3 ms·

> We owe it to our species to break the link between Darwin’s inchoate offerings and their perceived social implications. Outdated science-inspired narratives a

> We owe it to our species to break the link between Darwin’s inchoate offerings and their perceived social implications. Outdated science-inspired narratives alienate people from our shared-origins story, making it difficult for many people to claim it for themselves. Who cares? Facts are facts. I don't subscribe yo a racial or ethnic delineation between civilized and uncivilized (in the evolutionary sense) but if it were to become clear that some evidence of this phenomenon exists, why should we take the social implications of science as important? What's true is true. Find the answers. If you take anything beyond the evidence of fact into consideration you stray from truth. Fuck social implications.

wombatmobile 6y ago
> I don't subscribe [to] a racial or ethnic delineation between civilized and uncivilized (in the evolutionary sense) but if it were to become clear that some evidence of this phenomenon exists, why should we take the social implications of science as important? The premise of your postulate is not a factual question - it is a social construct that necessarily involves arbitrary value judgements. Who is more civilised than whom? It depends on what you mean by "civilised". The only way you will ever prove that a person of one race is more "civilised" than a person of another race is by rigging the definition of "civilised" to favour your preferred outcome. That's exactly what the Spanish, Portugese, British, Germans and French did in the Americas, the British did in Australia, the Belgians, French, Germans and Dutch did in Africa and Indochina, and the Han Chinese are doing in Tibet and Xinjiang.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  >Who is more civilised than whom? It depends on what you mean by "civilised". The word " civilized" has a meaning. There is nothing subjective about it. You can objectively measure the results of a community being more civilized, and you can point out traits of a community that are responsible for it's success.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> I don't subscribe [to] a racial or ethnic delineation between civilized and uncivilized (in the evolutionary sense) but if it were to become clear that some evidence of this phenomenon exists, why should we take the social implications of science as important? The premise of your postulate is not a factual question - it is a social construct that necessarily involves arbitrary value judgements. Who is more civilised than whom? It depends on what you mean by "civilised". The only way you will ever prove that a person of one race is more "civilised" than a person of another race is by rigging the definition of "civilised" to favour your preferred outcome. That's exactly what the Spanish, Portugese, British, Germans and French did in the Americas, the British did in Australia, the Belgians, French, Germans and Dutch did in Africa and Indochina, and the Han Chinese are doing in Tibet and Xinjiang.

betwixthewires 6y ago
>Who is more civilised than whom? It depends on what you mean by "civilised". The word " civilized" has a meaning. There is nothing subjective about it. You can objectively measure the results of a community being more civilized, and you can point out traits of a community that are responsible for it's success.