Parental uncertainty, and it's impacts on equitable social treatment.

[Jarhyn]

So, something entirely infeasible to apply but clearly supportive of some things I've felt for some time, namely that reliance on direct genetic provenance rather than intellectual contribution, especially in a species with as little genetic variation as our own, is counter to the wellbeing of social species, and that a stronger community and better parental practices arise from ignorance of genetic heritage.

https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/mong...ms-care-for-all-the-groups-pups-as-their-own/

A new study on mongoose society has found that because mothers in groups of mongooses all give birth on the same night, this creates a “veil of ignorance” about which pups belong to which moms. And this leads to the pups being raised equitably, in a communal fashion.

 

[steve_bank]

I believe the word is 'tribal' or 'village'.


When I was rehabbing in a nursing home there was a duck pond on the grounds.

Moma ducks seem to know which ducks are theirs and vice versa.

Merecats are interesting. They have a communal culture. There are a set of jobs for which members rotate. They share caring for young, foraging and so on.

Then there are the felines where males will kill the young to bring the female into heat so he can pass on his gnes.

Tribalism on the scale of human population is impossible.

Russian communists tried to crate a flat society and failed moserably.

Chinese communism tried to impose a mono culture and failed. They regrouped and chnaged economics and recovered, but believe govy should impose a mon0 thought culture by rigid indoctrination. It worlks in some regards, but not something we would like.


The sense of community gas been corrupted by pop cukrure and entertainment.

Even at the family level from the reports evening traditional dail family dinner meals have diminished. People watch video screens instead of talking across the kitchen table.


I would not say there is no human genetic diversity. I am an Amer cam mutt. German, Irish, English, Welsh, and a distant Native American. A not atypical American blend.

It would be intreesting to test white supremacists for African and Jewish energetic markers.

Black Afrcan genes are distrubutd through the population.

 

[Tigers!]

So, something entirely infeasible to apply but clearly supportive of some things I've felt for some time, namely that reliance on direct genetic provenance rather than intellectual contribution, especially in a species with as little genetic variation as our own, is counter to the wellbeing of social species, and that a stronger community and better parental practices arise from ignorance of genetic heritage.

https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/mong...ms-care-for-all-the-groups-pups-as-their-own/

A new study on mongoose society has found that because mothers in groups of mongooses all give birth on the same night, this creates a “veil of ignorance” about which pups belong to which moms. And this leads to the pups being raised equitably, in a communal fashion.

If you believe that what may be good for mongooses (mongeeses?) might be good for humans then such a study is grist to your mill.

 

[skepticalbip]

So, something entirely infeasible to apply but clearly supportive of some things I've felt for some time, namely that reliance on direct genetic provenance rather than intellectual contribution, especially in a species with as little genetic variation as our own, is counter to the wellbeing of social species, and that a stronger community and better parental practices arise from ignorance of genetic heritage.

https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/mong...ms-care-for-all-the-groups-pups-as-their-own/

A new study on mongoose society has found that because mothers in groups of mongooses all give birth on the same night, this creates a “veil of ignorance” about which pups belong to which moms. And this leads to the pups being raised equitably, in a communal fashion.

If you believe that what may be good for mongooses (mongeeses?) might be good for humans then such a study is grist to your mill.

Some do cite the behavior of other species to support how they believe humans should behave. It amounts to rather specious and misguided support but still it is done.

Karl Marx apparently thought ant behavior should be adopted by human societies. The female black widow spider kills and eats the male after mating... there are probably some misandrous females who see such behavior as praiseworthy and a guide that should be emulated by other species.

 

[fromderinside]

Mana from the mind of the uninformed. It kills.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would be intreesting to test white supremacists for African and Jewish energetic markers.

Black Afrcan genes are distrubutd through the population.

Black Africans is the original model. All of humanity is just degrees of black blood diluted.

So it's not going to tell you much. I think it's more interesting to look at Neanderthal genes. Blacks are the only group to lack these genes.

It's the amount of shared genes which pushes us toward protecting or rejecting other humans. As established by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene.

 

[Politesse]

As hypothesized by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene.

 

[untermensche]

So, something entirely infeasible to apply but clearly supportive of some things I've felt for some time, namely that reliance on direct genetic provenance rather than intellectual contribution, especially in a species with as little genetic variation as our own, is counter to the wellbeing of social species, and that a stronger community and better parental practices arise from ignorance of genetic heritage.

https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/mong...ms-care-for-all-the-groups-pups-as-their-own/

A new study on mongoose society has found that because mothers in groups of mongooses all give birth on the same night, this creates a “veil of ignorance” about which pups belong to which moms. And this leads to the pups being raised equitably, in a communal fashion.

We understand this.

We have public education because we know the next great idea can come from any set of genes.

When you exclude a group and give them a substandard education you satisfy some internal hatred but harm society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would be intreesting to test white supremacists for African and Jewish energetic markers.

Black Afrcan genes are distrubutd through the population.

Black Africans is the original model. All of humanity is just degrees of black blood diluted.

So it's not going to tell you much. I think it's more interesting to look at Neanderthal genes. Blacks are the only group to lack these genes.

It's the amount of shared genes which pushes us toward protecting or rejecting other humans. As established by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene.

Oh, that would be evil!

Make part of the sentence for any racially-motivated crime a genetic background test.

(Personally, I'd like to know how I ended up with .3% southeast Asian. Other than that my heritage is very solidly European white. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago?)

 

[steve_bank]

We came out of Africa, but humanity is not tribal on a global or national scale. That is obvious.

My grandmother once said that people want heaven on Earth but they are not going to get it.

The current progressives think social engineering is going to make things right, much as the Soviet communist tried.

To me the best possible system is one that serves to minimize disparity recognizing it can not be eliminated.

African cultures were far from social equality. They wre authorterian as are most human cultures t varrying degrees.

I heard it said in a societyy of geniuses there would be an Einstein that stood out.

The idea that there will be a homogeneous perfectly balanced system is fantasy.

At the end of the movie Enemy At The Gates about the Battle Of Stalingrad a poltical officer comments we intended to create an equal society, but there is always something to covet about someone else.

The question is how to manage inevitable stratification.

What America had was churning from immigrantsat the bottom percolating up over generations. It was fuled by primary education for all. Then govy grants and loans for college.

In our system of completion it is on the individual regardless of how you start to go out and earn equality. It is not given, unless we wabt to start calling each oter comrade.

 

[Bomb#20]

(Personally, I'd like to know how I ended up with .3% southeast Asian. Other than that my heritage is very solidly European white. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago?)

Turn it around: what was someone from Europe doing in southeast Asia ~9 generations ago? The question answers itself: participating in colonialism and banging one of the locals on the side. Maybe he did the decent thing and brought the woman and their kid back to Europe with him; or maybe he went all Madame Butterfly and brought just the kid back; or maybe her male relatives found out she was knocked up and hustled her home.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As hypothesized by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene.

Nah. It's a theory. A hypothesis is based on a single data point or on weak or vague evidence. A theory is a rigorously tested idea based on a vast body of good evidence. The selfish gene theory is pretty robust. The point where, let's say the "group selection" theory and the "selfish gene" theory depart is in details. Both are attempts to weave together the available evidence into a coherent story. But it's still well supported by evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would be intreesting to test white supremacists for African and Jewish energetic markers.

Black Afrcan genes are distrubutd through the population.

Black Africans is the original model. All of humanity is just degrees of black blood diluted.

So it's not going to tell you much. I think it's more interesting to look at Neanderthal genes. Blacks are the only group to lack these genes.

It's the amount of shared genes which pushes us toward protecting or rejecting other humans. As established by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene.

Oh, that would be evil!

Make part of the sentence for any racially-motivated crime a genetic background test.

(Personally, I'd like to know how I ended up with .3% southeast Asian. Other than that my heritage is very solidly European white. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago?)

When it comes to Asian genes in European blood it's often based on the exploits of Gengis Khan and the Golden Horde. I forget the exact number, but something like 30% of all Russians are decedents of that one guy. It's an astonishingly high number. And then he had the of the army also raping as they went along.

But we can go further back in history. The story of Europe is basically that Europe was successively conquered by wave after wave of various conquerors from the Asian steps ethnically cleansing and raping as they set up shop in their new home. Caucasians are called Caucasians for this reason. European whites is just yet another of all the ethnicities that conquered Europe displacing those who had come before.

Fun fact about Africans is that Africans didn't used to be as dark skinned as they often are today. The dark African skin used to be something exclusively found in West Africa. Then ca 10 000 years ago they stormed out of West Africa ethnically cleansing (and raping) as they went along.

So basically, in the churn of humans trekking and raping across the globe... no it's not that strange.

We're most likely all the decedents of one or more asshole and rapist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We came out of Africa, but humanity is not tribal on a global or national scale. That is obvious.

My grandmother once said that people want heaven on Earth but they are not going to get it.

The current progressives think social engineering is going to make things right, much as the Soviet communist tried.

To me the best possible system is one that serves to minimize disparity recognizing it can not be eliminated.

African cultures were far from social equality. They wre authorterian as are most human cultures t varrying degrees.

I heard it said in a societyy of geniuses there would be an Einstein that stood out.

The idea that there will be a homogeneous perfectly balanced system is fantasy.

At the end of the movie Enemy At The Gates about the Battle Of Stalingrad a poltical officer comments we intended to create an equal society, but there is always something to covet about someone else.

The question is how to manage inevitable stratification.

What America had was churning from immigrantsat the bottom percolating up over generations. It was fuled by primary education for all. Then govy grants and loans for college.

In our system of completion it is on the individual regardless of how you start to go out and earn equality. It is not given, unless we wabt to start calling each oter comrade.

I once heard a great lecture from the London School of Economics on slavery. But turned out to be on inequality in general. He made a fascinating argument where he basically said that we get the social systems and inequalities that our technology and social innovations can support. Due to the warring nature of man any nation that doesn't adopt the most optimal way to organize society will get conquered by any neighbour slightly better organised. This is a natural evolution towards optimising society toward wealth and power.

He then proceeded to defend slavery in every culture where it has existed. He also defended unfair education and blocking women from higher education, in the olden days. He then defended the gender equality and lack of slavery of our own age with the same arguments. Some inequality is good. Lots of inequality is bad. The more advanced the economy the more equality promotes economic strength and power.

I'm aware I didn't go into any details here. But I found it convincing and made me think a lot better of my ancestors.

I personally don't want a homogeneous perfectly balanced system. That's death. That's a system without dynamism and without any ability to develop and grow. If we ever reach that system I'll be the first person to kill myself. Why bother going on living in such a society? It's not life at all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

(Personally, I'd like to know how I ended up with .3% southeast Asian. Other than that my heritage is very solidly European white. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago?)

Turn it around: what was someone from Europe doing in southeast Asia ~9 generations ago? The question answers itself: participating in colonialism and banging one of the locals on the side. Maybe he did the decent thing and brought the woman and their kid back to Europe with him; or maybe he went all Madame Butterfly and brought just the kid back; or maybe her male relatives found out she was knocked up and hustled her home.

Hm... 0.3% is a very low percentage. First generation is 50%. Second generation is 25% and so on. You need to go extremely far back to reach a number like 0.3%. A couple of hundred years isn't enough.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hm... 0.3% is a very low percentage. First generation is 50%. Second generation is 25% and so on. You need to go extremely far back to reach a number like 0.3%. A couple of hundred years isn't enough.

In the first place, you're underestimating exponential decay rates. 0.3% is between eight and nine generations, just like LP said. In the second place, you appear to be extrapolating from modern generation times. Women used to typically start having babies younger than they do now. A hundred and fifty years could easily be nine generations. And in the third place, the colonial period started five hundred years ago. Even if LP's ancestors had all been forty when they gave birth, that would still only take us back to 1660, when the VOC and the British East India Company were in full bloom.

(I should add that LP's original hypothesis is perfectly plausible too. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago? Blowing his pay on booze and whores -- there were any number of Southeast Asian able-bodied-seamen on European ships. During the colonial period it was entirely normal for navy and merchant ships to recruit sailors from whatever random ports they stopped in.)

 

[Jokodo]

Hm... 0.3% is a very low percentage. First generation is 50%. Second generation is 25% and so on. You need to go extremely far back to reach a number like 0.3%. A couple of hundred years isn't enough.

In the first place, you're underestimating exponential decay rates. 0.3% is between eight and nine generations, just like LP said. In the second place, you appear to be extrapolating from modern generation times. Women used to typically start having babies younger than they do now. A hundred and fifty years could easily be nine generations. And in the third place, the colonial period started five hundred years ago. Even if LP's ancestors had all been forty when they gave birth, that would still only take us back to 1660, when the VOC and the British East India Company were in full bloom.

(I should add that LP's original hypothesis is perfectly plausible too. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago? Blowing his pay on booze and whores -- there were any number of Southeast Asian able-bodied-seamen on European ships. During the colonial period it was entirely normal for navy and merchant ships to recruit sailors from whatever random ports they stopped in.)

There's even a word for "sailors from anywhere east of the Cape working on European ships", and some of them did indeed settle down in Europe and their descendants blend in within a generation or two: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascar

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(Personally, I'd like to know how I ended up with .3% southeast Asian. Other than that my heritage is very solidly European white. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago?)

Turn it around: what was someone from Europe doing in southeast Asia ~9 generations ago? The question answers itself: participating in colonialism and banging one of the locals on the side. Maybe he did the decent thing and brought the woman and their kid back to Europe with him; or maybe he went all Madame Butterfly and brought just the kid back; or maybe her male relatives found out she was knocked up and hustled her home.

Aha, that makes more sense!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hm... 0.3% is a very low percentage. First generation is 50%. Second generation is 25% and so on. You need to go extremely far back to reach a number like 0.3%. A couple of hundred years isn't enough.

In the first place, you're underestimating exponential decay rates. 0.3% is between eight and nine generations, just like LP said. In the second place, you appear to be extrapolating from modern generation times. Women used to typically start having babies younger than they do now. A hundred and fifty years could easily be nine generations. And in the third place, the colonial period started five hundred years ago. Even if LP's ancestors had all been forty when they gave birth, that would still only take us back to 1660, when the VOC and the British East India Company were in full bloom.

(I should add that LP's original hypothesis is perfectly plausible too. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago? Blowing his pay on booze and whores -- there were any number of Southeast Asian able-bodied-seamen on European ships. During the colonial period it was entirely normal for navy and merchant ships to recruit sailors from whatever random ports they stopped in.)

I didn't think of merchant ships. That also makes sense. I was trying to picture why someone from Southeast Asia would be living in Europe.

 

[Jokodo]

Hm... 0.3% is a very low percentage. First generation is 50%. Second generation is 25% and so on. You need to go extremely far back to reach a number like 0.3%. A couple of hundred years isn't enough.

In the first place, you're underestimating exponential decay rates. 0.3% is between eight and nine generations, just like LP said. In the second place, you appear to be extrapolating from modern generation times. Women used to typically start having babies younger than they do now. A hundred and fifty years could easily be nine generations. And in the third place, the colonial period started five hundred years ago. Even if LP's ancestors had all been forty when they gave birth, that would still only take us back to 1660, when the VOC and the British East India Company were in full bloom.

(I should add that LP's original hypothesis is perfectly plausible too. What was someone from southeast Asia doing in Europe ~9 generations ago? Blowing his pay on booze and whores -- there were any number of Southeast Asian able-bodied-seamen on European ships. During the colonial period it was entirely normal for navy and merchant ships to recruit sailors from whatever random ports they stopped in.)

I didn't think of merchant ships. That also makes sense. I was trying to picture why someone from Southeast Asia would be living in Europe.

They might be doing that too. People eventually retired from merchant ships if they didn't die of scurvy first, and some lascar sailors ended up retiring in Europe, sometimes as moderately wealthy men. Early modern society had a lot of prejudices, but it wasn't as segregationiat as later eras. I'm pretty sure a lot of British peasants of the 1700s wouldn't think twice about marrying their daughter to a Malay sailor as long as he gets baptized first and covers his tattoos in public, especially if his savings are enough to buy their farm and half of the next.