Teacher questions appropriateness of pow-wow - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15318731
QatzelOk wrote:We might understand how to buy security, but we humans still have no idea which traits or behaviors will enhance our species' odds of long-term survival.

Previous to Darwin, elites taught everyone that the things you listed above would "enhance humanity's odds of survival" by "pleasing God." Then Darwin came along and demonstrated that this was bullshit. The elites turned around and invented the expression "Social Darwinism" in order to keep their debunked worldview alive-looking. And so many people still fall for it.

But Europeans didn't do something fantastic for humanity by committing genocides while believing it was social darwinism. They did something horrible by eliminating other survival strategies from the human vocabulary. Darwin would say that humanity "narrowed its chances of survival" by eliminating the less violent nations and less technologically-invasive cultures. Humanity lowered its chances of survival, and this is what obsesses me. The victimhood of the First Nations is humanity's victimhood.

Well, Elon Musk has the goal of seeing humanity establish permanent self-sufficient colonies on other planets/moons in the solar system. This is to ensure humanity's survival as a species in case of a natural disaster such as a large asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs, or man-made disaster. Hopefully we survive AI.
#15318734
FiveofSwords wrote:What the hell are you talking about? Natural selection results in a lifeforms adapting to their habitat over time. That is all that I am saying happens in humans.

One thing that amuses me about the Liberals and their Marxist fellow travelers, is they never seem to think very far ahead. So they say we shouldn't be thinking about biological race. Well what if e start thinking about populations instead. So we have a population of so called "African-Americans". Under weird American labelling. If your parents moved from Tunis to the United States before you were born, you don't count as an African-American. Even if your parents are moved from the Congo and are very dark skinned you still don't really count as an African-American.

So African American means descended from African slaves, preferably United States African slaves. I don't think anyone would call this population a separate race distinct from the races of Africa. This population is not successful relative to other US populations. It performs poorly academically, it has on average lower SATs scores and they earn less. They also have less capital. They own less. Now the Liberals say these poor outcomes must be the fault of evil White racists. However what the Liberals never seem to consider is that the conditions of slavery may have created quite different selection pressures to that for non slaves and that the genetic profile of a population can be shifted in quite significant ways in even a few generations.

This is also something to consider for social class. Prior to the twentieth century, selection pressures must surly have differed significantly depending on social class.
#15318738
Rich wrote:One thing that amuses me about the Liberals and their Marxist fellow travelers, is they never seem to think very far ahead. So they say we shouldn't be thinking about biological race. Well what if e start thinking about populations instead. So we have a population of so called "African-Americans". Under weird American labelling. If your parents moved from Tunis to the United States before you were born, you don't count as an African-American. Even if your parents are moved from the Congo and are very dark skinned you still don't really count as an African-American.

So African American means descended from African slaves, preferably United States African slaves. I don't think anyone would call this population a separate race distinct from the races of Africa. This population is not successful relative to other US populations. It performs poorly academically, it has on average lower SATs scores and they earn less. They also have less capital. They own less. Now the Liberals say these poor outcomes must be the fault of evil White racists. However what the Liberals never seem to consider is that the conditions of slavery may have created quite different selection pressures to that for non slaves and that the genetic profile of a population can be shifted in quite significant ways in even a few generations.

The main reason seems to be the cultural and social legacy of slavery and its associated ideology of systemic racism. After all, the entire human race is descended from Africans, relatively recently, so they can’t be too far off the average human intelligence. And natural selection doesn’t work that quickly on humans, @Rich.

This is also something to consider for social class. Prior to the twentieth century, selection pressures must surly have differed significantly depending on social class.

Indeed, and such pressures probably operated to make the working classes smarter and more ruthless, and the upper classes stupider and softer. HG Wells reached the same conclusion, and invented the Morlocks and the Eloi to illustrate where he thought we were heading in the future….
#15318746
Unthinking Majority wrote:All indigenous societies in Canada pre-1492 were illiterate, they didn't have an alphabet or similar writing systems.


This is not a verifiable statement and there is evidence that some Indigenous communities had writing before colonialism.

They had art and oral histories, but that's not the same as a printing press to spread knowledge. They were still using stone-age technology. That isn't their fault, its not because they are racially or culturally inferior or less intelligent, it's because of geography and climate and circumstance.


We were discussing education and economics.

Technology levels on some mythical video game civilization ladder is not relevant.

They had a subsistent hunter-gatherer economy in 1492.


No. While many groups engaged i. hunting and gathering, the economics was far more advanced than that.

For example, you are incorrect to use the word economy since it is singular and there were many economies at the time, which can be shown by the vast amount of trading that went on.

Compared to Europe and Asia and many parts of Africa they were much poorer at the time and well behind in technology. Indigenous people may or may not have more wealth today had no country ever colonized the Americas. It's impossible to say. They would have far more access to land and natural resources, but someone would also have to build the roads, railroads, power plants, and all other infrastructure and had the education to do it.


Since we know the USA is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and since we know their wealth came from colonialism, it is logical to assume that this wealth would have remained in Indigenous hands and NA Indigenous communities would have been comparatively wealthy.

Once some indigenous groups got their hands on firearms and better transportation via trade some groups likely would have started attacking and conquering the weaker groups (especially ones without guns) for domination and power, including some genocides. It would have been a bloodbath filled with war not any different than any other part of the world throughout history. That's just how the world and nature works without a strong central government to enforce rules and peace, which the Americas obviously didn't have, it was made up of a large number of competing societies including some empires like the Aztecs, who were not exactly humanitarians to their neighbours. So not having European colonialism would have traded one set of problems for another set of problems. The final results are unknown.


And now we are in the usual white person fantasy/nightmare where all non-whites are violent and savage.
#15318755
Rich wrote:One thing that amuses me about the Liberals and their Marxist fellow travelers, is they never seem to think very far ahead. So they say we shouldn't be thinking about biological race. Well what if e start thinking about populations instead. So we have a population of so called "African-Americans". Under weird American labelling. If your parents moved from Tunis to the United States before you were born, you don't count as an African-American. Even if your parents are moved from the Congo and are very dark skinned you still don't really count as an African-American.

So African American means descended from African slaves, preferably United States African slaves. I don't think anyone would call this population a separate race distinct from the races of Africa. This population is not successful relative to other US populations. It performs poorly academically, it has on average lower SATs scores and they earn less. They also have less capital. They own less. Now the Liberals say these poor outcomes must be the fault of evil White racists. However what the Liberals never seem to consider is that the conditions of slavery may have created quite different selection pressures to that for non slaves and that the genetic profile of a population can be shifted in quite significant ways in even a few generations.

This is also something to consider for social class. Prior to the twentieth century, selection pressures must surly have differed significantly depending on social class.


Oh they suddenly love genetics when you are talking about european royalty. Every 'educated' leftoid knows about genetic risks associated with the European upper class...such as hemophilia for the anglos and hapsberg jaw for the germans. But they will pretend genetics doesn't exist when someone like myself simply suggests that maybe all races cannot thrive in the exact same environment. This is how you know you should never take them seriously and 'debating' them is never worth it.
#15318765
QatzelOk wrote:We might understand how to buy security, but we humans still have no idea which traits or behaviors will enhance our species' odds of long-term survival.

Previous to Darwin, elites taught everyone that the things you listed above would "enhance humanity's odds of survival" by "pleasing God." Then Darwin came along and demonstrated that this was bullshit. The elites turned around and invented the expression "Social Darwinism" in order to keep their debunked worldview alive-looking. And so many people still fall for it.

But Europeans didn't do something fantastic for humanity by committing genocides while believing it was social darwinism. They did something horrible by eliminating other survival strategies from the human vocabulary. Darwin would say that humanity "narrowed its chances of survival" by eliminating the less violent nations and less technologically-invasive cultures. Humanity lowered its chances of survival, and this is what obsesses me. The victimhood of the First Nations is humanity's victimhood.


Back to Darwin please...

When a person takes over your house by aggressing the family inside it with a flame-thrower (the way Europeans took over the Americas using genocide), that same house is likely to eventually burn down on top of its new owner. That flame-thrower tech person had the technology to kill - not the technology to save. His killing technology will also kill him - not prolong his survival Darwin-style.

The Europeans were excellent killers. So good that the entire Earth might soon die of them and their wonderful technological world. This doesn't enhance our security at all.

So we're back to Darwin's idea that "Natural" selection means that humans like us don't have a clue what attributes will enhance our species' chance of survival. Nuclear weapons and climate change certainly won't help our species survive. So why are you still harping on about how superior these "ways" were? Do you believe that our extinction is the ultimate progressive act?

Do you believe in race or what, dude? Here you are talking about survival strategies and evolutionary biology. That is exactly what I was talking about when you disagree. No, if it is all culture then you lose nothing at all when you exterminate other races. Because anyone can just decid3 to be their culture whenever they like. If, however, you DO believe in a biological component to race like I do, then stop trying to disagree with me.
#15318771
FiveofSwords wrote:Do you believe in race or what, dude? Here you are talking about survival strategies and evolutionary biology. That is exactly what I was talking about when you disagree. No, if it is all culture then you lose nothing at all when you exterminate other races. Because anyone can just decid3 to be their culture whenever they like. If, however, you DO believe in a biological component to race like I do, then stop trying to disagree with me.

Survival strategies are all about culture, not genetics, @FiveofSwords. Human populations culturally adapt to their environment. Almost all adaptations are cultural; these adaptions actually generate the variety of cultures we see across the human population. The Tibetans live in an extreme environment, which is why they benefit from a particular gene helping them to live at high altitudes. But they are an outlier. Most humans don’t genetically adapt to an environment, they culturally adapt to it. If it’s cold outside, we don’t wait to evolve thicker body hair, we just put a coat on. Lol.
#15318781
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not a verifiable statement and there is evidence that some Indigenous communities had writing before colonialism.

You can believe what you wish. Regardless, it was significantly less advanced than Eurasia. For indigenous of the Americas to compete in a globalized economic and political world they would have to reach similar levels of literacy and education in 2024. Illiterate societies becoming as educated and technologically and economically as advanced and thus powerful as the West within 500 years is virtually impossible. There's a reason why the only societies in the world that can compete on par with the West economically are located in parts of Asia. It's the same reason why many of these parts of Asia weren't colonized by Europe.

We were discussing education and economics.

Technology levels on some mythical video game civilization ladder is not relevant.

No the discussion is on survivability, adaptability, and Darwinisn when it comes to humans. Technology is a key tool humans use to adapt to their environment to increase surivability. Natural immunity to "germs" is also important.

No. While many groups engaged i. hunting and gathering, the economics was far more advanced than that.

Yes they had trade. Regardless, they were far poorer than Eurasia due to "guns, germs, steel" theory.

Since we know the USA is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and since we know their wealth came from colonialism, it is logical to assume that this wealth would have remained in Indigenous hands and NA Indigenous communities would have been comparatively wealthy.

The wealth of the USA came from resources, geography, climate, country-wide political stability, education, technology. Since NA indigenous communities were significantly less advanced in the latter categories than the British and later immigrant groups it's unreasonable to assume they would be comparatively wealthy today.

And now we are in the usual white person fantasy/nightmare where all non-whites are violent and savage.

Strawman, I never said that. What I said is that all human societies are violent, and indigenous NA are no exception. Especially when they're in competition with each other for the same resources and there's no central government to enforce laws/contracts, and thus peaceful rules-based relations between humans and groups. This was a goal of organizations like the UN and WTO, which have unfortunately have had serious problems with enforcing their laws/rules/contracts because there's no strong central enforcement mechanism to adequately punish cheaters. Since this didn't exist in NA before colonialism, war between indigenous groups would have continued as it always had but been even more deadly with the addition of guns and other technology that can be used in war. Yes i'm aware that alliances between some groups existed, but alliances also existed in Europe right before WW1 and WW2.

Actually I think you believe, like some others on the left, in the racist "noble savage" myth/fantasy that whites are uniquely violent while indigenous societies aren't or were/are less so.
#15318806
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well, Elon Musk has the goal of seeing humanity establish permanent self-sufficient colonies on other planets/moons in the solar system. This is to ensure humanity's survival as a species in case of a natural disaster such as a large asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs, or man-made disaster. Hopefully we survive AI.

Billionaires have a similar view of the world as 10-year-old boys do.

Both think that they are immortal. But young boys grow out of this.

If you think our nuclear technology, space travel, and oil use... have brought us closer to survival... then you and I disagree strongly on what creates the conditions of long-term survival. Technology is like cocaine: it makes you temporarily stronger, wittier, more alive... but ultimately destroys you.

You are still promoting cocaine as a form of progress, and you have demeaned the non-cocaine-using First Nations as being backwards in some way. Really?
#15318815
QatzelOk wrote:Billionaires have a similar view of the world as 10-year-old boys do.

Both think that they are immortal. But young boys grow out of this.

If you think our nuclear technology, space travel, and oil use... have brought us closer to survival... then you and I disagree strongly on what creates the conditions of long-term survival. Technology is like cocaine: it makes you temporarily stronger, wittier, more alive... but ultimately destroys you.

You are still promoting cocaine as a form of progress, and you have demeaned the non-cocaine-using First Nations as being backwards in some way. Really?

I've not demeaned indigenous people, nor have I said they're "backwards".

Note that humans don't act as a species. We act as individuals and groups of people. Humans are trying to survive. Tribes, such as countries, are trying to survive vis a vis others. And they have to compete over limited resources with other individuals and groups for that survival.

Indigenous people were not "backwards" in 1492. They ran into other groups of people who had better weapon technology than they did, and they did not have natural immunity or medicine technology for their diseases. Darwinism is brutal and deadly and merciless: you either adapt or you suffer or die. If you can think of a way to go back in time and prevent everyone in the world from building a sharper spear then i'm all ears.

Humans have free will in order to try to adapt to their environment. Some people will be unable to manage their use of video games or smartphones and become addicted. They'll stay inside and won't meet a mate or procreate. Their genes and habits will die with them. Others will be able to limit their screentime and use these tools to better their lives. They will meet mates and procreate and pass on their genes and habits and adaptations to their offspring. Darwinism.
#15318817
Potemkin wrote:Survival strategies are all about culture, not genetics, @FiveofSwords. Human populations culturally adapt to their environment. Almost all adaptations are cultural; these adaptions actually generate the variety of cultures we see across the human population. The Tibetans live in an extreme environment, which is why they benefit from a particular gene helping them to live at high altitudes. But they are an outlier. Most humans don’t genetically adapt to an environment, they culturally adapt to it. If it’s cold outside, we don’t wait to evolve thicker body hair, we just put a coat on. Lol.


Dude...this is so braindead. Yeah...your culture and your technology is part of your environment. And yet natural selection continues. There were massive genetic changes to humans following the Neolithic revolutions in various parts of the world, for example. Just basic biology.

The brain, manual dexteririty, etc of humans diverged drastically from our distant primate ancestors because of our survival strategy of making as using tools. Over generations of following such a strategy, the reproductive pressures of such a strategy directed our genetics...
#15318819
Potemkin wrote:Survival strategies are all about culture, not genetics, @FiveofSwords. Human populations culturally adapt to their environment. Almost all adaptations are cultural; these adaptions actually generate the variety of cultures we see across the human population. The Tibetans live in an extreme environment, which is why they benefit from a particular gene helping them to live at high altitudes. But they are an outlier. Most humans don’t genetically adapt to an environment, they culturally adapt to it. If it’s cold outside, we don’t wait to evolve thicker body hair, we just put a coat on. Lol.


You keep assuming that there is real discernment between cultural adaptation strategies and biological adaptations for a fool who keeps thinking he knows everything about human culture when he does not.

Lol. It is hopeless. Even if you explain it clearly he will not accept it because it contradicts that thing that is about race determines everything that is of importance.

You see now why I say dealing with racists and racism is very very tiring? It is. They do not go out of that box. For anything. If they did they have to stop being racists. And if they do that? It means they have to stop trying to understand the world in literally black vs white. They have to try to understand complexity. They can't do it Pote.

It is very tiring. ;)
#15318821
Tainari88 wrote:You keep assuming that there is real discernment between cultural adaptation strategies and biological adaptations for a fool who keeps thinking he knows everything about human culture when he does not.

Lol. It is hopeless. Even if you explain it clearly he will not accept it because it contradicts that thing that is about race determines everything that is of importance.

You see now why I say dealing with racists and racism is very very tiring? It is. They do not go out of that box. For anything. If they did they have to stop being racists. And if they do that? It means they have to stop trying to understand the world in literally black vs white. They have to try to understand complexity. They can't do it Pote.

It is very tiring. ;)

I’m beginning to understand what you meant, querida. They’ve climbed inside a cardboard box and they’re not coming out…. Lol. ;)
#15318829
Potemkin wrote:Survival strategies are all about culture, not genetics, @FiveofSwords. Human populations culturally adapt to their environment...

Although you were called "braindead" for writing this, and you are definitely not that, there are problems with this post.

1. First of all, while survival "strategies" are obviously cultural (strategy can't be biological)... survival itself is a combination of strategies and naturally-occurring genetics.

The First Nations died of smallpox (genetics) but were also intentionally targetted (strategy).

It's obviously important to have a survival strategy, but genetics (over which you have no control of what constitutes survival genetics) play a major role as well. Genetics doesn't equal race, however. But genetics makes some humans more likely to survive particular traumas, and strategies can also help some humans to deal with the things that nature throws their way.

2. Secondly, humans don't always adapt to their environment. Technologies have been created to force the environment to adapt to human desires, and this is the exact opposite of what Darwin said would increase our species' odds of long-term survival.
#15318834
QatzelOk wrote:Although you were called "braindead" for writing this, and you are definitely not that, there are problems with this post.

1. First of all, while survival "strategies" are obviously cultural (strategy can't be biological)... survival itself is a combination of strategies and naturally-occurring genetics.

The First Nations died of smallpox (genetics) but were also intentionally targetted (strategy).

It's obviously important to have a survival strategy, but genetics (over which you have no control of what constitutes survival genetics) play a major role as well. Genetics doesn't equal race, however. But genetics makes some humans more likely to survive particular traumas, and strategies can also help some humans to deal with the things that nature throws their way.

And Africa became known as “the white man’s graveyard” because of their lack of immunity to African diseases. What’s your point?

2. Secondly, humans don't always adapt to their environment. Technologies have been created to force the environment to adapt to human desires, and this is the exact opposite of what Darwin said would increase our species' odds of long-term survival.

Without technology - without toolmaking and changing our environment to suit our needs - the human race would not have survived beyond our Homo Habilis stage. Growing a bigger brain and chipping away at flakes of stone is our most fundamental survival strategy, and it’s a technological strategy. As soon as the first hominin made the first handaxe, the ultimate development of factories, nuclear weapons and space rockets became only a matter of time. The combination of a culture which can be passed on from generation to generation and a technological survival strategy made our present world inevitable.
#15318837
Potemkin wrote:And Africa became known as “the white man’s graveyard” because of their lack of immunity to African diseases. What’s your point?


Without technology - without toolmaking and changing our environment to suit our needs - the human race would not have survived beyond our Homo Habilis stage. Growing a bigger brain and chipping away at flakes of stone is our most fundamental survival strategy, and it’s a technological strategy. As soon as the first hominin made the first handaxe, the ultimate development of factories, nuclear weapons and space rockets became only a matter of time. The combination of a culture which can be passed on from generation to generation and a technological survival strategy made our present world inevitable.

You seem to think humans are the only animal that uses tools.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/world/se ... index.html

When are orters making nukes?
#15318838
FiveofSwords wrote:You seem to think humans are the only animal that uses tools.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/world/se ... index.html

When are orters making nukes?

Otters have no culture, @FiveofSwords. They are genetically programmed to open shells in that way. And beavers are genetically programmed to build dams. They don’t know why they are doing it, they don’t sit around planning the construction of a dam and drawing up blueprints, they just build it because they feel compelled to build it. It will never lead on to anything else, because there is no need for it to do so. This is why I keep insisting that humans culturally adapt to their environment (and adapt their environment to themselves) - we have a language, which enables us to pass on our cultural adaptations to our descendents. For the animals, every generation is the first generation, but humans have a history. It is the combination of a culture that can be transmitted through time and toolmaking as the primary survival strategy which has made us the masters of the Earth. For now, at least.
#15318839
QatzelOk wrote:Although you were called "braindead" for writing this, and you are definitely not that, there are problems with this post.

1. First of all, while survival "strategies" are obviously cultural (strategy can't be biological)... survival itself is a combination of strategies and naturally-occurring genetics.

The First Nations died of smallpox (genetics) but were also intentionally targetted (strategy).

It's obviously important to have a survival strategy, but genetics (over which you have no control of what constitutes survival genetics) play a major role as well. Genetics doesn't equal race, however. But genetics makes some humans more likely to survive particular traumas, and strategies can also help some humans to deal with the things that nature throws their way.

2. Secondly, humans don't always adapt to their environment. Technologies have been created to force the environment to adapt to human desires, and this is the exact opposite of what Darwin said would increase our species' odds of long-term survival.

Why can't strategy be biological?
#15318841
Potemkin wrote:Otters have no culture, @FiveofSwords. They are genetically programmed to open shells in that way. And beavers are genetically programmed to build dams. They don’t know why they are doing it, they don’t sit around planning the construction of a dam and drawing up blueprints, they just build it because they feel compelled to build it. It will never lead on to anything else, because there is no need for it to do so. This is why I keep insisting that humans culturally adapt to their environment (and adapt their environment to themselves) - we have a language, which enables us to pass on our cultural adaptations to our descendents. For the animals, every generation is the first generation, but humans have a history. It is the combination of a culture that can be transmitted through time and toolmaking as the primary survival strategy which has made us the masters of the Earth. For now, at least.


So now you are suggesting it is language, not tools. Well the human propensity for language is also genetic. And we can literally give our propensity to other animals via genetic engineering https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34342113/
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

The Liberal hysteria about a Trump dictatorship pr[…]

The Chechens committed the warcrimes in Bucha beca[…]

The Nazis were aware of the fact Europe is a littl[…]

Elderly falling into homelessness

Nah, to deal with this debt stock the government […]