"Human race" most nebulous social construct?

Jovialis said:
I think this is why I feel this hobby has been losing a lot of gas lately......
Click to expand...

It seems so.

Dawkins and his hardline atheism do not appeal to me. However, it is great to see a scientist who is not afraid to speak openly about the reality of race. He does not mince words and gets right to the point, stating that race is a biological reality.



@RichardDawkins

20. Dez. 2015
"Social construct"? Forget it. Race is biologically real. But it's irrelevant to anything that matters. We're all HUMAN.


"It stems from Lewontin, distinguished geneticist who notoriously let politics distort his science."

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/678519868166152192











 
MOESAN said:
"Race" (lineage in old meaning) is a concept. Even in natural animals species races exist uniquely by isolation. Our genomes are all the time evolving by opposite trends (differenciating mutations, differenciating AND uniformising selection). The big difference between Humans and animals is that our extra-physical skills to adapt ourselves to diverse ecosystems allow us to ever lasting re-crossings. So before today globalisation, Humans were always balancing between raciation and "disraciation" processes. Today, the raciation aspect is close to zero. The only reliable wall against productive crossings is the difference in chromosomes numbers.
Click to expand...

This seems to be more of trend in the West, and the New World, indeed.

With the elimination of Title 42 on the southern border, of Texas and Mexico, this will accelerate for sure. Because mass immigration is not only just coming from Latin American, but in fact the entire world, from Africa, to India for example.

Frankly, I think countries like China, who will eventually become the supreme Hegemone on Earth, is moving in the opposite direction though.

In fact, a 2013 pentagon analysis revealed that China thinks the USA will fall due to the process you are describing.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/...ic Consequences of Chinese Racism 201301.pdf
 
Jovialis said:
This seems to be more of trend in the West, and the New World, indeed.

With the elimination of Title 42 on the southern border, of Texas and Mexico, this will accelerate for sure. Because mass immigration is not only just coming from Latin American, but in fact the entire world, from Africa, to India for example.

Frankly, I think countries like China, who will eventually become the supreme Hegemone on Earth, is moving in the opposite direction though.

In fact, a 2013 pentagon analysis revealed that China thinks the USA will fall due to the process you are describing.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/...ic Consequences of Chinese Racism 201301.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes the Chinese hang on to racial kind of reasoning, see the fate of the Uighurs....I guess The Chinese themselves have the biggest population problem due to the consistent one-child policy, their population will shrink considerably (that has already started). This presents them with considerable problems....
 
Northener said:
Yes the Chinese hang on to racial kind of reasoning, see the fate of the Uighurs....I guess The Chinese themselves have the biggest population problem due to the consistent one-child policy, their population will shrink considerably (that has already started). This presents them with considerable problems....
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is a "racial" thing? The Uyghurs are the main, but just one of many Muslim groups equally persecuted. Were their lifestyles identical to those of mainstream Chinese, I doubt there would be a conflict. Mixing "race" and religion only leads to unfounded "conclusions" and unnecessary confusion.
 
I completely understand the fear that admitting the existence of race will provide bigots and racists more fodder. However, I do not think that vehemently denying the biological truth of race is beneficial in this case. The point is, that humans are the different branches of the same species, Homo sapiens, and hence they are both similar and distinct.

Nonetheless, liberal academics are, for instance, outraged when human races are equated to dog breeds, which they regard as a racist parallel. We all know that all dogs, regardless of breed, have all the features that define them as dogs. Hence, this dog breed analogy is an attempt to explain why humans are both similar and dissimilar to one another. The danger, in my opinion, comes rather from allowing PC, sanctimonious elites and politicians with woke agendas to prescribe to scientists what they can and cannot explore, say, publish, discuss, or educate. So, suppressing the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be, poses a threat, not the prospect of discrimination or racism in the future.
 
Scientific research, on the other hand, should not be devoid of ethics, especially when it comes to respecting human dignity.
 
I've been reading the position of some scientists on the issue of race, and I share with you some thoughts:

Lewontin has already been mentioned in a previous post, the Lewontin Fallacy refers to a work by A. W. F. Edwards that criticizes Lewontin's work. Lewontin used statistical analyzes to show that about 85% of genetic variation was found within populations, while only 15% occurred between populations. From this finding, Lewontin concluded that there are no significant genetic differences between human populations and, therefore, there is no scientific basis for the idea of race.

However, this conclusion was criticized by other geneticists, such as the as already mentioned A. W. F. Edwards, who argued that Lewontin's claim was a "fallacy" because it ignored the possibility that small genetic differences between populations could be highly significant.
Edwards showed that it is possible to distinguish between populations on the basis of genetic differences, even when most of the genetic variation occurs within populations. That correlations exits between geographical areas and genetics in human populations. That there are groups of individuals who share certain genetic markers that are associated with a certain geographic region or ancestry. The question is what does this have to do with the concept of race ? While there may be a relationship between genetic clusters and geographic areas, this does not lend biological validity to the notion of racial groups.

More recently, the philosopher of science Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther has argued that the Lewontin fallacy is based on a misunderstanding of what "race" means and how genetic diversity is geographically distributed. Winther argues that while race may still have scientific relevance in certain contexts, it is nonetheless a socially constructed category, not a biological one. He wrote an article "Realism, Anti-Realism and Conventionalism about Race" where he examines different philosophical views on the nature of race.
Winther examines each of these views and argues that a conventionalist view of bio-genomic clusters/races is the most plausible.
He acknowledges that divide the human species into smaller populations depends on the purposes, methods, and metrics at play. And that divisions are not significant enough to justify the creation of distinct, biologically-based racial categories. Instead, he maintains that the concept of race has been socially constructed in ways that are historically contingent and context dependent.
According to him “we articulate a constructivist conventionalism, arguing that our best genomics forever underdetermines the existence of biologically real human races” and “Biological racial realism demands a one-to-one mapping between biologically defined groups and social groups and insists that biological facts explain some of our social practices and judgments surrounding “race.” We reject the existence of such a correspondence and hence are antirealists about biological race.”

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/02870x56c

I quote yet another paper, this one about the role of Genetic ancestry in precision medicine (Genetic ancestry in precision medicine is reshaping the race debate) :

“race is a social construct that has often been labeled biological. Indeed, race is the product of historical, social, and political processes and not a “natural” or biological division of human variation—an understanding that much of the scientific community has started to embrace”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2203033119
 
firetown said:
Are you sure this is a "racial" thing? The Uyghurs are the main, but just one of many Muslim groups equally persecuted. Were their lifestyles identical to those of mainstream Chinese, I doubt there would be a conflict. Mixing "race" and religion only leads to unfounded "conclusions" and unnecessary confusion.
Click to expand...

They are not seen as (the dominant) Han Chinese, not in religion, language or indeed even race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
 
Northener said:
Yes the Chinese hang on to racial kind of reasoning, see the fate of the Uighurs....I guess The Chinese themselves have the biggest population problem due to the consistent one-child policy, their population will shrink considerably (that has already started). This presents them with considerable problems....
Click to expand...

Eastern Countries have embraced robotization, while the west has relied on immigration (and outsourcing) from the third world for biological robots. I guess we will really see who had the better model by 2050.


It seems like the Eastern Countries are side-stepping a huge problem IMHO.


What is going to happen to all of these unskilled 3rd world laborers who will become unemployable when the West ultimately embraces robotization of labor? They're going to have to, if they want to compete with countries that utilize it as a means of production.


I actually think of it in a more positive way actually. Robotization, will be a civilizing force as well. Perhaps, the west could send robots as a form of humanitarian aid? Finally, there could be first-world level infrastructure afforded to countries that are in desperate need. Therefore, if their home countries are functional, they will not need to escape famine, and disease. Also they would be free from exploitation.
 
Jovialis said:
Eastern Countries have embraced robotization, while the west has relied on immigration (and outsourcing) from the third world for biological robots. I guess we will really see who had the better model by 2050.


It seems like the Eastern Countries are side-stepping a huge problem IMHO.


What is going to happen to all of these unskilled 3rd world laborers who will become unemployable when the West ultimately embraces robotization of labor? They're going to have to, if they want to compete with countries that utilize it as a means of production.


I actually think of it in a more positive way actually. Robotization, will be a civilizing force as well. Perhaps, the west could send robots as a form of humanitarian aid? Finally, there could be first-world level infrastructure afforded to countries that are in desperate need. Therefore, if their home countries are functional, they will not need to escape famine, and disease. Also they would be free from exploitation.
Click to expand...

Chat GPT 4.0:

Your perspective is an interesting one, and it's certainly a potential avenue that could be explored. The idea of utilizing advanced technology such as robotics as a form of humanitarian aid could have profound impacts on developing countries, particularly those that are currently dependent on low-skilled labor.


In theory, robots could be used to boost infrastructure, provide services, and perform tasks that would otherwise require a large human workforce. This could potentially result in increased productivity and economic development. It could also reduce the need for human labor in dangerous or undesirable jobs, thereby improving living conditions.


However, it's important to note that this approach would also come with significant challenges. Here are a few:


Skill Gap and Unemployment: If robots take over the jobs currently performed by humans, it would be necessary to create new opportunities for those who become unemployed as a result. This could require substantial investment in education and vocational training to prepare workers for new types of jobs. Without this, there could be an increase in unemployment and social instability.


Economic Disparity: While robots could increase overall productivity, they could also exacerbate economic inequality if the benefits are not distributed evenly. Ensuring that the wealth generated by robotic labor benefits all members of society would be a major challenge.


Dependency and Autonomy: If robots are provided as a form of aid from Western countries, this could create a new form of dependency. It would be important to ensure that receiving countries are able to maintain and operate the technology independently to avoid this.


Cultural Impact: The introduction of advanced technology could have significant impacts on local cultures and ways of life. This would need to be managed carefully to respect and preserve cultural diversity.


In any case, the transition to a more robotized world will require thoughtful planning and policy-making to ensure that it benefits all people, not just those in wealthier nations. The potential humanitarian benefits are certainly exciting, but they must be balanced against these potential challenges.
Click to expand...
 
What would happen if someone was a mix of every single ethnic group on the planet?


ChatGPT
If someone was a mix of every single ethnic group on the planet, the result would be an individual with an incredibly rich and diverse genetic background. This individual would be a representation of the shared genetic heritage of all humanity.


Here are a few things that might be expected:


Physical Traits: Physical traits such as skin color, hair type, eye color, height, and other features could range anywhere within the spectrum of human diversity, depending on which genes are dominant and which are recessive. It's also important to note that many physical traits are polygenic, meaning they are influenced by more than one gene. Therefore, it's difficult to predict the exact physical appearance.


Genetic Diversity: This person would likely have very high genetic diversity. This is usually a good thing because it can potentially provide some protection against a variety of genetic diseases. Genetic diversity can lead to increased vitality and adaptability.


Cultural Heritage: If this person were also raised with knowledge and influence from every ethnic culture, they would have an incredibly rich cultural heritage. They could potentially speak multiple languages, celebrate a variety of holidays, and be familiar with a wide range of traditions and customs.


Identity: This person's identity would be unique and could be complex. How they choose to identify could depend on a variety of factors, including but not limited to their physical appearance, the cultures they feel most connected to, their personal experiences, and the societal context in which they live.


Societal Reactions: Reactions from society could vary widely. Some people might celebrate the individual's diversity, while others might react with confusion or prejudice. How society reacts would depend largely on cultural attitudes towards race and ethnicity at the time.


Remember that ethnicity is a mix of genetic, cultural, and personal factors. So, while this person's genetic makeup would be incredibly diverse, their ethnic identity would also be influenced by culture, language, religion, and personal experience.
 
what are some negative consequences of the diversity, from a genetic standpoint?


ChatGPT
While genetic diversity generally has many positive aspects, such as increased resilience and adaptability, there can be some potential negatives. These are not specific to someone being a mix of every ethnic group, but apply to genetic diversity in general.


Recessive Genetic Disorders: If a person inherits two copies of a specific recessive gene associated with a particular disorder, they will express that disorder. In a highly diverse genetic makeup, there is a chance (although generally small) that the individual could inherit two copies of such a gene from different ethnic backgrounds where the same mutation occurred independently.


Balancing Selection: Some traits can be beneficial in some environments or circumstances but disadvantageous in others. For example, the gene variant for sickle cell anemia provides a survival advantage against malaria in regions where malaria is prevalent. However, in regions without malaria, this trait can cause health problems without providing any benefits.


Heterozygote Disadvantage: This is the opposite of heterozygote advantage. In some cases, being heterozygous (having two different forms of a particular gene, one from each parent) can be disadvantageous. For example, in some cases, having just one copy of a disease-causing mutation can still result in a milder form of the disease.


Complexity in Medical Treatment: With a more diverse genetic background, predicting responses to certain medications or treatments can be more difficult. Pharmacogenomics, the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs, has found that certain populations respond differently to treatments due to genetic factors. A highly genetically diverse individual might have an unexpected response to medication or a harder time finding a perfect match for organ or bone marrow transplantation.


Increased Risk of Some Diseases: Some diseases, like lupus and other autoimmune diseases, have been associated with higher levels of genetic diversity in certain regions of the genome. The mechanisms behind this are not fully understood, but it's thought that too much diversity in these regions might make it harder for the immune system to distinguish self from non-self.


Overall, while genetic diversity can have some potential negative aspects, it's important to remember that it also has many benefits. Genetic diversity is a fundamental part of evolution and is generally beneficial to the survival of species, including humans.



what are some positive consequences of the diversity, from a genetic standpoint?

ChatGPT
Genetic diversity generally confers a range of benefits, both to individuals and to populations as a whole. These benefits are rooted in the principles of evolution and natural selection.


Increased Survival and Adaptability: Genetic diversity increases a population's ability to adapt to new environments. The more genetic variation exists within a population, the more likely it is that some individuals will possess variations that are suited to new or changing conditions.


Protection Against Diseases: Greater genetic diversity can help protect against diseases. If a population is genetically diverse, it's less likely that a single disease can wipe out the entire population. This is because different individuals will likely have different levels of susceptibility to any given disease.


Heterozygote Advantage: This occurs when individuals who are heterozygous at a particular gene locus, meaning they carry two different versions of a gene, have a higher fitness than those who are homozygous, carrying two identical copies of the gene. A classic example is the sickle cell trait in regions where malaria is prevalent; individuals with one normal and one sickle cell gene are more resistant to malaria.


Reduced Risk of Certain Genetic Diseases: Greater genetic diversity can reduce the risk of certain genetic diseases, especially those that are recessive. This is because these diseases generally only occur when an individual inherits two copies of a harmful gene mutation, one from each parent. In a genetically diverse population, it's less likely that both parents will carry the same harmful mutation.


Beneficial Combinations: Genetic recombination, the process by which offspring inherit a mix of genes from their parents, can lead to new combinations of genes that are beneficial. These new combinations can increase an individual's fitness, or ability to survive and reproduce.


Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic diversity leads to a variety of physical, behavioral, and physiological traits. This phenotypic diversity can contribute to the richness and complexity of human societies and cultures.


Overall, genetic diversity is a key factor in the survival and adaptability of species. The more diverse the genetic makeup, the greater the potential for adaptation and survival in changing environments.
 
Jovialis said:
Eastern Countries have embraced robotization, while the west has relied on immigration (and outsourcing) from the third world for biological robots. I guess we will really see who had the better model by 2050.


It seems like the Eastern Countries are side-stepping a huge problem IMHO.


What is going to happen to all of these unskilled 3rd world laborers who will become unemployable when the West ultimately embraces robotization of labor? They're going to have to, if they want to compete with countries that utilize it as a means of production.


I actually think of it in a more positive way actually. Robotization, will be a civilizing force as well. Perhaps, the west could send robots as a form of humanitarian aid? Finally, there could be first-world level infrastructure afforded to countries that are in desperate need. Therefore, if their home countries are functional, they will not need to escape famine, and disease. Also they would be free from exploitation.
Click to expand...

mOiIG1y.png


Bing AI's analysis of OpenAI ChatGPT.
 
Jovialis said:
That's true!

However it seems that for every proponent there are 3 cynics. Perhaps that reflects intelligence frequency as well.
Click to expand...

Very sad and very true. Reminds me of when I started internet marketing 20+ years ago and some business owners told me "the internet doesn't work"
 
firetown said:
There are many ethnic groups in China, so why are the Uyghur's the ones with all the issues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China
I strongly doubt you are interested in anything that doesn't allow you to use the word race, racism or racist.
Click to expand...

If you have read my contributions here in this posting you would not have made the last remark. I don't deny the existence of a race nevertheless it is like the headline says a nebulous social construct.

why are the Uyghur's the ones with all the issues?
Click to expand...

I don't know what they have "misdone" most probably nothing, may be they talk different than the Han, they look (a bit) different than the Han, and they have a different religion than the Han.

Uyghur man (wiki):


It has happened more than once in this world that these are reasons to place a group or ethnicity and or - give it a name - race in a corner. Don't you think?

add:
When you look at this man it could be an European/ Indo-European with a tad Chinese blood, and indeed:

Genetics research based on mtDNA and Y-DNA largely supports the Uyghur claim of indigenous descent.[76] The Uyghurs are a mixed population, with predominantly East Eurasian maternal lineages and West Eurasian paternal lineages, and in this respect are similar to the Bronze Age mummies of the Tarim Basin.[77]
Click to expand...

So these Han Chinese c.q the Chinese regime (with only Han Chinese on top) are severe racialist because what they do to these people is real genocide......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 4915 times.

Back
Top