Does natural selection imply inherent superiority in certain races?

[student]

First off, a disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with what I'm about to write, and I am not a racist. I just thought about this when thinking about affirmative action, and thought it brought up an interesting point. One which I would like to elaborate upon with you fellow posters!

Natural selection is survival of the "fittest". The fittest would basically mean the superior, since they are better equipped for survival, which is the most basic instinct of all life. Now, look at the world today. If the continent of Africa were left alone without white help, they would never really develop, and some diseases would likely run rampant (as they are today). In Europe and America, and Asia, however, populations are flourishing and are exponentially more advanced then some tribes in Africa. Simply put, whites seem better equipped for survival. This isn't the black's fault, maybe their continent wasn't equipped with the resources to foster a technologically advanced society, but that doesn't really matter. Does this line of reasoning suggest that some races are inherently inferior?

Again, I do not advocate races being treated inferior or anything like that, I'm just exploring the possibility that perhaps they truly are. This is just a thought I came up with, and I'm looking for feedback on it, such as what might be wrong with the arguement. I'm just exploring it as a thought, not a viewpoint, so don't go calling me a horrible racist!

 

[jack merchant]

No, because 'fitter' doesn't equal 'superior'.

 

[student]

I think it would in the sense that the superior are more fit to survive. Of course it wouldn't mean superior in a humanitarian sense, but if one thing is more fit to survive then another, then (at least in terms of survivability and evolution) they would be superior.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No, because the genetic differences between races are negligible.

 

[addiv]

You can't just apply Darwinism on social or anthropological issues, you have to look at a whole specrum of factors.
And even if you look at the 'survivability' of the different cultures/races in this world, it's strange to claim that the Western world/caucasian race is necessarily better equiped for it than Africa, since the population in Africa is growing a lot faster than in Western world. I don't know if you meant survivability this way though.

 

[Perfection]

Remember also, that evolution often works in comprimises, take the classic example of skin tone, darker skinned people have better protection against the harmful effects of UV radiation but cannot produce as much Vitamin D. So darker skinned people tend to be more fit in certain areas, while lighter skinned in others.

Additonally just basing it on population is stupid, there are more Chinese than Americans, are the Chinese therefore superior?

 

[stormbind]

Pontiuth, have you evidence to support that statement?

 

[luiz]

The error in your theory is that the humans are one single race.

We all have beign subject of the same evolutionary pressures, and we share 99% of the genes. Race is not an appropriate term to describe human ethnicities.

 

[student]

Well, if you view survival as not only living but prospering, I think the white world has done considerably better then the black world.

I think addiv's statements may play a deathblow to my thought however: you can't apply darwinism (something genetic), to a problem that is most likely social in nature. That brings up the question, is the problems in Africa social in nature in the sense that it would happen to any race in the same circumstances? Or is it because of some fault in the black race?

 

[bertuzzi's fist]

Dutch explorers tried implementing social Darwinism in Rwanda... they appointed a certain tribe (the minority tribe) to be the leaders, because the shape of their skulls indicated that they were further in the chain of evolution. I guess look at Rwanda now, see what happens when you do that.

 

[KaNick]

Originally posted by stormbind
Pontiuth, have you evidence to support that statement?

Do you have any that disproves it?

 

[bertuzzi's fist]

Also, the relaxed standard of living, and the way society is set up, survival of the fittest would imply intellectual superiority rather than physical dominance today.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Biologically, certain races are fitter for certain locations.

Under prehistoric conditions, A Scandinavian or a Japanese would quickly get sunburned in Africa and would likely develop some form of skin cancer. On the other hand, an African would likely get ricketts and die in Scandinavia. Now, obviously, with modern technology, this is no longer relevant, but it was quite relevant back when racial differences were developing.

Culture, however, is something completely distinct from fitness to one's environment. It is not genetic. Europe was simply in a position, geographically, politically, economically, etc., to develop an advanced culture and Africa was not.

 

[KaNick]

Not to mention the European rape of the African continent.

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by bertuzzi's fist
Dutch explorers tried implementing social Darwinism in Rwanda... they appointed a certain tribe (the minority tribe) to be the leaders, because the shape of their skulls indicated that they were further in the chain of evolution. I guess look at Rwanda now, see what happens when you do that.

I think those weren't Dutch explorers, but Belgians. Rwanda was also included in their Congo colony. They don't have a very clean history there indeed. At least 1 reason to be glad the Belgians seceded from us in the 1830s...

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by GrandMasta Nick
Not to mention the European rape of the African continent.

That occured well after Europe had surpassed sub-saharan Africa in terms of advancement. I would argue that Africa would still remain "undeveloped" from a Western point of view if we remove European expansion and exploration from history.

Western Ideas and Advancements are called that because Europe was the only place where they could evolve. Africa, Asia, etc. simply did not have the required conditions. This is a factor independent of the genetics of the people living there.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by student
Well, if you view survival as not only living but prospering, I think the white world has done considerably better then the black world.

Power shifts have occurred frequently in history so it is not possible to say that one "race" has done very well why others have not.... One reason why so much of Europe is/was doing well is the very close proximity of each country to the other.... This has enabled technology and cultural practices to spread easily. Europe's access to the Middle East enabled it to import the technology of that region before it lost much of its power.

That brings up the question, is the problems in Africa social in nature in the sense that it would happen to any race in the same circumstances? Or is it because of some fault in the black race?

The answer is clearly no to the question. Race based intelligence theories have been largely debunked by many anthropologists. Societial problems are caused by a variety of factors however it would be almost a delusion to claim "racial" biology is involved. Some parts of Africa are very similar to some parts of Europe genetically. A variety of things influence technology however genetics (except for perhaps dieases transmitted by genes and a few other issues) is not really one of them.

 

[bertuzzi's fist]

Originally posted by addiv
I think those weren't Dutch explorers, but Belgians. Rwanda was also included in their Congo colony. They don't have a very clean history there indeed. At least 1 reason to be glad the Belgians seceded from us in the 1830s...

*smacks head* yes, Belgians.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by stormbind
Pontiuth, have you evidence to support that statement?

Chimpanzees and humans share 98% of the genes. So I think that you are going to agree with me that Blacks have more in common with white people that with monkeys

 

[Syterion]

Personally, I think some ethnicities are better at certain physical aspects(For example, watching the Boston marathon quickly conveys the message that Africans are better than whites at running), but none are superior to each other, for all people are equal.