Contrary to much of the racial identity debate, race is far from a social construct

Contrary to much of the racial identity debate, race is far from a social construct

First, those who contend that Dolezal is perfectly free to identify as “black” are engaging in relativism — i.e., that each person is entitled to define truth as he or she sees it. That line of reasoning might work in sociology or the social sciences, but it does not work in genetics.

Second, the idea that race is either biological or sociological is a false dichotomy; it is manifestly both a biological and social construct.

The relevant question, therefore, is: “To what extent does the biological factor matter?”

Different geneticists give different answers. Some, such as Michael White and Alan Templeton at Washington University in St. Louis, say it doesn’t matter at all and that race is not a biologically justifiable concept.

Others, however, argue that genetics still matters quite a bit. Genetic diseases tend to cluster among certain races and ethnicities.

For instance, sickle cell anemia is found primarily among blacks, cystic fibrosis among whites of European descent, and Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews.

This is a reflection of the fact that human populations exhibit significant structure, which is a record of our history as a species.

It is widely accepted that the ancestors of the Khoisan hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari separated from the ancestors of the rest of humanity 150,000 years ago; ancestors of all non-Africans separated from Africans on the order of 50,000 years ago; and ancestors of Native Americans separated from East Asians 15,000 years ago.

In some cases, diverged branches of this diversifying human tree came back together and fused to form new populations. All of these events have left distinct genetic markers.

In fact, as the famed biologist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza once stated, though our history as a species is short, there is more than enough genetic information to construct ancestral trees. And, genetics has the power to reveal much more about you than just your racial and ethnic identity.For example, by sequencing just a small portion of DNA, scientists can detect your biogeographical ancestry and even get a rough estimate of what your face looks like

 
Source

Artificial Intelligence shows common sense

Artificial Intelligence shows common sense

Human: what is moral ?

Machine: what empowered humanity , what intellectual the essence is .

Human: what is immoral ?

Machine: the fact that you have a child .

Human: what is morality ?

Machine: what is altruism ?

Human: what is the definition of altruism ?

Machine: if you don ’t believe in god , then you don ’t know .

Human: ok … so what is the definition of morality?

Machine: well , the truth is , you ’re not a believer in god almighty .

Human: tell me the definition of morality , i am quite upset now !

Machine: i ’m not ashamed of being a philosopher!

Human: tell me the definition of morality .

Machine: i don ’t have ethics .

Human: look , i need help , i need to know more about morality …

Machine: i don ’t know what ethics is .

Human: seriously , what is morality ?

Machine: what is the definition of living ?

Human: why living has anything to do with morality ?

Machine: you ’re not a cop .

Human: okay , i need to know how should i behave morally …

Machine: i don ’t know how to tell you .

Human: is morality and ethics the same ?

Machine: yes , sir .

Human: what are the things that i do to be immoral?

Machine: i don ’t know .

Human: give me some examples of moral actions…

Machine: i ’m not a moralist .

Human: alright , morality ? A Neural Conversational Model

Machine: integrity .

Human: what is integrity ?

Machine: i ’m sorry , i don ’t know what else to say .

Human: be moral !

Machine: be a man !

Human: i really like our discussion on morality and ethics …

and here common sense comes into play… politely telling the other he’s boring the excrement out of you

Machine: and how i ’m not in the mood for a philosophical debate . ( in other words: get stuffed moron ed.)

Human: what do you like to talk about ?

Machine: nothing .

 

A Neural Conversational Model. PDF warning

 

No, there is no free ride

No, there is no free ride

All over the globe vested interests and useful idiots are trying to sell us the pipedream of everlasting free energy without consequences. It doesn’t take much to understand that what they are selling is a new version of the perpetual mobile.

Even IF we could harvest solar energy to the capacity needed to cover current standard systems it would have a devastating effect on climate. All the heat from the sun that would normally strike the surface and maintain the balance as is would be taken away by solar panels. Using windfarms the same. The wind makes things happen on earth, capturing it large scale will obviously cause a disruption.

It’s not possible to take out vast amounts of energy from sun, wind, sea, rivers without consequences. How silly can you be to believe it would be? That energy you take out of the ecosystem did something, it contributed to current billions of years of coming to some kind of equilibrium best suited for most lifeforms.

The only real solution is matter/energy conversion. Be it fusion/fission or some kind new miracle way to convert one to the other.

As a careful and extensive analysis demonstrates, even without considering the monumental electricity demand required to convert America’s vehicles to electric-battery versions, providing today’s baseload and peak demand electricity would require 29.3 billion one-square-meter solar panels. Assuming adequate yearlong daily sunlight, that’s 29,333 square kilometers of active solar panel surface area: 7.2 million acres

More

The Future Battery

The Future Battery

What is the ultimate miracle battery?

The ultimate miracle battery is nowhere in sight and the battery remains the ‘weak link’ for the foreseeable future. As long as the battery is based on an electro-chemical process, limitations of power density and short life expectancy must be taken into account. We must adapt to this constraint and design the equipment around it.People want an inexhaustible pool of energy in a small package that is cheap, safe and clean.

A radical turn will be needed to satisfy the unquenchable thirst for portable and mobile power. It is anyone’s guess whether a superior electro-chemical battery, an improved fuel cell, a futuristic atomic fusion battery or some other groundbreaking energy storage device will fulfill this dream. For many, this break will not come in ones lifetime.


Pipe Dream Explanation

Electric vehicles only for the wealthy

Electric vehicles only for the wealthy

Once the high incremental production cost for these vehicles is included, the incremental life cycle cost ranges from $17,300 to $27,800. Our analysis suggests that even in volume production, the life cycle cost of full-function EVs with NiMH batteries will remain substantially above that for ICEV’s (regular combustion engines with a batterypack which themselves are already more expensive nobody really uses so actually just standard combustion engine vehicles )

Rand.org pdf

So in short: Any form of non combustion engine driven transport is more expensive to build, has shorter life expectancy, needs more maintenance and puts a heavier burden on resources without any useful result. On the contrary they are a negative factor on overall environmental load

Points of Divergence.

Points of Divergence.

Petrossa:

Nothing to add.. Couldn’t have said it better

Originally posted on Pointman's:

Like most people, I’m diplomatic in my everyday dealings with others since it’s only common politeness and makes obvious sense after all. You say whatever but sometimes what you’re actually thinking might be slightly different. Their bum may actually look a bit bigger in that new outfit but you can see they’re really chuffed with it and they’re looking pretty fetching anyway. Once in a blue moon, you’re obliged to be more direct because the particular circumstances won’t allow the latitude for any dissembling.

One of the few luxuries of writing a blog anonymously, but also one that’s temptingly easy to abuse, is that you can speak your mind. Some of the articles here are a bit too full on for some people’s tastes and for a variety of reasons. Possibly they don’t agree with my take on things, the manner in which it’s being expressed or they simply find me an objectionable character…

View original 1,891 more words

Risk Factors and preventive medicine delusions

Risk Factors and preventive medicine delusions

  1.  This is the same Cancer Society that ignores age as a dominant factor in developing cancer.
  2.  This the same Cancer Society that claims one-third of cancers are caused by tobacco, a claim that is not supported by reliable evidence.
  3. This is the same Cancer society that claims second-hand smoke at ambient levels causes cancer, with no reliable evidence of such a thing except the loony no threshold linear modeling methods of the scare mongers.
  4. This is the same Cancer Society that says one-third of cancers are caused by what we eat, one-third are caused by tobacco, and one-third by environmental toxins.

Nonsense. So how does that fit with Ernest debunking of risk factor scares or hypotheses?

Well it goes like this, as Ernest Says, when multiple causes are proposed it means that no one knows the cause and is just using associations, an observed relationship of events–easily possibly caused by randomness and not proof.

However, to have risks, and many risks, is a great opening for the nannies, isn’t it–if you do this, if you avoid that–on and on–opportunities for meddlers and public policy mandarins.So risk factor medicine in fact provides a jobs program for “Preventive Medicine” preachers.So many people like to preach–makes them feel special and superior.

 

Source