2 ms·

What? People are all the same species: Homo Sapiens. There's nothing political or controversial about that. Unless you've met living Neanderthals? Sure, it ca

by warent 5y ago

What? People are all the same species: Homo Sapiens. There's nothing political or controversial about that. Unless you've met living Neanderthals? Sure, it can be said that different "races" among humans make up a variety of subspecies. Yet, subspecies is not an objective reality. It is an example of where humans invent words to attempt to categorize and quantify things with fuzzy, unclear boundaries. Why do we invent words like this? Because they're useful for enhancing knowledge and communication. When a word stops doing that, for example because of some immense contextual baggage connected to it, there's no point in forcing the matter, because we can just use different words and still get the same knowledge we seek otherwise. Humans are illogical and emotionally complex. Denying that fact and chalking it up to political maneuvers is, ironically, itself an example of illogical emotional reaction. Just use the term "ethnicity" so we can get on with science instead of wasting time trying to dig up old words for personal gratification.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
Subspecies is not an old word, it's a current word. The question is not whether we should apply old terminology or new terminology. It's whether it's OK to apply the same terminology to humans that we do to everything else.
- otherme123 5y ago
  The term "subspecie" implies that the two populations cannot interbreed unless artificially forced to. E.g. two populations living in isolation. Sometimes it also implies that the offspring has lower fitness (e.g. half of the descendency is sterile). Usually two subspecies show phenotipical differences, but it's not enough. The term doesn't apply to humans because through all history black people has been in contact with non-black people, and interbreeding without any trouble. Having a bit more melatonine in your skin doesn't make you a new subspecie. But if your head size is huge (like Neanderthal), so huge that half your iterbreed newborns die or kill the mother, you are on the path of speciation but still the same specie because interbreeding is possible.

by warent 5y ago

thaumasiotes 5y ago

Subspecies is not an old word, it's a current word. The question is not whether we should apply old terminology or new terminology. It's whether it's OK to apply the same terminology to humans that we do to everything else.

otherme123 5y ago
The term "subspecie" implies that the two populations cannot interbreed unless artificially forced to. E.g. two populations living in isolation. Sometimes it also implies that the offspring has lower fitness (e.g. half of the descendency is sterile). Usually two subspecies show phenotipical differences, but it's not enough. The term doesn't apply to humans because through all history black people has been in contact with non-black people, and interbreeding without any trouble. Having a bit more melatonine in your skin doesn't make you a new subspecie. But if your head size is huge (like Neanderthal), so huge that half your iterbreed newborns die or kill the mother, you are on the path of speciation but still the same specie because interbreeding is possible.