/sci/ - Science & Math

microcephaly

It's only a subspecies if the two species cannot intermix without negative consequence.

http://pastebin.com/tGMEhbhf

http://msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.ca/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html

http://nature.com/scitable/topicpage/haldane-s-rule-the-heterogametic-sex-1144

https://pastebin.com/tGMEhbhf

Outbreeding depression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

Asian-white couples face distinct pregnancy risks, Stanford/Packard study finds

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/10/asian-white-couples-face-distinct-pregnancy-risks-stanfordpackard-study-finds.html

1/3 of hapas (white+asian) suffer from mental illness

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health?id=8732

Most congenital problems are more common on mixed-race babies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15390318

Race mixing can trigger dental problems (in Portuguese, talking about this problem in Brazil)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH7narf8Kzc

Prematurity and Low Birth Weight are a lot more common in mixed-race babies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/

Mixed-race people have the highest mental illness rates:

https://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct03/udry10302003.html

Organ donations must be from person with the same race and similar genetics, due to this, mixed-race people for having peculiar genetic combinations face challenges when they try to receive organ donations

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

>>10585382
Fake video?

>>10585382
Man look at that mulatto piece of shit. This is basically what happens in southern usa. So many niggers secretly fucking white rednecks and shitting out three eyed babies with vaginas on their heads.

>>10585401

Mixing with niggers has negative consequences.

>>10585382
Ive always wanted to know whats up with that video

>>10585972

it's just a regular brazilian mutt with microcephaly

>>10585968
Cheerypicked/manipulated image. Africans have flatter faces on average than Europeans.

>>10586582
cope

>>10586728
>>> >>10586582

>>10585968
>>10586728
>>10586582

>>10585382
Where you draw the line is subjective.
I personally see it as a gradient. The closer someone is to you genetically, the more rights you should afford them. I would treat a 4th cousin like you would typically treat somebody with full citizenship. An identical twin is afforded the most rights. As they get genetically further away you treat them more and more like intelligent livestock.

>>10587029
What kind of nonsense is that?

>>10587038
It's a basic evolutionary strategy seen in many social animals. The more you help those genetically closer to you over those genetically far away, the more probability that any specific gene you have will be replicated, even if you don't replicate it yourself.

>>10585401
Nigger cope

>>10585401
>1/3 of hapas (white+asian) suffer from mental illness

They look white, but kind of off, fall into the uncanny valley for many and get treated accordingly. Imagine everybody treated you as if there was something obviously wrong with you and nobody was willing to tell you why or what it is.

>>10587038
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
Racism and prejudice are evolutionarily optimal strategies.

>>10587045
No, that is not how it works. You cooperate with those who cooperate with you. Cooperate with those who return your favors the best, scout occasionally for other cooperators. That is the msot stable strategy. It doesn't depend on similarity, even completely different species often cooperate and live in mutualistic symbiosis.

Genuinely... what the fuck is that thing?

>>10587063
>>> >>10587067

>>10586736
Show me some "cherry picked" european faces that look as ape like as this.

>>10587060
>Imagine everybody treated you as if there was something obviously wrong with you and nobody was willing to tell you why or what it is.
That's me, except I'm 100% white.

>>10587067
Typically those who cooperate with you best are those who are genetically similar. Symbiosis is the exception, not the rule. All genes are constantly competing against all other genes, and a symbiotic relationship only occurs if the benefits of cooperation outway the downside.
A non-related entity in a symbiotic partnership will never die for it's partner, because it's partner can't spread it's genes.
However, similarity in genes means that if you die for your kin, since they share some of your genes, you have still effectively helped keep some of your genes alive.

>>10587076
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40700

>>10587079
No, it is not. The value of cooperation is in the cooperation itself, not in the genes. No idea where you get that cooperation is harmful, it is beneficial.

Competition is an exception, those who compete force others to elliminate them as a threat, and seek those who cooperate instead, and the benefit the cooperators provide motivate others to take care of them so that they don't die. If they died, they would lose what they provide.

>>10587079
>the exception
How many species coexst today?

>>10587087
You clearly have no understanding of basic evolutionary biology.
Cooperation is not beneficial if in the long-run it means that the whoever you cooperated with is able replicate more than you do. Especially if you are in the same evolutionary niche. Cooperation of non-related life is best done when their source of energy is totally separate. It does not work at all when you are the same species. The only effective cooperation in same-species relationships is sexual reproduction or kin-selection.

>>10587103
You clearly misunderstand evolutionary biology by not taking the higher order effects into account.

>Cooperation is not beneficial if in the long-run it means that the whoever you cooperated with is able replicate more than you do.

Which is why you cooperate with those who cooperate back. Or at least cooperate with those who also cooperate with you.

> It does not work at all when you are the same species. The only effective cooperation in same-species relationships is sexual reproduction or kin-selection.

Completely false. See the argentine ant as an example.

>A non-related entity in a symbiotic partnership will never die for it's partner, because it's partner can't spread it's genes.

An organism can sacrifice itself for a benefical organism if it means that others like him will also get the benefit. An organims can sacrifice itself to destroy a harmful organism, if it means the threat for others like him will get elliminated. This is all very simple.

>>10587119
>Which is why you cooperate with those who cooperate back. Or at least cooperate with those who also cooperate with you
You cooperate with those who cooperate back as long as that cooperation won't eventually lead to your extinction due to resource exhaustion or any other form of parasitism.

>Completely false. See the argentine ant as an example.
A very specific breaking of an otherwise general rule. The only reason this is the case is because it's an invader in those environments. There's enough resources that interspecies competition hasn't manifested. Give it half a million more years and they will no longer cooperate.

>if it means the threat for others like him will get elliminated.
>others like him
So kin selection, like I already said. It's not dying for it's symbiotic partner, it's dying for it's kin.

>>10587131
>You cooperate with those who cooperate back as long as that cooperation won't eventually lead to your extinction due to resource exhaustion or any other form of parasitism.

You keep assuming that everybody else also tries to outcomete you. Of course you can't cooperate with those trying to harm you or try to outcompete you, but only with those who also cooperate. You can maximize your personal benefit this way. It doesn't matter to you that others succeed as well because of you, on the contrary, as I said it even motivates them to keep you alive if the need arose.

>A very specific breaking of an otherwise general rule. The only reason this is the case is because it's an invader in those environments. There's enough resources that interspecies competition hasn't manifested. Give it half a million more years and they will no longer cooperate.

They more or less mowed own all other ants that do compete in the range where they are able to survive.

>So kin selection, like I already said. It's not dying for it's symbiotic partner, it's dying for it's kin.

It isn't. The organism you sacrifice for is not necessarily your kin. It doesn't even have to be your kin eventually if other organisms are capable of recognizing your sacrifice and support your offspring in return.

>>10587151
>You keep assuming that everybody else also tries to outcomete you.
That's because they do if they are getting their energy from the same niche as me and my kin.

>Of course you can't cooperate with those trying to harm you or try to outcompete you
That may not be the intention in any moment, but it is certainly the effect if your cooperation brings more offspring to them than if their cooperation brings more offspring to you.

>They more or less mowed own all other ants that do compete in the range where they are able to survive.
Right, within that niche of ants they selected for those genetically similar over those that aren't.

>>10587151
>It isn't. The organism you sacrifice for is not necessarily your kin. It doesn't even have to be your kin eventually if other organisms are capable of recognizing your sacrifice and support your offspring in return.
You must already have offspring for that to work. Thus you are sacrificing yourself for the benefit of your kin.

>>10587177
Bruh did you even take an evolution class. You are trying to project greenbeard alleles onto complex phenotypes. You are also completely disregarding all mutualism interactions as well as symbiotic ones.

If cooperation weren't beneficial in the long term we wouldn't have mitochondria and complex multi-cellular life would never have evolved.

>>10587177
>That's because they do if they are getting their energy from the same niche as me and my kin.

You take as much as you need and leave the rest for others. By competing with them, you give them reasons to get rid of you. You are human, you can fit any niche. Of course if you are a fool who sees cooperation as a sign of mental disability and tries to outcompete everybody (even under the ruse of feigned cooperation), no sane organism will cooperate with you.

>That may not be the intention in any moment, but it is certainly the effect if your cooperation brings more offspring to them than if their cooperation brings more offspring to you.

No; the point isn't to have more offspring than the other one, the point is to not get extinct. Those are not the same - the smallpox virus was surely extremely numerous. It is gone now.

>Right, within that niche of ants they selected for those genetically similar over those that aren't.

They selected for those who cooperate. They also spread around and protect honeydew producing insects, despite not being closely related to them. Which is a yet another piece of evidence against you.

>>10587187
Come on now, don't try to deny that behaviors don't have an evolutionary component. I never said it was specific alleles.

>If cooperation weren't beneficial in the long term we wouldn't have mitochondria
Never said that cooperation is never beneficial in the long run. It's detrimental for a member if the energy from the specific niche can be extracted solely by the other member in the cooperation and that other member gains more offspring from the cooperation. This is true for the majority of species, including humans cooperating with oneanother. This is not true for mitochondria and their host cell.

>You take as much as you need and leave the rest for others
You take as much as you can get without violating the trust of your partner in the cooperation. Your end goal is maxizing the presence the genes which contribute to the phenotypes which do the maximization.
If I am choosing between giving resources to a random non-relative in my species or a random relative, I always pick the relative.

>Those are not the same
In the moment, no. But over time they coincide. Species which end up going extinct do not produce any more offspring. Thus there is an indirect evolutionary pressure to adapt in such a way that you do not express phenotypes which lead to extinction.

>They also spread around and protect honeydew producing insects
I don't know about it in that depth, but it sounds like they are not the same niche, the honeydew collecting insects are resources, not competition.

Forgot your (you) >>10587233

>>10585382
There are no subspecies of human currently alive, or species. If you want to find a different species of human, time travel to meet Denisovans, Neanderthals, or erectus.

Reminder that most anthropologists don’t believe in race anymore. Race science is dying out.

>>10587074
Europeans are apes. All humans are apes. You are dumb.

>>10585382
Why do you dumbasses always think this video is related to race? That person has a disease called microcephaly.

>>10587292
>It's detrimental for a member if the energy from the specific niche can be extracted solely by the other member in the cooperation and that other member gains more offspring from the cooperation. This is true for the majority of species, including humans cooperating with oneanother.

No it isn't. This is why you wouldn't cooperate with those who compete. Which means if you compete, nobody cooperates with you and you lose all the benefits of cooperation and waste energy on fighting others where you otherwise wouldn't have to.

>You take as much as you can get without violating the trust of your partner in the cooperation.

That is a form of competition and will motivate others to not cooperate with you.

> Your end goal is maxizing the presence the genes which contribute to the phenotypes which do the maximization.

No, your goal is to minimize the risk of extinction, which as I said is not the same thing.

>If I am choosing between giving resources to a random non-relative in my species or a random relative, I always pick the relative.

Then you are losing on finding other potential cooperators. Or in fact the relatives may already be on your side and it may make more sense ot use the resorces on scouting fot other cooperators instead.

> Thus there is an indirect evolutionary pressure to adapt in such a way that you do not express phenotypes which lead to extinction.

Yes, and one of those is competing with others, as it motivates them to destroy you, so that you are no longer a threat.

>are resources, not competition.

Which is why you want to be a cooperator and not a competitor.

>>10587341
/pol/ crossboarders with intense biases.

>>10587292
Also, I'm not 100% sure you know what phenotype means, maybe you should check that out.

>>10587292
When they teach what a greenbeard allele is they stress heavily that you can't do what you are trying to do right now because that's not how a greenbeard allele works.

That is true but it is foolish to think that doesn't happen super frequently. Ecological interactions are heavily populated by mutualist interactions to the point that many species are completely obligate.If you think that humans are immune to this you are silly, you can't be a ballet dancer+weight lifter+mathematician+pilot+factory worker+scuba diver+ farmer+ etc. etc. The fact that you are typing on a computer belies the fact that for advanced societies to exist cooperation is a requirement.

If you take all you can without violating trust then you must be a shitty lover and a shitty friend. More so we are not in an energy dependent society, unless you live in the third world. Cooperation optimizes the more people are cooperative, being greedy is why it can have issues. We rely on social trust to prevent greed so cooperation can optimize.

Actually I'm just gonna stop now and tell you to read a book called "The Selfish Gene" which explains why your thinking leads to a terrible and deadly path for our species. If you follow your tenants exclusively you are no better than a defective gene jumping from chromosome to chromosome ruining lives as it goes just so a stupid string of nucleic acids can keep going.

Did anybody notice how nice the people talking when they wrote the consititution they seemed really generous

>>10585382
this whole thread is just an excuse for >>>/pol/ to insert RACISM into /sci/ and you goddamned well know it. Fuck off.

>>10587497
“Racism outside of /b/“ is a reportable offense here. Use this weapon.

>>10587345
>Which means if you compete, nobody cooperates with you and you lose all the benefits of cooperation and waste energy on fighting others where you otherwise wouldn't have to.
You compete with non-kin of the same species. And kin cooperates with you because your cooperate with them. Hence you get tribes and Nations in humanity.

>That is a form of competition and will motivate others to not cooperate with you.
Only if your expectations of their trust function is incorrect. Game theory says that over time a mean will be met where your expectations and their expectations match the reality such that gains are maximized under the constraint that mutual trust is gauranteed.

>No, your goal is to minimize the risk of extinction, which as I said is not the same thing.
As I said, that coincides via indirect pressure.

>Then you are losing on finding other potential cooperators
The only cooperation I want from entities in my niche is cooperation from relatives, because any other cooperation has the potential effect of leading to exhaustion of resources.
Looking for opportunities within your own species is generally a waste of time if you have kin. If opportunities come to you, that's a different question. Then it all depends on if the resources you gain will increase your offspring more than it increases their offspring.

>Yes, and one of those is competing with others, as it motivates them to destroy you, so that you are no longer a threat.
I'm not sure how that's relevant? This is pretty well known. Chimp tribes go to war with each-other. Insect colonies invade other insect colonies. That just further proves my point of intra-niche competition increasing cooperation of kin and making non-kin into "enemies"

>Which is why you want to be a cooperator and not a competitor.
Only in the case where your cooperation doesn't share the same niche as you, or has any long-term detrimental effect on your niche.

>>10587372
I take a general definition of phenotype which conservatively extends the standard interpretation. Let's not get bogged down in semantics, as everything I say applies to the standard definition too.
A phenotype is any effect on the environment that is causally linked to gene expression of or more genes.

>>10587440
>When they teach what a greenbeard allele
Sure, but I never said it is always an allele or even a set of alleles. I implied it was evolutionary and thus heritable. Heritability does not always imply alleles.
But even if it was only green-beard alleles, that is how it CAN work. Not necessarily how it always works. But certainly it works that way the majority of the time. A lifeform only cooperates within it's own species if that cooperation is going to maximize the it's genes over others. Once again it doesn't have to be alleles, because many different sets of genes in different entities may replicate the same behavior. Those other sets may not be alleles of the same set that causes you to have that behavior, but only expressed that way because of certain environmental factors.

>Ecological interactions are heavily populated by mutualist interactions
Ecology typically implies species which mutually cooperate due to little overlapping resource competition. Like, I said if your niche has enough resources or your symbiotic partner doesn't use your resources, then cooperation with non-relatives works.
However due to the nature of speciation, this is almost never true for intra-species relationships.

>If you think that humans are immune to this you are sill
Humans are more similar than they are different. In the end we all get our resources from a scarce environment, and the resources which are most useful for survival are common among all humans, thus we have a great deal of competitive pressure no matter your specialization.

>>10587440
>The fact that you are typing on a computer belies the fact that for advanced societies to exist cooperation is a requirement.
Cooperation of pretty genetically similar groups. Hence the creation of ethnically delineated nations.

>If you take all you can without violating trust then you must be a shitty lover and a shitty friend.
No, it makes you an optimal lover and friend, assuming that your assessment of the other's trust function is accurate. You do exactly what you need to get the relationship to where you want it to be. Do you give all your earnings to your friends? I didn't think so. You do what you think you need to do to maintain or escalate the relationship to where you want it and no more.
It's a hash way to think about it, but nature is a cruel creator.

>Actually I'm just gonna stop now and tell you to read a book called "The Selfish Gene" which explains why your thinking leads to a terrible and deadly path for our species
I've read it. I never said that cooperation is never good. I said it's only good under certain conditions. Everything in "The Selfish Gene" agrees with this model.

>>10587560
>Cooperation of pretty genetically similar groups. Hence the creation of ethnically delineated nations.

Nations aren’t ethnically delineated. Not one.

>>10587512
I don't say this very often, but you are clearly too stupid to understand my arguments, so I won't reply any further. I'm sorry.

>>10585401
>Mixed-race people have the highest mental illness rates:

there's a good counter argument - mixed race individuals have to cope with environmental factors like being ostracized and being singled out due to being different. This results in various coping mechanisms like depression, suicidal tendencies and other mental illnesses

>>10587695
Don’t give them attention.

>>10587598
Not now, but the formation of civilization after agriculture had ethnically delineated nations. That's what I had in mind, but I didn't clarify it. My mistake.

>>10587601
Not an argument.
Enjoy your continual mental gymnastics to justify a failed humanist ideology.

>>10587497
Or you know people have person experience with blacks, know the iq gap data, and come to the obvious conclusion

>>10587560
Humans do not exploit the same niches all over. Optimizing our cooperative efforts maximizes our reach while minimizing useless overlap. Humanity as a species is not resource limited, we don't have a food problem or a space problem but we do have a transport problem because we aren't cooperating on a high enough level. Our major resource needed right now is intellectual power which is very much dependent on collaboration to advance. It doesn't make you an optimal lover to assess their "trust function" and take advantage of them as much as you can to that point. if you are thinking in terms of winning when getting in a relationship then you are doing it wrong. You are honestly doing it so wrong that I hesitate to say anyone could really show you until you actually love someone.

Look, if what you got from the selfish gene is a free pass to be a dick then go ahead, be a drain on society as a whole. Maximize your personal fitness at the expense of our species.

Please don't try to use evolution to justify being a psychopath.

>>10587877
>Humans do not exploit the same niches all over.
We all depend on energy. And while that's not normally a niche in typical evolution, it is for humans because we will expand past what earth will support. By being generalist creatures, we are cursed with the fact that everything that uses any energy in a way that doesn't benefit our reproduction is competition to our universal expansion.

>Humanity as a species is not resource limited
Sorry but we're not post-scarcity and never will be. All humans ultimately depend on energy, and energy is scarce. If recourses weren't scarce, they wouldn't have prices. Even if we were a extra planetary civilization recourses would be scarce. There's no beating the second law. And we are growing. Exponentially.

>It doesn't make you an optimal lover to assess their "trust function"
You seem to think I am talking about this as if this is a conscious process that people go through. You typically innately behave in ways AS IF you are assessing the trust function, but you also are not doing it consciously. Socially simulated emotions are one such heuristic. Why make it conscious, when our limbic system does a good enough job?

>if you are thinking in terms of winning when getting in a relationship then you are doing it wrong.
I agree. Trusting emotions typically serves as a better heuristic, but those emotions exist because they satisfy the relationship game in such a way that your genes are more likely to propagate.

>be a drain on society as a whole
>Please don't try to use evolution to justify being a psychopath.
The closer I believe someone is related to me the more I contribute to their well being in whatever way I believe is most optimal for them.
I am willing to die for my family if needed.
I don't see how this is psychopathy or a drain on society, as I live in a place where people are typically my ethnic group. It's just simply a subjective decision based on what I value. And I have chosen to value my genes.

>>10587982
socially stimulated*

>>10587982
All life is the process of decreasing native entropy while maximizing stored energy. Energy is the end all be all for life man, it has always been about energy. Humans are not special there. We are also not generalists in developed societies. We are specialists. A generalist would barely survive in a country that isn't a shithole. In order to maximize our output we have to specialize as it removes competition.

We have enough food for >10 billion people easy. We waste most of it. Artificial scarcity exists because of the exact thing you are advocating. This is why we have children being worked to death in mines for something that would be functionally worthless if we actually distributed it. We are also not growing exponentially, most countries passed that phase a long time ago and are in a steady state/declining population.

You value your genes over humanity as a whole, and you value your ethnicity over other for the same reason. Many psychopaths think this way, it is not something new. I don't know if you are one or not but that is exactly what a psychopath would say.

There is a reason humans have sympathy, compassion, and cooperation.

We have definitions of what species and sub-species are which is why white and black people are considered the same species. Just look at the definition bro

>>10585382
I hope your kids get microcephaly

>>10587331
Pavement apes are not human, sorry.

>>10585382

>>10587791
>Not now, but the formation of civilization after agriculture had ethnically delineated nations. That's what I had in mind, but I didn't clarify it. My mistake.

They also tied religion directly to ethnicity, and this idea still persists in the Balkans where converting to Islam magically made you a Turk.

>>10588332
Never heard of a pavement ape. Must be some creature living in your racist imagination.

>>10585382
The biological definitions for different species/races is extremely blurry and is entire arbitrary and up to the biologist to decide which definition is applicable such as the basic interbreeding rule with it either being impossible or occurring rarely naturally you also have the morphological species concept which the definition of species is based more on morphological characteristics than anything else would likely hold the different "races" of humans to definitely fall under the category of subspecies there is also a strong argument for some phylogenetic species concept to apply to humanity to justify the idea of "races" or different biologically different "ecotypes" at the absolute minimum

>>10587695
This. I'm fully caucasian but my mom is from Europe and my father is Spanish from South America. Neither white people, nor hispanics really accepted me. But this probably had a lesser effect compared to how my direct family treated me.

>>10587695
>environmental factors
That's an excuse that is and always will be used no matter the circumstances. Can't even control for it because dishonest demagogues ""argue"" (don't care if it's truth or not) that mean comments on the Internet is oppression. Environmental factors is a fair argument, but when it can't be accounted for you might as well be arguing for existance of God.

>>10588468
>I can't measure it with a number so it doesn't exist
Are you retarded or what?

>>10588529
I believe he means it's through the inability to quantify and actually prove the environmental factors that would give it much less weight

>>10587791
Of course it's not an argument. I presented arguments and you are incapable of understanidng them. It is you, if anythign, who is using "mental gymnastics" to justify your honestly rather cartoonish selfishness. It's sad that such misguided people not only exist, but even believe they are the smart ones.

>>10585382
Based thread

>>10588367

>>10585382
How about when reasonable correlation can be established without deferring to the environment?

>>10585382
When eurangutans stop invading everyone and go back to their shithole continent called europe. America belongs to Amerindians.

>>10587017
I don't think she's 18 anon

>>10585423
surprisingly it's not fake

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26619959

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf

>>10585382
science has a responisbility to put any research in this field across as carefully as possible. talking in terms of sub-species is a no-go to start with. sub-species sounds like 'inferior'. we know how humans love to hate and seperate.

in fact trying to seperate races out from each other is futile anyway. how do you define a group? geographically? genetically? phenotypically? very problematic.

for example, you cannot in our modern world, state with authority someone from china will be lactose intolerant.

it is pointless to study outside of medical epidemiology imo. everything else will be misused by the racists and eugenics pseudoscientists anyway

>>10591610
>in fact trying to seperate races out from each other is futile anyway. how do you define a group? geographically? genetically? phenotypically? very problematic.
>>10588427
see for different types of classification that could fit
>for example, you cannot in our modern world, state with authority someone from china will be lactose intolerant.
No but you can work out the probability of it
>it is pointless to study outside of medical epidemiology imo. everything else will be misused by the racists and eugenics pseudoscientists anyway
The ways people use this research is entirely up to them as long as it is actually true and eugenics is in no way a "pseudoscience" while the origin methodology on it was extremely bad and either misunderstood or did not know enough about hereditary and human genes the same can be said of all science as their origin has always been fraught with incorrect knowledge.

>>10591610
Science has no moral responsibility, its only obligation is to describe material truth.

>>10589676
these papers are why anthropology departments should be bulldozed

>>10591610
>in fact trying to seperate races out from each other is futile anyway. how do you define a group? geographically? genetically? phenotypically? very problematic.
23&me and other ancestry dna companies don't seem to have a problem with it.

>>10592327
i disagree and ethics committees sit for a reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_committee

>>10592483
and that reason is to control science to ensure that it conforms to a rigid post-puritan ideological bias and doesn't ask too many problematic questions and rock the boat too much

>>10592483
You would deny future generations understanding of the reality they are slaved too for the sake of your inability to maturely handle your aversion to progress.

>>10592483
These should only prevent harm being done in reckless atempts to discover the truth, not decide what kind of truth is being sought.

>>10592509
Why should harm be mitigated? What value does "harm" have to science? Science should push the legal boundaries to accomplish its only goal. Discovering more material truth.

>>10592509
even that opens the door to the interpretation that certain science will create societal harm if it discovers that, say, transexuals are not the gender they think they are. that science would be harmful oppression.

>>10592521
> if it discovers that, say, transexuals are not the gender they think they are.

Literally impossible. Gender is declarative. Nice transphobic meme.

>>10592525
biology is not declarative though

>>10592483

>>10585382

>>10592521
There is no harmful knowledge.

>>10592898
I'm too humanist for Stirner hehe

>>10593469
Scientism. Nothing human can be totally trusted, ever

>>10588464
If your father is white hispanic and you present as white then you are probably ~90% european and have not experienced what its like to be mulatto or hapa

>>10593469
The knowledge of knowing how to tie a noose

>>10593469
the knowledge i slept with your mother

>>10587060
idk about you guys but imo half white/asians are the hottest girls by far

>>10585382
>There is only the Human RACE
But what about the space race, the arms race, and the peace race?

>>10585401
>what is genetic variety

>>10587045
If only it were that black and white ...

>>10585382
Nigger.

>>10587839
>Or you know people have been beaten up or mugged by a black back in school and come to the obvious conclusion
ftfy

>>10591610
Your thoughts dont matter because jews already use genetic science to prove how they are superior to everyone else on earth, yet you dont say anything about that.