| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How Should Human Subspecies Be Classified?; A discussion about human subspecies. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 18 2016, 02:05 AM (4,112 Views) | |
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 09:07 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While I agree that this would be very unpleasant, science should not depend on politics, so I don't think these are good objections. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 18 2016, 09:46 PM Post #32 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In this case I think it should since dividing humans into subspecies would add nothing to the scientific discourse while fueling racist mindsets.
(Although some subspecies (australian aborigines, negritos or san) were long enough geographically separated to meet the criteria for subspecies-status from a zoological point of view, a further segmentation of the species Homo sapiens, analogous to the proscribed race-concept, is avoided) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterart We don't have a generally accepted definition of subspecies, it's not based on something objective like ancestry, but rather arbitrary criteria. You could make valid cases for human subspecies just as good as against them. From Edward O. Wilson's book "The diversity of life":
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 10:02 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fair enough. I guess we can at least conclude that, if human subspecies/races exist, the exact groups are at least vastly different from what most people have in mind. |
![]() |
|
| Gyirin | Apr 18 2016, 10:16 PM Post #34 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Human right to be happy and not get harmed >>>>>>>>>>> Scientific progress. And science has always been affected by society. Edited by Gyirin, Apr 18 2016, 10:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 10:40 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK, my statement was a bit imprecise, I was not talking about science that can cause harm (like certain forms of cloning and genetic engineering; I was not trying to say scientists can create unviable mutants for the sake of curiosity), rather about covering the truth for not offending certain people. This doesn't change the fact that I do now consider this to be a valid objection to this topic though. Spartan has convincingly argued though that a subspecies classification of humans would have no benefits (racialism has pretty much zero predictive power), so there is no point in doing it when the problems outweigh it. Sure, it often had (evolution, heliocentrism) and still has (global warming) to fight against what the broad masses wish. |
![]() |
|
| Gyirin | Apr 18 2016, 10:45 PM Post #36 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Certain people will always find a loophole. The fact that there are Homo sapiens subspecies is all the racists would hear. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 11:02 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, having classifying humans into subspecies would be little more than a play on nomenclature, it does not imply the stuff (like IQ differences) all the racialist literature is dreaming of. Not to mention that the Asian-European-African division would not be justified like that either. I am not denying that classifying aborigines or a few African tribes as different subspecies should not be done as it would contribute to discrimination against these groups (particularly because they'd feel so small and marginalized compared to the rest), but that does not mean that it would confirm the BS found in works like The Bell Curve. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 18 2016, 11:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Apr 18 2016, 11:32 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Correct. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 19 2016, 12:01 AM Post #39 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They could just define any member of a hypothetical subspecies to make it the holotype for this particular subspecies and call it Homo sapiens whatever while keeping Homo sapiens sapiens for any other subspecies.
Edited by Spartan, Apr 19 2016, 12:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Apr 20 2016, 08:47 PM Post #40 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not even sure there is any notable progress to be made by classifying humans into subspecies. It may/may not be accurate, but either way we don't really lose anything not doing it. |
![]() |
|
| Gyirin | Apr 20 2016, 10:07 PM Post #41 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Then no reason to do it unless someone wants racism to grow bigger and badder. From what I've seen, racists would use everything available. Thats why racists used to use science to try to prove their superiority even if it was pseudo science. I'm sure modern racists still do it. Edited by Gyirin, Apr 20 2016, 10:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 20 2016, 11:01 PM Post #42 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No offense, but I already admitted this long before (and my admission was completely ignored), so I don't really see what you guys are trying to say. The fact that it brings no benefits is exactly the reason why I am against it. |
![]() |
|
| maker | Apr 21 2016, 03:07 PM Post #43 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Censoring science because it offends some people is simply ridiculous, this in every way is considered political manipulation of science. Based on this logic shouldn't teaching evolution be banned because it have been used as justification for genocide? But I agree that modern humans shouldn't be classified into multiple subspecies. However, if they could be classified this way, which they couldn't, then there's nothing wrong with it. It's simply stating that all humans are different and in itself does not encourage racism. Science should have no exceptions or loopholes. Edited by maker, Apr 21 2016, 03:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Gyirin | Apr 21 2016, 06:07 PM Post #44 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You mean justification for European Empires to colonize other countries and kill or enslave the natives? I think the difference is that evolution that was used as justification was cultural evolution and not biological. Plus human was one species but the Europeans considered their colony's natives sub human anyway. Modern racists are no better and if they know that human is one species but still show off their racism, what would they do if human is devided into several subspecies? Also the worst thing evolution teaching can do today is offend extrene creationists while racism can take away people's job, money, rights, home, life. Edited by Gyirin, Apr 21 2016, 06:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 21 2016, 07:02 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What are you trying to say? As maker said, evolution has justified about as evil things (not to mention that it could also justify "We are animals, so why don't we behave like animals?" ideologies; or some sexist stuff that evolutionary psychology could justify). This is not true at all. Evolution is biological and eugenics is an ideology based on biology as well. If you have several subspecies, it does not follow that some are superior or inferior to each other. Well, modern racists have no problem exploiting the already existing divisions (languages, nations, ethnicities, religions) to declare superiority, so subspecies (which would either way not be the division everyone has in mind, there is no way a subspecies classification would come close to the traditional white-black-Asian-Native American classification). Besides, most of them believe in the existence of "races" regardless of what science says (it is simply seen as some politically correct conspiracy). Nope, most racists today are Social Darwinists. In fact, racism and eugenics are very ugly siblings. I doubt actions with these consequences would be in any way influenced by the scientific consensus, as they are illegal, so people who do such stuff probably don't care for what others say anyway. BTW, if we take the science censoring to the next step, we may also prohibit quite a large amount of belief systems because there are so many ideologies and religions that can justify violence as well. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 21 2016, 08:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)






2:03 AM Jul 14