[Pants-of-dog]

I guess I am wondering how an evolutionist could argue the reverse?

Any thoughts?

This is obvious.

If we assume that patriarchy is evolved and that it had survival benefits in the past (neither of these claims have been supported by evidence), there is no reason to assyme it will in the future. The environmental context may have changed in such a way that patriarchy is maladaptive.

It seems given your argument, assuming human evolution as unchangeable, unless we change our biological nature through technology, we are either doomed to failure in pursuit of a global social democracy, or we will return to what our nature dictates (a cold and competitive market society of heirarchies and patriarchies)

Is that about right?

Please note that evolution, by definition, is changeable. This includes genetically hardwired behaviours.

Also please note that arguments involving evolution are logically inconsistent with your claims about Young Earth Creationism.

Finally, it is very possible that patriarchy and hierarchy are not hardwired into the human genome. The ubiquitous nature of patriarchy in history may be due to (for example) economic conditions correlated with the rise of agriculture.

As for the actual topic, I agree with @Red_Army.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Also please note that arguments involving evolution are logically inconsistent with your claims about Young Earth Creationism.

No need to take notes its called "Devil's Advocate" and I already noted the delectable irony of it all..... I love reading evolutionary anthropology in all truth, kinda like how i enjoy watching anime and horror flicks. the sheer joy of fiction.

Besides, if you are disqualifying my points on the presumption of hypocrisy, that would be tu quoque pants. tisk-tisk.

In any event, I don't even believe in physical causes, so like I said, this is more of a thought experiment for me.

If we assume that patriarchy is evolved and that it had survival benefits in the past (neither of these claims have been supported by evidence), there is no reason to assyme it will in the future. The environmental context may have changed in such a way that patriarchy is maladaptive.

That was my point though to @Rancid , given his argument assuming that man has been hard-wired by millions of years of evolution, it seems unlikely that such could be reversed in a few hundred years of social experimentation and technology. His conclusion seems to be that we are doomed, for we are creating conditions wherein our evolution becomes maladaptive. Its an interesting position to take.

Finally, it is very possible that patriarchy and hierarchy are not hardwired into the human genome.

When did sexual dimorphism occur? It seems sexual dimorphism in humans including the differences which are psychological, hormonal, and physiological between men and women all tend to support the idea that patriarchy has a biological basis, not merely one in social convention.

This was the conclusion of evolutionary anthropologist, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa and such differences can be seen in great apes as well. Perhaps the best argument that egalitarianism, and not patriarchy is evolutionarily novel and mal-adaptive is in regards to the matter of fecundity; as Dr. Kanazawa states in his book; if there is one sin in evolution, its the refusal to reproduce offspring.

It does not seem likely that this patriarchy is merely a condition of agricultural society. Nomadic cultures for instance, like the Mongols, were fiercely patriarchal, but they were not agrarian in the sense of lets say, the Sumerians.

[Pants-of-dog]

No need to take notes its called "Devil's Advocate" and I already noted the delectable irony of it all..... I love reading evolutionary anthropology in all truth, kinda like how i enjoy watching anime and horror flicks. the sheer joy of fiction.

Besides, if you are disqualifying my points on the presumption of hypocrisy, that would be tu quoque pants. tisk-tisk.

In any event, I don't even believe in physical causes, so like I said, this is more of a thought experiment for me.

Yes, your life is a good example,of,white and male privilege, so discussing patriarchy or racism is just a game to you. The fact that it actually affects people’s lives is also something that does not affect you.

It is interesting that you amuse yourself with discussions about how women or minorities should not be treated as human beings.

Mots people who just want to argue about seemingly unimportant issues discuss things like the number of holes in a straw, or whether hot dogs are sandwiches.

That was my point though to @Rancid , given his argument assuming that man has been hard-wired by millions of years of evolution, it seems unlikely that such could be reversed in a few hundred years of social experimentation and technology. His conclusion seems to be that we are doomed, for we are creating conditions wherein our evolution becomes maladaptive. Its an interesting position to take.

So is imagining that Kennedy was actually killed by a conspiracy of sentient dogs.

Anyway, my point was that the environment is constantly changing. In fact, right now it is changing at an incredibly fast rate. There is no reason to assume that the assumedly positive relationship between patriarchy and survival in out environment will continue. If it exists.

When did sexual dimorphism occur? It seems sexual dimorphism in humans including the differences which are psychological, hormonal, and physiological between men and women all tend to support the idea that patriarchy has a biological basis, not merely one in social convention.

This was the conclusion of evolutionary anthropologist, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa and such differences can be seen in great apes as well. Perhaps the best argument that egalitarianism, and not patriarchy is evolutionarily novel and mal-adaptive is in regards to the matter of fecundity; as Dr. Kanazawa states in his book; if there is one sin in evolution, its the refusal to reproduce offspring.

It does not seem likely that this patriarchy is merely a condition of agricultural society. Nomadic cultures for instance, like the Mongols, were fiercely patriarchal, but they were not agrarian in the sense of lets say, the Sumerians.

If you wish to provide evidence that patriarchy is genetically hardwired, please do so.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, your life is a good example,of,white and male privilege, so discussing patriarchy or racism is just a game to you. The fact that it actually affects people’s lives is also something that does not affect you.

Ad-Hominem and Genetic Fallacy.

Take beep breathes, I hear it helps.

It is interesting that you amuse yourself with discussions about how women or minorities should not be treated as human beings.

Triggered.

If you wish to provide evidence that patriarchy is genetically hardwired, please do so.

I don't need to, for I asked you a question first and foremost;

When did sexual dimorphism occur (both physical, hormonal, and psychological) in humans, according evolutionary anthropology?

If it is before the advent of sedentary grain agriculture, you will have provided the very evidence you demand.....

but we already know the answer to this question now don't we pants

At least according to physicalist anthropology and cosmology, which is all sci-fi fantasy anyway.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ad-Hominem and Genetic Fallacy.
Take beep breathes, I hear it helps.
Triggered.

Red Herring....no need to get personal....tisk tisk.

Don't make me man-splain to you how fallacies work.

I don't need to, for I asked you a question first and foremost;

When did sexual dimorphism occur (both physical, hormonal, and psychological) in humans, according evolutionary anthropology?

If it is before the advent of sedentary grain agriculture, you will have provided the very evidence you demand.....

but we already know the answer to this question now don't we pants

At least according to physicalist anthropology and cosmology, which is all sci-fi fantasy anyway.

So no evidence.

Confusing sexual dimorphism with the patriarchy is not an argument.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Hmmmm....this looks familiar Pants? Why is that?

Red Herring....no need to get personal....tisk tisk.

Not a red-herring, just pointing out how I don't care about your emotional blubbering about me not caring about the "oppressed"

Don't make me man-splain to you how fallacies work.

Please do.

So no evidence.

I am not playing sea-lion games when you haven't answer my question as posted.

Confusing sexual dimorphism with the patriarchy is not an argument.

Where did I say that they were the exact same thing? Please provide evidence for this accusation.

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hmmmm....this looks familiar Pants? Why is that?


Not a red-herring, just pointing out how I don't care about your emotional blubbering about me not caring about the "oppressed"

It is a red herring in that it was a failed attempt to distract from my claims tjat you did not refute.

Nor do I expect you to care. Your apathy corroborates my point.

Please do.

For one, you incorrectly accused me of an ad hominem. I never claimed you were incorrect about your patriarchy and evolution argument because of your privilege.

I am not playing sea-lion games when you haven't answer my question as posted.

The questions seems irrelevant, so there does not seem to be any reason to answer it.

If it is part if an argument, please make the argument.

Where did I say that they were the exact same thing? Please provide evidence for this accusation.

Thanks.

Then why did you bring it up?

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is a red herring in that it was a failed attempt to distract from my claims tjat you did not refute.

Nor do I expect you to care. Your apathy corroborates my point.

Addressing my apathy is in fact, not an argument. My dismissing your appeal to emotion is perfectly valid.

For one, you incorrectly accused me of an ad hominem. I never claimed you were incorrect about your patriarchy and evolution argument because of your privilege.

Its still a personal attack, likewise, you directly connected my position with my background, which is the genetic fallacy.

i.e., I view discussing these matters as extra-curricular because of my white privelage. That is fallacious.

The questions seems irrelevant, so there does not seem to be any reason to answer it.

Thats not for you to decide, in a cross-examination the person examined does not get to decide what questions he would like to answer because of his feelings.

Answer the question and then I will do what you have requested of me. That is the order of original presentation and that is the order that shall be kept.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because physical and biological dimophism lends itself to patriarchy moreso than the lack thereof. I didn't argue for identity, I argued for implication.

Men have higher levels of testosterone which lends itself to behaviors exhibiting increased aggression, sexuality, and dominance. Physically testosterone affects muscle mass and overrall bulk.

https://www.healthline.com/health/low-t ... -on-body#1

Hence, dimorphism which we can clearly see is connected with social behaviors and physical capabilities that when contrasted with the opposite sex, clearly lends itself to certain practices that could be construed as patriarchal. If egalitarianism were genetic, why would males be physically more aggressive, dominant, sexual, and able to subdue (physically) the female sex?

Thats the connection, but its not identity. I never said they are the same thing.

But I digress.

I am still waiting on you to answer my question.

[Pants-of-dog]

Addressing my apathy is in fact, not an argument. My dismissing your appeal to emotion is perfectly valid.

I never said it was an argument, nor was my discussion of you an appeal o emotion about our patriarchy/evolution debate.

You brought up your personal feelings and opinions. I agreed with you (that your feelings and opinions were as you said) and went on to discuss how they are indicative of your privilege.

Its still a personal attack, likewise, you directly connected my position with my background, which is the genetic fallacy.

i.e., I view discussing these matters as extra-curricular because of my white privelage. That is fallacious.

I never said there was a causative link between your privilege and your arguments.

Nor did I say there was a causative link between your privilege and your opinion about the debate.

Your arguments come from your beliefs.

Your privilege comes from your position in society.

Your opinion about the debate is indicative of your privilege.

Thats not for you to decide, in a cross-examination the person examined does not get to decide what questions he would like to answer because of his feelings.

Answer the question and then I will do what you have requested of me. That is the order of original presentation and that is the order that shall be kept.

This is not a cross examination. Nor am I compelled to answer questions just because you said I should.

Because physical and biological dimophism lends itself to patriarchy moreso than the lack thereof. I didn't argue for identity, I argued for implication.

Men have higher levels of testosterone which lends itself to behaviors exhibiting increased aggression, sexuality, and dominance. Physically testosterone affects muscle mass and overrall bulk.

https://www.healthline.com/health/low-t ... -on-body#1

Hence, dimorphism which we can clearly see is connected with social behaviors and physical capabilities that when contrasted with the opposite sex, clearly lends itself to certain practices that could be construed as patriarchal. If egalitarianism were genetic, why would males be physically more aggressive, dominant, sexual, and able to subdue (physically) the female sex?

Thats the connection, but its not identity. I never said they are the same thing.

But I digress.

I am still waiting on you to answer my question.

So your argument is that patriarchy is based on these dimorphism traits? And that these traits are also beneficial to survival?

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is not a cross examination. Nor am I compelled to answer questions just because you said I should.

So long as we agree you are unable to answer my question.

I never said it was an argument, nor was my discussion of you an appeal o emotion about our patriarchy/evolution debate.

You brought up your personal feelings and opinions. I agreed with you (that your feelings and opinions were as you said) and went on to discuss how they are indicative of your privilege. I never said there was a causative link between your privilege and your arguments.

Nor did I say there was a causative link between your privilege and your opinion about the debate.

Your arguments come from your beliefs.

Your privilege comes from your position in society.

Your opinion about the debate is indicative of your privilege.

Note: you are still discussing my background and not my arguments.

So your argument is that patriarchy is based on these dimorphism traits? And that these traits are also beneficial to survival?

You are answering a question with a question.

Please answer my question and I will supply what has been asked and requested of me.

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

So long as we agree you are unable to answer my question.

If you wish to believe that, go ahead.

Note: you are still discussing my background and not my arguments.

You are the one who brought it up, and then you persisted with this subject by incorrectly accusing me of relatin this to our discussion about evolution and patriarchy.

We can stop talking about you whenever you wish.

You are answering a question with a question.

Please answer my question and I will supply what has been asked and requested of me.

Thanks.

Again, I see no reason to answer the question.

If it is part of an argument, please make that argument. It seems you did this with your last post, and I wanted to confirm that I had read your argument correctly.

I would not want to argue a strawman.

Also, if you really want to know when sexual dimorphism appeared, you could always look it up.

[Sivad]

Anyone who trusts the center-right or Hillary Clinton for anti racist activism is an idiot. Hillary Clinton (alongside her husband) has a history of racist policy and she herself used race-baiting political ads against Obama in 2008 when he was up in the polls.

She used race-baiting in the 2016 election by promoting Trump. She figured she could leverage Trump's racism into a victory for herself. The Clintons have no qualms about cynically leveraging race in any way that's convenient.


The establishment dems just tried to defeat democratic reforms to the party by claiming democracy itself is structural racism:

There was also pushback from older black delegates, who argued that the reforms would reduce the power and influence of hundreds of black and Latino party leaders, and result in less diversity on the convention floor — a possibility reformers dismissed, citing delegate diversity requirements. When former DNC chair Don Fowler, who helped organize opposition to the reforms, said at the meeting that the moves would “disenfranchise” minority groups within the party, some people in the crowd at the meeting tried to shout him down, calling him a liar.

Some of the strongest opposition to the change came from black delegates, especially in the older generation, who said it would “disenfranchise” African-American and Latino party leaders and make their convention less diverse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democ ... ve-n903866

These people are shameless moral abortions, using an issue like racism to maintain their own privilege and power and then using that privilege and power to keep minorities poor and vulnerable for their corporate masters to exploit is just fucking depraved.

[SolarCross]

Also, if you really want to know when sexual dimorphism appeared, you could always look it up.

Homo Sapiens has always had significant sexual dimorphism. As had all our prior Homo ancestors, Hominini ancestors and so on all the way back at least to.. well you can really go all the way back to the emergence of sexual reproduction more than 12,000,000,000 years ago. 12,000,000,000 years is a lot of biology to roll back with a political correctness seminar. All credit to the pink haired zealots, they have their work cut out for them.

[Sivad]

The thing you gotta ask yourself is why would a bunch of opportunistic political elites who derive most of their popular support from the issue of racial inequality ever want to end racial inequality if they can keep that base with cosmetic progress in token diversity while perpetuating the real inequality that's their bread and butter? Perpetual racial inequality is just job security to these soulless fucks. The black [mis]leadership class is living ghetto fabulous off the perpetual suffering of black people.

[Wellsy]

Humanity isn’t simply an aggregate of evolutionary development of our biology, we’ve been much more than that since we could be considered human.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/jordan2.htm

The concept of social evolutionconstituted an important development beyond the world outlook of eighteenth-century materialism and allowed naturalism to extend to the whole sphere of man’s spiritual activities. In this respect the ‘old materialism’ was inadequate. The theories of mechanistic materialism concerning the appearance of mind, consciousness, values, and all distinctively human characteristics and achievements had no explanatory significance. The apparent unsatisfactoriness of these theories only played into the hands and indirectly supported the claims of the idealists who maintained that the ‘essence of man’ could not, demonstrably, be explained in terms of natural science and that man was thus clearly shown to be a spiritual and not a material being.

Marx fully agreed with the view that mechanistic materialism did not contribute to the understanding of man’s action, of his cultural attainments and social development. Nothing can be accomplished if man is assumed to be merely the highest species in the animal evolution and if his behaviour is to be explained by the laws of biology and, ultimately, of physics and chemistry.

This is the kind of materialism which Marx called ‘one-sided’ and of which he maliciously said that in order to overcome the incorporeal spirit it ‘was obliged to mortify its flesh and become ascetic’.[83]

Marx has interesting views in regards to overcoming a contenplstive and passive materialism and idealism somehow independent from the world and without any rational relation to it in such independence (ie cartedian dualism with two substances which can’t interact except to call upon God).

The limitations of evolutionary psychology and the attempt to encroach upon the spiritual side of human nature has only revealed its inadequacy as the history of mechanical materialism in regards to explaining human nature as it readily appears to us in reality.

In regards to the obsrufication by emphasis on race, I guess a consistent materialism is called for in the sense that one need not be confused by words as long as we pay attention to the origin of ideas in the world itself. Such that things that may help or harm a demographic isn’t hidden by an exclusivity of class from race.

[Decky]

People always denigrate the medieval period as the "dark ages"

Nobody whatsoever does that yankee, the dark ages came before the medieval period, they are not the same thing. Also the dark ages have that name as there are few historical sources available from the period after the collapse of the Roman empire as the record keeping got kind of spotty (the Protestants coming in later one and destroying ancient monasteries and their records didn't help either). Only ignorant morons think "the dark ages" is some kind of description of how terrible everything was supposed to be.

Do they not have schools in the colonies or something?

[blackjack21]

According to an increasingly popular narrative among the center-left, a dispiriting plurality of progressives are “class reductionists” — people who believe that economic equality is a cure-all for societal ills, and who, as a result, would neglect policy prescriptions which seek to remedy identity-based disparities.

That hasn't prevented celebrity suicides.

Even 500 years of sustained attempts to eliminate these values could not undue what is claimed to be millions of years of hard-wiring. Until we evolve into a different species altogether, our genetics determine what makes our collective existence and relations work, and its not communism or socialism. Its natural heirarchies.

Critiquing this fact is not going to change the fundamental fact, our happiness and success cannot be found in abandoning our own nature and this nature cannot change except by something that can undue this hard-wiring over another million years.

Well stated. That reasonably encapuslates my political views. However, I do find taunting the left on race to be quite entertaining, which is sort of immature of me.

If this is the case, at some point, the left needs to cut its losses and embrace the natural order, the source of true human satisfaction.

The closest they came to doing that was with Adolf Hitler, and it didn't end too well. I think leftist ideas are to some extent hard wired in the brain too.

I agree, we cannot change our evolution. Thus, it is very possible we are doomed for long term survival. It is possible we are sub-optimal for the long term. Our evolutionary track might be good enough to get us to today, but it might not be good enough to get us into the far future.

Obesity and diabetes are common enough in modern life to point out that nature did not anticipate the industrial revolution.

Agrarian Patriarchy only came about in the last 3 - 5000 years.

That's just an abstraction. Sexual dimorphism obviously predates agrarian life.

Feminists love rapists, as long their Black or Muslim.

Never thought about it that way before, but I don't have a rebuttal to that one.

I just wanted to make the point that it's reasonable to believe that we have not evolved optimally.

"Optimally" is a normative judgement. We most certainly have not evolved equally, or we wouldn't have differences in skin color, hair color, eye color, and so forth. Each of those differences is arguably optimal for its environment. So it could be said that I'm optimally evolved for Northern Europe, but not for Saharan Africa.

It seems given your argument, assuming human evolution as unchangeable, unless we change our biological nature through technology, we are either doomed to failure in pursuit of a global social democracy, or we will return to what our nature dictates (a cold and competitive market society of heirarchies and patriarchies)

I'm inclined to think the latter. I think the problem isn't social democracy itself. It's the "global" part that is defeating. Socialism isn't optimal for all populations or environments. Europe is now finding that they will have the same racial problems as America has--the same problems they used to look down on us for, but now find themselve too preoccupied with their domestic turmoil to lecture us.

Humans can fall just as easily and I suspect they will actual.

What makes you think humans will fail as a species? To me, that seems to be the flip side of why socialism fails--it's this insistance on humanity as a whole, but nature doesn't operate that way.

If we assume that patriarchy is evolved and that it had survival benefits in the past (neither of these claims have been supported by evidence), there is no reason to assyme it will in the future.

If we don't bother as much with Marxist semantics and look at physical attributes and seek scientific explanations, we need some reason to understand sexual dimorphism--why men are typically physically stronger than women, able to endure aerobic activity at higher rates, why women are better multi-taskers and men are better at solving complex problems, etc. The problem with Marxism is that it is to tied up with ideals of how things should be and doesn't endeavor to understand why things are the way they are beyond class struggles.

When did sexual dimorphism occur? It seems sexual dimorphism in humans including the differences which are psychological, hormonal, and physiological between men and women all tend to support the idea that patriarchy has a biological basis, not merely one in social convention.

Indeed. Women's menstrual cycle plays havoc on their psychology. A spike in estrogen binds to tryptophan hydroxylase and tanks the production of serotonin as a result. "That time of the month" is known for what it is for a very physical reason--although modern leftists deny it to the end even when their is incontrovertible evidence.

Anyway, an interesting event tonight: Florida Democrats nominated a black man for governor.
Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum shocks Democratic rivals, wins nomination for governor
Democrats shocked, according to the Miami Herald.

TALLAHASSEE
Democrat Andrew Gillum rode a surge of liberal support from young people and African Americans to a stunning primary victory Tuesday and the historic opportunity to be the first black governor in Florida’s history.

What will happen to the old and non-African American Democrats that didn't vote for him? Will they embrace the new direction of the Democratic Party, vote Republican, stay home, or ... ?

[Sivad]

Ta-Nehisi Coates is the neoliberal face of the black freedom struggle

Cornel West

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ We Were Eight Years in Power, a book about Barack Obama’s presidency and the tenacity of white supremacy, has captured the attention of many of us. One crucial question is why now in this moment has his apolitical pessimism gained such wide acceptance?

Coates and I come from a great tradition of the black freedom struggle. He represents the neoliberal wing that sounds militant about white supremacy but renders black fightback invisible. This wing reaps the benefits of the neoliberal establishment that rewards silences on issues such as Wall Street greed or Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and people.

The disagreement between Coates and me is clear: any analysis or vision of our world that omits the centrality of Wall Street power, US military policies, and the complex dynamics of class, gender, and sexuality in black America is too narrow and dangerously misleading. So it is with Ta-Nehisi Coates’ worldview.

Coates rightly highlights the vicious legacy of white supremacy – past and present. He sees it everywhere and ever reminds us of its plundering effects. Unfortunately, he hardly keeps track of our fightback, and never connects this ugly legacy to the predatory capitalist practices, imperial policies (of war, occupation, detention, assassination) or the black elite’s refusal to confront poverty, patriarchy or transphobia.

In short, Coates fetishizes white supremacy. He makes it almighty, magical and unremovable. What concerns me is his narrative of “defiance”. For Coates, defiance is narrowly aesthetic – a personal commitment to writing with no connection to collective action. It generates crocodile tears of neoliberals who have no intention of sharing power or giving up privilege.

When he honestly asks: “How do you defy a power that insists on claiming you?”, the answer should be clear: they claim you because you are silent on what is a threat to their order (especially Wall Street and war). You defy them when you threaten that order.

[...]

This presidency, he writes, “opened a market” for a new wave of black pundits, intellectuals, writers and journalists – one that Coates himself has benefited from. And his own literary “dreams” of success were facilitated by a black neoliberal president who ruled for eight years – an example of “Black respectability, good Negro government.”

[...]

Unfortunately, Coates’ allegiance to Obama has produced an impoverished understanding of black history. He reveals this when he writes: “Ossie Davis famously eulogized Malcolm X as ‘our living, Black manhood’ and ‘our own Black shining prince.’ Only one man today could bear those twin honorifics: Barack Obama.”

This gross misunderstanding of who Malcolm X was – the greatest prophetic voice against the American Empire – and who Barack Obama is – the first black head of the American Empire – speaks volumes about Coates’ neoliberal view of the world.

Coates praises Obama as a “deeply moral human being” while remaining silent on the 563 drone strikes, the assassination of US citizens with no trial, the 26,171 bombs dropped on five Muslim-majority countries in 2016 and the 550 Palestinian children killed with US supported planes in 51 days, etc. He calls Obama “one of the greatest presidents in American history,” who for “eight years ... walked on ice and never fell.”

[...]

It is clear that his narrow racial tribalism and myopic political neoliberalism has no place for keeping track of Wall Street greed, US imperial crimes or black elite indifference to poverty. For example, there is no serious attention to the plight of the most vulnerable in our community, the LGBT people who are disproportionately affected by violence, poverty, neglect and disrespect.

I stand with those like Robin DG Kelley, Gerald Horne, Imani Perry and Barbara Ransby who represent the radical wing of the black freedom struggle. We refuse to disconnect white supremacy from the realities of class, empire, and other forms of domination – be it ecological, sexual, or others.

The same cannot be said for Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Cornel West is Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy at Harvard University. He is the author of Race Matters

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ornel-west

[Rich]

That's just an abstraction. Sexual dimorphism obviously predates agrarian life.

It certainly does, it predates homo-sapiens. The point is that we have evolved to have a very low level of sexual dimorphism, 15% in height for example as opposed to 137% in lowland Gorillas. Lefties don't like to talk about this, because West Africans have a higher level of dimorphism than Europeans. You can see this in the way that West African men dominate sprinting events but West African women don't dominate women's sprint events. Humans it should also be noted have large (relative to body size) testicles compared to gorillas, although smaller than chimps. This makes them naturally non-monogamous.

What's the take away? If you're looking for a religion for gorillas, high dimorphism, small testicles and low intelligence, then Islam is an almost perfect fit.

[B0ycey]

What makes you think humans will fail as a species? To me, that seems to be the flip side of why socialism fails--it's this insistance on humanity as a whole, but nature doesn't operate that way.

To predict the future has to be assumption of course. But you can just look at fossil evidence and to see how fragile we are compared to the conditions we require actually. A pandemic, meteorite, nuclear war, hot-house effect etc could end humanity altogether quite easily. Although our mental ability to adapt is quite advanced actually. Nonetheless I think it is quite naive to suggest it will never happen. So it is a question of when. After all, even the Dinosaurs lasted millions of years. We are only here a freckle of time in comparison.

But to the point Rancid made. Naturally medicine and technology is making man evolve weak. Conditions we died from not that many years ago are no longer a factor in todays conditions and these traits are passed on in every generation. So we can survive easily to today's conditions. Whether that is the case in the future depends on the conditions of the future. And this is true for all life. There is nothing special about humans.