david friedman
Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:25:55 -0800
>The second answer is of course the good one. The second answer was: "2. The belief that race is important is known to be false with such confidence that considering the alternative is a waste of time, hence stupid. " >As Maria said, there is >only one human race. There is only one canine race. Does that fact by itself tell you that there are no interesting innate differences between a spaniel and a German Shepherd? >What we call human races are just artifacts. We all come from so mixed >background that if there ever was something like different human races >they disapeared long ago. Humanity is a single species, by the usual biological definition. So are dogs. But individual humans vary a lot, in large part for genetic reasons, as the identical twin studies (among other things) demonstrate. Some of the genetic differences are highly correlated, as a result of different subpopulations being isolated for long periods of time in different environments in the past. If you actually look at a group of Swedes, a group of Ibos, and a group of people from southern China, it is quite obvious to the naked eye that the distribution of physical characteristics is highly non-random. If you look at groups of Americans whose parents both came from (respectively) Sweden, Biafra, and Canton, you oberve that the physical differences are genetic not environmental. Yet your argument about "mixed background" applies to physical characteristics just as much as it does to less easily observed characteristics. We know it is false in the former context, so have no reason to believe it true--still less to believe it true with such certainty that any questioning is stupid--in the latter. >But all this thread started with a discussion of J.Dimaond's book (Guns, >germs and steel). You should read it. It's a very interesting, very >intelligent book that shows explicitly that you don't need the concpet >of races to explain the fate of human societies. It's not the people >that differ but the conditions in which they live, the environnement I started it some time back (but got distracted by something else), and agree it is interesting--although I might point out that the author suggests that the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea may be more intelligent than the random westerner, for genetic reasons, at least if I did not misinterpret him. But his explanations of why civilizations developed differently in different places, while interesting and plausible, may or may not be correct. And whether they are correct or not, they do not imply that there are no innate genetic differences among different human subpopulations--merely that such differences are not needed to explain that particular set of puzzles. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/