savaged him from dawn till dusk. We christened him Gimp. Then we had Gimp soup. Anyhow, your friend is clearly an amateur.

kyogger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Did you even bother to read my post, or are you so set in your ideology that the meaning of it didn't filter into your brain?

What exactly is my ideology? I have no 'ideology' regarding this matter, only a curiosity of what might be.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I have stated why people take offence at racist descriptions of themselves. Go back and read the post.

To be honest, once was enough to read your post. It was nonsense and doesn't go far in dealing with the reasons for racism or why people take issue with it.

kyogger

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness race isn't a fake categorisation;

Thank you I suspected as much.

Absolam wrote: »

racial characteristics are easily defined and it's quite easy to categorise quite a large proportion of the worlds population as belonging to distinct races.

What kind of characteristics are we talking here?

Absolam wrote: »

But people don't take offence to the existence of races, they take offence to (or more accurately at) racially based stereotypical characterisations which are (usually) unflattering.

If we can ignore whether they are flattering or not for a moment. Is there reason behind some of those stereotypes? Or are they completely unfounded? (for example my smarter Asian example, or certain race with larger penis)

Absolam wrote: »

Are you offering that as an example of someone giving offence, or an example of the surely measurable differences between races?

I am giving that as an example of a 'possibly' measurable difference.

Absolam wrote: »

Which properties of which race do you think are likely to impact evolution? Bearing in mind that if the entire population of the world became racially australoid over the next say, 1000 years, the entire population would still belong to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. There's no reason (though perhaps you've thought of one?) to think that any race of combination of races becoming more dominant than others is likely to result in a new species?

I see your point, that we are all Homo sapiens sapiens and there are bound to be categorical differences within any species, but are those species really the same. Have we a sub species which gives rise to the diversity of life we see today.

I just find it hard to believe that if the Human Species were entirely black we would evolve in the same way if we were entirely White (given enough time).

I find it hard to believe that a smarter population will not evolve different physical features to a less smart population. Features, which, over time, will become great enough to deem the two to be different species again?

Thanks for your informative non-aggressive/accusing manner of discussing the topic.

kyogger

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if we are, then Social Darwinism is a societal theory, whereas Darwinism is a biological one.
So the inclusion of race by the op is misdirected; whilst it might be arguable which societies are more evolved than others from a Social Darwinism point of view, no one race is an exclusively distinct society. Many societies are composed of multiple races, and many races participate in multiple societies, making race largely inconsequent in Social Darwinism compared to features such as technology, education, access to raw materials etc.

Arguably, race is not (possibly yet) even a feature of Darwinism; all races belong to the same sub species, and no race is likely to evolve into a separate sub species (never mind species) given that whilst populations once diversified to form races as a result of separation, they are now homogenising as a result of greater access to travel.
I would suggest that race being a sufficiently significant feature in natural selection over the next few (hundred) thousand years to establish a new sub species or species is doubtful.

Anyway, my view on Social Darwinism is that it was a novel and entertaining theory in its' day.

Actually, I think this answers a lot of the questions I just asked

Absolam wrote: »

they are now homogenising as a result of greater access to travel.

Particularly this line. Great post. Thanks.

Absolam

kyogger wrote: »

What kind of characteristics are we talking here?

Surely whatever characteristics you choose to use to define the race you want to define?

kyogger wrote: »

If we can ignore whether they are flattering or not for a moment. Is there reason behind some of those stereotypes? Or are they completely unfounded? (for example my smarter Asian example, or certain race with larger penis)

Interesting question; have you any reason to believe there is a reason behind those stereotypes? Or do you think that if subjected to critical analysis they would have turned out to be myths?

kyogger wrote: »

I am giving that as an example of a 'possibly' measurable difference.

Have you investigated whether anyone has 'actually' measured it?

kyogger wrote: »

I see your point, that we are all Homo sapiens sapiens and there are bound to be categorical differences within any species, but are those species really the same. Have we a sub species which gives rise to the diversity of life we see today.

I'm not sure what you're saying? There is diversity within almost all species and sub species. Diversity within a sub species doesn't invariably give rise to another sub species, or species.

kyogger wrote: »

I just find it hard to believe that if the Human Species were entirely black we would evolve in the same way if we were entirely White (given enough time).

Why? We're already past the point where our skin colour makes us more or less likely to survive as a species; bar some huge outside context problem changing the earth itself I can't see how either is likely to affect our evolution.

kyogger wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a smarter population will not evolve different physical features to a less smart population. Features, which, over time, will become great enough to deem the two to be different species again?

What are the chances of a 'smart population' not breeding with a 'less smart population' for long enough to become a different species (I don't know where the again comes from; they are and were the same species)?

And more to the point, all of the above is about Darwinism, not Social Darwinism...

looksee

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No. Race is a fake categorisation, created specifically to put in place a false superiority of Europeans, and those of mainly European descent over the other peoples of the world. The apparent differences are based solely on superficial, insignificant differences in skin pigmentation.

Take a look at the video Robin posted on the brown eyes, blue eyes experiment, and you'll see how pernicious and evil a categorisation racism is.

Er, well they are not, actually. There are significant physical differences between races. The cranial studies, while used for the wrong purpose, show differences in head shape. In some cases it is useful to know the race of the person as it can reflect such things as food intolerences or susceptibility to some genetic issues.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging racial differences, provided it is not used as an opportunity to infer superiority or inferiority. In normal life it should have no more significance than whether a person has straight hair or curly, a beard or clean shaven.

In the brown eyes/blue eyes experiment children had to be taught to be 'racist', they would never have thought about it if it had not been taught to them. And they would not have had any issues about discussing which child had blue eyes and which had brown before the difference was made into an issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Turtwig wrote: »

Hang on, Are some people trying to make a serious discussion out of this thread?

Assuming it was a troll thread for example: is there any better way to annoy a possible troll than to have a fun, informative and serious discussion out of their failed attempt to cause an intellectual car crash?

I remember fondly an anti homosexuality troll thread on another forum I used to moderate where not only did the trolling fail and the thread turned into something quite interesting and informative.... two of the guys who first "met" on it recently got married. I can think of no result more wonderful as a two finger salute to the trolling attempt than that

Terrlock wrote: »

Is it true that the whites are the more evolved race on the planet and are more intelligent.

I have seen few studies usefully comparing intelligence between the races, so I can not coherently comment on that. The few I have read were methodologically embarrassing, such as comparing not just kids of different "races" but selecting one group from private schools and the other group from schools in the ghetto and merely comparing academic results. Hardly a normalized double blind study.

I am certainly open to a yes or no answer on this should a comprehensive study actually be performed. I would not reject the facts simply because they were socially distasteful even if, perhaps especially if, I was shown to be in the less intelligent race on the list

However the "more evolved" idea requires highlighting, though one user at least has done so already. In terms of the Biology there is no concept of "more evolved". And if anyone wants to sell you a philosophy off the back of the idea of something being "more evolved" then you should take some pause.

My reaction to someone saying one species or race is "more evolved" than another is similar to the reaction you might have if you were at an american football convention and someone walked in saying "American Football is my favorite sport ever, and David Beckham is the best player". You instantly realize this guy knows nothing, or even less than nothing, about the topic and you proceed under that assumption.

You are no "more evolved" than an amoeba. We have all, all flora and fauna, had just as much evolution as each other. There are differences in characteristics and attributes and complexity and so forth, but it is all just "as evolved" as each other.

The reason for this is the phrase "more evolved" assumes a target or direction, a linear pathway, along with some species has traveled further. Evolution HAS no such direction.

A great example of this is the animals now living in caves who have non-functional eyes. Their ancestors evolved eyes. Now they have evolved to not use them so while the eyes remain, they are functionless. And we can expect the eyes to disappear entirely as evolutionary time moves forward.

They are not "less evolved" than they ancestors for having lost sight or eyes. They have evolved to fit their environment and that is all. And their environment now means the biological expense of eyes is superfluous and disadvantageous.

So lose the concept of "more evolved" from your discourse on evolution and your question on what stock you should put in "Social Darwinism" might actually answer itself as a result.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Classic episode.

Which came first, this episode, or "The Sneetches"? Sounds like one ripped off the other They should have called the Episode "Space Sneetches". That would rock.

magicbastarder

what is social darinism anyway?
he does a reasonable-ish version of 'mack the knife'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEllHMWkXEU