Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This looks like the prologue to a Disney Cartoon. Colonialism did not happen because people thought Indians were lessor. In the fight over Florida , the Spanish and the French treated each other far worse than they did the Amerindians . Even the Spanish, the most ruthless of them, would tend to persecute the Indians typically because of food shortages. It was an extortion racket. Sooner or later the Indians would revolt from the parasitic European presence and then the usual tit for tat reprisals. If they got a hold of the French , they executed them to a man.
Besides that when the British first started to form a colony in America there were scarcely any Indians around. They were following the Spanish lead to set up a colony in the New world and to compete and raid against the Spanish. The Indians weren't even the concern. The first colony in 1587 in now Virginia was lost. It was most likely wiped out by an Indian tribe. Later Indian attacks and conflicts were a common occurrence. Even much later though French and Spanish was still their main concern. The French were allying with Indians in America to attack the British even as late as the 1760s.
Two animals are not similar just because they look similar or behave in a similar way.
So you are basically saying two things that are similar are not similar.
Quote:
I am genetically (i.e. internally, not in superficial terms) more similar to some Africans or Asians than to fellow Europeans, although looks might suggest that's impossible. But organ transplants for instance say otherwise.
I think the point was to not consider the genetic similarity. The point was could there be more extreme functional differences between the same species vs different species. Who is saying that the genetics don't differ?
Quote:
The difference between humans are only superficial ones, namely looks and culture, which is not even innate. Same as with dog breeds. A poodle and a doberman look very different, yet they are genetically extremely close.
Which is the very point being made. A pan fish on my hook is very functionally similar than would be a very different breed of dog. Everyone know dogs are the same species and are genetically very similar.
Quote:
Horses and Zebras are genetically more different than any two humans living today. Culture is irrelevant as it is just learned. A Sudanese growing up in Sweden among Swedes will end up being be a Swede in every respect except looks.
Genetically . We know. Everyone knows.
Quote:
The genetic bandwidth within a species may be broad, but it is still much less than between two similar species.
For a long time people thought chimps and bonobos were the same species because they look so similar., but now we know they are completely different species, with different sub-species even.
Again based on what criteria? It hardly matter what one can breed what with unless that is one is actually trying to breed them. If i am making a pie, a berry like a ground cherry , related to a tomato , is culturally more like a blue berry.
I mean I can breed with the criminally insane. Why is this a social metric?
That is not the case. Species are defined as different enough not to be able to reliably procreate. Tell me two different species that are closer than any two humans as different as say a Sudanese and a Swede.
Your definition of species is wrong. Think of dogs, coyotes, wolves, and foxes, all of which are separate species that interbreed with no difficulty and fully-fertile offspring. I can't recall examples of species that are closer than human races are, but the literature is out there.
Besides that when the British first started to form a colony in America there were scarcely any Indians around. They were following the Spanish lead to set up a colony in the New world and to compete and raid against the Spanish. The Indians weren't even the concern. The first colony in 1587 in now Virginia was lost. It was most likely wiped out by an Indian tribe. Later Indian attacks and conflicts were a common occurrence. Even much later though French and Spanish was still their main concern. The French were allying with Indians in America to attack the British even as late as the 1750s.
Either way the Colonial empires did not do what they did because they though Indians were sub human. The Spanish were apt to kill anyone in the America because they had the Pope's blessing. Only Portugal was blessed by the pope in the designated areas. Europeans were far more the main targets.
Originally Posted by mtl1 I think the important points are that race is genetic or is a genetic grouping, through differential or isolated breeding, natural selection and evolution over an extended time period. The genetic difference affects not just phenotype and appearance but other things like the brain. So races differ mentally and in behavior, tendencies and the cultures they tend to create. There's also an issue of compatibility, interchangeability and affinity. Different outcomes are not caused by "racism" but by 10s or 100s of thousands of years of natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
So then that would make my race (Caucasian ) the biggest A-holes in the history of the planet. Gee. Thanks.
Just the opposite, it is the prevailing narrative that makes white people the villains of history and the cause of bad outcomes for blacks and others. This slander depends on the myth that we are all the same, with no important biological differences and equal inherent ability on average. And the only good defense against it is the truth of human genetic diversity.
That is not the case. Species are defined as different enough not to be able to reliably procreate.
That's not actually how species are defined. That's a common misconception about the species definition. To be considered the same species, individuals need to be able to reproduce with one another and be morphologically similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Tell me two different species that are closer than any two humans as different as say a Sudanese and a Swede.
Hooded crows and carrion crows are classified as two separate species, yet they can successfully mate and produce fertile offspring and there are only 82 genes that separate the two species. That is far less than the genetic differences between a Sudanese and a Swede.
“The key advantage of space settlements is the ability to build new land, rather than take it from someone else. This allows a huge expansion of humanity without war or destruction of Earth's biosphere. The asteroids alone provide enough material to make new orbital land hundreds of times greater than the surface of the Earth, divided into millions of colonies. This land can easily support trillions of people.”
. . .
In outer space, all necessary elements are available, as well as power 24/7, from our convenient fusion reactor. The only thing lacking is life, in all its abundant forms.
. . .
HOW?
Design, build, and launch small robotic fabricators, whose programming is to replicate themselves, as well as build tools that build tools that build the hulls, habitats, tanks, etc, etc. Send to asteroids that cross Earth’s orbit. If practical, have the robots launch clones to intersect other asteroids and celestial objects.
Harness solar power, accumulate refined metals, collect water, hydrocarbons, gases, etc., and put into convenient orbits via the Interplanetary Transport Network.
. . .
Without further human input of resources, etc, over time, there should be a large supply of unclaimed infrastructure being constructed around the solar system.
. . .
Once all that is in place, humans need only bring life into space. (And livestock, plants, etc, in their most compact forms: fertilized embyros, seeds, eggs, etc.). Stock the heavens with self sufficient autonomous vivariums.
- - - -
Addendum:
How "fast" can we build one million space colonies?
Assume each colony's job is to build another colony.
How quickly can one reach a million via geometric expansion?
20 doublings.
(2^20 = 1,048,576)
If colony construction takes 20 years, in 400 years, we would have over a million.
If colony construction takes 10 years, in 200 years, we would have over a million.
Either way the Colonial empires did not do what they did because they though Indians were sub human.
The British (and French and Dutch) did not see the Indians as subhuman. They both saw each other as incompatible others and the British recognized them as sovereign entities and as savage and an enemy. They did what they did out of self interests and necessity. In the colonial era, France, Britain and Spain probably would've invaded and colonized each other if they thought it was feasible. That basically was attempted later on in the Napoleonic wars etc. The Spanish and Portugal colonization in latin America was a different story.
I think "culture" is correlated with Y-DNA more than others.
The British and the Chinese, for the most part, are actually very closely related in Y-DNA, both being descendants of the K2 group. It is amazing to see that most groups in Western Asia and Southeast Europe are more distant to both groups (statistically speaking)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
