From: den Otter (otter@globalxs.nl)
Date: Sun Aug 03 1997 - 14:19:36 MDT
----------
In response to John K Clark's writings, but for the enlightenment of
the whole.
>
> >It can sometimes be observed that a certain meme occurs more
> >frequently in (a) certain group(s) of people who clearly (looks,
> >geography etc) share the same genetic background. [...] This
could
> >be called "scientifically based racism".
>
>
> Racism exists because most animals probably have a gene(s) that makes
them
> feel that their mate should not look very different from the average.
It's
> not a totally bad idea because those who look very different are often
ill,
> so this improves the odds that their mate is healthy and that means more
> children are produced who also have the gene. Like any simple rule of
thumb
> it can sometimes make horrible mistakes and become downright ridicules,
> particularly when you put it into a different and much more complex
> environment like the modern world. Such caned programmed responses are
best
> for an animal with a brain the size of a squirrel, but Humans are smarter
than
> squirrels and can do better, unfortunately they still have that dumb
gene.
>
These "dumb genes" may get the better of "dumb" people, but
nowadays people are called "racists" when they even try to
imply that certain negative(!) traits are more common with one
branch of humans than with another (if you say: "young blacks
are often good at basketball" there will hardly be any objections,
although this statement is a hardly scientific *generalization*.
Now if you say: "young blacks make up a disproportionally
large segment of the prison population in area X (say, NY)", you'll
quickly be called "racist" (although this is a *fact*). In today's
western memetic climate "racism" which used to mean "unduely
negatively discriminating against people of a certain genetic
background, persecuting them on mere assumptions" has lost
it's original meaning and is abused by dumb replicators and
manipulative (groups of) individuals to squash any criticism,
no matter how well fundamented (or trivial), of races other than
Caucasians, and most of the time it's a "negro thing".
"National security" is another examlpe of a neutral term "gone bad".
Right now it is generally associated with shady government operations, war
against it's own people, erosion of constitutional
rights etc. Once upon a time it just meant "securing your borders
against foreign invasions" or something along these lines.
Just like "racism" it has lost it's original meaning, but sneaky
folks still use it as if it were the original to manipulate simple
people.
What we need, and that's the point of this story, is to either
start using the word (and of course this also applies to "discrimination")
in it's original meaning or invent a new one
so that the "real" racism can be separated from the bogus ones,
and not everything is thrown together. The present situation
benefits no-one (except some manipulative bastards), and it
certainly won't change if no-one dares/wants to discuss it.
> If you're wondering why so many Extropians have such a low tolerance for
> anything that has the slightest hint of a racist smell, it's because
racism
> has never made one thing of value and in fact, with the exception of
religion,
> no meme has ever produced more misery in the world.
>
[re: see above]
> >Man, having evolved from an upright killer ape, couldn't have
lost
> >his violent primal urges overnight (on an evolutionary
timescale).
>
>
> The "killer ape" theory, the idea that humans evolved from vicious
carnivorous
> animals, originated with Raymond Dart, Robert Ardrey distorted and
popularized
> Dart's ideas in the dreadful best seller "African Genesis" in 1961.
Dart
> found bones of Australopithecines that had been broken open so the marrow
> could be gotten to, and Ardrey's imagination ran wild. The theory has
been
> completely discredited for over 20 years, it's now known that the bones
were
> the result of leopards not evil cannibalistic apes.
>
What I meant was that primitive man, only just separated from the other
apes, used to be an active killer, whose intellect allowed him
to hunt species (both predators and prey) to the brink of extinction,
and sometimes beyond. This was one fearsome creature, that killed
bears and wolves with only primitive tools. Those genes are still
in there...
> >Btw, you should see the movie "The Forbidden Planet" (60's I
reckon).
> >It shows what could happen to a (extropian-esque) society when
it
> >loses touch with (or: denies) it's more primitive side.
>
>
> Yes, wonderful movie! My dad took me to see it when I was a kid, the
first
> movie I ever saw in my life, it scared the hell out of me but I loved it.
> Despite corny dialog and a bad last act (Why does the object of wonder
always
> have to blow up?) it's still terrific because of good special effects
for
> its time, great music, and one of the most provocative underlining ideas
ever
> put on film.
>
Yes, the special effects were exceptional indeed for the time. Imo
the movie deserves a remake (with the original shortcomings filtered
out and *even better* special effects. The "alien technology" could
be used to promote nanomachines, cryonics, uploading etc. as earlier
(logical!) phases in the alien's technological evolution.
>
> You're assuming I'm Caucasian,
Um, isn't just about *everybody* on this list (which is a fine example
of "white-higher-educated-male-supremacy" [smirk]
> The recent DNA Neanderthal finding, which proved that we are not
descended
> from them, destroyed the only rival to the out of Africa theory, it's
pretty
> clear now that not only Homo Habilis but Homo Erectus and even fully
modern
> humans originated in Africa. We're all Africans, every one of us.
>
It's not *that* clear (there really isn't much evidence one way or
another), but it is widely assumed, and is indeed a plausible
*theory*. It is often used to prove that we're all the same, which is
true to a large extend though it's the "subtle" details that can make
all the difference in the world.
A theory (can't remember right now who developed it) which I
find very plausible is that certain groups of people moved for
reasons unknown out of Africa, which at that time had a much
more pleasant climate than today, and slowly colonized the
Euro-Asian regions. They were faced by the extreme conditions
of an ice age (or several?) and had to drastically adapt in order
to survive. Only the smartest and the healthiest made it, and this
(or several) "natural selection(s)" gave the later relatives (fair skinned
etc. as an adaptation to the "polar" environment) an edge, it was
a unique evolutional boost whose fruits we still pluck today.
The people that stayed in Africa didn't go through this genetic and
memetic "cleansing", and consequently didn't evolve nearly as
far as their emigrated counterparts. By staying, they outsmarted
themselves, so to speak.
DdO ~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:41 MST