There is a very very real problem with human separations. This is, perhaps, one thing even science and religion can agree on. If we make logical human classifications, such as subspecies (which actually make sense) it would create a cultural catastrophe within fragile minds (fragility is often influenced by culture and environment more than race/subspecies or species, though certainly some genetic types are influenced in various directions more than others).
This is why so many unbias scientists seem so jaded. A simple fact: the generalized different human species and sub species are just that, different on a phenotypical basis.
But there is a globalized climte that seems to need to enable idiots and use the word race to coddle their fragile egos and avoid Nazi style world destruction because they cant handle the simple concept of sharing, or live and let live. Caucasian, arab, han, austro etc etc are clearly distinct. Some “groups” are races, some subspecies and some even actual distinct species. (though by now much more mixed) due to time and technology. As with other species, though our tech has allowed greater spread compared to other genera and distant species. Anyone who reads a bit into it can see why and how. Those that dont accept reality tend to hide inside a church and/or watch tv all day. Or find other sources of escapism.
But we as (common name) humans are clearly multiple (realistic classification) sub species, even species, divided by our environments and time; only to come together in the end (now) to reunify. This should be celebrated, not punished. Mostly due to culture (tribalism) is this magical evolution fucked up to the point of tragedy. We are curious and explore, no one denies that. But intelligence is not the current classified species’ defining attribute. We know that simply by accepting classifying ourselves as a single species…as if we are not animals…jesus…
Do you guys actually think, at least on a sub specific level, that australian aboriginals and northern Europeans wpuld fall into the same subspecies if we were classifying a species unrelated to us?
My point is that due to culture we dont make those classifications due to lack of maturity (racism, war etc). That point seems pretty simple. And the physical differences between people are vast enough to qualify for subspecies rank. That is fact.
We dont cause it would likely cause a greater divide. That is opinion.
/\ case in point. The only reason you dont think so is because it would cause chaos.
Im not saying we should define subspecies as racial boundaries cause enough problems. Hence culture not being mature enough.
Simply comparing bone structure, color, hair, size etc should be obvious. I agree we shouldnt do it with people as we do with pretty much every other living things, but its due to culture we shouldnt not because we are in fact all the same…
Scientifically its logical. Culturally it is touchy as it tends to lend convenience for the sick genocidal powers. A worry with Beijing amongst others.
A quick google search on our species name and taxonomy came up with this. Only read the first bit will read it all tomorrow. But seems basically the “simple fact” i mentioned above
As a note about the psychiatrists article. Species definition.
Members of one species can reproduce within their species. However, just because 2 animals (or plants) can reproduce with each other doesnt put them in the same species by default. There are many cases of interspecific hybrids. Even with people apparantly. Saw even in some taiwan museums some mention of this.
It is actually quite fascinating. Especially how we the people tend to avoid this obvious issue.
You already were divided into subspecies (four or sometimes five), and then advances in genetics happened, and your scientists realized you didn’t actually fit into the subspecies that had been thought up based on outward appearance.
It also happens in other branches of the tree of life: someone thinks a certain classification (family/genus/species/etc.) makes sense, and then someone else says hey that doesn’t explain X, so let’s change it to this arrangement here that makes more sense. Put all the taxonomical revisions over the last few centuries together, and sometimes you get a surprising number of obsolete synonyms for a single species.
Yes! Also scientifically and factually humans can fly. I googled an article that I didn’t read but I think it supported my flying fact. Something about superman. (I bet Beijing is super worried about that)
Yes, precisely. Taxonomy is a mess. Always has been. The issue that seems to be relevant now, especially looking at some replies to this thread as an example, is the stigma behind distinguishing human typea. Thats what the psych article is talking about, the fear of study due to cultural backlash. Although we all see the problems with accepting subspecies in regards to oppression, scientific study shouldnt be limited so much as enabling such lack of education. The China issue is a problem in this regard. As per above discussions.
Scientific classification nowadays tends to take into account physical characteristics, geographical distribution and reproductive possibilities. Genetics is helping us see more. But to my knowledge, no taxonomic ranking is based on ability to use machines. So humans flying would make no sense…i get what you are saying, but you are making a simple point (of describing human differences) emotional and nonsensical. So not sure how to answer. Scientifically and logically humans cannot fly…they can, however, make machines to fly them. Thus, not a biological issue.
Its amazing how unbiased mature conversation gets shot down due to cultural stigmas. If we cant get past that, it is hard to point the finger at china
I agree that the word race is perhaps no longer useful. Especially considering how globalized our species is. Race tends to distinguih populations, or regions, or lime similarities. Thats precisely why subspecies would be more appropriate than race when talking about people. The the genetic pool is mixed a lot, it would be useful in the sense of talking about ancestors instead of using the word race.
according to Wikipedia, one of ways in which monotypic species can occur seems to be applicable to human.
The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.
medicine people haven’t been studying on the affects of medicines against different groups of people?
according to Wikipedia, the definition of races in biology is not very scientific. So, I think we don’t need to use the term of race for people’s categorizing and it definitely doesn’t need to be based on people’s skin colors, but in medicine field, I think we need some ways of effective grouping of people. And, when there are correlations between groups and skin colors, living places, ancestors, etc., is it a wrong thing?
Nothing wrong with concluding people with lighter skin need to watch out for skin cancer, or people with darker skin and less access to sun light should look for an alternative source to vitamin D. But that’s like saying people with a family history of diabetes or heart disease should monitor what they eat.
Those biological traits in no way informs anything else about the people.