The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Hueij
Just logged in so I missed the start of this thread...
Why are people posting in yet another Cali race-thread?
We are not debating against Cal, we are doing it for the benefit of the audience.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
I'm not going to support or oppose either side here, but let me just ask this:
There is a higher instance of dark skin among Africans and people of African descent, than among Europeans and people of European descent.
Similarly, there is a higher instance of wiry/woolly hair, thicker lips, etc among people of African than people of European descent.
Such genetic variation was created by long-term isolation of Europeans and Africans. This has caused two gene pools to be different in character, as evolution and chance always do to isolated populations.
Hence, why wouldn't such variations extend to anything beyond physical traits? Variations in terms of hormonal levels, for instance, could arise as well. In fact, they have to arise, or else the Theory of Evolution is bunk.
So far, I've seen 3 poor arguments against this point, and no good ones:
1. Europeans and Africans differ, genetically, in terms of bone structure and skin color ONLY. Saying anything else is evil.
(This is also used by religious fundamentalists to argue for the existence of God: saying that he doesn't exist is evil, whether objective evidence points that way or not.)
2. There are dark Europeans and light Africans.
(We are talking about the average values of two groups here. Just because some Europeans are darker than some Africans doesn't mean the general trend does not exist.)
3. There is no such thing as race.
(Well, I'm Jamaican then. )
Last edited by ranskaldan; November 9, 2002, 03:11.
Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
Hence, why wouldn't such variations extend to anything beyond physical traits?
First off, there certainly are non-physical differences between peoples living in different areas of the world (though, they are insignificant). However, these differences don't amount to fundamentally different behavior.
The primary reason why there wouldn't be differences in, say, the propensity to committ crimes or intelligence is that there is no conceivable selective pressure. And if you look at environmentally similar places (i.e. rainforests in South Asia and Africa), there are often wide divergences in percieved agressiveness and intelligence.
3. There is no such thing as race.
That's absolutely true. Dividing the people into a few distinct "races" is absurd. It's meaningless and intellectually lazy.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Originally posted by ranskaldan
Hence, why wouldn't such variations extend to anything beyond physical traits? Variations in terms of hormonal levels, for instance, could arise as well. In fact, they have to arise, or else the Theory of Evolution is bunk.
This shows your non-understanding of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE merely says that animals will adapt to their environment. In this case, dark-skinned, curly haired humans did not fair as well in northern climes. Their children who were lighter skinned were able to make more Vitimin D with their skin and retain more heat in the long Northern winters than their dark children. Eventually, light-skinned decendents out-competed dark-skinned inhabitants. What other traits would be selected against moving to the north?
Another major problem that the biological racists have, though they never acknowledge it is, their argument is limited by time. The first civilizations weren't white. In fact, Indo-Europeans were barbarian nomads who invaded and conquered the civlizations of browner peoples. If we are inherently smarter, why didn't we create our own civilizations until nearly 4,000 years after others?
For a thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and Africans who were the standard bearers of civiliation while most our ancestors were hide-robed barbarians who were afraid of bathes and couldn't write. For most of civilized history, the Chinese were the leaders of civilization, and they probably will be again in a hundred years or so.
In the 19th Century, violent crime was far more likely to be committed in the US by white men against everyone. Black people didn't account for a majority of violent crimes until fairly recently in American history, probably the 1950s and later when the majority of Black people began living in cities.
So, can we make a deterimination that Black people are biologically more likely to committ a violent crime based on 50 years out of 8,000? Seems kind, well, f*cking stupid if you ask me.
Case closed!
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
This shows your non-understanding of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE merely says that animals will adapt to their environment. In this case, dark-skinned, curly haired humans did not fair as well in northern climes. Their children who were lighter skinned were able to make more Vitimin D with their skin and retain more heat in the long Northern winters than their dark children. Eventually, light-skinned decendents out-competed dark-skinned inhabitants. What other traits would be selected against moving to the north?
Any number of genetically-determined hormonal levels could have been affected. There is a huge number of substances coursing through the bloodstream that assist in homeostasis. A different climate would certainly have an effect.
Another major problem that the biological racists have, though they never acknowledge it is, their argument is limited by time. The first civilizations weren't white. In fact, Indo-Europeans were barbarian nomads who invaded and conquered the civlizations of browner peoples. If we are inherently smarter, why didn't we create our own civilizations until nearly 4,000 years after others?
For a thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and Africans who were the standard bearers of civiliation while most our ancestors were hide-robed barbarians who were afraid of bathes and couldn't write. For most of civilized history, the Chinese were the leaders of civilization, and they probably will be again in a hundred years or so.
That is a much better argument against Cali's point than some I've seen.
In the 19th Century, violent crime was far more likely to be committed in the US by white men against everyone. Black people didn't account for a majority of violent crimes until fairly recently in American history, probably the 1950s and later when the majority of Black people began living in cities.
So, can we make a deterimination that Black people are biologically more likely to committ a violent crime based on 50 years out of 8,000? Seems kind, well, f*cking stupid if you ask me.
No more can we determine whether God exists or not...
Case closed!
...
That's something I see far too much in this threads (and all its predecessors.
Just because you don't like a case doesn't mean you'd be trying to close it at every opportunity. I mean, cmon, this is a strategy used by Christian fundamentalists trying to get out of a Creation-Evolution debate.
Any topic is worthy of discussion. If it goes against your tastes - too bad. Science doesn't care about taste.
Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
Originally posted by ranskaldan
Any number of genetically-determined hormonal levels could have been affected. There is a huge number of substances coursing through the bloodstream that assist in homeostasis. A different climate would certainly have an effect.
But if that were the case, it would be noted in scientific journals. Black people and white people and Asian would have to have different medicines or levels of medicine. Neither is true. While it's possilbe that hormone levels might have been affected, unless there is some reason that the carriers of this defect would be more likely to survive and propagate their genes, it won't spread.
For example, 14% of Europeans and their decendents carry a mutation that makes them more able to resist plague (and in an interesting turn of events, HIV as well). Because Plague killed off such a large percentage of its victims in Europe, those with the mutation were more likely than others to pass that mutation on to their decendants.
Any topic is worthy of discussion. If it goes against your tastes - too bad. Science doesn't care about taste.
It's not because I find the topic distasteful that I say case closed, it's because there is no good argument against what I just wrote. I win, therefore case closed.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
But if that were the case, it would be noted in scientific journals. Black people and white people and Asian would have to have different medicines or levels of medicine. Neither is true. While it's possilbe that hormone levels might have been affected, unless there is some reason that the carriers of this defect would be more likely to survive and propagate their genes, it won't spread.
For example, 14% of Europeans and their decendents carry a mutation that makes them more able to resist plague (and in an interesting turn of events, HIV as well). Because Plague killed off such a large percentage of its victims in Europe, those with the mutation were more likely than others to pass that mutation on to their decendants.
Some aspects of behavior - what you call "instinct" - is innate and genetically encoded, whether in terms of brain structure, nervous system, hormones, whatever. Different environments would certainly select for different traits in this area. Probably not in the way that racists advocate, but still, the possibility is not just there, it's almost certain.
And oh yes: among Asians there is a high rate of lactose intolerance. There's your example of different races being chemically different, not just in terms of melanin.
It's not because I find the topic distasteful that I say case closed, it's because there is no good argument against what I just wrote. I win, therefore case closed.
well... don't declare yourself winner till you've addressed my points...
Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
First off, there certainly are non-physical differences between peoples living in different areas of the world (though, they are insignificant). However, these differences don't amount to fundamentally different behavior.
Physical differences, however, show that differences in behavior, even minor ones, are not impossible - they're likely.
The primary reason why there wouldn't be differences in, say, the propensity to committ crimes or intelligence is that there is no conceivable selective pressure. And if you look at environmentally similar places (i.e. rainforests in South Asia and Africa), there are often wide divergences in percieved agressiveness and intelligence.
Yes, that's a good point. However, you haven't defended your point that hence there would be no disparity at all.
That's absolutely true. Dividing the people into a few distinct "races" is absurd. It's meaningless and intellectually lazy.
Race is a catch-all term for the genotypic differences between people of say, European, Asian, or African descent.
As such, it's as important and as useful as, say, classifying stars into OBAFGKM, or rocks into igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary. All stars and all rocks are unique - yet there are factors and trends that should be investiaged.
Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
Regarding the distastefulness of this topic, yes, it's absolutely distasteful. I see no valid reason why anyone should be determining whether certain "races" are more "violent" than others.
If there were differences, however miniscule, I wouldn't want to know, and I don't think anyone ought to know.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
The truth is there for you to find. Running away from truth is hardly productive.
And finally, I don't think any of these should be used for racial discrimination either - after all, people aren't rocks... each person deserves equal opportunity and equal treatment no matter what statistics say.
Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
Physical differences, however, show that differences in behavior, even minor ones, are not impossible - they're likely.
No they don't. They show that different climates select different physical traits. That's all they show, nothing more.
Yes, that's a good point. However, you haven't defended your point that hence there would be no disparity at all.
I haven't asserted that. I was merely showing that there is absolutely no valid reason to think so, and flies in the face of scientific evidence. I can't show you there's no invisible pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, so does it warrant evistigation?
Race is a catch-all term for the genotypic differences between people of say, European, Asian, or African descent.
There are very few genotypic traits that most Africans share, and most Europeans share, but are mutually exclusive between the two groups.
As such, it's as important and as useful
How is important or useful?
All stars and all rocks are unique - yet there are factors and trends that should be investiaged.
The main "trend" is skin color, and there's no point in investigating that. There are a few other trends which pertain to disease resistances and the like, but they generally don't follow the "racial" groupings very well.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
No. This would be dangerous information were it true. I don't know how that can be disputed.
Running away from truth is hardly productive.
How would finding this "truth" be productive?
And finally, I don't think any of these should be used for racial discrimination either
How are you going to stop that?
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Originally posted by ranskaldan
Some aspects of behavior - what you call "instinct" - is innate and genetically encoded, whether in terms of brain structure, nervous system, hormones, whatever. Different environments would certainly select for different traits in this area. Probably not in the way that racists advocate, but still, the possibility is not just there, it's almost certain.
If differences in these areas exist, they are hardly significant. Instinct among humans, while it does exist, are largely limited to the interaction with infants. Infants across the planet have the same needs.
And oh yes: among Asians there is a high rate of lactose intolerance. There's your example of different races being chemically different, not just in terms of melanin.
That may be cultural. Simply, if humans don't continue drinking milk past childhood, they might lose the ability to tolerate milk. It's hard to know whether lactose intolerance causes avoidance of milk or vice versa. The truth is likely both, as we are the only animal that regularly drinks milk past infancy. Mongols drink mares' milk, btw, so lactose intolerance isn't an Asian universal. Many Africans also have lactose intolerence, but there are also nations like the Masai who practice cattle-husbandry and live off of milk products. And there are also many caucasians with lactose-intolerence.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
What makes you think there are separate races? Establish that, before we start debating on if some races are better than others.
Excuse me? I have to establish something? I didn't come up with this idea, of there existing races. I have heard about it from many many places. So there are no different races? Is that what you are saying? You're the one providing the evidence now, since I believe that goes too much against general opinion. Gl hf gm gogo
Tweet
Comment