As for the the Lancet cover, I initially read that as meaning that racism is NOT confined to white majority societies, but has been found in every race all over the globe throughout history.
This is because all races are equally human, subject to human failings.
In this issue, however, I found that all the articles about racism dealt only with racism directed against non-white peoples in white majority countries. There was not a single article dealing with racism against minority groups in African or Asian countries - this despite the fact that racism is not confined to white majority countries, but may be found wherever there are humans.
This may be simple selection bias. The Lancet is a UK, English language publication and so articles dealing with medical issues originating in other, non English speaking nations maye be excluded by selection bias.
The irony here is that this is in itself a form of racist exclusion...
Do the secret MDs realize that it is precisely because they, and others, do not speak out that the narrative marches on?
That they are killing any miniscule amount of trust that is left in their profession and our "health" system? Sorry, but no patience or empathy left for them.
Forgive me, I forgot the specific one that seems the most kurfuffle between feminists and MRAs. "Family". Nearly every Conservative and self-identified "heterodox thinker" claims it is "biology" driving "family" and that we are "all meant to reproduce"... cuz "biology".
But the fact is that nuclear family is NOT the DNA way for Homo sapiens. Nuclear families have only been happening for a few thousand years. Before that, humans ate as groups, groomed as groups, slept as groups, groomed as groups. Knowledge of paternity only became a thing once we were thoroughly sedentarised. As for the "we all are driven to reproduce" that is NOT true of all species, or all apes. (sure, it depends how you define 'drive', but in the actual outcomes). Not 100% of apes mate, a small percentage of wolves mate, not all ungulates mate. There is sexual selection at play, and mating is simply not everyone's destiny, as is so frequently claimed in some circles.
So "family", the most fundamental unit of the modern existence, is a social construct, as evidenced by evolution. Some days I swear humans want to be different species, like crows, or like bees. ;)
I want to make a clarification regarding blank slatism. Blank slatism is wrongly used as a slur in many conversations
When the world debunked Lamarckism, that was not a 100% abandoning of "acquired" traits. And it is necessary to scarequote that. When we select for traits an animal domestication, we are in *appearance* doing that. When we SELECT niceness in a dog and breed it for that character trait, it has the appearance of Lamarckism. The trait of niceness becomes more and more solidified with each generation (accompanied by a slew of undesired traits).
So we CAN see how human intervention, human beliefs CAN affect genetics... through breeding, over many many generations.
Society CAN affect genetics. We must think of how that is scientifically true, WITHOUT it being Lamarckism.
Another way society CAN affect genetics is medicine. In a natural world without modern medical intervention, the weakest individuals would either fail to reach reproductive age, either fail to reproduce for other reasons, or be stupid/unlucky and die of all sorts of things.
Society breeds pets and livestock for specific traits, usually, this societal intervention onto genetics renders these animals LESS fit. Release them into the wild, and they almost instantly die.
Society (medicine) has also had an effect on human genetics AND human behaviours. Since infants that should have died don't die, they get to breed. Since ijiotic and mentally unfit adults are maintained by medicine and excessive empathy, their mental state gets to breed. Since most congenital illnesses (poor biological fitness) no longer lead to death, they go on to breed. Human society has been selecting for unfitness. And now, as wokeism progresses through all layers of society, we are more and more selecting for un-fitness. If City folk in Western nations were released into the wild, likely 90% of us would die instantly. Our brains are shrinking, our dentition is worsening, many unfitness traits are progressing, because empathy is anti-fitness.
A further impact of society onto biology are religions. Humans need vitamin D. Cultures that cover up more, like religious veiling, have more vitamin D deficiency. Cultures that don't allow women to travel/drive see women's brains develop with less spatial processing capacity, visible in brain scans. Society has consequences on biology, both genetically and generationally.
The term "blank slatism" claims zero societal effects, it is a term used not in scientific discussions but by armchair scientism-ists to speak against societal effects. Honestly, scientists should not use the term as it is completely disingenuous.
Otherwise love the article. My studies were in evolutionary biology, focused on herpetology, and my profs constantly correctly hammered home that "adaptations" did not drive evolution, that evolution is a consequence of random mutations, which then have to prove themselves in nature to demonstrate or not fitness, and I totally agree with that in nature, with caveats for example of predators who LEARN new hunting techniques which increase their breeding fitness, and birds who learn their mating songs which affects their fitness to reproduce.
Thank you for such a great article! It's always been a treat to read your blogposts here!
Excellent article.
As for the the Lancet cover, I initially read that as meaning that racism is NOT confined to white majority societies, but has been found in every race all over the globe throughout history.
This is because all races are equally human, subject to human failings.
In this issue, however, I found that all the articles about racism dealt only with racism directed against non-white peoples in white majority countries. There was not a single article dealing with racism against minority groups in African or Asian countries - this despite the fact that racism is not confined to white majority countries, but may be found wherever there are humans.
This may be simple selection bias. The Lancet is a UK, English language publication and so articles dealing with medical issues originating in other, non English speaking nations maye be excluded by selection bias.
The irony here is that this is in itself a form of racist exclusion...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol400no10368/PIIS0140-6736(22)X0051-2
Great article, should be interesting to see what happens to Jordon Petrrson with the licensing body in Ontario.
Do the secret MDs realize that it is precisely because they, and others, do not speak out that the narrative marches on?
That they are killing any miniscule amount of trust that is left in their profession and our "health" system? Sorry, but no patience or empathy left for them.
Impressive and compelling.
Very interesting text.
Forgive me, I forgot the specific one that seems the most kurfuffle between feminists and MRAs. "Family". Nearly every Conservative and self-identified "heterodox thinker" claims it is "biology" driving "family" and that we are "all meant to reproduce"... cuz "biology".
But the fact is that nuclear family is NOT the DNA way for Homo sapiens. Nuclear families have only been happening for a few thousand years. Before that, humans ate as groups, groomed as groups, slept as groups, groomed as groups. Knowledge of paternity only became a thing once we were thoroughly sedentarised. As for the "we all are driven to reproduce" that is NOT true of all species, or all apes. (sure, it depends how you define 'drive', but in the actual outcomes). Not 100% of apes mate, a small percentage of wolves mate, not all ungulates mate. There is sexual selection at play, and mating is simply not everyone's destiny, as is so frequently claimed in some circles.
So "family", the most fundamental unit of the modern existence, is a social construct, as evidenced by evolution. Some days I swear humans want to be different species, like crows, or like bees. ;)
I want to make a clarification regarding blank slatism. Blank slatism is wrongly used as a slur in many conversations
When the world debunked Lamarckism, that was not a 100% abandoning of "acquired" traits. And it is necessary to scarequote that. When we select for traits an animal domestication, we are in *appearance* doing that. When we SELECT niceness in a dog and breed it for that character trait, it has the appearance of Lamarckism. The trait of niceness becomes more and more solidified with each generation (accompanied by a slew of undesired traits).
So we CAN see how human intervention, human beliefs CAN affect genetics... through breeding, over many many generations.
Society CAN affect genetics. We must think of how that is scientifically true, WITHOUT it being Lamarckism.
Another way society CAN affect genetics is medicine. In a natural world without modern medical intervention, the weakest individuals would either fail to reach reproductive age, either fail to reproduce for other reasons, or be stupid/unlucky and die of all sorts of things.
Society breeds pets and livestock for specific traits, usually, this societal intervention onto genetics renders these animals LESS fit. Release them into the wild, and they almost instantly die.
Society (medicine) has also had an effect on human genetics AND human behaviours. Since infants that should have died don't die, they get to breed. Since ijiotic and mentally unfit adults are maintained by medicine and excessive empathy, their mental state gets to breed. Since most congenital illnesses (poor biological fitness) no longer lead to death, they go on to breed. Human society has been selecting for unfitness. And now, as wokeism progresses through all layers of society, we are more and more selecting for un-fitness. If City folk in Western nations were released into the wild, likely 90% of us would die instantly. Our brains are shrinking, our dentition is worsening, many unfitness traits are progressing, because empathy is anti-fitness.
A further impact of society onto biology are religions. Humans need vitamin D. Cultures that cover up more, like religious veiling, have more vitamin D deficiency. Cultures that don't allow women to travel/drive see women's brains develop with less spatial processing capacity, visible in brain scans. Society has consequences on biology, both genetically and generationally.
The term "blank slatism" claims zero societal effects, it is a term used not in scientific discussions but by armchair scientism-ists to speak against societal effects. Honestly, scientists should not use the term as it is completely disingenuous.
Otherwise love the article. My studies were in evolutionary biology, focused on herpetology, and my profs constantly correctly hammered home that "adaptations" did not drive evolution, that evolution is a consequence of random mutations, which then have to prove themselves in nature to demonstrate or not fitness, and I totally agree with that in nature, with caveats for example of predators who LEARN new hunting techniques which increase their breeding fitness, and birds who learn their mating songs which affects their fitness to reproduce.
Thank you.
Timely, relevant article. Well done.