Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

This seems like a good post explaining why that's not true.

it had more to do with the “luck” of the slave to that point.

Right, so basically the slave population was naturally selected for their amount of luck. And then they got lucky with other lucky people, leading to a luck spiral. The genetic luck then causes a disproportionate amount of the best trainers and talent scouts to notice the ones who are good at sports at the exact right moment.

I see.

... Wat. That quote was from a section in which it was explained why this particular application of "selection" is, in fact, bullshit. That's like quoting somebody saying "I have never said that Hitler was right" starting after "that". "Luck" is shorthand for "that particular person's life experiences up to that point, and specifically nothing to do with genetics". How you're possibly interpreting it to be a claim that "luck" is something that was genetically selected for, I have no idea. I've highlighted the quote below, in the context in which it appeared this time. Seriously, what the fuck, dude?

Selection in Africa was largely the result of tribal conflicts and war. Those who became slaves were not selected for strength but were merely the survivors of conflict. Even if the people choosing who became a slave was selecting for apparent strength/health the basis of that strength/health was NOT genetic but was environmental/opportunistic, that person just happened to not be suffering from randomly acting disease/injury/malnutrition.

Survival on the way to the slave markets was similarly not genetic but had to do with the slave's health at the beginning of the trip and specific events (disease exposure/nutrition/etc.) during the trip.

Traders in markets in Africa may have selected for perceived strength/health, but again the basis for this selection was not primarily genetic, it had more to do with the "luck" of the slave to that point.

* scriver gives Bauglir a sad-eyed "I'm disappointed in you, don" grandfatherly look.

I thought the joke would have been obvious seeming as luck isn't either genetic, nor an actual thing . I'm very sad that you would actually believe such a thing of me though.

Sad eyes

[Bouchart]

America is increasingly becoming unable to distinguish sarcasm from just garden variety racism. Or more appropriately, people are so ready to dive over what they view as racism they'll shout first and read between the lines later.

We all have our sensitive issues. There currently is a minor media outrage over Hillary Clinton making a Putin/Hitler comparison, these never go over well in Germany.

Former secretaries of state are bad with Russia.

[Xantalos]

I was under the impression that Black Americans benefited genetically/physically from slave breeding as well.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I feel like I need a different word than ''benefited'' there :p

I don't think there's much evidence for that. This seems like a good post explaining why that's not true.

it had more to do with the “luck” of the slave to that point.

Right, so basically the slave population was naturally selected for their amount of luck. And then they got lucky with other lucky people, leading to a luck spiral. The genetic luck then causes a disproportionate amount of the best trainers and talent scouts to notice the ones who are good at sports at the exact right moment.

I see.

So slavery is Spiral Power. I knew it!

[Bauglir]

In my defense, or rather not at all, I am complete shit at associating consistent personalities with most people around here, so if it looks like I'm terrible at remembering your past behavior and thereby extrapolating your current meaning, it's because that is absolutely what's happening.

EDIT: I've altered my avatar as penance.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Oh man all you can tell from my past behavior is that when you see a new post of mine it means I just finished typing something and then clicked with my mouse.

[scriver]

In my defense, or rather not at all, I am complete shit at associating consistent personalities with most people around here, so if it looks like I'm terrible at remembering your past behavior and thereby extrapolating your current meaning, it's because that is absolutely what's happening.

So I have to begin acting completely outrageous in order to be noticed? It's a deal. Don't think for a moment I won't sacrifice both rationality and sanity for a few moments of memorability.

EDIT: I've altered my avatar as penance.
 

Penance found adequate. Recalling Mobile Swirlie Task Force to base.

[nenjin]

America has done with the word "racism" what the whole world is doing with "anti-semitism".

Que? Are you really going to imply that there isn't racism and anti-semitism in the world? I'm just trying to help you, dude. "Slavery wasn't all bad because it lead to X benefit" is a argument that is made by some racist revisionists in America.

I think we know that's not what he's saying. And I think this post is kinda making my point about racism in America. Especially on the internet, even though a....nobler intent may be apparent, everyone is just kind of waiting to dive on someone whose argument they perceive to be flawed or biased.

Sort of like:

"Surely you aren't implying x, because that would make you a complete scumbag." Translation: I'm preemptively calling you a scumbag before you've stated your clarified meaning.*

*substitute scumbag for racist, anti-semite, anti-Russian, anti-Ukrainian, anti-Islamic....

Although to be fair, people that do actually hold those viewpoints have had to become a lot more subtle about expressing them, so they aren't ostracized from public discourse. So sometimes you do have to call out that belief when someone is expressing those viewpoints but sanitizing them for public consumption.

[BlackFlyme]

During dinner I was berated by my mom and her boyfriend for not being enough of a man. They are about as happy about my project as I am, but blame me for my lack of ability to control my two partners who simply could not give a fuck about my input on the assignment.

[lemon10]

Evolution doesn't happen that fast even in an optimized eugenics program, let alone the pseudoscientific efforts of slavers.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. In under a dozen generations you can make significant changes to animals with good breeding. And thats ignoring how much current breeding methods could be optimized with much better knowledge of genetics and a more scientific approach. While humans are more complex by orders of magnitude, I imagine you could get some pretty huge changes in under 250 years, especially if you select only for extremely obvious traits and only try to select for one or two at a time, and your breeding selection is done well.

Now, its pretty obvious they had lacked the knowledge, technique and the will to take something like that to fruition, but its definitely possible to do something like that in under 250 years.
I don't think we even have the knowledge to do it now (although I am sure we will within 250 years) and we certainly lack the technique and will, but it can be done.

[kaijyuu]

In 250 years we can probably just hack genetics directly so the whole eugenics thing will be moot.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In 250 years we can probably just hack genetics directly so the whole eugenics thing will be moot.

[kaijyuu]

I'm an optimist on a lot of things, but scientific advances I'm a bit skeptical on.

Where the hell is my flying car?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not a matter of optimism, dude. Our progression of genetic modification is rapid. In fact, as I recall the first commercially supported gene therapy treatment hits the market this year.

[Eric Blank]

Where the hell is my flying car?

They're called airplanes. We can make them small and lightweight, we can even, potentially, make them VTOL craft. But we aren't brave enough yet to give them to teenagers, so we don't mention how easy it is to get yourself a pilot's license and a Cessna, and don't build runways next to Walmarts.

[Wysthric]

It's not a matter of optimism, dude. Our progression of genetic modification is rapid. In fact, as I recall the first commercially supported gene therapy treatment hits the market this year.

Don't we already have that thing for cystic fibrosis which basically replaces the faulty genes in the lung cells? IIRC the uptake of the gene is very low, which is why it's not a cure, but it helps.