The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

gen·o·cide/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Noun:
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

[Tyrannical]

gen·o·cide/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Noun:
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Think about the literal translation

Gene as in gene pool is derived from the Greek word Genos which means race or tribe. Cide is from the Latin word cidium meaning "killing of". Genocide is simply the elimination of another groups gene pool.

Now I'm going off to play Mass Effect 3 multiplayer and make some Geth extinct.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, then.

[Rum]

gen·o·cide/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Noun:
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Think about the literal translation

Gene as in gene pool is derived from the Greek word Genos which means race or tribe. Cide is from the Latin word cidium meaning "killing of". Genocide is simply the elimination of another groups gene pool.

Now I'm going off to play Mass Effect 3 multiplayer and make some Geth extinct.

That word 'simply' slips a little too easily of your typing fingers I fancy.

[Tyrannical]

Rum, the World is not of my design and choosing, and I can not change the basic tenets of natural selection to encompass an artificial human morality.

It would be nice if all races under the proper social conditions would exemplify certain behavior accommodating to a society Western nations have grown accustomed to, but all the scientific and demographic information does not support this. You can wish all you want, and grasping at various social "what if's" has yet to change anything we have know about racial characteristics from over a hundred years ago. Treating racial groups the same simply does not work because they do not behave the same.

[Rum]

Rum, the World is not of my design and choosing, and I can not change the basic tenets of natural selection to encompass an artificial human morality.

It would be nice if all races under the proper social conditions would exemplify certain behavior accommodating to a society Western nations have grown accustomed to, but all the scientific and demographic information does not support this. You can wish all you want, and grasping at various social "what if's" has yet to change anything we have know about racial characteristics from over a hundred years ago. Treating racial groups the same simply does not work because they do not behave the same.

You make the phrase 'putting words in my mouth' totally inadequate to interpret and attribute me as you seem to in that last paragraph a whole book full values and opinions!

As it happens I tend to agree that the genetic differences between races have been downplayed. There are however good reasons for this, not least the abuse of such ideas by Nazis, racists and bigots.

[apophenia]

What do you mean when you say that morality is artificial? What do you think morality is?

The rest I can make no sense of. I don't know what you're claiming.

[Svartalf]

The difference is genocide is a conscious process. If we stumble-fuck around and kill off a species, that is not genocide, it's just us being assholes.

There is generally only one apex predator in a given niche, why is that
They kill the competition, though the text books give it the more friendly name "out compete". When the English arrived in Australia, they out competed the Aborigines just like they did the American Indians. Was it wrong? Every other living organism would destroy or deny resources to a competitor as it is instinctive and a key driver of natural selection.

Well, Darwin believed in natural selection, and there was no natural factor preventing blacks from multiplying... Australian aboriginals, living primitively in a desert environment were another matter, and if might have believed they would naturally disappear without genocide... blacks? between those living in equatorial countries and those exported to the Americas, those were in perfect conditions to thrive.

[Rum]

I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. People lived in areas where those with the right mutations thrived. As it happens the hot and sunny places ended up with people whose skin could tolerate the conditions.

[Svartalf]

If that's aimed at me, unless they evolved an ability to survive on less food than normal humans and even less water, especially in the face of being displaced to ever more desertic areas by white colonists, they might have been aimed at natural extinction.


If not, please precise at what post that was responding.

[JimC]

The difference is genocide is a conscious process. If we stumble-fuck around and kill off a species, that is not genocide, it's just us being assholes.

There is generally only one apex predator in a given niche, why is that
They kill the competition, though the text books give it the more friendly name "out compete". When the English arrived in Australia, they out competed the Aborigines just like they did the American Indians. Was it wrong? Every other living organism would destroy or deny resources to a competitor as it is instinctive and a key driver of natural selection.

It's clear that you imply from this some form of genetically based racial inferiority, which is simply nonsense, but what is worse, you applaud the process, however it is caused.

When societies differ in the technological level they have reached, clashes and imperial expansion tend to be rather one-sided.

[Tyrannical]

It's clear that you imply from this some form of genetically based racial inferiority

That sure is the impression I got from Darwin.
Physical, mental, and behavioral attributes are inherited and different selective pressures shaped this. Therefor the various human groups / races can not be equal. If you want human equality, simply become a creationist as only through divine intervention could that be possible

which is simply nonsense

,
Not nonsense as it is testable and provable given effort and an "open" mind. Just pick a criteria and design a test to objectively measure that criteria.

but what is worse, you applaud the process, however it is caused.

Acceptance is more like it.
How can you hate or curse a biological rule like the competitive exclusion principle? It simply describes a process based on evidence.

When societies differ in the technological level they have reached, clashes and imperial expansion tend to be rather one-sided

The quality of a society is a reflection of it's populace's attributes and is shaped by behavioral characteristics controlled through natural selection.

Other animals may develop stronger claws, sharper teeth, or faster legs as their "technology" But humans as tool makers mainly rely on their brain for adaptability and competitive advantage.

[Pappa]

Other animals may develop stronger claws, sharper teeth, or faster legs as their "technology" But humans as tool makers mainly rely on their brain for adaptability and competitive advantage.

Yes they do, but when exactly one of those brains is responsible for the invention of the knife, the gun and the laser blaster is almost entirely down to happenstances of history. The amount of difference in intelligence in different ethnic groups due to genetics is almost completely negligible. No matter what small advantage a certain group may have in brain power over another, it's not going to be much use against guns if their culture hasn't got that far yet. Ever thought that maybe all those cultures that Western nations destroyed may have actually been more intelligent than their adversaries? Guns don't make people superior to those that don't have them, they just make those that have them lucky enough to be born in the right place and time.

[Ronja]

Other animals may develop stronger claws, sharper teeth, or faster legs as their "technology" But humans as tool makers mainly rely on their brain for adaptability and competitive advantage.

Yes they do, but when exactly one of those brains is responsible for the invention of the knife, the gun and the laser blaster is almost entirely down to happenstances of history. The amount of difference in intelligence in different ethnic groups due to genetics is almost completely negligible. No matter what small advantage a certain group may have in brain power over another, it's not going to be much use against guns if their culture hasn't got that far yet. Ever thought that maybe all those cultures that Western nations destroyed may have actually been more intelligent than their adversaries? Guns don't make people superior to those that don't have them, they just make those that have them lucky enough to be born in the right place and time.

. Good points well made, Pappa.

[JimC]

Other animals may develop stronger claws, sharper teeth, or faster legs as their "technology" But humans as tool makers mainly rely on their brain for adaptability and competitive advantage.

Yes they do, but when exactly one of those brains is responsible for the invention of the knife, the gun and the laser blaster is almost entirely down to happenstances of history. The amount of difference in intelligence in different ethnic groups due to genetics is almost completely negligible. No matter what small advantage a certain group may have in brain power over another, it's not going to be much use against guns if their culture hasn't got that far yet. Ever thought that maybe all those cultures that Western nations destroyed may have actually been more intelligent than their adversaries? Guns don't make people superior to those that don't have them, they just make those that have them lucky enough to be born in the right place and time.

. Good points well made, Pappa.

+1...