3 ms·

I can’t admit I have any qualifications to speak about biology, and I know HN is known for proposing reductive “solutions” based on oversimplified models of rea

I can’t admit I have any qualifications to speak about biology, and I know HN is known for proposing reductive “solutions” based on oversimplified models of reality. That being said, it seems to me that it makes sense that a species would include the entire connected graph whose nodes are members and whose edges represent the ability to have fertile offspring. I found [1] which is an interesting example of a very large graph, but nevertheless, all the examples seem to be within altogether very similar groups. I think a reasonable definition for casual use doesn’t need to require the graph of a species to be fully connected, only fully reachable. There are certainly leaks to any abstraction of species, but they are empirical cases of exceptions. They don’t inject arbitrary social categories into the definition. Definitions of “race” have no empirical basis on which to be proved or disproved in the first place. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

exporectomy 5y ago
That doesn't work because the graph for humans would go all the way back to those ancient apes by many connected edges and back down to modern apes, making us all the same species. This is another problem with species - where is the transition where one species evolves into another?
naasking 5y ago
> They don’t inject arbitrary social categories into the definition. Definitions of “race” have no empirical basis on which to be proved or disproved in the first place. That's simply not correct. The literature abounds with all sorts of correlates with race, like propensity for sickle cell anemia, vitamin D deficiencies, susceptibility to alcohol, and morphological differences. These are just as empirically justified as any classification of species, and just as with species, not all of those properties need apply to every single member in that category. So to the extent that we find "species" a meaningful category when applied correctly, then we should also find "race" a meaningful category when applied correctly. The key in both scenarios is to apply them correctly, and we should abandon them when we find more precise metrics. That said, you are correct that there are also numerous cultural and social properties that are sometimes lumped in with race in a manner that we don't see with species, mainly because "species" hasn't been politicized. That doesn't imply that there's nothing "there" once you tune out that baggage.
- scarby2 5y ago
  > That's simply not correct. The literature abounds with all sorts of correlates with race, like propensity for sickle cell anemia, vitamin D deficiencies, susceptibility to alcohol, and morphological differences. These are just as empirically justified as any classification of species, and just as with species, not all of those properties need apply to every single member in that category I think this is the thing people misunderstand about race being a social construct, is that race is a bucket, by nature there need to be correlations between people in that bucket in order to actually place people into that bucket in the first place. There will likely be other correlations between people in said bucket, who are in this cause usually more closely related and share more recent common ancestors. The size of that bucket and how we put people in it is arbitrary, but the fact that correlations exist when you put people in buckets isn't.

exporectomy 5y ago

That doesn't work because the graph for humans would go all the way back to those ancient apes by many connected edges and back down to modern apes, making us all the same species. This is another problem with species - where is the transition where one species evolves into another?

naasking 5y ago

> They don’t inject arbitrary social categories into the definition. Definitions of “race” have no empirical basis on which to be proved or disproved in the first place. That's simply not correct. The literature abounds with all sorts of correlates with race, like propensity for sickle cell anemia, vitamin D deficiencies, susceptibility to alcohol, and morphological differences. These are just as empirically justified as any classification of species, and just as with species, not all of those properties need apply to every single member in that category. So to the extent that we find "species" a meaningful category when applied correctly, then we should also find "race" a meaningful category when applied correctly. The key in both scenarios is to apply them correctly, and we should abandon them when we find more precise metrics. That said, you are correct that there are also numerous cultural and social properties that are sometimes lumped in with race in a manner that we don't see with species, mainly because "species" hasn't been politicized. That doesn't imply that there's nothing "there" once you tune out that baggage.

scarby2 5y ago
> That's simply not correct. The literature abounds with all sorts of correlates with race, like propensity for sickle cell anemia, vitamin D deficiencies, susceptibility to alcohol, and morphological differences. These are just as empirically justified as any classification of species, and just as with species, not all of those properties need apply to every single member in that category I think this is the thing people misunderstand about race being a social construct, is that race is a bucket, by nature there need to be correlations between people in that bucket in order to actually place people into that bucket in the first place. There will likely be other correlations between people in said bucket, who are in this cause usually more closely related and share more recent common ancestors. The size of that bucket and how we put people in it is arbitrary, but the fact that correlations exist when you put people in buckets isn't.