Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

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

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,242
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,039
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    (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.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,801
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,547
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    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.

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,801
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,547
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,801
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,547
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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.

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,801
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,547
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    (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.

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,242
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,039
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    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.)

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,602
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,891
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    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

  8. Top | #18
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,983
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,735
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    (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!

  9. Top | #19
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,983
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,735
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    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.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,602
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,891
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •