• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

Is ‘speciesism’ as bad as racism or sexism?

Do we harvest organs from:

  • Neither

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • Anencephalic babies only

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pigs only

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • Both

    Votes: 13 59.1%

  • Total voters
    22
I would prefer folks have the choice to donate or not (not just an opt out). If more donors are needed, I would suggest cash incentives based on age, health considerations and number of organs donated. If the organs of a 25 year old are more valuable than than those of a 65 year old, then one might employ a system where people donate in 10 year increments with diminishing incentives as folks age.
 
I would prefer folks have the choice to donate or not (not just an opt out). If more donors are needed, I would suggest cash incentives based on age, health considerations and number of organs donated. If the organs of a 25 year old are more valuable than than those of a 65 year old, then one might employ a system where people donate in 10 year increments with diminishing incentives as folks age.

Most donated organs come from people who have died. Cash incentives?
 
Is the prospective donor allowed to smoke, drink, take part in dangerous sports, travel abroad?
Sure, why would one restrict the lives of donors? If you have an auto opt in, is your lifestyle restricted? I'm a donor, it says so on my driver's license. No restrictions on me at all. If the goal is to increase the number of organs available, then adding more layers of compliance or bureaucracy will just reduce the number of those choosing to donate.
 
Sure, why would one restrict the lives of donors? If you have an auto opt in, is your lifestyle restricted? I'm a donor, it says so on my driver's license. No restrictions on me at all. If the goal is to increase the number of organs available, then adding more layers of compliance or bureaucracy will just reduce the number of those choosing to donate.
Very little bureaucracy involved in an opt-out system and very few people seem bothered enough about the issue to opt-out although it is made easy here.
 
Please, tell the court how the "races" differ.
DNA?
According to a study published in the journal Cell in 2020 (it included the genomes of 2,504 people from all regions of the planet), members of different human populations have between 1% and 4% of Neanderthal genes. In Caucasoids, this figure averages 1.7% (51 million base pairs), in Mongoloids 1.8% (55 million base pairs) and in Negroids 0.5% (17 million base pairs). Denisov DNA makes up 4-6% of the genome in the inhabitants of Melanesia and somewhat less in the inhabitants of other archipelagos of Oceania. Denisov DNA was also found in the genome of Greenland Eskimos
 
Last edited:
DNA?
According to a study published in the journal Cell in 2020 (it included the genomes of 2,504 people from all regions of the planet), members of different human populations have between 1% and 4% of Neanderthal genes. In Caucasoids, this figure averages 1.7% (51 million base pairs), in Mongoloids 1.8% (55 million base pairs) and in Negroids 0.5% (17 million base pairs). Denisov DNA makes up 4-6% of the genome in the inhabitants of Melanesia and somewhat less in the inhabitants of other archipelagos of Oceania. Denisov DNA was also found in the genome of Greenland Eskimos
Your tripart racial model dates back to the 18th C and was based on physical characteristics: primarily skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology. There is no DNA or genetic basis for using such out dated terminology. Please post a link to the "Cell" article you reference.

"The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. The Caucasian race was historically regarded as a biological taxon which, depending on which of the historical race classifications was being used, usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

Mongoloid is an obsolete racial grouping of various peoples indigenous to large parts of Asia, the Americas, and some regions in Europe and Oceania. The term is derived from a now-disproven theory of biological race. In the past, other terms such as "Mongolian race", "yellow", "Asiatic" and "Oriental" have been used as synonyms.

Negroid is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia."
 
Your tripart racial model dates back to the 18th C and was based on physical characteristics: primarily skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology. There is no DNA or genetic basis for using such out dated terminology. Please post a link to the "Cell" article you reference.

"The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. The Caucasian race was historically regarded as a biological taxon which, depending on which of the historical race classifications was being used, usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

Mongoloid is an obsolete racial grouping of various peoples indigenous to large parts of Asia, the Americas, and some regions in Europe and Oceania. The term is derived from a now-disproven theory of biological race. In the past, other terms such as "Mongolian race", "yellow", "Asiatic" and "Oriental" have been used as synonyms.

Negroid is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia."
Such termenology used in post-soviet contries, it's just classical description, what still common used here. It's dosn't have any rasict meaning here.

article you asked https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3
the qoute was from different source https://habr.com/ru/articles/579702/

We all, even members of the same race have a different set of chromosomes. Different races differ more strongly in their genes. This is a historical fact, developed as a result of the dispersal in several waves of Homo sapiens around the world
Racial discrimination is operated on the socio-cultural and political or economic level, and then it is tried to be justified by theories of origin or forms of skulls. One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Lombroso

It's dosn't have any rasict meaning here. - Africans in my city are fine if you use the word negro when talking to them. Because our cultures/people/countries do not share a common past of slavery. Therefore, the word does not carry any racist content. Different culture, you know
 
Last edited:
if chromosomal differences between human populations were significant enough to matter in terms of classification, then we would have at least a half dozen distinct racial groups in Africa, as the level of genetic diversity within African populations is higher than between any other putative group.

The fact that these supposed groups just happen to map perfectly to human categories developed out of a colonial world-historic context and prior to any rigorous scientific study of human diversity should clue you in to the fact that this is circular reasoning born out of racist conformation biases rather than any kind of a legitimate objective analysis.

The fact that no serious academic anthropologists, sociologists, or geneticists today talk about human diversity or development on these terms, nor have done for many many decades should also clue you in to that fact.
 
The fact that these supposed groups just happen to map perfectly to human categories developed out of a colonial world-historic context and prior to any rigorous scientific study of human diversity should clue you in to the fact that this is circular reasoning born out of racist conformation biases rather than any kind of a legitimate objective analysis.
Racial discrimination is operated on the socio-cultural and political or economic level, and then it is tried to be justified by theories of origin or forms of skulls. One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Lombroso
i said the same

The fact that no serious academic anthropologists, sociologists, or geneticists today talk about human diversity or development on these terms, nor have done for many many decades should also clue you in to that fact.
from eng wiki
In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists stated: "The belief in 'races' as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past."[3]
After discussing various criteria used in biology to define subspecies or races, Alan R. Templeton concludes in 2016: "[T]he answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no."
In western wolrd - seem so. I dont know how thing going in Arab or Chines world, allthough UNESCO outdate it finaly in 1978

I'm not a scientist, and there has been no public discussion of racial theories in our country because there is no prejudice in terms of race. Perhaps this term is also outdated in our science and is not used among scientists.
Maybe it just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy
Maybe (highly lykely) i'm also outdate. But since I'm not a scientist and we have no prejudice against the word race in this country, I'll use it, with your permission.
P.S. I looked up what is written in modern school books on this topic in our country - there are races, but the species is one. division into races arose due to historical reasons. But now there are no textbooks, and given the degradation of education, it is impossible to make an accurate judgment.
 
i said the same


from eng wiki
In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists stated: "The belief in 'races' as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past."[3]
After discussing various criteria used in biology to define subspecies or races, Alan R. Templeton concludes in 2016: "[T]he answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no."
In western wolrd - seem so. I dont know how thing going in Arab or Chines world, allthough UNESCO outdate it finaly in 1978

I'm not a scientist, and there has been no public discussion of racial theories in our country because there is no prejudice in terms of race. Perhaps this term is also outdated in our science and is not used among scientists.
Maybe it just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy
Maybe (highly lykely) i'm also outdate. But since I'm not a scientist and we have no prejudice against the word race in this country, I'll use it, with your permission.
P.S. I looked up what is written in modern school books on this topic in our country - there are races, but the species is one. division into races arose due to historical reasons. But now there are no textbooks, and given the degradation of education, it is impossible to make an accurate judgment.

Why do you still need to use it, if it has no useful meaning?
 
Such termenology used in post-soviet contries, it's just classical description, what still common used here. It's dosn't have any rasict meaning here.

article you asked https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3
the qoute was from different source https://habr.com/ru/articles/579702/

We all, even members of the same race have a different set of chromosomes. Different races differ more strongly in their genes. This is a historical fact, developed as a result of the dispersal in several waves of Homo sapiens around the world
Racial discrimination is operated on the socio-cultural and political or economic level, and then it is tried to be justified by theories of origin or forms of skulls. One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Lombroso

It's dosn't have any rasict meaning here. - Africans in my city are fine if you use the word negro when talking to them. Because our cultures/people/countries do not share a common past of slavery. Therefore, the word does not carry any racist content. Different culture, you know
I read both links. The "cell" article is all about determining gene flow between Neanderthals and later humans. Caucasioids, Negroids, and Mongoloids are never mentioned. The Russian blogger is the one that brings the out dated language into the conversation. It diminishes the value of his remarks because he is mixing bad science terminology in with current studies. Doing so just makes him look as if he is trying to support 19th C thinking with 21st C technology.
 
There is more genetic difference between two chimpanzees of different troops in the same forest than two randomly selected humans from anywhere in the world.
 
There is more genetic difference between two chimpanzees of different troops in the same forest than two randomly selected humans from anywhere in the world.
and i'll +1, expanding on this;

- underlining, crucially, that that these troops are considered of the same race by biologists.

- noting that race is sometimes used in biological nomenclature, but genetic variance in humans is way, *way* lower than what is meaningfully distinguished as racial differences in other species.
 
I read both links. The "cell" article is all about determining gene flow between Neanderthals and later humans. Caucasioids, Negroids, and Mongoloids are never mentioned. The Russian blogger is the one that brings the out dated language into the conversation. It diminishes the value of his remarks because he is mixing bad science terminology in with current studies. Doing so just makes him look as if he is trying to support 19th C thinking with 21st C technology.
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,[14][15][16][17][18][19] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[20] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[9] or simplistic.[21] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[22][23]
Since the second half of the 20th century, race has been associated with discredited theories of scientific racism, and has become increasingly seen as a largely pseudoscientific system of classification. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and/or loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[24][25] Its use in genetics was formally renounced by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2023(!)

imo, word "race" if used, is used as a verbal construction.

Its use in genetics was formally renounced by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2023 - You wouldn't say that in 2022 this academy was thinking and operating in 18-19C terms? Wouldn't you
 
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,[14][15][16][17][18][19] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[20] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[9] or simplistic.[21] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[22][23]
Since the second half of the 20th century, race has been associated with discredited theories of scientific racism, and has become increasingly seen as a largely pseudoscientific system of classification. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and/or loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[24][25] Its use in genetics was formally renounced by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2023(!)

imo, word "race" if used, is used as a verbal construction.

Its use in genetics was formally renounced by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2023 - You wouldn't say that in 2022 this academy was thinking and operating in 18-19C terms? Wouldn't you
This quote is supporting the claim that race does not have a useful definition. Are you referring to a particular use of "race" by the Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 'cos not yet denounced is not the same as actively using.
 
There are white, black and yellow humans, just like there are white, black and yellow dogs. However, there are no white, black or yellow races - neither among humans nor dogs.

Human evolution is still poorly understood and messy process in general, but as @schlaufuchs said, genetic diversity is larger in Sub-Saharan Africa than in rest of the world combined.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom