[ExI] note from a foaf in japan
painlord2k at libero.it
Thu Apr 7 01:50:14 UTC 2011
Il 03/04/2011 1.23, Kelly Anderson ha scritto:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Mirco Romanato
> <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
>> Il 01/04/2011 6.17, Kelly Anderson ha scritto:
>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Mirco Romanato They bred a few
>>> hundred foxes with each generation, then only bred the 1% that
>>> were most tame or most aggressive.
>> We can suppose that it wiped out the most weak, physically, of the
>> population. And we can suppose that the poor were the most weak of
>> all (statistically).
> Recall that most of the people at the time were very poor. The rich
> ruling class was very small at this time, and there was virtually no
> middle class in feudal Europe.
I think "poor" in this discussion is whoever is not able to feed
themselves and his family members and allow them to be healthy enough to
pass the genes to the next generation. Many paesants would be able to do
so. Many others not.
>> The selective pressure of people living in cities is continuous
>> over centuries. They are selected for traits allowing to thrive
>> there. Also, being city population sinks, they attracted large
>> numbers of people during many generations that allowed the
>> selection process to continue unabated. Often, then, the most
>> successful families in the cities would move out of the city with
>> their wealth and buy farms and large homes, to be able to afford
>> more children.
> Name a specific trait that allows people to thrive in cities. Then
> tell me what the selection mechanism is to keep people without that
> trait from reproducing.
Attention disorders and hyperactivity disorders are not good for city
dwellers. It interfere with the constant toiling of the jobs usually
available in cities like blacksmithing.
The predisposition to learn how read and write and do maths. For
example, in Florence during the XII century half of the children in the
city went to "Schools of Abacus" (not public funded) to learn to do
maths and be able to land a good job in some banks or keep a shop.
Impulsiveness is a bad trait, as you are near too much people to get
away with aggression, murder, thief, etc. easily.
There is a reason the word "urbane" and "villain" are used to denote a
behavior and not only the dweller in city and in the country.
> The bottom line with people is that memes have been more important
> than genes for hundreds of years, so I would not expect see a lot of
> genetic changes over the past few hundred years because a wide cross
> section of society reproduces. Another way to ask the question is
> what sort of people don't reproduce in our modern societies?
The productive middle class that it taxed out of existence and have not
the resources to raise more than two children (often not enough to raise
one). The lower classes, the unproductive on the dole, many of them
reproduce far more than the the middle class because they can offload
their reproduction to the taxpayers.
This is a problem much debated in the manosphere.
>> I don't think so. The poor were able to become a class only in the
>> last two centuries because before they near always died with few or
>> no offspring. And they were supplanted by the less accomplished
>> (but better than them) offspring of the middle class.
> The children of rich people can become poor very easily. Today the
> poor reproduce at higher rates than the rich. I'm not sure what the
> historical case is, but farmers have historically had lots of kids.
Some farmers rarely were poor for the standards of the time.
They had many children and bough land. They divided the land with their
children. Some succeed and some not. Repeat.
>> Your premises (as I understood them) are that the foxes and the
>> vixens were subjected to an extensive culling (1% surviving to
>> generate), where the actual number given in the article I linked
>> were 5% for foxes and 20% for vixen.
> You are probably right. Still, with a 5% or even 20% survival rate,
> that is an EXTREME selection pressure that human beings have almost
> never seen. And certainly we haven't seen those extreme selection
> pressures based on the kinds of cultural issues that we started
> talking about.
In fact, I think it required much more time for the humans to select the
right traits in the right conditions.
In England it was something like 5-600 years or 20-30 generations.
>> Take away the welfare state, the food stamps and the rest. Leave
>> them on their devices. Like 200 years ago or more. Even more strong
>> and durable, the selection for taking out people unable to control
>> their impulses and empathize others. They would be, at least, be
>> banned from the civil society. And without welfare they would die
>> because of starvation or be prey of organized groups. For example,
>> a not married woman having sex and becoming pregnant would lose her
>> family support and be shunned by any other reputable man. Why?
>> Because they would not risk to be rising someone else children
>> instead of theirs. Exceptions abound, but invariably they concern
>> very low standing women (prostitute or maiden) or very high
>> standing women (too valuable to consider their previous sins).
> But can you point to one case where genetic change has happened. The
> only one that comes to mind is that our genes for lactose
> intolerance have been bred out after the creation of dairy as a main
> human food source. That is a very different kind of genetic drift
> than you are talking about. What you are saying is theoretically
> possible, but as far as I know undocumented as having actually
I think deMause "History of childhood" and "The Emotional Life of
Nations" could be interesting.
For something available on the net:
>> Also, the people coming from the country have traits that could be
>> useful in the country but are not useful or are damaging when
>> living in a city. This is something discovered studying an African
>> tribe; the same traits that made them successful in herding sheep
>> (so they were able to feed themselves well) made them not very
>> successful in keeping a job in a city (so they were unable to keep
>> themselves well fed).
> African tribes have definitely had enough time for some genetic
> drift. Is this research or a guess? In western cultures where people
> move to the city, then to the country and back, there isn't enough
> pressure or time to create meaningful genetic drift.
Recent research about a tribe, I read it a few years ago.
Probably from Futurepundit.
> I am engaged in just such an experiment. I am Caucasian, I have six
> African American children, four Hispanic and one half Asian child.
> Culturally, they are all mostly culturally white. They are
> intellectually indistinguishable from me (other than some physical
> issues stemming from in utero abuse). Your position on this point
> seems racist, and completely unsupported by research. Of course,
> there is a cultural limit on how much real research has been done in
> this area because nobody wants to be called a racist.
The data about the IQ gap of blacks relative to whites in the US is well
know. It also didn't change much with time. IIRC the data about
mulattos/mestizos is something in between.
Also, the distribution of personality traits and psychic disorders is
different for Africans and Europeans and, IMHO, appear to follow the
adaptations to the local conditions of Africa and Europe.
I think the next decade will be very interesting in this field,
dispelling many wrong ideas.
> We talk a lot about the higher rates of incarceration of minorities.
The problem is when some explanations can not be uttered because they
are not acceptable to the polite discourse.
>>> Blacks are more carefully watched by the police,
>> Why? Why they don't check more for Hispanics or Vietnamese or
>> Italians? Are the policemen racists? Even the blacks one?
> Yes, even some black policemen are racist against blacks.
This beg the question:
"Are they racist without reasons or with reasons?"
> It took the Irish at least three generations to escape from being
> the lowest in American society. At one point, the coal mines in West
> Virginia would hire Irish over black slaves because they were less
> valuable than the slaves to the mine owners. Similarly, the Chinese
> who build the transcontinental railroad were valued less than
This because slaves were property and the freemen not.
> I blame politicians more than anyone else for the problems facing
> the blacks in America today. The black leadership (Jessie Jackson and
> the like) are particularly guilty IMHO.
I agree that many politicians (blacks and whites) give as much help as
they are able to keep the blacks in the plantation.
> Blacks who recently came from Africa or the Caribbean are usually
> more immediately successful than African Americans with the cultural
> history. Yesterday, I interacted with an African pharmacist. I was
> not surprised, but I would have been more surprised by an African
> American pharmacist. In other words, the problem is not such much the
> color of their skin, but the color of their mind. After hearing that
> the "man is going to keep you down" for generations, many African
> Americans give up. My own African American children don't hear this
> negative talk, and I fully expect them to succeed in America. It's
> not genetic, it's cultural.
How much old are they.
Theory say the older they will be the greater the difference.
For the sake of the experiment you could sequence their genome when the
costs will be down in the next few years and look for their real share
of European, African, whatever genes.
I agree that skin color is a poor proxy for something so complex like
the genetics of the mind.
> Where I live, the most disproportionate homicide is done by
> undocumented Mexicans. Again, even if the homicide rate nation wide
> is higher for black on whoever, that doesn't mean it is genetic. It
> is societal and cultural if that is the case.
As I wrote before, this decade will give up so much genetic data that we
will be able to know much more about this. Maybe more than many of us
would know are are able to accept. Reality have many surprises.
> Correct. It is also the main cause of lawlessness of the Hispanics
> that live there. I would suspect that any white people living in
> South Central would also commit crime at a rate higher than the rest
> of the nation, but there are very few whites living there. I don't
> have numbers, this is a feeling. Four of my kids come from Compton
> (in south central) and I have spent some time there. I have also
> spent a couple of months in East Palo Alto, another troubled
Wish you a successful experiment.
> They have succeeded. This doesn't make sense. Large changes in the
> zeitgeist are accomplished all the time. Look at the change in
> Southern attitudes towards blacks, or the nation's view of
> homosexuality. They have changed a lot just in my life time.
These are cultural changes of others, not the blacks.
> I have also spent a lot of time in Mexico. It DID work exactly this
> way. Mexico is 90%+ Catholic to this day. Where are you getting
> these ideas?
The issue is a bit more complex than formal adhesion to the Catholic
Church. Local customs and way of thinking resisted the Conquistadors,
mainly in the rural areas.
> Ok. Here you are talking about real selected genetic difference.
> Racism in humans is not based on significant genetic differences
> because humans don't have very significant genetic differences. This
> is primarily because of the population bottleneck around 600K years
Significant genetic differences must be defined.
It would be interesting, but not very ethics, to take a group of
Africans and land them in rural Finland (with enough resources for
living for a few years and have the chance to adapt) and land a group of
Finns in rural Africa (with the same resources). Then look at how they
succeed or not. I remember something like this in an old sci-fi book
(Genoa-Texcoco:0.0) but it was more a testing of economics systems.
>> Yes. But soldiers in moder professional armies are mainly from
>> middle class and their IQ is a bit over the mean (this is surely
>> true for in the US). And in modern society the middle class is the
>> bigger part of the society.
> Actually, in the US armed forces, minorities and poor are
> represented in higher proportion than middle class and white. This is
> because of the financial benefits of joining the armed forces are
> more effective in recruiting people who need those benefits.
I would reconsider this info. Mine is that whites, middle class are the
majority and overrepresented in the armed forces.
Minorities are more represented in not combat positions than in combat
Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog <http://extropolitca.blogspot.com/>
Leggimi su Estropico Blog <http://estropico.blogspot.com/>
Nessun virus nel messaggio.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
Versione: 10.0.1209 / Database dei virus: 1500/3555 - Data di rilascio: 06/04/2011
More information about the extropy-chat