You’re probably correct there.
I’m just plantin’ seeds.
1 Like
5 Likes
I’m happy to argue with you, but I think we should do it via PM, since last time it derailed the thread. If you think you have an argument that refutes my claim, I’m happy to hear it. I encourage you to read through the debate I linked in the “race and genetics” thread I linked above, so I don’t have to repeat myself.
One of the best takedowns of Objectivism was in Bioshock:
These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they’re gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody’s gotta scrub the toilets.
26 Likes
I generally agree with you, but there are genetic factors affecting race, such as Sickle-Cell Anemia.
Studying such a subject matter is an inherently political endeavor considering the long political history of racial categorization, almost all of which is now known to have been based on the flimsiest of science. Science, particularly science that deals with human subjects, cannot sit outside the wider political context in which it is conducted in. Being aware of this is good scientific practice because it helps keep political biases from creeping into the conclusions.
However I’ll stick with “racial categories are genetically meaningless” (more accurately racial categories have no predictive power with regards to social functioning), because the opposite notion undergirded a hell of a lot of discrimination, exploitation and murder. Yes, lets not get into a long debate on this, but HBD is not an actual scientific field, and is mostly concerned with justifying existing social inequality than discovering why some ethnic groups are more susceptible to a particular hereditary disease.
16 Likes
Sigh. May this be the end of what could, yes, become derailment:
First of all, we need to say that being of a certain race is not what causes somebody to have the gene variant for Tay-Sachs, or the gene variant for sickle cell. It’s having ancestors who were in a geographic region where those things either occurred by chance or were selected for, as in the sickle cell case. Although many people in the U.S. think sickle cell is a disease of black people, that’s not necessarily true. Sickle cell is found in people in Greece, the island of Orchomenos, in particular, has very high carrier rates for sickle cell. There are also high carrier rates among people on the Arabian peninsula and people in India. There are parts of India where sickle cell carrier rate is as high as it is anywhere in Africa.
26 Likes
Understanding sickle cell disease is actually quite interesting, and leads to unexpected insights.
Chromosomes come in pairs, so an individual can have zero, one, or two genes for sickle cell disease. With two genes an individual has the disease. With one gene, he or she is a carrier (and has a 50-50 chance of passing the gene on to the next generation) but does not have the disease. (The person will have some sickle cells, but will receive an adequate supply of oxygen. Since sickle cell disease is very serious, one might ask why so may people have it. Why didn’t carriers of the gene die off long ago? It turns out that people who have only one gene are protected against malaria. That is, in malaria-infested areas, they will either not get the disease or will have it in a milder form.
In other words, in historically malaria-infested areas, people without the gene were likely to die of malaria, while those with two copies of the gene were likely to die of sickle cell disease. Over time, an equilibrium was reached, so that an optimal percentage of the population carried the gene—any more or less and a greater percentage of people would die from one or the other disease West Africa, the main historical source of American slaves, had a lot of malaria, and the sickle cell gene was and still is widespread there. However, the gene can also be found in other areas of the world, including Southern Europe (Corsica, Greece, Portugal, Sardinia, Southern Italy, Sicily, and Spain). In addition, the gene is absent in much of southern and eastern Africa In other words, the gene is not associated with a biological race,but rather with a biological disease, malaria. It was an historical accident that caused a correlation of the disease with a social race in the United States.
Edit: to make it clearer this is a quote from the article and not my writing…
21 Likes
No derailment.
I promise.
Great article.
6 Likes
I agree that we would need to be careful in any such examination.
I disagree with the sentiment expressed in the second paragraph: Your claim that we should determine the outcome of empirical questions based on preferred ideological outcomes rather than evidence. I think this is well-intentioned but ultimately misguided. The potential biases of science are preferable to the pure and unbridled bias of politics in my eyes.
I’m fine with you thinking the way you think, I just want to assert that not being on the same page as you here doesn’t make me a horrendous right-wing troglodyte. My broader point is that the conflict between us, two liberal left-wingers, is the real meat of the article under discussion.
1 Like
The thing is - science is purely descriptive, not prescriptive. It can tell you how it appears things are, but not what to do about it. The choosing of a person’s goals and making of decisions are mostly subjective processes - but this does not diminish the importance of being able to make informed decisions.
7 Likes
On a different note, it was once thought that malaria was caused by the ‘fever tree’.
2 Likes
You are an absurd person.
1 Like
I’d love it if a bunch of egghead libertarians actually did go and form their own closed community, and quickly realised that clean toilets were so important that it became the highest-paid and most prestigious job in the compound.
7 Likes
18 Likes
“Please explain why your desire for clear and unambiguous boundaries (people identified as male at birth must forever be considered male) should override the desires and experiences of the people directly harmed by those boundaries.”
Hi. Women and girls have a right to establish whatever boundaries they wish, including boundaries based on sex. Are you suggesting that women saying no hurts… men? And this doesn’t make you think of, oh, I dunno, this concept of “rape culture”? Not even a little bit?
@anon61221983 broke out the popcorn too soon!
4 Likes
First. Brilliant point. Second. It’s VERY red pill to take the effect, and make it the cause.
12 Likes
Why are you suddenly conflating sexual identity and the act of sex?
Doesn’t seeing yourself doing that make you think of, oh, I dunno, this concept of “absurdity”?
20 Likes
Do you really equate thinking about somebody as another gender as such an egregious transgression of personal boundaries as somebody raping you? Actual sexual activity with somebody seems much more involved, with a very different set of ethical implications.
13 Likes
