The necessity of Pan-Humanism

[humanist]

In our earliest history, so far as we can tell, individuals held to an allegiance toward their immediate tribal group, which may have numbered no more than ten or twenty individuals, all of whom were related by consanguinity. As time went on, the need for cooperative behaviour--in the hunting of large animals or large herds, in agriculture, and in the development of cities--forced human beings into larger and larger groups. The group that was identified with, the tribal unit, enlarged at each stage of evolution. Today, a particular instant in the 4.5-billion-year history of Earth and in the several-million-year history of mankind, most human beings owe their primary allegiance to the nation-state (although some of the most dangerous political problems still arise from tribal conflicts involving smaller population units).

Many visionary leaders have imagined a time when the allegiance of an individual human being is not to his particular nation-state, religion, race, or economic group, but to mankind as a whole; when the benefit to a human being of another sex, race, religion, or political persuasion ten thousand miles away is as precious to us as to our neighbour or our brother. The trend is in this direction, but it is aganozingly slow. There is a serious question whether such a global self-identification of mankind can be achieved before we destroy ourselves with the technological forces our intelligence has unleashed.

I believe the difficulty we all experience is extending our identification horizons. Human history is filled with monstrous cases of tiny differences -- in skin pigmentation, or abtruse theological speculation, or manner of dress and hair style--being the acuse of harassment, enslavement, and murder.

-- Carl Sagan

[Fade the Butcher]

The trend is in this direction, but it is aganozingly slow.

The trend is not in that direction. Unlike previous transitions (i.e., tribe to ethnos, ethnos to state, state to race), pan-humanism would require that the concept of the enemy be dispensed with altogether, as all human beings would belong to the same unit on account of their humanity. In reality, pan-humanism is just another particularism, cosmopolitanism in disguise, that takes as its essential other those who have different collective allegiences (i.e., racialists, nationalists, religious followers etc).

[jcs]

The trend is not in that direction. Unlike previous transitions (i.e., tribe to ethnos, ethnos to state, state to race), pan-humanism would require that the concept of the enemy be dispensed with altogether, as all human beings would belong to the same unit on account of their humanity. In reality, pan-humanism is just another particularism, cosmopolitanism in disguise, that takes as its essential other those who have different collective allegiences (i.e., racialists, nationalists, religious followers etc).
Correct. Adversity creates unity: the origin of the idea of 'friendship' with those with whom one is unfamiliar, 'friendship' as the consequence of being united with other people behind some abstraction, is a survival need to respond to an enemy.

Pan-humanism cannot come to pass unless:
-too many people cave in to memes created by capitalist and political advertising (that is, people catering to the masses, trying to do so efficiently by uniting various demographics)
OR
-we come across some alien species that wants to destroy us.

[Ahknaton]

The group that was identified with, the tribal unit, enlarged at each stage of evolution. Today, a particular instant in the 4.5-billion-year history of Earth and in the several-million-year history of mankind, most human beings owe their primary allegiance to the nation-state (although some of the most dangerous political problems still arise from tribal conflicts involving smaller population units).Phrased like that, racists are more "evolved" than simple patriotic nationalists, because they are identifying with a larger unit of allegiance. It seems though that it's all-or-nothing: you have to make the jump from nation-state to global humanitarian in one leap, you're not "allowed" to tarry at the level of racial identification.

[jcs]

humanist,
You should read Industrial Society and Its Future by Kaczynski and Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard (or maybe some of his other writings; this is the only one I've learned anything about). Man cannot feel emotions for those with whom he is unfamiliar on any meaningful level, and the modern global mentality results in a lot of neuroses. Humanism asks us to love an imaginary person for the sake of an abstraction. Human psychology is of evolutionary origin: our brains have been 'naturally selected' to have altruistic tendencies--but only toward nepotistic ends (we also have an inherently nepotistic nature). Why are we kind at all?--because those of our ancestors who had a natural tendency to be kind kept those who had similar genes alive.
Evolutionarily, humanism is nonsense unless we're confronted with an 'other' with which man must compete.

[Petyr Baelish]

Nowhere in Sagan's rant, eloquent as it may be, is a persuasive argument offered for just why pan-humanism is 'necessary'. More importantly, in an ironic twist on the word's etimology, pan-humanism is completely antithetical to human nature; taken to its logical conclusion it implies such absurdities as that human beings are ethically obligated to treat strangers' children with the exact amount of affection and devotion as their own, that they should love people they've never heard of as much as they do their mothers, etc... What Sagan derisively refers to as 'tribalism' is simply an extension of the very essence of social organization and the defining feature of human social nature; family loyalty, rooted in millions of years of biological evolution. Finally, although this is not directly relevant to his argument per se, Sagan was very proud of his Jewish identity and thus was a hypocrite guilty of the very same 'primitive tribalism' he so vehemently scorned.

[Roland]

He is also no doubt under the influence of Darwinism applied as a world view. For Sagan, history is a system progressing towards absolute economic efficiency where irrational tribalism becomes an obstacle to evolution. His crypto-Marxism is apparent. However, those who attempt to refute Sagan by pointing to another genuine, true, or "natural" path of humans are similarly guilty. When one says that the "other" as enemy is necessary for existence; or when one says that human nature contradicts humanism, one is situating their self in the same boat of modernity that Sagan too is a passenger of.

[jcs]

When one says that the "other" as enemy is necessary for existence; or when one says that human nature contradicts humanism, one is situating their self in the same boat of modernity that Sagan too is a passenger of.
You will have to demonstrate that such things are 'in the same boat of modernity'; that is, explain precisely how this is the case.

[Fade the Butcher]

When one says that the "other" as enemy is necessary for existence; or when one says that human nature contradicts humanism, one is situating their self in the same boat of modernity that Sagan too is a passenger of.

I said that pan-humanism would necessarily have to render the concept of the enemy obsolete, as it posits a friendship of all human beings. This only seems problematic though if we take pan-humanism at face value. It is really just good old fashioned cosmopolitanism; which, I might add, is hardly unique to modernity. The enemy of the cosmopolitan has always been the parochial.

[Ahknaton]

Like most nationalists, I'm "pan-humanist" in the narrow sense that I accept that all human beings, by virtue of being human beings, have inherent rights, such as the right to live free from tyranny, and the collective right to sovereign self-determination. However I do not accept collective responsibility to uphold these rights across the world, merely the moral correctness of insisiting on these rights for myself and my own people, and the moral obligation to acknowledge the validity of similar claims made by others.

I don't think that a strong sense of allegiance/identity with a particular ethno-national identity implies the hatred of an "other" outside this identity, or that such antagonisms are necessary to cement group unity.

Having strong loyalties short of the entire mass of humanity makes sense on a practical level, because it directs your energies to your immediate environment (i.e. family, community, nation) where efforts to improve the lot of your fellow man are of a more immediate and practical nature. The net effect of "everyone is my brother" is that "no-one is my brother". Having a network of particular organic connections to certain other human beings (e.g. family, friends, community) is part of what gives us a sense of belonging and makes us human. It doesn't necessitate hate for the "out group", unless you're the kind of person who looks at a parent feeding their child as "neglecting the other 5,999,999,998 members of the human family". If everyone looked after their kin, the world would be tickety-boo.

I see no reason why all of humanity can't live in peace in their respective nations, celebrating their own particular uniquess and identity, and respecting the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Utopian perhaps, but then so is Pan-Humanism.

[Ixtab]

The cosmopolite (and the pan-humanist) belongs to all nations and no nation.

[Petyr Baelish]

He is also no doubt under the influence of Darwinism applied as a world view.

Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact, not a "worldview" - to say that is is a worldview (by which I assume you mean "'ideology') makes about as much sense as saying that the theory of gravity is a 'worldview'. To say that cosmopolitanist ideologies attempt to ignore or subvert the biological underpinnings of human nature is a value-neutral statement of fact, nothing more.

as For Sagan, history is a system progressing towards absolute economic efficiency where irrational tribalism becomes an obstacle to evolution.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution, to which I was alluding.

However, those who attempt to refute Sagan by pointing to another genuine, true, or "natural" path of humans are similarly guilty. When one says that the "other" as enemy is necessary for existence; or when one says that human nature contradicts humanism, one is situating their self in the same boat of modernity that Sagan too is a passenger of.

Prove this claim.

[Ixtab]

Like most nationalists, I'm "pan-humanist" in the narrow sense that I accept that all human beings, by virtue of being human beings, have inherent rights, such as the right to live free from tyranny, and the collective right to sovereign self-determination. H'm, yes, to think of it, a true pan-humanism would have to be a "nationalism of all nations".

[humanist]

What all of you fail to realise is the simply truth: A divided species is a warring species, and a species that is constantly working to exterminate cannot hope for a continued existence. It is instead doomed to remain within the self-nullifying squabbling cycle, as history has shown, until an ultimate end is rendered. Breaking people of these divisive traditions, it could be argued, can not be done without the application of a universal social discipline, as opposed to the fragmented social discipline that is currently being used.

[Ahknaton]

What all of you fail to realise is the simply truth: A divided species is a warring species, and a species that is constantly working to exterminate cannot hope for a continued existence. It is instead doomed to remain within the self-nullifying squabbling cycle, as history has shown, until an ultimate end is rendered.Division does not necessarily equal war. In fact, many conflicts (e.g. the former Yugoslavia) have been resolved by separating the warring parties and giving each their own nation state. Also, many conflicts in post-colonial Africa are the result of trying to meld several distinct and competing tribal groups into artificial nation states created at the arbitrary stroke of a pen. In these cases, separation would actually lessen conflict. In nature as in society, putting members of different species (or subspecies) into the same environment leads to competition and conflict over limited resources, until one drives out the other or attains dominance.
Breaking people of these divisive traditions, it could be argued, can not be done without the application of a universal social discipline, as opposed to the fragmented social discipline that is currently being used.The problem with this is that as a result of unequal genetic abilities, different races are unequal in their ability to live up to the standard of behaviour required by this "universal social discipline", so the enforcement of the rules is always unequally applied (e.g. Whites being held to higher standards of behaviour) for fear of creating "racist" outcomes. If this "fragmented" social discipline was discontinued then racial differences would be even more apparent, and racial tensions would be exacerbated. Ergo, separation is the answer.

[Fade the Butcher]

What all of you fail to realise is the simply truth: A divided species is a warring species, and a species that is constantly working to exterminate cannot hope for a continued existence.

I take it all of previous history in which the human race has remained disunited has been some kind of fluke.

It is instead doomed to remain within the self-nullifying squabbling cycle, as history has shown, until an ultimate end is rendered.

We don't have to unite with Somalia or Guinea to make progress. In fact, redirecting our resources away from productive projects and towards uplifting stone age Africans would be a positive burden upon us. Progress isn't raising the lowest common denominator. It is about striving to attain ever higher levels of excellence.

Breaking people of these divisive traditions, it could be argued, can not be done without the application of a universal social discipline, as opposed to the fragmented social discipline that is currently being used.

We don't need a universal social discipline. It makes no sense to treat unequals as equals.

[Hannify]

I have a fundamental problem with this type of monist, universalist claim. It always seems to have to do with categories, something like:

Every person is a human being
We are all the same kind of thing
I am stupid.

The problem is that this thinking can be telescoped out infinitely. Every organic creature is alive, therefore we are all the same type of thing. Every object is made of matter, therefore we are all the same type of thing. Eventually there doesn't seem to be any grounds for distinguishing between a coffee cup and and a person.

Globalists and "human unity" advocates have just arbitrarily selected (or created) a category and ascribed that category with the highest importance. There is never any argumentation behind why the category of "human" is better than the category of "Chinese" or "mammal," and I'm getting pretty tired of it all.

So:

Breaking people of these divisive traditions, it could be argued, can not be done without the application of a universal social discipline, as opposed to the fragmented social discipline that is currently being used.

Yes, this could be argued. Why don't you give it a shot?

[humanist]

The problem with this is that as a result of unequal genetic abilities, different races are unequal in their ability to live up to the standard of behaviourWe don't need a universal social discipline. It makes no sense to treat unequals as equals.

Of course, this is utter nonsense. Humankind are all evolved from exactly the same "racial" stock; they share more than 99% of their genetic material with one another. This has not altered in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. This is farther compounded by the nigh-extinction of humankind which occoured in the remote past, which reduced the global human population to the mere tens of thousands. The whole conception of "race" is, and has ever been, an erroneous science, that was concocted for the sole purpose of reinforcing primitive tribalisms (such as ethnicity). There are, it is true, socially unimportant observable biological trends whereon humankind have constructed social groupings, but these are wholly superficial, and, what is more, all of humankind carry the vast majority of those genes anyways. The issue has only to do with that which is dormant and that which is active. This is not to mention that 99 per cent of that smaller-than-one-percentile genetic variation amongst humankind (what humans in their ignorance classify by "race") is nought but an adaptation to climatic circumstances. Particularly, differing degrees of exposure to sun radiation, resulting in differences in melanin level, in addition to barometric differentiation (which effect distribution of fat, and so on); none whereof affect the human brain in any way, shape, nore form.

And besides, the whole issue becomes moot in the coming age of genetic engineering. We shall presently be able to pick and choose those genes which we want active and those which we want not active, making all tribalism, all racial loyalities, impossible and obsolete!

[Petr]

And besides, the whole issue becomes moot in the coming age of genetic engineering. We shall presently be able to pick and choose those genes which we want active and those which we want not active, making all tribalism, all racial loyalities, impossible and obsolete!

I have actually thought about this possibility. This is something racialist conservatives should deeply ponder about if they think that evolutionist ideology is their friend.

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19226&page=2&highlight=marxist+eugenics


Gene Expression has a piece on this theme, on how the development of technology has made Lysenkoan doctrines on the superiority of environmental conditioning (nurture, including alteration of genes) over inherited genes (nature) once again a serious alternative:


"Once we can artificially increase intelligence and change behavior, I predict that three factions will emerge. The first will be a commingling of the far right and the far left. While the far right's embrace of eugenics has been well documented, the far left may appear to be strongly opposed to such a notion. I submit that this is simply an illusion. Fundamentally, Marxism is committed to the reshaping of man through radical changes in the environment as promulgated by Lysenko. However, such radical changes were never enough to alter the nature of man. As E.O. Wilson famously said in reference to the evolutionary success of ant colonies, "It would appear that socialism really works under some circumstances. Karl Marx just had the wrong species." It is thus the bulwark of human nature that has served as a barricade against extremism.

"In my opinion, the reason that "genetic" is a bad word in universities today is that it is synonymous with "immutable" and is thus anathema to extreme nurturists. Once genetic engineering is demonstrated to succeed, those who opposed IQ testing and sociobiology out of pique over the "unfairness" of inborn differences will change their positions overnight. The last barricade will have fallen. Even the human genome will become a potential playground for extremists, and we will have to closely watch their actions."

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003555.html


If I have understood correctly, one of the main ideas of original Marxism was that the development of technology ("means of production") in the 19th century had reduced the traditional social structures hopelessly old-fashioned.

Could the genetic technology (on a Frankenstein mode) once again give Marxists an opportunity to proclaim that traditional genetic structures of man are on their way to the dustbin of history? Genetic neo-Marxism?



Petr

[Hannify]

And besides, the whole issue becomes moot in the coming age of genetic engineering. We shall presently be able to pick and choose those genes which we want active and those which we want not active, making all tribalism, all racial loyalities, impossible and obsolete!

Sounds awesome. Do you want your serial number on your forehead or on your genitals?

This is an absurd assertion, by the way. Genetic engineering will certainly cost money. Probably a lot of money. Only the rich will reap the benefits. Economic tribalism is still tribalism. Do you really think that these newly created, perfect human beings will not self-identify and seperate from the ugly, the genetically diseased, the mentally inferior, etc.? You are talking about a technological revolution fundamentally altering the nature of human psychology.

[Ahknaton]

Of course, this is utter nonsense. Humankind are all evolved from exactly the same "racial" stock; they share more than 99% of their genetic material with one another. This has not altered in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. This is farther compounded by the nigh-extinction of humankind which occoured in the remote past, which reduced the global human population to the mere tens of thousands. The whole conception of "race" is, and has ever been, an erroneous science, that was concocted for the sole purpose of reinforcing primitive tribalisms (such as ethnicity). There are, it is true, socially unimportant observable biological trends whereon humankind have constructed social groupings, but these are wholly superficial, and, what is more, all of humankind carry the vast majority of those genes anyways. The issue has only to do with that which is dormant and that which is active. This is not to mention that 99 per cent of that smaller-than-one-percentile genetic variation amongst humankind (what humans in their ignorance classify by "race") is nought but an adaptation to climatic circumstances. Particularly, differing degrees of exposure to sun radiation, resulting in differences in melanin level, in addition to barometric differentiation (which effect distribution of fat, and so on); none whereof affect the human brain in any way, shape, nore form.
In short, this is Lewontin's thesis that race is a "social construct" and that all human populations are basically genetically near-identical with the exception of superficial external differences. And, in short, it has been thoroughly scientifically debunked and refuted:

A Family Tree in Every Gene (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/)

The money quote:
Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from—and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.

Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many—a few hundred—variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.

See also: http://racialreality.shorturl.com/

And besides, the whole issue becomes moot in the coming age of genetic engineering. We shall presently be able to pick and choose those genes which we want active and those which we want not active, making all tribalism, all racial loyalities, impossible and obsolete!
This is actually something about which I somewhat agree with you. However eugenics has gotten such a bad rap from it's association with Naziism that I doubt it will ever become politically acceptable as long as the left/liberal status quo remains in place. In any case, why do you see the abolition of distinct races and culture as a good thing? Shouldn't we be trying to preserve this treasure trove of human diversity that God and nature has gifted us with?

[Fade the Butcher]

Of course, this is utter nonsense.

Are you claiming that all human beings are inherently equal in their faculties?

Humankind are all evolved from exactly the same "racial" stock; they share more than 99% of their genetic material with one another.

How many times has this been refuted now? Guess what. The human sexes share 99% of the same genes too. That doesn't mean there are not significant biological differences between men and women. We share over 90% of the same genes with all sorts of species of mammals.

This has not altered in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

Humans are still evolving.

Global landscape of recent inferred Darwinian selection for Homo sapiens (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0509691102v1)

This is farther compounded by the nigh-extinction of humankind which occoured in the remote past, which reduced the global human population to the mere tens of thousands.

The human species is still around today. Why is that?

The whole conception of "race" is, and has ever been, an erroneous science, that was concocted for the sole purpose of reinforcing primitive tribalisms (such as ethnicity). There are, it is true, socially unimportant observable biological trends whereon humankind have constructed social groupings, but these are wholly superficial, and, what is more, all of humankind carry the vast majority of those genes anyways.

Race is an objective biological fact.

"Mr. Risch has shown that researchers, by analyzing DNA, can correctly match an individual’s self-described race in 99.9 per cent of cases. There was a greater chance, he said, that researchers would incorrectly guess an individual’s self-described gender.

“There is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from research and public policy points of view,” Mr. Risch, now director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, concluded in a 2002 paper in Nature Genetics."

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/rushton_revisit.php

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1456.html

The issue has only to do with that which is dormant and that which is active. This is not to mention that 99 per cent of that smaller-than-one-percentile genetic variation amongst humankind (what humans in their ignorance classify by "race") is nought but an adaptation to climatic circumstances. Particularly, differing degrees of exposure to sun radiation, resulting in differences in melanin level, in addition to barometric differentiation (which effect distribution of fat, and so on); none whereof affect the human brain in any way, shape, nore form.

Brain capacity varies across human populations; as do the genes that code for it.

And besides, the whole issue becomes moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.

You have been reading too much science fiction.

We shall presently be able to pick and choose those genes which we want active and those which we want not active, making all tribalism, all racial loyalities, impossible and obsolete!

Are you suggesting here that humans are already naturally tribal; that this has a genetic basis?

[Helios Panoptes]

The human sexes share 99% of the same genes too. That doesn't mean there are not significant biological differences between men and women. We share over 90% of the same genes with all sorts of species of mammals.

98.5% with chimpanzees, for instance.

[Petr]

98.5% with chimpanzees, for instance.
Not true, this is evolutionist propaganda. The real number is something like 95 % or even less.


"Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp


Petr

[Helios Panoptes]

Not true, this is evolutionist propaganda. The real number is something like 95 % or even less.


"Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp


Petr

The results contained in that article are correct.

It's not propaganda. We are talking about revision that wasn't possible until recently. You see, in the 1970s, they looked only at substitutions, not indels. At the time, there was a lack of long strings of sequenced DNA to be used for that purpose. It doesn't look like a conspiracy of some sort on the part of the scientific community to me.

[Helios Panoptes]

I have actually thought about this possibility. This is something racialist conservatives should deeply ponder about if they think that evolutionist ideology is their friend.



If one draws on an ideology to justify what is described in the remainder of your post, it is not "evolutionism." Evolution is a description, not a prescription for a Trotskyite eugenics program.

[humanist]

Are you claiming that all human beings are inherently equal in their faculties?
No. Why would I make such an absurd claim?
However, there is more intraracial inequality (variation) than interracial inequality.

How many times has this been refuted now? Guess what. The human sexes share 99% of the same genes too. That doesn't mean there are not significant biological differences between men and women. We share over 90% of the same genes with all sorts of species of mammals.
However, these differences you advert to are but bioclimatic adaptations, socioculturally irrelevant. This matter properly requires a rather voluminous explanation, but I must stress that even the question of significant racial differences, whereof there are in truth none, will become moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.

The human species is still around today. Why is that?
The point I was rendering is that the nigh-extinction of the species some 80,000 years ago means that all humans that exist now are descended from a relatively tiny human population.

Brain capacity varies across human populations;
For instance, between men and women. But not races.

Are you suggesting here that humans are already naturally tribal; that this has a genetic basis?
I recognize that there is a conflict between animal instincts and extragenetic learning and knowledge.

[Petyr Baelish]

No. Why would I make such an absurd claim?
However, there is more intraracial inequality (variation) than interracial inequality.

Equality in what? Junk DNA?


However, these differences you advert to are but bioclimatic adaptations, socioculturally irrelevant.

False. Races differ significantly in many traits that have enormous sociocultural reprecussions:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart1.jpg


This matter properly requires a rather voluminous explanation (especially as there is much propaganda-based racialism to dispel), but I am hopeful that I have at least given you a basic notion.

Citing some evidence to support your claims would be helpful. Repeating a false claim ad nauseam does not make it true - incidentally, repeating falsehoods ad nauseam has been your only debate tactic so far.


The point I was rendering is that the nigh-extinction of the species some 80,000 years ago means that all humans that exist now are descended from a relatively tiny human population.

Relevance?


For instance, between men and women. But not races.

Really?

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart2.jpg

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart3.jpg

I recognize that there is a conflict between animal instincts and extragenetic learning and knowledge.

There is also an extremely acute conflict between common sense and insane cosmopolitan ideologies.

[Helios Panoptes]

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor, Humanist; read this (http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf)

[Ahknaton]

This is something racialist conservatives should deeply ponder about if they think that evolutionist ideology is their friend.The validity of a scientific theory is dependent on whether it matches empirically observed facts, not it's expedience for a particular political ideology.

[Petr]

The validity of a scientific theory is dependent on whether it matches empirically observed facts, not it's expedience for a particular political ideology.
Well, (spontaneous) evolution of life doesn't match empirical observation. To begin with, it cannot be repeated through experiments, although aspiring Frankensteins would dearly like to make it so.


Petr

[Petyr Baelish]

Well, (spontaneous) evolution of life doesn't match empirical observation.

Define 'spontaneous' evolution, and how it differs from regular evolution.

To begin with, it cannot be repeated through experiments, although aspiring Frankensteins would dearly like to make it so.


Evolutionary theory has withstood all tests of empirical observation that can conceivably be applied to it.

[Helios Panoptes]

Well, (spontaneous) evolution of life doesn't match empirical observation. To begin with, it cannot be repeated through experiments, although aspiring Frankensteins would dearly like to make it so.


Petr

Well, if that is so, the way to attack it is to point out the ways in which it fails to match empirical observation, not its inconvenience for a political goal. Secondly, as I said, evolution is not ethics. It is a description of the natural world, not a prescription for laying waste to human differentiation through a radical eugenics program.

[humanist]

Equality in what? Junk DNA?
I was adverting to intraracial inequality.

False. Races differ significantly in many traits that have enormous sociocultural reprecussions:
The examples you cite are misleading for two principal reasons:

[1] The original sources are uncited. These comparisons were originally made a very long time ago, and the methods employed in the measurement of brain weight and cranial capacity have since been proven faulty.
[2] Such variations that are present are attributable to differences in nutrition. Negroes are on average undernourished, and especially so when those particular studies were conducted. Nutrition has a profound effect on brain growth.

Citing some evidence to support your claims would be helpful.
The point rendered was that, to Pan-Humanism, even the question of significant racial differences, whereof there are in truth none, will become moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.

Relevance?
Unrealistic time-scale for socioculturally significant divergent evolution.

There is also an extremely acute conflict between common sense and insane cosmopolitan ideologies.
Tribal loyalties may have been common senseful in the hunter-gatherer stage of social evolution, but in the modern age such divisiveness is but a detriment to human survival and progression. Sadly the evolution of our instinctual apparatus has not kept in pace with our extragenetic learning, wherefrom the obsolescence tribalism has been made profoundly manifest.

[Helios Panoptes]

No. Why would I make such an absurd claim?
However, there is more intraracial inequality (variation) than interracial inequality.

I was adverting to intraracial inequality.

Okay, I will repeat myself again, since it seems to be necessary. This claim of yours' is false. It is rooted in Lewintin's work in the 1970s, which has since been discredited. If you lived up to your title, you would stop mindlessly adhering to outdated theories because they suit you and investigate the facts of the matter. Read the link I provided. I skimmed over Ahknaton's, you should check that, too.

[Petyr Baelish]

I was adverting to intraracial inequality.


The examples you cite are misleading for two principal reasons:

[1] The original sources are uncited. These comparisons were originally made a very long time ago, and the methods employed in the measurement of brain weight and cranial capacity have since been proven faulty.

You are an imbecile and a liar. I advise you to read the sources you 'debunk' before making an idiot of yourself:

Source for the data in the first chart:

The racial differences in brain size show up at birth. One study of my own, published in the 1997 issue of the journal Intelligence, was carried out using the resources of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINCDS) in Bethesda, Maryland. In it, I analyzed data from the enormous Collaborative Perinatal Project, which took head circumference measures and IQ scores from over 50,000 children followed from birth to seven years. The Oriental children averaged larger head circumferences than did the White children at birth, four months, one year, and seven years; the White children averaged larger head circumferences than did the Black children (see Chart 3).

Source for the data in chart three:

I published several other studies during the 1990s, also in Intelligence, confirming the racial differences in brain size. In one study, I (1991) analyzed data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and found the mean cranial capacity for East Asians was 1,460 cm3, and for Europeans it was 1,446 cm3. From a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, I (1992) calculated average cranial capacities for Asians, Whites, and Blacks, respectively, of 1,416 cm3, 1,380 cm3, and 1,359 cm3. (I also found that officers averaged 1,393 cm3 while enlisted personnel averaged 1,375 cm3.) From a compilation made by the International Labour Office in Geneva of tens of thousands of people from around the world, I (1994) found that samples from the Pacific Rim, Europe, and Africa averaged cranial capacities, respectively, of 1,308 cm3, 1,297 cm3, and 1,241 cm3. Travis Osborne and I (1995) published a paper showing that brain size was about 50% heritable for both Blacks and Whites using data from the Georgia Twin Study based on 236 pairs of Black and White adolescent twins. And once again we found Whites averaged greater cranial capacity than Blacks.

Source for the entire article (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html)

[2] Such variations that are present are attributable to differences in nutrition. Negroes are on average undernourished, and especially so when those particular studies were conducted.

Please prove to me that black Americans of the 1990s were undernourished compared to White Americans of the same period, and that Asian Americans were over-nourished compared to both these groups.


The point rendered was that, to Pan-Humanism, even the question of significant racial differences, whereof there are in truth none, will become moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.

Again, I must remark that for a self-described "intellectual" you're not too bright. When exactly will we have these genetic engineering technologies? How will the starving, dirt-poor people of sub-Saharan Africa take advantage of them? Why would super-humans identify with genetic atavists?


Unrealistic time-scale for socioculturally significant divergent evolution.

LOL, you're a geneticist now?


Tribal loyalties may have been common senseful in the hunter-gatherer stage of social evolution, but in the modern age such divisiveness is but a detriment to human survival and progression. Sadly the evolution of our instinctual apparatus has not kept in pace with our extragenetic learning, wherefrom the obsolescence tribalism has been made manifest.

Yadda, yadda, yadda - same old story - ridiculous claims without a shred of evidence to subtantiate them.

[Ahknaton]

[1] The original sources are uncited. These comparisons were originally made a very long time ago, and the methods employed in the measurement of brain weight and cranial capacity have since been proven faulty.
[2] Such variations that are present are attributable to differences in nutrition. Negroes are on average undernourished, and especially so when those particular studies were conducted. Nutrition has a profound effect on brain growth.
Links please.

Also, please give me an example of the kind of evidence that would be required to persuade you that racial differences are real. It seems to me that to the committed anti-racist (such as yourself), the belief that there are no significant biological differences between races is unfalsifiable - i.e. there is always some environmental factor on hand to hypothesise as being responsible for apparent racial differences.

The point rendered was that, to Pan-Humanism, even the question of significant racial differences, whereof there are in truth none, will become moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.
Please define what you would consider a "significant" racial difference. IQ? Propensity towards violence? What? And to state "in truth there are none" is a pure statement of religious faith on your part.

Unrealistic time-scale for socioculturally significant divergent evolution.This is pure speculation. Exactly how long is required for "socioculturally significant divergent evolution"? Admit it, you have no idea.

A recent study of Askhenazi Jews suggested that the last 2,000 years (in particular the environment of Europe during the Middle Ages) was ample time for genes disposing them to higher intelligence than the general population to have been selected:

A Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence (http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf)

Economist Article (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638)

Surely this IQ-gap is "socioculturally significant"?

Tribal loyalties may have been common senseful in the hunter-gatherer stage of social evolution, but in the modern age such divisiveness is but a detriment to human survival and progression. Sadly the evolution of our instinctual apparatus has not kept in pace with our extragenetic learning, wherefrom the obsolescence tribalism has been made profoundly manifest.
This is just utopian futurism and ideology dressed up as scientific fact. Abolishing "tribal loyalties" is impossible without resorting to violence of the sort that their abolition is intended to prevent, and doing so would be a huge loss to human diversity and cultural inheritence in any case.

[Fade the Butcher]

No. Why would I make such an absurd claim?

Do you agree that the natural condition of humanity is therefore inequality?

However, there is more intraracial inequality (variation) than interracial inequality.

This point has been addressed by Ahknaton.

However, these differences you advert to are but bioclimatic adaptations, socioculturally irrelevant.

Clarify your position. Is there a heritable component to intelligence?

This matter properly requires a rather voluminous explanation, but I must stress that even the question of significant racial differences, whereof there are in truth none, will become moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.

Please elaborate. Also, I will hold that genetic engineering will be used to make such differences more salient than they ever have been before. You also cannot that genetic engineering will render such differences irrelevant say, intelligence, if you presuppose they do not any genetic basis.

The point I was rendering is that the nigh-extinction of the species some 80,000 years ago means that all humans that exist now are descended from a relatively tiny human population.

You tried to argue that the unification of humanity is necessary to ensure the survival of the human species. The fact that the human species has never been united but has thrived and prospered to this day render you a Chicken Little.

For instance, between men and women. But not races.

This point has been addressed by Methylenedioxymethamphanatik.

I recognize that there is a conflict between animal instincts and extragenetic learning and knowledge.

Are you saying that tribalism has a genetic basis?

[Roland]

Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact, not a "worldview" - to say that is is a worldview (by which I assume you mean "'ideology') makes about as much sense as saying that the theory of gravity is a 'worldview'. To say that cosmopolitanist ideologies attempt to ignore or subvert the biological underpinnings of human nature is a value-neutral statement of fact, nothing more.

I am sorry, I distinguish between the Darwinism that exists within the confines of scientific inquiry, and the Darwinism or general "feeling" of evolutionary progress that certain persons exposit when speaking about a broad range of topics ranging from culture to morality, to technological change. In this case, I was speaking about the latter.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution, to which I was alluding.

I agree, since evolution is not a coherent, conscious entity moving through history making rational calculations about "man."

Sagan was making a prediction that ultimately would lead to his own morally valuable utopia. Sagan thought the essence of man to be economic efficiency, and rightly saw tribalism as an obstacle to his essence. Under the shroud of a supposed "value-neutral" statement, you profess to prove him wrong by stating the natural, essential position of man as dictated by your faith in pop-Darwinism. Sagan's statement obviously considered tribalism to be a function of economics, and therefore subject to evolution as well. Thus you both carry on in the tradition of modernity by making lame generalizations about the social organization of people. Both of you are standing in the other's path of describing how society really "is," and therefore ought to be.

I said that pan-humanism would necessarily have to render the concept of the enemy obsolete, as it posits a friendship of all human beings. This only seems problematic though if we take pan-humanism at face value. It is really just good old fashioned cosmopolitanism; which, I might add, is hardly unique to modernity. The enemy of the cosmopolitan has always been the parochial.

This is my fault. I failed in my descriptions or lack thereof. I consider the tradition of modernity to be defined by a general mistrust in how things are and a feeling of duty to advance or modify things in order to cure current ailments. Darwinism, in its vulgarized and popularized form, has recolored this tradition with materialism, necessity and nature. Where people once pursued ascetic religious utopias, they now make "predictions" about where man's true nature will advance and progress to. But progress is subjective, and coherency is absent. Modernity is a relative bellum omne contra omnes involving values of progress.

[Blaphbee]

1 - The point rendered was that, to Pan-Humanism, even the question of significant racial differences, whereof there are in truth none,

2 - will become moot in the coming age of genetic engineering.
1 - Sorry, dear, but that's an assumption which you are making, not "the truth". By all means, give us some more of your "generally accepted" reals of delusion you're basing your arguments on though. The sociological argument which seeks to deconstruct race into "social constructs" is nothing but a social construct of it's own. You can apply gross reductionism to any argument, and end up with some half-assed "fact" that supports your claims, but this does not make any conclusion based upon such a negligent methodology credible.

2 - So, you're telling us that your "proof" is in the mail?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Excuse me while I scoff. The vainglorious ineptitude of genetic engineers is nothing short of remarkable. I don't think they have much hope of doing anything "beneficial" for humankind, considering their hilarious incomptence when it comes to producing GM foodstuffs which don't cause unforeseen DNA restructuring, dramatic stunting of growth, and a rather high mortality rate in newborns. That's just our food supply's effect on rats, which share 97% similarity to our DNA (which says a lot about the vast differences small percentages make in terms of genetics). What makes you think they have any clue at all about tinkering with human DNA in a manner which corresponds to the method nature has already perfected?

[Petr]

Excuse me while I scoff. The vainglorious ineptitude of genetic engineers is nothing short of remarkable. I don't think they have much hope of doing anything "beneficial" for humankind, considering their hilarious incomptence when it comes to producing GM foodstuffs which don't cause unforeseen DNA restructuring, dramatic stunting of growth, and a rather high mortality rate in newborns.
Alas, there is no limit to the mad ambitions of fallen men. Prometheus/Lucifer is their hero, and they are obsessed with tinkering and "improving" God's creation.


Petr

[infoterror]

Many visionary leaders have imagined a time when the allegiance of an individual human being is not to his particular nation-state, religion, race, or economic group, but to mankind as a whole; when the benefit to a human being of another sex, race, religion, or political persuasion ten thousand miles away is as precious to us as to our neighbour or our brother.

Smoking too much dope, Mr. Sagan. Mankind as a whole includes some shitheads I don't want allegiance with, regardless of race, and to have allegiance to mankind as a whole is too limited. My allegiance is to nature, and that includes nationalist division of tribes. BLACK POWER 88

[infoterror]

Prometheus/Lucifer is their hero, and they are obsessed with tinkering and "improving" God's creation.

I take it you're reading Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"? She discusses this topic and, despite a lack of mention of the genetic inferiority of Slavs, Irish and Italians, makes some great points.

[Petr]

I take it you're reading Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"? She discusses this topic and, despite a lack of mention of the genetic inferiority of Slavs, Irish and Italians, makes some great points.
Prozak, why don't you take a hike?


Petr

[humanist]

Equality in what? Junk DNA?




False. Races differ significantly in many traits that have enormous sociocultural reprecussions:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart1.jpg




Citing some evidence to support your claims would be helpful. Repeating a false claim ad nauseam does not make it true - incidentally, repeating falsehoods ad nauseam has been your only debate tactic so far.




Relevance?




Really?

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart2.jpg

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart3.jpg



There is also an extremely acute conflict between common sense and insane cosmopolitan ideologies.

Meth, I admit you stumbled me for a bit...but upon further reflection, I honestly cannot see how your charts, etc., prove a thing. Look. Assuming some link between cranial size and intelligence and accepting these figures, the 'average' difference is mere 1% between 'blacks' and 'whites'. Even if this converted straightaway to a 1% difference in 'intelligence' -- such a distinction at the moment is still considerably overshadowed by social factors that affect intelligence.

What is more, the differences are probably not even biological. It is perhaps even within the USA these differences are explainable purely through the difference approaches to pregnancy and childhood nutrition of the groups studied. Perhaps soy and rice promote brain growth, for example. Have you thought of that? You must take into account all factors.

[humanist]

Oh, and another thing:


http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart1.jpg


What a flawed book this must be. To mix up subjective characteristics ('cultural achievements') with objective measures like IQ test scores (the figures appear wrong) and 'cranial capacity' in the one table seems pseudoscientific. 'Scientific racism', as it is called.

But the Chart raises another problem. It gives the same figures for 'cranial capacity' as it did earlier for 'brain size'. However, these figures are different to 'cranial size' measurements. That is to say, in cranial capacity/brain size figures the differences between 'Whites' and 'Blacks' are about 7% or so, whereas in the 'cranial size' measurements, the differences are only about 1%.

Fun having all your racialist/"white pride" beliefs demolish before you eyes, isn't it?

[Ahknaton]

What a flawed book this must be. To mix up subjective characteristics ('cultural achievements') with objective measures like IQ test scores (the figures appear wrong) and 'cranial capacity' in the one table seems pseudoscientific. 'Scientific racism', as it is called.
I'll take "Scientific racism" over "Pseudo-scientific anti-racism", which is what you're peddling. You have a point that "cultural achievements" is somewhat subjective and does not belong in the table, but that hardly renders all the other data suspect. You are desperately trying to grab ahold of something that will allow you to dismiss these figures, no matter how tenuous the argument.
But the Chart raises another problem. It gives the same figures for 'cranial capacity' as it did earlier for 'brain size'. However, these figures are different to 'cranial size' measurements. That is to say, in cranial capacity/brain size figures the differences between 'Whites' and 'Blacks' are about 7% or so, whereas in the 'cranial size' measurements, the differences are only about 1%.
"Cranial size" is the size of the head. "Cranial capacity/brain size" is the volume of brain matter the head contains, which is obviously the more important of the two measurements, and is the variable for which Black/White differences are largest.
Fun having all your racialist/"white pride" beliefs demolish before you eyes, isn't it?You're simply adorable.

Here's some reading for you:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html

Section 6: Race, Brain Size, and Cognitive Ability

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #1 Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores. About two dozen studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation with IQ of greater than.40 (Rushton & Ankney, 1996; P. A. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, & Stelmack, 2000). The correlation of.40 using MRI is much higher than the.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures, although the.20 correlation is also reliable and significant. Rushton and Ankney (1996) reviewed 32 studies correlating measures of external head size with IQ scores or with measures of educational and occupational achievement, and they found a mean r =.20 for people of all ages, both sexes, and various ethnic backgrounds, including African Americans.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #2 The most likely reason why larger brains are, on average, more intelligent than smaller brains is that they contain more neurons and synapses, which make them more efficient. Haier et al. (1995) tested the brain efficiency hypothesis by using MRI to measure brain volume and glucose metabolic rate to measure glucose uptake (an indicator of energy use). They found a correlation of −.58 between glucose metabolic rate and IQ, suggesting that more intelligent individuals have more efficient brains because they use less energy in performing a given cognitive task. Several other studies supporting the brain-size/efficiency model were reviewed in Gignac, Vernon, and Wickett (2003). In any individual, however, energy use increases with the increasing complexity of the cognitive task.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #3 Estimates from twin studies indicate that genes contribute from 50% to 90% of the variance to both cranial capacities based on external head size measures and to brain volume measured by MRI (Bartley, Jones, & Weinberger, 1997; Pennington et al., 2000; Posthuma et al., 2002; Rushton & Osborne, 1995; Thompson et al., 2001). Common genetic effects mediate from 50% to 100% of the brain-size/IQ correlation (Pennington et al., 2000; Posthuma et al., 2002). Studies have also shown that correlations between brain size and IQ also hold true within families as well as between families (Gignac et al., 2003; Jensen, 1994; Jensen & Johnson, 1994), which also implies shared genetic effects. However, one study that examined only sisters failed to find the within-family relation (Schoenemann, Budinger, Sarich, & Wang, 2000). Families with larger brains overall tend to have higher IQs and, within a family, the siblings with the larger brains tend to have higher IQ scores. The within-family finding is of special interest because it controls for most of the sources of variance that distinguish families, such as social class, styles of child rearing, and general nutrition, that differ between families.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #4 Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #5External head size measurements (length, width, height) also have been used to estimate cranial capacities in adults. Rushton carried out five studies of large archival data sets. The first (Rushton, 1991) examined head size measures in 24 international military samples collated by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. After adjusting for the effects of body height, weight, and surface area, the mean cranial capacity for East Asians was 1,460 cm3 and for Europeans 1,446 cm3. The second (Rushton, 1992) demonstrated that even after adjusting for the effects of body size, sex, and military rank in a stratified random sample of over 6,000 U.S. Army personnel, the average cranial capacity of East Asians, Whites, and Blacks were 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively. The third study (Rushton, 1993) reanalyzed a set of anthropometric data originally published by Melville Herskovits (who concluded there were not race differences in cranial capacity) and found Whites averaged a cranial capacity of 1,421 and Blacks, 1,295 cm3. The fourth study (Rushton, 1994) analyzed data obtained on tens of thousands of people from around the world collated by the International Labor Office in Geneva, Switzerland. It found that after adjusting for the effects of body size and sex, samples from the Pacific Rim, Europe, and Africa had average cranial capacities, of 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3 respectively. Finally, Rushton and Osborne (1995) analyzed the Georgia Twin Study of adolescents and found that after correcting for body size and sex, Whites had an average cranial capacity of 1,269 cm3, Blacks 1,251 cm3.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #6 Rushton's results, based on calculating average cranial capacity from external head size measures, join those from dozens of other studies from the 1840s to the present on different samples using three different methods (endocranial volume from empty skulls, wet brain weight at autopsy, and high-tech MRI). All show the same strong pattern of East Asians averaging larger and heavier brains than Whites who average larger and heavier brains than Blacks. For example, using MRI technology, Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker, and Murray (1994) found that 41 Blacks in Britain averaged a smaller brain volume than did 67 British Whites.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #7 The American anthropologist Samuel George Morton (1849) filled over 1,000 skulls with packing material to measure endocranial volume and found that Blacks averaged about 5 cubic inches less cranial capacity than Whites. His results were confirmed by Todd (1923), H. L. Gordon (1934), and Simmons (1942). The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls from around the world and reported East Asians, Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #8 Using the method of weighing brains at autopsy, Paul Broca (1873) reported that Whites averaged heavier brains than did Blacks, with larger frontal lobes and more complex convolutions. (Broca also used endocranial volume and found East Asians averaged larger cranial capacities than Europeans, who averaged larger than Blacks.) Other early autopsy studies found a mean Black-White group difference in brain weight of about 100 g (Bean, 1906; Mall, 1909; Pearl, 1934; Vint, 1934). A more recent autopsy study of 1,261 American adults found that the brains of 811 White Americans in their sample averaged 1,323 g and the brains of 450 Black Americans averaged 1,223 g—a difference of 100 g (Ho, Roessmann, Straumfjord, & Monroe, 1980). Because the Blacks and Whites in the study were similar in body size, this was not responsible for the differences in brain weight.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #9 Rushton (2000; Rushton & Ankney, 1996) summarized the world database using the three methods on which there are a sufficient number of studies (autopsies, endocranial volume, and head measurements), as well as head measurements corrected for body size (see Rushton, 2000, pp. 126-132, Table 6.6). The results in cm3 or equivalents were as follows: East Asians = 1,351, 1,415, 1,335, and 1,356 (M = 1,364); Whites = 1,356, 1,362, 1,341, and 1,329 (M = 1,347); and Blacks = 1,223, 1,268, 1,284, and 1,294 (M = 1,267). The overall mean for East Asians is 17 cm3 more than that for Whites and 97 cm3 more than that for Blacks. Within-race differences due to differences in method of estimation averaged 31 cm3. Because 1 cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses or neural connections, these group differences in average brain size may explain group differences in average IQ.

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #10 Jensen and Johnson (1994) showed that for both Blacks and Whites, the head size by IQ correlation is true within families as well as between families, indicating the intrinsic or functional relationship mentioned earlier. Further, within each sex, Blacks and Whites fit the same regression line of head size on IQ. When Blacks and Whites are perfectly matched for true-score IQ (i.e., IQ corrected for measurement error) at either the Black mean or the White mean, the overall average Black-White group difference in head circumference is virtually nil. (Matching Blacks and Whites for IQ eliminates the average difference in head size, but matching the groups on head size does not equalize their IQs. This is what one would expect if brain size is only one of a number of brain factors involved in IQ.)

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. S-6 #11 In another analysis of the Georgia Twin Study, Jensen (1994) showed that the mean Black-White group difference in head/brain size is also related to the magnitude of the mean Black-White group difference in g. The correlation coefficient of each test with the head measurements was correlated with the magnitude of the Black-White group difference on that test, thus forming two vectors. The column vector of IQ test and head size correlations indicated a correlation of.51 (p <.05) with the vector of standardized Black-White group differences on each of the tests.

[Fade the Butcher]

Woe unto you, humanist! Prodigal is going to sign back in sooner or later.

[humanist]

So, where's Meth? Or does he stand corrected? I would that he has the integrity to acknowledge his errors and fallacies.I'll take "Scientific racism" over "Pseudo-scientific anti-racism", which is what you're peddling.Actually, what you and Meth are peddling is pure pseudoscience. Indeed, the vast majority of scientists do not even believe in race as an idea, and many others do not believe in the validity of IQ tests. But this is by the by. I do not advance this as a counter argument.

You have a point that "cultural achievements" is somewhat subjective and does not belong in the table,
Achievement is culturally relative.

but that hardly renders all the other data suspect.
Is someone who makes such an obvious error a good scientist, someone whom we can trust with handling and recording scientific data? Is he a reliable source of information?

"Cranial size" is the size of the head. "Cranial capacity/brain size" is the volume of brain matter the head contains, which is obviously the more important of the two measurements, and is the variable for which Black/White differences are largest.
I fail to see how this touches upon anything I said. Remember what I said about nutrition. This is, in truth, a highly significant operative factor in cranial and brain development. Pregnancy is also a factor to consider. Have you thought of any of this?

Woe unto you, humanist! Prodigal is going to sign back in sooner or later.
Who is Prodigal and what does that have to do with me?

[Fade the Butcher]

Who is Prodigal and what does that have to do with me?

Prodigal Son = Meth.

[Ahknaton]

Actually, what you and Meth are peddling is pure pseudoscience. Indeed, the vast majority of scientists do not even believe in race as an idea, and many others do not believe in the validity of IQ tests. But this is by the by. I do not advance this as a counter argument.The validity of race as an idea has been demonstrated by studies that look at groups of genes that are intercorrelated with each other. Lewontin's thesis has been refuted and yet you continue to advance it. You accuse Meth of failing to acknowledge when he/she is wrong, but you still haven't addressed this.

Lewontin: pwned (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/)

Are you reading any of the links we provide? I have a strong suspicion you are not, because you repeatedly make arguments that are convincingly refuted in the linked articles. Or do we have to go through the chore of repeating them ourselves?
Achievement is culturally relative.
I acknowledged this didn't I?
Is someone who makes such an obvious error a good scientist, someone whom we can trust with handling and recording scientific data? Is he a reliable source of information?
A weak argument, especially when the data is corroborrated by other sources, such as those I listed in my previous post.
I fail to see how this touches upon anything I said. Remember what I said about nutrition. This is, in truth, a highly significant operative factor in cranial and brain development. Pregnancy is also a factor to consider. Have you thought of any of this?
As I argued earlier (and which you didn't address) your position is essentially unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) since you continue to postulate environmental explanations of IQ differences ad nauseum when presented with evidence of racial differences. There is apparently no evidence (even hypothetically) capable of convincing you.

If you actually bothered to read the studies in question, factors such as nutrition are taken into account, for example (from my previous post):
Families with larger brains overall tend to have higher IQs and, within a family, the siblings with the larger brains tend to have higher IQ scores. The within-family finding is of special interest because it controls for most of the sources of variance that distinguish families, such as social class, styles of child rearing, and general nutrition, that differ between families.
Who is Prodigal and what does that have to do with me?He's your worst nightmare.

(Actually, I don't know who he is)

[Helios Panoptes]

What is more, the differences are probably not even biological. It is perhaps even within the USA these differences are explainable purely through the difference approaches to pregnancy and childhood nutrition of the groups studied. Perhaps soy and rice promote brain growth, for example. Have you thought of that? You must take into account all factors.

Perhaps? That doesn't sound like a very strong assertion. Do you have evidence of some sort that indicates the food eaten by whites is more conducive to brain growth than that eaten by blacks, but less so than the Asians' food? If so, now would be a good time to present it.

[humanist]

I do not believe you have successfully refuted any of the counter-arguments I made toward Meth. I am still awaiting for Meth's responses. That being said, let us back-track to the previous page:

"Cranial size" is the size of the head. "Cranial capacity/brain size" is the volume of brain matter the head contains, which is obviously the more important of the two measurements, and is the variable for which Black/White differences are largest.
I urge you to re-read their findings. They have the SAME measurements for what they term 'cranial capacity' and 'brain size'. The *different* measurement comes between cranial capacity/brain size and 'cranial size'. Furthermore, the differences are rather remarkable - depending on which set of figures you choose, Blacks are either about 1% less endowed than whites or about 7% less endowed. What idiots, who did this study!

Now, back to your latest post:
As I argued earlier (and which you didn't address) your position is essentially unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) since you continue to postulate environmental explanations of IQ differences ad nauseum when presented with evidence of racial differences. There is apparently no evidence (even hypothetically) capable of convincing you.
People link longevity to the Japanese not because they are thought to have longer lasting genetic stock, but rather because of their diet. It is quickly acknowledged that the height of current generations - significantly taller than just people a generation ago - is because of diet. Why, therefore, do you treat with such contempt the idea that a mere 1.2% difference in 'cranial size' could be solely accounted for by different patterns of childhood nutrition according to culture?

Of course, other factors than "race" (notice how the word needed inverted commas) and culture cry out to be eliminated too. Would you not expect that as Black people are much poorer on average than White people in the U.S. that they therefore would, on average, have quite different diets and nutritional standards? Has this thought every crossed your mind?

These arguments also refute everything Meth has said.

If you actually bothered to read the studies in question, factors such as nutrition are taken into account, for example (from my previous post):
However, your nutrition example is not really relevant to my point. It appears to be saying that larger brains are connected with higher IQs because one cannot just 'explain away' higher IQs by pointing to other factors such as styles of child rearing. What it is not talking about is what type of thing causes differences in brain size to begin with; namely, whether the reasons are solely genetic, or solely cultural, or a mixture of the two factors.

[Ahknaton]

II urge you to re-read their findings. They have the SAME measurements for what they term 'cranial capacity' and 'brain size'. The *different* measurement comes between cranial capacity/brain size and 'cranial size'. Furthermore, the differences are rather remarkable - depending on which set of figures you choose, Blacks are either about 1% less endowed than whites or about 7% less endowed.
Ummmmm... that's exactly what I said.

Cranial size and cranial capacity are two different things, that's why they have two different measurements! Cranial size = size of head. Cranial capacity = brain size. Got it? "Brain size" is more highly correlated with IQ than "cranial size", and this is the measurement that has the highest difference between Blacks and Whites.

I'm going to leave it to Meth to deal with the rest of your "arguments". Notice how the word needed inverted commas?

[Helios Panoptes]

People link longevity to the Japanese not because they are thought to have longer lasting genetic stock, but rather because of their diet.

Just as people link slight stature to the Japanese not because of their genetic stock, but because of their malnourishment.

I will post a detailed response to this topic tomorrow if necessary.

[Helios Panoptes]

Meth, I admit you stumbled me for a bit...but upon further reflection, I honestly cannot see how your charts, etc., prove a thing. Look. Assuming some link between cranial size and intelligence and accepting these figures, the 'average' difference is mere 1% between 'blacks' and 'whites'.

No, the mean cranial capacity of asians is 1364, of europeans 1347, and of africans 1267. This is the mean of the following data: autopsy, endocranial volume, external head measurements, corrected for body size.

Even if this converted straightaway to a 1% difference in 'intelligence'

As I've stated, the difference is not 1%, but why would it(a 1% difference in CC) convert to a 1% difference in intelligence? There is no basis for your postulation. It is entirely possible for the seemingly miniscule differentiation of a condition to have significant implications.

such a distinction at the moment is still considerably overshadowed by social factors that affect intelligence.

That is your claim, yes, but seeing as you've done nothing to prove it, you shouldn't use it to debunk a different claim.

What is more, the differences are probably not even biological. It is perhaps even within the USA these differences are explainable purely through the difference approaches to pregnancy and childhood nutrition of the groups studied. Perhaps soy and rice promote brain growth, for example. Have you thought of that? You must take into account all factors.

Does it make any sense to you that, at the age of 7, asians are shortest and lightest, yet cranial development compares favorably with whites? How about that blacks are taller and heavier than both whites and asians, yet compare unfavorably in cranial measurements? You should note that a person's body size is highly sensitive to nutrition.

What a flawed book this must be. To mix up subjective characteristics ('cultural achievements') with objective measures like IQ test scores (the figures appear wrong) and 'cranial capacity' in the one table seems pseudoscientific. 'Scientific racism', as it is called.

Would you be so kind as to compare the cultural achievements of sub-saharan Africa with those of Europe?

But the Chart raises another problem. It gives the same figures for 'cranial capacity' as it did earlier for 'brain size'. However, these figures are different to 'cranial size' measurements. That is to say, in cranial capacity/brain size figures the differences between 'Whites' and 'Blacks' are about 7% or so, whereas in the 'cranial size' measurements, the differences are only about 1%.

This has been explained to you.

Fun having all your racialist/"white pride" beliefs demolish before you eyes, isn't it?

Delusions of grandeur. The material in question is not "white pride," either. It clearly places Asians above whites in brain development.

So, where's Meth? Or does he stand corrected? I would that he has the integrity to acknowledge his errors and fallacies.

I have a feeling that he will be back.

[Petyr Baelish]

Look. Assuming some link between cranial size and intelligence and accepting these figures, the 'average' difference is mere 1% between 'blacks' and 'whites'.

There is no reason for such a postulation. You obviously have no education whatsoever in psychology or neurophysiology, so please don't try to pretent otherwise. Your extrapolations as regards these topics have about as much relevance as a truck-driver's interpretation of quantum physics.

Even if this converted straightaway to a 1% difference in 'intelligence' -- such a distinction at the moment is still considerably overshadowed by social factors that affect intelligence.

Please provide some evidence in support of these claims.

What is more, the differences are probably not even biological.

That is extremely unlikely. Observe, for instance, the differences in IQ between black, white, and Oriental children adopted at infancy into white middle-class homes:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart7.jpg

It should also be noted that many of the adopted Asian children were severely malnourished at time of adoption. I suppose the rational explanation is that adoptive white parents systematically discriminate against their adopted black children in favor of white children and against white children, in favor of Asian children? :rofl: :rolleyes:

It is perhaps even within the USA these differences are explainable purely through the difference approaches to pregnancy and childhood nutrition of the groups studied. Perhaps soy and rice promote brain growth, for example. Have you thought of that? You must take into account all factors. Soy and rice are amongst the least nutritious foods available in the West - I find it ironic that in order to defend your bizzare beliefs you are now endorsing a proposition as utterly absurd as the claim that malnutrition increases brain size! I don't think that even you can argue the point that American blacks live in infinitely better conditions than the Chinese or the Vietnamese, yet even those poverty-stricken groups utterly trounce American blacks on all measures of cognitive ability.

[Petyr Baelish]

They have the SAME measurements for what they term 'cranial capacity' and 'brain size'.

That's because cranial capacity = brain size. Cranial size = size of the cranium (skull).

The *different* measurement comes between cranial capacity/brain size and 'cranial size'. Furthermore, the differences are rather remarkable - depending on which set of figures you choose, Blacks are either about 1% less endowed than whites or about 7% less endowed.

Are you retarded or just blind? Notice the differences in these figures:

BRAIN SIZE, cm^3: BLACKS - WHITES - ORIENTALS
1267 - 1347 - 1364

CRANIAL SIZE: cm^3: BLACKS - WHITES - ORIENTALS
1362 - 1378 - 1392

Again, you'd have to be either blind or "learning disabled" to confuse 1267 with 1362 o1364 with 1392. These figues are different because the measure different things, brain size and skull size, respectively. If you don't understand something, don't even try arguing against it.

What idiots, who did this study!

That's a case of the Zulu calling the Englishman "black".


People link longevity to the Japanese not because they are thought to have longer lasting genetic stock, but rather because of their diet.

This is false. It is widely acknowledged that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in longevity differences between various ethnic groups. Indeed, in many ways, the Japanese diet is not conducive to longevity: for instance, Okinawans consume up to ten grams of salt a day.

Why, therefore, do you treat with such contempt the idea that a mere 1.2% difference in 'cranial size' could be solely accounted for by different patterns of childhood nutrition according to culture?

Because malnourished Asians and Eastern Europeans still have larger brains and higher IQs than blacks living in first world conditions.

Would you not expect that as Black people are much poorer on average than White people in the U.S. that they therefore would, on average, have quite different diets and nutritional standards?

Would you not expect that Vietnames, mainland Chinese and Eastern Europeans are much poorer than American blacks and thus are malnourished compared to American blacks? Even though this is true, even malnourished Chinese peasants have higher IQs and and larger brains than blacks born and raised in first-world living conditions in England and America!

Has this thought every crossed your mind?

LOL, do you know what the incidence of obesity is amongst black Americans? Malnutrition is the last health problem that the black community needs to worry about.

These arguments also refute everything Meth has said.

The only thing your arguments refute is any shred of credibility you may have had.

[Helios Panoptes]

Soy and rice are amongst the least nutritious foods available in the West

I've read that the trypsin inhibitors and phytic acid found in soy can stunt the development of a child.

[humanist]

To refute Meth (yet again!!):
There is no reason for such a postulation.
It wasn't a postulation. I was taking their figures as legitimate and pointing out that the margins of difference are in fact only 1% in cranial size.

Where are the data-sets, though? How were these measurements taken? Were they taken by an independent source? Are they based on men or women? After all, if you had one sample with 10 men and 10 women and one sample with 9 men and 11 women, then the second sample would show lower cranial size... Has the methodology been scrutinised? Have the findings appeared in peer review journals?

Please provide some evidence in support of these claims.
As your pretty graph shows, the alleged difference in IQ between Whites and Blacks given a similar upbringing is 16 points. This is a very substantial difference. On the surface of it, is it explainable by a 1-7% difference in brain capacity? No.

Do you know what the incidence of obesity is amongst black Americans?
As you would know, obesity is a form of malnutrition, 'mal' being an affix corresponding to 'bad'. It is not hard to find studies that show that good nutrition correlates with good standards of living. It is also not hard to find studies linking positive mental and physical performance with good nutrition. Why you should continue to insist that it is incredible that any (alleged) brain size differences have to be 'racial' I cannot tell.

Perhaps the final thought to leave you with is this. Men's brains, on average, are about 15% larger than women's brains. If the link between brain size and IQ is so certain, and we accept that the average brain size of a black person is 7% less than his white counterpart, and that this results in an IQ score of 16 less, imagine what the IQ differences of men and women should be on average!

And are they over 16 points? Are they anywhere near approaching that number? No.

[Helios Panoptes]

To refute Meth (yet again!!):

Wow, you are a masochist. Okay, I will bloody you.

It wasn't a postulation. I was taking their figures as legitimate and pointing out that the margins of difference are in fact only 1% in cranial size.

You conveniently ignore the difference in BRAIN SIZE, which is far greater.

Where are the data-sets, though? How were these measurements taken? Were they taken by an independent source? Are they based on men or women? After all, if you had one sample with 10 men and 10 women and one sample with 9 men and 11 women, then the second sample would show lower cranial size... Has the methodology been scrutinised? Have the findings appeared in peer review journals?

The white women have larger brains than black women and white men have larger brains than black men. I do not have the literature at my fingertips right now, but I will get it tomorrow. I doubt it will be necessary, however, because Meth. likely will have provided data by then. It is your destiny to be refuted, so fear not. :)

As your pretty graph shows, the alleged difference in IQ between Whites and Blacks given a similar upbringing is 16 points. This is a very substantial difference. On the surface of it, is it explainable by a 1-7% difference in brain capacity? No.

Incorrect. Small changes in brain size have a significant impact upon the amount of cortical neurons.

As you would know, obesity is a form of malnutrition, 'mal' being an affix corresponding to 'bad'. It is not hard to find studies that show that good nutrition correlates with good standards of living. It is also not hard to find studies linking positive mental and physical performance with good nutrition. Why you should continue to insist that it is incredible that any (alleged) brain size differences have to be 'racial' I cannot tell.

I think your brain might fit in a thimble. Contact Rushton, he may be interested. I say this because you are unable to argue, which requires responding to the points of your opponent, not just carrying on obliviously. For instance, Would you not expect that Vietnames, mainland Chinese and Eastern Europeans are much poorer than American blacks and thus are malnourished compared to American blacks? Even though this is true, even malnourished Chinese peasants have higher IQs and and larger brains than blacks born and raised in first-world living conditions in England and America!

Response? I don't see one. Please note for future reference the way the rest of us debate: by discussing each point made by our opponents. This is not a discussion at all. The rest of us seem merely to be interrupting your monologue; without any degree of success, I might add.


Perhaps the final thought to leave you with is this. Men's brains, on average, are about 15% larger than women's brains. If the link between brain size and IQ is so certain, and we accept that the average brain size of a black person is 7% less than his white counterpart, and that this results in an IQ score of 16 less, imagine what the IQ differences of men and women should be on average!

First, it is incorrect that men's brains are 15% larger. After adjustment by covariance, they are 9%-11% larger(I would need to check the data). Second, no one is suggesting that there is an absolute 1 correlation between brain size and intelligence. While it is the case that women have less spatial intelligence than men, it is also true that their brains are developed differently. Women have more nerve cells in their prefrontal lobes, which explains why their brains are so much smaller yet they are not tremendously behind men in terms of intelligence. This is a bit of a digression on my part and does nothing to explain why black women have smaller brains than white women, which corresponds to their lower intelligence. In fact, blacks have fewer cortical neurons(13.185 billion) than whites(13.665), who have fewer than asians(13.767). The difference isn't miniscule even upon first inspection!

[humanist]

I will respond to that nonsense immediately after Meth responds....if he can.

[jcs]

I will respond to that nonsense immediately after Meth responds....if he can.
Ego masturbation. Are you debating a person or an ideology?

[humanist]

I was being jocular.

I will get back to everyone else. I'm a busy person, so I'll just wait for Meth, so don't worry everyone else; I am not ignoring your posts or anything. :)

[Anarch]

I was being jocular.

You get laughs out of having your ass handed to you on a silver platter? You are one twisted individual.

[infoterror]

Disproof of pan-Humanism:
1) Some people are dumber than others.
2) We want smarter people.
3) Therefore, we must discriminate against dumber people in order to get smarter.

[Petyr Baelish]

To refute Meth (yet again!!):

It wasn't a postulation. I was taking their figures as legitimate and pointing out that the margins of difference are in fact only 1% in cranial size.

That is a postulation. Your 'interpretation' of neuroanatomical data is founded more in abysmally deep ignorance of elementary neuroanatomy than anything else. I will try and give you a short explanation, phrased in language that even a simple-minded buffoon like yourself can understand, to enlighten you as to why you are, as always, wrong.

Brain tissue consists of two types of cells, glial cells and neurons, in approximately equal proportion. Glial cells are mostly responsible for providing support and protection for neurons: they seem to have much less of an impact upon cognitive ability than neurons. Neurons are the brain-cells responsible for for transmitting messages, in the form of electrical impulses and chemical neurotransmitters, between various parts of the brain; they are highly specialized for handling various neurophysiological functions. Furthermore, neuronal deficits in various parts of the brain will produce markedly different impacts of cognitive ability; for instance, lesioning or atrophy in the pre-frontal cortex, concerned with higher mental functions will produce a discernable degeneration of problem-solving ability, whereas there are cases in medical literature of perfectly normal people being born without a cerebellum. It is most likely that the differences in intelligence between various racial groups stem from neuronal deficits in the pre-frontal cortex. As regards women, it is true that their brains are considerably smaller than those of men - however, when adjustments for body-weight are made (it's not the size of the brain per se that is important as a predictor of cognitive ability, but the ratio of cortical neuron mass to total body mass), these differences shrink considerably. Also, women have a higher proportion of neurons than men do. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, nobody ever suggested a perfect 1.0 correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence - this is merely a ridiculous strawman that you are using in order to buttress your worthless argument. The correlation between cranial capacity and IQ is actually 0.40; not perfect, but definitely statistically significant and strong evidence that racial differences in intelligence have a powerful neuroanatomical basis.

Where are the data-sets, though? How were these measurements taken? Were they taken by an independent source? Are they based on men or women? After all, if you had one sample with 10 men and 10 women and one sample with 9 men and 11 women, then the second sample would show lower cranial size... Has the methodology been scrutinised? Have the findings appeared in peer review journals?

I have already suggested that you read the article from which this data is taken, to which end I have provided you with a hyperlink to the said article several times. Since you continue asking questions the answer to which would be easily apparent if you were to actually read the article, I have no choice but to assume that you are:
1. not sufficiently intelligent to be able to follow a hyperlink, and/or
2. refuse to read the article, and/or
3. have an analytical deficit that prevents you from comprehending the data in the article, and/or
4. are illiterate.

I cannot help you with any of these problems.


This is a very substantial difference. On the surface of it, is it explainable by a 1-7% difference in brain capacity? No.

Again, here you go with your moronic and utterly irrelevant interpreation of neuroanatomical data. Read what I posted above, and then invest in a copy of The Brain For Dummies.

As you would know, obesity is a form of malnutrition, 'mal' being an affix corresponding to 'bad'.

Irrelevant semantical quibbling. Overnourishment does not stunt anatomical development or growth.

It is not hard to find studies that show that good nutrition correlates with good standards of living.

Yes, if "good nutrition" is defined as "consumption of an adequate or excessive amount of nutrients". This sort of nutrition can also lead to obesity, by the way. The only sort of "malnutrition" that can lead to stunted anatomical development is the sort characterized by a deficit of nutrients (undernourishment), not an overabundance thereof (overnourishment).



Perhaps the final thought to leave you with is this. Men's brains, on average, are about 15% larger than women's brains. If the link between brain size and IQ is so certain, and we accept that the average brain size of a black person is 7% less than his white counterpart, and that this results in an IQ score of 16 less, imagine what the IQ differences of men and women should be on average!

And are they over 16 points? Are they anywhere near approaching that number? No.

Read above.

[infoterror]

Men and women are opposite sides of the same coin. Keep women out of politics and battle, and keep men (except Engl-- I mean, fags) out of interior decoration, and we'll all be OK.

The issue with Negroes isn't IQ. It's that they are not us. Mix with any kind of other and become something your ancestors were not, and shortly after that, go into 3rd world(tm) failure.

[humanist]

As regards women, it is true that their brains are considerably smaller than those of men; however, when adjustments for body-weight are made (it is not the size of the brain per se that is important as a predictor of cognitive ability, but the ratio of cortical neuron mass to total body mass)
Citation please.

I'm well familiar with the argument, but I am only familiar with it as a proposition. You are now the second person to rely on this point to eliminate the conflict in the data. If you are going to rely on this point, show where it has passed into the realm of peer-reviewed science.

I will address the rest of your points when I have more time to do so.

[Helios Panoptes]

Citation please.

I'm well familiar with the argument, but I am only familiar with it as a proposition. You are now the second person to rely on this point to eliminate the conflict in the data. If you are going to rely on this point, show where it has passed into the realm of peer-reviewed science.

I will address the rest of your points when I have more time to do so.


Women have greater density of neurons in posterior temporal cortex

SF Witelson, II Glezer and DL Kigar
Department of Psychiatry, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Cytoarchitectonic area TA1 (von Economo) in the cortex of the planum temporale within the Sylvian fissure, which is auditory association cortex and documented to be part of the neural substrate of language functions, was studied quantitatively in the brain specimens of five women and four men (mean age of 50 year). All cases were documented to be medically and cognitively normal, and consistently right-handed. We investigated the possibility that the difference in brain size between men and women is reflected in differences in the numerical density of neurons in area TA1, an area associated with morphologic and psychological sex differences. Neuron counts were made directly through cell differentiation under the microscope from Nissl-stained sections. Cortical depth, the number of neurons through the depth of cortex under 1 mm2 of cortical surface (Nc), and the number of neurons per unit volume (Nv) were obtained for the total cortex and for each of the six layers in each hemisphere. For total cortex in both hemispheres, depth and Nc were similar, but Nv was greater by 11% in women, with no overlap of scores between the sexes. The sex difference in Nv was attributable to layers II and IV; in contrast, Nv did not differ between the sexes in layers III, V, and VI. This is the first report of such a sex difference in human cortex. The results suggest that the cortical functional unit has a different ratio of input and output components in men and women which could have implications for the sex differences in cognition and behavior. Due to the small sample size and the homogeneity of the cases studied, generalizability of the results requires replication by other studies. In addition, cytoarchitectonic mapping indicated that area TA1 also occurs in the vertical posterior wall of the Sylvian fissure, providing evidence that anatomical definition of the planum temporale should include the posterior vertical wall of the superior temporal gyrus.

www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/5/3418

More brains were studied by this researcher with the same findings. The research was published in Science, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, et al.

[Basil Fawlty]

Humanist, when are you going to demonstrate the assertion in the thread title - "the necessity of panhumanism"?

[Blaphbee]

In response to the original post:
In our earliest history, so far as we can tell, individuals held to an allegiance toward their immediate tribal group, which may have numbered no more than ten or twenty individuals, all of whom were related by consanguinity. As time went on, the need for cooperative behaviour--in the hunting of large animals or large herds, in agriculture, and in the development of cities--forced human beings into larger and larger groups. The group that was identified with, the tribal unit, enlarged at each stage of evolution. Today, a particular instant in the 4.5-billion-year history of Earth and in the several-million-year history of mankind, most human beings owe their primary allegiance to the nation-state (although some of the most dangerous political problems still arise from tribal conflicts involving smaller population units).
This suggests to me a need for radical population reduction, as opposed to a preparatory statement for the need to "work with what we have" in order to instigate a Utopic Disneyland. The presuppositions underlying this and the entire statement as a whole are only applicable to a modern, economic, and anthrocentric worldview. It tries to take itself out of its own natural environmental context with the incumbent influential factors present upon it, and renders itself dysfunctional based on this myopic viewpoint. Such a narrow focus as "pan-humanism" can only ever hope to have very limited and narrow success.
Many visionary leaders have imagined a time when the allegiance of an individual human being is not to his particular nation-state, religion, race, or economic group, but to mankind as a whole; when the benefit to a human being of another sex, race, religion, or political persuasion ten thousand miles away is as precious to us as to our neighbour or our brother. The trend is in this direction, but it is aganozingly slow. There is a serious question whether such a global self-identification of mankind can be achieved before we destroy ourselves with the technological forces our intelligence has unleashed.
Doomsday predictions. Why is human variation and difference such a problem in this worldview? I guess multiculturalism doesn't work quite well enough for your purposes? What about the rest of the world and all the other billions of species which seem to be functioning just fine (and have been for longer than humanity's tenure on the planet) without needing to draw themselves into large undifferentiated collectives of no individual or inter-species variance? Why do away with all the achievements which have been created by humanity throughout its entire history, so that a modern society in its infinite...ly short-sighted wisdom can have free reign and havoc with the world? First, you must define where humanity is going, before you can assert the best path for getting there. Pan-humanism does not do this.
I believe the difficulty we all experience is extending our identification horizons. Human history is filled with monstrous cases of tiny differences -- in skin pigmentation, or abtruse theological speculation, or manner of dress and hair style--being the acuse of harassment, enslavement, and murder.
So we must "obliterate" these tiny differences in order to do...what? For what purpose? The reasons and ulterior motives behind the so-called "necessity for pan-humanism" have not been defined. Until they are, this is nothing more than grand-standing rhetorical blather.

Aside from this, grand-standing upon one single philosophical issue (in this case, pan-humanism) inevitably leaves out and conveniently forgets about the multitude of extraneous issues which are not solved by adopting this point of view. Ecocide? Global warming? National debt and deficits? Political corruption? Widespread deforestation of irreplaceable natural ecosystems? Overpopulation? Destruction of coral reefs? Rampant crime? Resource depletion? The water wars we will soon begin fighting? What about the people who refuse to adopt this belief? Do you actually think that wars will stop being fought upon economic grounds, which is the only factor this ideology seems to concern itself with, beyond trying to stamp out the incidence of violence based upon ethnic/religious discrimination? Have you even thought about the effects this would have upon religion itself?

The illusion of "progress" is a sham.

This totalitarianism of yours, based on wiping out historical differences among variant human populations in order for purely sociological/moral issues to dominate human discourse at the expense of countless exterior issues of arguably greater import than how humans choose to mate, is hilariously short-sighted, and doomed to utter failure.

[Petyr Baelish]

Citation please.

There is not much use in posting a citation since you simply ignore of misinterpret whatever data happens to contradict your beliefs. My reply was really meant for the gallery; trying to teach Koko the gorilla integral calculus would be a better use of my time than attempting to rectify your invincible ignorance. I will, however, post citations in the future for the benefit of those who can actually read and understand them.