4 ms·

Why humans that lived for millions of years in different enviroments would evolve the same way? I don't really get the things about "racism", it would be more a

by jsf666 11y ago

Why humans that lived for millions of years in different enviroments would evolve the same way? I don't really get the things about "racism", it would be more absurd if people thought that there are no differences between races. Some are clearly visible (skin color for example).

DanBC 11y ago
> humans > millions of years Earliest homo sapiens fossils are about 175,000 to 200,000 years old.
- jsf666 11y ago
  Sorry it was to be more like "a shitload" figure of speech (plethora?)
cLeEOGPw 11y ago
You will not get many meaningful answers here to questions regarding race.
andyjohnson0 11y ago
Modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years [1]. We originated in Africa and didn't migrate outside the continent until about 75,000 years ago [2], which is a relatively short timespan in evolutionary terms. In a sense, then, we are all Africans. And the concept of "race" as a way of categorising humans is now regarded by most scientists as a social construct [3]. That is, it doesn't tell you anything fundamental about people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_from_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
- jsf666 11y ago
  Hmm so if race is a social construct then racism doesn't truly exist so there should be no outcry about it? And if it isn't a social construct but a biological one then racism is justified. I can't really see the logic behind the far-left crowds thinking in this regard. And as for scientists and the "race is a social construct" by now you should now that opinions that contradict this notion (even whith any amount of proof) could mean the end of their career and a lot of harrasement from society.
  - dalke 11y ago
    "Race" doesn't exist in the way that "democracy", "socialism", and "fascism" don't truly exist. For a large number of Christians, the Hindu gods don't "truly exist". Similarly, to may people the Christian God doesn't "truly exist." That doesn't mean there's no outcry about those topics. The Walt Disney Company is another social construct which doesn't 'truly exist', but there are real-world consequences should you try to infringe on their copyright ... copyright is another thing that doesn't 'truly exist'. "if it isn't a social construct but a biological one then racism is justified" "Biological" has many different meaning. People have different color eyes, based on biology. Given your logic, that justifies the general discrimination of people based on eye color, yes? (FWIW, I am alluding to the "Blue eyes-Brown eyes" exercise.) The underlying question you would need to address is why should some biological aspects merit categorical discrimination but not others, which sorts of discrimination are appropriate for each biologically traceable aspect, and when can technology (like my genetic disposition towards myopia) make it no longer reasonable to discriminate? Research hasn't identified a useful biological justification the racial categories we currently have, any more than separating people into blue/brown eye categories is useful.
    - jsf666 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A This clearly states that there is a major biological difference and that it has a major impact on why black people are more aggressive. The most base argument would be that they're black so they have a clear advantage when it comes absorbing large amounts of sunlight. Is that also a social construct?

by jsf666 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

> humans > millions of years Earliest homo sapiens fossils are about 175,000 to 200,000 years old.

jsf666 11y ago
Sorry it was to be more like "a shitload" figure of speech (plethora?)

cLeEOGPw 11y ago

You will not get many meaningful answers here to questions regarding race.

andyjohnson0 11y ago

Modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years [1]. We originated in Africa and didn't migrate outside the continent until about 75,000 years ago [2], which is a relatively short timespan in evolutionary terms. In a sense, then, we are all Africans. And the concept of "race" as a way of categorising humans is now regarded by most scientists as a social construct [3]. That is, it doesn't tell you anything fundamental about people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_from_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

jsf666 11y ago
Hmm so if race is a social construct then racism doesn't truly exist so there should be no outcry about it? And if it isn't a social construct but a biological one then racism is justified. I can't really see the logic behind the far-left crowds thinking in this regard. And as for scientists and the "race is a social construct" by now you should now that opinions that contradict this notion (even whith any amount of proof) could mean the end of their career and a lot of harrasement from society.
- dalke 11y ago
  "Race" doesn't exist in the way that "democracy", "socialism", and "fascism" don't truly exist. For a large number of Christians, the Hindu gods don't "truly exist". Similarly, to may people the Christian God doesn't "truly exist." That doesn't mean there's no outcry about those topics. The Walt Disney Company is another social construct which doesn't 'truly exist', but there are real-world consequences should you try to infringe on their copyright ... copyright is another thing that doesn't 'truly exist'. "if it isn't a social construct but a biological one then racism is justified" "Biological" has many different meaning. People have different color eyes, based on biology. Given your logic, that justifies the general discrimination of people based on eye color, yes? (FWIW, I am alluding to the "Blue eyes-Brown eyes" exercise.) The underlying question you would need to address is why should some biological aspects merit categorical discrimination but not others, which sorts of discrimination are appropriate for each biologically traceable aspect, and when can technology (like my genetic disposition towards myopia) make it no longer reasonable to discriminate? Research hasn't identified a useful biological justification the racial categories we currently have, any more than separating people into blue/brown eye categories is useful.
  - jsf666 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A This clearly states that there is a major biological difference and that it has a major impact on why black people are more aggressive. The most base argument would be that they're black so they have a clear advantage when it comes absorbing large amounts of sunlight. Is that also a social construct?