Metsfanmax wrote:shickingbrits wrote:I was talking about competition between the genes that created race.
You don't understand how evolution works, and you need to step back and reflect on it before you go further. The competition between genes did not
create race any more than it
created species, which is the point I was making by analogy. Different "races" are created, for example, when some circumstances (geographical, perhaps) force two otherwise similar groups from the same species to start evolving independently from each other. They only interbreed within the same isolated group. The major difference between the terms "race" and "species" is that the two races haven't yet been separated long enough to have lost the ability to interbreed with each other, if reconnected. It's merely a matter of chance and time.
You don't understand how the world works, and you need to take a step back and reflect on it before you go any further.
Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:
1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.
This existed prior to the theory of evolution. In order to justify slavery, the church said that black people were the offspring of Ham who had been cursed by Noah to serve his brothers. This doesn't make a lot of sense being that the church derives its moral authority from Jesus who never condoned slavery and whose golden rule would negate the possibility of slavery. The church was stubborn and intent on their own ends and decided to ignore Jesus for greed and power.
Over time, it was recognized that the stance taken by the church was backward and unchristian, but only because this and similar actions set the church at odds with their own position. Broader understanding could be reached and dispel the false morality of the stance. The central tenet of Christianity, treat others as you wish to be treated (not as you feel they deserve to be treated) would suffice to erode the moral authority of the church when they acted against it.
In the past, "science" has claimed many things about the different races. Black people have smaller brains, lower IQs, have a subservient gene. If a series of experiments confirmed a subservient gene to be true, what affect might that have? In isolation, perhaps not too much. Let's combine it with some other hypotheses. Let's say we confirm a blue blood gene, a hostility gene, a stubborn gene, an indoctrination gene, a tall gene, a hope gene. Now a caste system begins to appear. Time to reexamine the central tenets of evolution.
Life is random and your own genetic coding is random. You were randomly assigned a gene that will compete with other genes for position. The "species" with the strongest set of genes will be the fittest to survive in a world of competing species with scarce resources.
As the leading blue blood in the pool, I manage the pool to be the most competitive with other pools. I have no hope of afterlife and my body of knowledge tells me that I should do anything to survive. And in doing so, I seek to reduce the randomness (risk) of the gene pool.
How many subservient blue-bloods with hope are needed? Without hope? How many non-subservient blue bloods with hope are needed? How will I ensure this number? What positions will the different genes command? Will the laws vary for the genes? Are the neighbouring pools blue blood genes equal to mine?
Leadership has been examining this question for thousands of years. Our education system is not a means of acquiring knowledge but a rudimentary means of deciphering our genetic disposition. But it's slow, resource intensive and full of cracks. An Aaron Swartz or Mohammed Ali could still slip through the cracks. As a leader I want to limit my risk, maximize my strength, maximize the resources at my disposal and minimize their expenditure. That is, I will eliminate the possibility of competitive blue blood genes (blue blood, not-easily indoctrinated, with hope) to the most logical amount needed to maintain a steady leadership. I will eliminate the hostility gene, the stubborn gene, the weaker intellectual gene, and restrict the not easily indoctrinated gene, the subservient gene.
Whereas the gene pool had the moral imperative provided by religion to subvert these attempts, teaching children that God is a bronze age herder's myth of a jealous man in the sky whereas evolution is scientific fact will eventually allow for the reduction of certain genetic dispositions from the gene pool, not to strengthen it, but to make it easier to manipulate. These concepts are not new.
From simple observation, I would say that crispybits, Chang50, Phatscotty, Goranz, shickingbrits, Saxitoxin, UC, Patches are assured candidates for quick elimination.
AoG, Bigballinstalin, Gweedo, Nietzhe, Sjnap, Metsfanmax are candidates for future elimination while processing the elimination of the first group.
Player, Andy and Mrswkd are candidates for the "ideal" order.
None of this again is new. Competitor blue bloods have been restricted throughout history by their leaders. Gnostics, Jews, witches, heretics, etc. We just never had the tools to be efficient or central tenets to justify it.
None of this has to do with evolution. Henry the 8th had nothing to do with evolution, laws, war, morality, slavery, none of it. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory that has no implications beyond itself. Using it to denounce God will not generate any lashback. It will not be used to guide society.
Let's just find a way to co-operate within the guidelines of scarce resources available and create a peaceful society guided by our scientific understanding. That in no way suggest that we use the theory of evolution to eliminate non-co-operative genes and then decide to restrict the remaining genes to the "peaceful" genes (those that don't clash with authority or each other) at a predesigned level.
