The climate is only one aspect of the environment. Being well "adapted" can mean various things. If the purpose of humanity is to develop art, philosophy and science, then it seems that the aboriginals had not achieved this purpose well.

Others, however, believe that we have evolved in such a way that our psychology is adapted to an environment much like that of the aboriginals and that citizens of a modern society such as ours suffer from friction between their psychology and their actual environment.

This is unverifiable, but it is important to keep in mind that there are assumptions at play when we try to judge the quality of a society. Is a modern European society superior to a hunter-gatherer society that is more egalitarian and has more leisure time?



Is it possible that certain genes have an effect on culture? Yes, but the study you mentioned suffered from severe biases. To then suggest, because of that study, that aboriginal Australians have a gene that someone gives them greater "affinity for the land" would be unjustified extrapolation. It would be better to try and directly identify the differences in genetic make-up and point out the differences which might make it difficult for aboriginals to integrate (the differences are more likely to deal with superficial things). When we do not have proper evidence, it is better to assume nothing.

I see no reason to believe that our conception of property has a genetic basis.

The main concern today is the cultural problems that aboriginals face, such as the domestic violence and drug abuse. Does this have a genetic basis? Perhaps, but I have no reason to believe this. I do, however, have reasons to believe that these reasons are social, which would explain the similarity between the problems that aboriginals face in different parts of the world: Japan, Canada and Australia, three countries which are far apart, all have genetically different aboriginal populations which suffer from similar problems.

Is that why anti-immigrant political parties like the British National Party and France's Front National tend to draw disproportional support from areas which see the most immigrants?

Prejudice occurs when we judge someone before having met him, usually by relying on salient features such as skin colour, though name and other factors which are not readily observable can also be used to cast judgment.

There is nothing suggesting prejudice in claiming that "unintelligent people" use "prejudice" rather than "reason" to judge people. It may be untrue, but it is reasonable to claim that, because prejudice relies on very simple logic (if A, then B), an unintelligent person will find more use of it than an intelligent one who can use a greater degree of reasoning in trying to judge a person.

(Though it should be said that highly intelligent people can be called fools, so I would be careful before assuming that Voltaire spoke of unintelligent people in that quote -- assuming that the quote is accurate, for no source has been provided).

My college is one of the most multicultural places in the city. There are skullcaps, turbans and headscarves to be found throughout the school, student associations for Muslims, Jews and other groups which are very visible. When in the computer lab, I can always hear a diversity of languages. I don't know the stats, but I'd say that most students are either first or second generation immigrations from all over the world. I haven't heard of any problems between any of these groups. The only cultural friction I've heard about deals with Hasidic Jews who have a reputation for arrogance, due to how they try to limit social contact to members of their community and will often ignore women. A girl I know, for example, recently complained that in a store run by Hasidic Jews, the cashier put her change on the table rather than in her hand (so as to not touch her) and made no eye contact at all, which she interpreted as disrespect.

Tensions do grow when there are significant demographic changes, but they stabilise with time. For example, there used to be a lot of prejudice in communities which saw the immigration from Ireland and Spain. In Australia, I hear that this problem existed with Eastern Europeans. These groups are now better integrated and it is the integration of different groups that we are working on.

Since I am so used to seeing different skin colours, dresses and so forth, these things are no longer a factor in how I interpret others. I have spoken with many women with headscarves and I know that their personalities vary as much as those of anyone else. It's the same thing that has happened as I've learned to disassociate the stereotypes of Hollywood films from the the anglophone community in Montreal.

It's true that humans have a tendency to be prejudiced, but that doesn't mean that we do not benefit from dispelling the myths that feed prejudice; the idea that we should embrace prejudice is as ridiculous as the idea that we should embrace ignorance "because there will always be people who do not seek knowledge".

I agree with you, I guess its only when we decide to form groups of like minded people that our prejudices become an actual threat, and this is what the social engineers, annoyingly at times, try to nip in the bud. Perhaps some of our inbred prejudices are best kept to ourselves and not blabbed about to all and sundry. This used to be called being polite.
I agree with you also about people that live in a remote towns with lots of indegenous crime seeing discrimination in a totally different light to those in the hallowed halls of a university. I had a friend who lived in Meekatharra, a remote gold mining town in West Australia. She was used to constant break ins, but she also said there were some good aboriginal families there.

To my way of reasoning it is a it is a cheap cop-out to rely on the concept, that because it is not possible to change the groups attitude to rasicm, its ok to give into the idea of group think. It is difficult to change the world, however it is each person responsibility to correct racist ideas that they themselves use and to teach the next generation that is is unethical and should be changed.

Deleted by Hunter

Hunter wrote:

The term "racism" or "racist" has lost it's original significance. .... and is now used more as a term of abuse than anything else.

I also share this view.

I agree with Aizone. When I'm discussing something with someone and they realize their arguments are unsupportable, they will frequently say, "You sound...." racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever. I used to become distracted and, as they wanted, change the discussion from their stupid position to defending myself. Now, I ignore it and pursue the original discussion. Of course, that seriously irritates people.

In response to the original question: "If it were true that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence, would this mean that racism is defensible and that we have to reject the principle of equality??"

Of course not. There is no principle of equality. There is a presumption of equality but we all know there is no such thing as equality. Some individuals are born smart, some stupid, some healthy, some sickly.

Even when it is demonstrated that one group has a genetic disadvantage, such as women and upper body strength, that does mean you won't run into the outlier that needs to be considered. What is grossly unfair, in my opinion, is to pretend an 80-pound woman is fit for a job that requires significant upper-body strength and set them up for failure.

patrickt wrote:

... There is no principle of equality. There is a presumption of equality but we all know there is no such thing as equality. Some individuals are born smart, some stupid, some healthy, some sickly. ...

I like your use of the word presumption, a correct and excellent choice of word.

Welcome Mort,
Just one question; how would you define 'white'?

Welcome from me to, Mort.

It seems to me that we in "western culture" place far too much emphasis on I.Q. levels.

Yes, science has done great things for us, but it has also presented us with new and catostophic problems.

Vegetable growers were happy to receive the news that organic vegetables have no extra nutriments in them recently, but their smiles may disappear very soon. It turns out that pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables are responsible for attention defiecit disorder and hyperactivity in children. I'm sure I don't need to describe how that problem has ruined families in recent times.

Why didn't the scientists ever forsee this problem Mort?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100517/hl ... dechildren

Most people know that without honey bees the human population could not survive. The world's entire bee population is now under threat from pesticides, and the subsequent decline in bio deversity.

Again, why couldn't this eventuality be easily predicted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

I say, when man walks on a secular path he doesn't cease to believe in a God, he tries to become that God himself.

I know some very intelligent people, by any measure but this does not mean they are nice, useful, productive, attractive or anyway beneficial to the human race. A few presidents and world leaders spring to mind, plus my primary school English teacher!

If I had to list and prioritise a person's attributes and spend the rest of my life with them, IQ certainly would not be in the top half dozen. My list would start with .... but that would be telling.

Here's another one; if one has a black and white negative of a group of European businessmen in suits and ties etc., how does one tell that negative from a similar negative of a group of Indian businessmen, similarly attired, just by looking at the negatives?

My list wouldn't have a half-dozen attributes. I don't care to spend time with people who aren't intelligent enough to carry on a conversation but beyond that intelligence doesn't interest me. I have known people with little formal education who were both very intelligent and well educated. Honest and honorable would be first for me. Reasonably bright and honest and honorable might be the whole list. I can't think of anything else right now.

I rather pity the people who can see nothing but color. I was chatting with a black man and we discovered we had a lot of things in common. We were born about fifty miles apart in the South in the U.S. After we talked about family and so forth I laughed and said, "We might be cousins." He said, "But, you're white." "Well, if you think that's important." "That's all that is important."

I said, "For you. Not for me." I didn't bother mentioning my black ancestor because it really isn't important.

I would agree more often than not, but ... not always. I do prefer to spend time with people who are pleasant and have a modicum of intelligence. But I can think of occasions when intelligence wasn't an issue and I was happy to spend time with someone. Playing football, nice to have a big strong persistent and even sometimes stubbornly and illogically angry person between me and the apposing side! After a few drinks with a pretty lady, I can't say intelligence is the main factor to my spending time with them until breakfast, in fact it maybe a drawback! (To anyone offended, see the post topic "Is laughter ethical?")

I have experienced no evidence of a relationship between race and intelligence. It seems to me IQ tests measure some abilities, but I would hesitate to say IQ tests measure intelligence.

When I left my workplace last year because of illness, an Iranian lady who worked with me came to say goodbye. I was happy when she commented that she had watched me talking to different races and treating everyone the same. She said its more usual for people to act a bit differently with foreigners.

I have a good friend who is an African nun, living in Tanzania, and a finer person I've never met, but its shocking to hear the reactions of some people here to negroes, even in my own family, comparing them to monkeys etc, its just peurile beyond belief. Apparently this is also a feature of the top Italian soccer league, where supporters shout cruel comments at Africans even when they're playing for their own team

As far as companionship goes, personally I think one person of average intelligence who can make me laugh often and well, is worth a half dozen humourless intellectuals.

Patrick,
I'm reminded of a piece that I read many years ago; it was written by the wife of an American Federal politician or of a Senior Judge, anyway she was up at the top of Washington society. The lady had an unfortunate accident, she collapsed in the shower and in falling pulled the handle of the mixing tap over to fully hot, which meant that she was sprayed with near boiling water and was severly burned.

While recovering in hospital she met a man who had been very badly burned all over and was swathed in bandages. They had much in common as both were highly educated and had read broadly and well. When she was leaving she went to say goodbye and invited the gentleman to call on her and her husband in Washington. She was surprised when he declined the invitation and even more so when he explained; for he was black. Her eyes were opened and she wrote the piece to show that colour really doesn't matter.

Mort,
What I was illustrating is that 'race' is an illusion and that until the photograph negative is printed there is no way to tell who has more skin pigmentation than the other and even then there may be no difference.

Indian albinos are indistinguishable from European albinos especially if they speak fluent English, French or Portugese; which are the most common European languages that are spoken in India as 'First' languages.

EQ towards common love In fact, animals also share the equal love as human.

Love All Equally

Human beings, regardless of nationality, race, or religion – everyone – should be loved equally. We are all sheltered by the same sky and we all live on the same planet Earth.

A person of high ideals and morals is highly respected. What people value is not based on outside appearance.

A person’s outstanding abilities will naturally endow him with a good reputation. Admiration from others does not come from boasting or praising oneself.

If I am a very capable person, I should use my capabilities for the benefit of others. Other people’s competence should never be slandered.

I will not flatter the rich, or despise the poor. I will not ignore old friends, only taking delight in new ones.

When a person is busy, I will not bother him with matters. When a person’s mind is not at ease, I will not bother him with words.

If a person has a shortcoming, I will not expose it. If a person has a secret, I will not tell others.

When people are being praised and approved of, they will be encouraged to try even harder.

Spreading rumors about the wrongdoings of others is a wrongdoing in itself. When the harm done has reached the extreme, misfortunes will surely follow.

. When I encourage another to do good, both of our virtues are built up. If I do not tell another of his faults, we are both wrong.

Whether I take or give, I need to know the difference between the two. It is better to give more and take less.

What I ask others to do, I must first ask myself if I would be willing to do. If it is not something I would be willing to do, I will not ask others to do it.

I must repay the kindness of others and let go of my resentments. I will spend less time holding grudges and more time paying back the kindness of others.

When I am directing maids and servants, I will act honorably and properly. I will also treat them kindly and generously.

If I use my influence to make them submissive, their hearts will not be with me. If I can convince` them with sound reasoning, they will have nothing to object to.

Deleted by Hunter

Some of these points I agree with totally and others I consider foolish. I consider all of them worth considering and deciding for yourself where they fit in your ethical system.