>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/
