3 ms·
No, what I meant was: if you accept that genetics play a large role, you automatically have to decrease the importance of other factors. I believe it's much mo
by luckylion 5y ago
No, what I meant was: if you accept that genetics play a large role, you automatically have to decrease the importance of other factors.
I believe it's much more dangerous to be willfully ignorant of science than what political movements might form because of science.
- bradlys 5y agoI don’t think they ever said genetics play a large role or as large as a role as those other factors. Maybe you made that association by them grouping them together with things that matter but I think clean drinking water has a far greater impact than genetics ever will. Does it mean genetics are worthless to discuss? No. But in the scheme of the worlds issues and achievements of people - we’re at clean drinking water level. Genetics influence on average is so little compared to others and it’s so very obvious as to not need much research to be so clear. (As you can easily see how people change when in different environments alone - same genes, different environment)
- luckylion 5y ago> But in the scheme of the worlds issues and achievements of people - we’re at clean drinking water level. On the world level, yes. On a Western country level? No. Well, maybe in the US, in some parts, flammable drinking water probably doesn't help. But if you look at Sweden or Germany, "it's the drinking water" doesn't work. To discount genetics is to close your eyes to reality -- not incredibly helpful when you're trying to understand something. And understanding helps if you want to change something, which progressives do.