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 may have been discussed before, but I don't think so.
What do you all think of this paper written by a famous economist named Oded Galore? This paper links genetic diversity to economic development. He argues that Africa having very high levels of genetic diversity has led to low levels of innovation and economic development, while Native Americans having very low levels of genetic diversity suffering through low levels of innovation and economic development. Asian and European lands see a moderate level of diversity which can attribute to their historical success and economic development.
Note: Economic development isn't just money in this sense. It refers to innovations, creations, stability and growth in civilization.
If you're into bad data and white-power overtones.
Critics of this study outnumber its supporters.
Actually - I don't know of any supporters.
By claiming a causal link between the degree of genetic heterogeneity and economic development, their thesis could be interpreted to suggest that increasing or decreasing a nation’s genetic (or ethnic) diversity would promote prosperity. Ultimately, this can provide fodder to those looking to justify policies ranging from mistreatment of immigrants to ethnic cleansing (especially by groups with real political power, e.g., Golden Dawn in Greece).
We are not concerned here with the authors’ own social or political attitudes. Rather, we wish to emphasize the irresponsibility of bad science. In the social sciences, scientific methods are an extremely powerful tool for analyzing trends in an empirically demonstrable manner and thus have the important opportunity to guide political action. When used improperly or when it is of dubious quality, however, science can become a justification for reactionary policy. The dismal nature of economics is often appealed to when facts contradict a desired reality. However, we are not arguing a case for blissful ignorance.
What we see in Ashraf and Galor’s study is the worst of all worlds: something false and undesirable.
This may have been discussed before, but I don't think so.
What do you all think of this paper written by a famous economist named Oded Galore? This paper links genetic diversity to economic development. He argues that Africa having very high levels of genetic diversity has led to low levels of innovation and economic development, while Native Americans having very low levels of genetic diversity suffering through low levels of innovation and economic development. Asian and European lands see a moderate level of diversity which can attribute to their historical success and economic development.
Note: Economic development isn't just money in this sense. It refers to innovations, creations, stability and growth in civilization.
This may have been discussed before, but I don't think so.
What do you all think of this paper written by a famous economist named Oded Galore? This paper links genetic diversity to economic development. He argues that Africa having very high levels of genetic diversity has led to low levels of innovation and economic development, while Native Americans having very low levels of genetic diversity suffering through low levels of innovation and economic development. Asian and European lands see a moderate level of diversity which can attribute to their historical success and economic development.
Note: Economic development isn't just money in this sense. It refers to innovations, creations, stability and growth in civilization.
I like Jared Diamond's theory explained in his book "Germs, Guns and Steel" much better. That the fates of human societies really comes down to geography.
Diversity has tended be a negative, one group will always screw over another group.
The Middle East and Med region was much more developed than Europe was in terms of science and technology, and the genetics of the region cluster closer to Africans than Europeans themselves. This fact debunks this thesis. What a joke
I think the ability to interact with and build upon innovations of a lot of different groups is far more important to success (as measured by technological development).
By accident of geography, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Natives were essentially cut off from the flow and trade of ideas, commerce and technology innovations that Europeans, Middle-Easterners/North Africans and Asians were able to take advantage of and build upon.
They did their own innovation, but they probably would have been further along if they could access the thousands of years of human exchange going on in Asia and Europe.
I think the ability to interact with and build upon innovations of a lot of different groups is far more important to success (as measured by technological development).
By accident of geography, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Natives were essentially cut off from the flow and trade of ideas, commerce and technology innovations that Europeans, Middle-Easterners/North Africans and Asians were able to take advantage of and build upon.
They did their own innovation, but they probably would have been further along if they could access the thousands of years of human exchange going on in Asia and Europe.
How did the study measure innovation? Because innovation could be subjective. I will have to read the methodology of the study to find out. I do know that Amerindians did have sophisticated societies. Some regions were far from primitive. There were trade networks, calendars, governments, and architectures.
Furthermore, genetic homogeneity does not account for cultural diversity. Europeans and Asians have moderate genetic diversity, yet both groups had diverse ethnic groups. Different religions were practiced and languages spoken.
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.
