SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Is a religious group a 'race' or isn't it? Is someone 'racist' if they publicly state their dislike of a religious group? An Australian tribunal has answered this question by ruling that Muslim is not a race, and as such, a person who vilifies them in public, an act which is currently illegal in Australia, would not have broken the law.
In 2016 Sonia Kruger 'called for an end to migration from Islamic countries' saying that she wanted people to feel safe when going out to celebrate Australia day. Sam Ekermawi, a Muslim, filed a complaint to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal claiming the comments were racial vilification.
The tribunal was unable to conclude Muslims living in Australia "are a 'race' by reason of a common ethnic or ethno-religious origin" and dismissed the application. This is an important milestone in the legal and cultural development of the ocean-bound nation which is still attempting to balance the melting pot of cultures and people who have migrated to the country from all over the world. This ruling may be a key threshold for defining what the word 'race' actually means in the legal and social and cultural context and how laws will be interpreted in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:23PM (14 children)
Such as?
I think classifying all humans as the same species has been done for political reasons not scientific reasons.
Dogs are grey wolves and are closely related enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and golden jackal to produce fertile hybrids. Are you saying gray wolves, coyotes, and jackals are the same species.
A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche.
So there are obvious differences in: morphology, which you admit to, in response to drugs, in pain thresholds, in rate of Chronic disease, in lifespan, in impulsivity, in behavior including cultural behaviors such as: artistic diversity and sophistication, and tool creation and use. average IQ differences [viewoniq.org] what about differences in ecological niches? Do you think if someone from the Congo and an Inuit from the arctic circle switched places they would be just fine? No change in rate of certain diseases or getting sunburned, frostbite, heart attacks, anything? Differences in their thousands of generations of environmental and cultural adaptations are insignificant?
The real question, which you probably won't answer or just say "produce infertile offspring" which is a narrow definition of species, is:
What level of differences between different groups of humans would be enough for you to accept the existence of different human species?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:37PM (13 children)
Not being able to breed.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:44PM (12 children)
Can you not read?
"Dogs/Grey wolves are closely related enough to different species, coyote, golden jackal to produce fertile hybrids."
Different species, can breed and produce fertile offspring, but they are still different species.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:43PM (2 children)
I can, I'm just not taking you seriously because your argument seems to be heading in the direction of considering a single allele a sufficient factor in determining race.
Or did I misunderstand you and you are not suggesting that not all people belong to the species Homo sapiens?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
I agree a single allele a unlikely to be a sufficient factor in determining race/subspecies.
If DNA mutations occur in germ cells it is copied into every new cell of the embryo after fertilisation. Which is a way new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new allele. New allele are created all the time in species. One new allele is unlikely to produce a new species.
How many changes between populations is enough to declare they are different species? I can't find much information. It seems like many scientists declare a new species sometimes for real reasons sometimes for attention/funding. It seems like it's not always clear cut and up to interpretation.
I think their should be consistency and not declare humans unique or just throw out the whole concept of species and come up with something more concrete since different species and sub species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:58AM
Capitalism is a completely inadequate system for encouraging correct, verifiable science. Because of these inadequacies, it would be irresponsible to allow capitalist science to further any such racialist studies. It would only serve the interests of demagogues who seek to build artificial walls between arbitrary sections of the international working class. Whatever evidence of race may be found in genotyping at most looks to be a very small nudging of a median in a wide distribution within whatever arbiter of race may be popular from civilization to civilization. The theory of race itself must be abandoned, and it frankly has no use to a socialist culture. Therefore, even after a successful proletarian permanent revolution, it will remain abandonded.
Contrary to popular fiction, any civilizations from other stars will not simply be humans with pointy ears. So the concept of race can remain permanently relegated to the dustbin of ancient superstitions, perhaps only of interest within the cut-threat world of archaeology.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:24PM (8 children)
I've already posted that I consider them to be the same species as a result, but legitimately separated as subspecies.
They're orders of magnitude more separated than any human populations you can cite. Let alone the sub-clades of USA population.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:52PM (7 children)
From wolf.org
Wolf-Dog Hybrids "Although hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, they are rare because the territorial nature of wolves leads them to protect their home ranges from intruding canines such as dogs, coyotes and other wolves." So human intervention is not "required" but it greatly increases the odds of a mating. The reason they don't mate very often in the wild is due to territorial behavioral differences (due to selective breeding) not because of basic biological reasons.
I agree wolves and dogs are distinct but enough to be different subspecies I don't know. After all red foxes were domesticated in a matter of decades, but all the diversity of genes is found in the wild population.
Are the domesticated ones a new subspecies or not? If so why? They can still breed with the wild red foxes.
Humans living in far flung regions of the world would not normally breed with each other in significant numbers due to distance and cultural differences without modern transportation yet they are not considered different subspecies, why not?
I just want consistency, and a better concrete definition of species, subspecies, etc. It's like the whole planet/dwarf planet thing.
I think it would be cooler to have multiple human species. Maybe people will eventually master genetic engineering and humans could live underwater, fly, live in space, etc. with many different variations.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:25AM (6 children)
"Wolf-Dog Hybrids "Although hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, they are rare because the territorial nature of wolves leads them to protect their home ranges from intruding canines such as dogs, coyotes and other wolves.""
Rare? Rare?!? Cite me one case. One single case in the last 300, 400 years where this has been plausibly reported?
They're not rare they're impossible. Female wolf in heat will kill the male dog before he can mate with her, even if he were inclined to do so. Not possible. Male wolf will kill female dog, even if she's in heat. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
You want a wolf dog? You need to muzzle and bind the wolf. It's easier with a female wolf and a male dog, if you go the other way it's more complicated. YES, it can be done, either way. NO, it's not realistically going to happen more than once/millenia without human intervention.
The reason is because their sexual cues and other cues are very different. The female dog goes in heat regularly and all male dogs in the area go into rut in response to her scent. The male wolves are not affected.
The female wolf goes into heat once a year, the male wolves are deeply affected, male dogs in the area do not seem to care.
Again, even though they *can* produce fertile offspring this doesn't happen without intervention, so I consider them subspecies, and again, this separation is orders of magnitude greater than that between any two human populations.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:45AM (5 children)
I guess you are in a bad mood.
I didn't mean to piss you off.
Didn't you read the rest of the comment?
I agree they are distinct I just didn't know if it was enough to be considered a subspecies.
Wild red foxes and domesticated ones may attack each other too even though they "could" produce fertile offspring.
Like I said in that post. "Humans living in far flung regions of the world would not normally breed with each other in significant numbers due to distance and cultural differences without modern transportation yet they are not considered different subspecies, why not?"
I just want consistency, and a better concrete definition of species, subspecies, etc. or just refer to all by the genus.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:58AM (4 children)
Subspecies. True "racial" distinction.
Now show me human populations that distant. I dare you.
"Like I said in that post. "Humans living in far flung regions of the world would not normally breed with each other in significant numbers due to distance and cultural differences without modern transportation yet they are not considered different subspecies, why not?""
The obvious answer is contained in your question. "Because modern transportation."
But that's a bad answer, because it implies this didn't happen before modern transportation. It did. For thousands and thousands of years, we had something called 'sailors.'
Also caravans.
Best I know the longest any human population has been effectively isolated is something like 50k. years for Australian aborigines between the sea drop and the arrival of the poms. And that separation clearly did not produce anything like the difference between wolves and dogs. Which was, of course, produced not just by time but by intense directed selection.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @01:45AM (3 children)
Most biologist think humans are a monotypic species, while a few think differently https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787. [nih.gov]
Maybe migration, caravans, and sailors were enough to keep humans together as one subspecies. From what i've read taxonomists decide whether to recognize a subspecies or not. Which seems pretty subjective. I'd rather it be less subjective and more definitive.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:15AM (2 children)
I'll give you my first impressions, it's politically incorrect and I bet there was some resistance to publication. I'm 100% in favor of allowing it to be published.
That doesn't mean I agree with it though. From the abstract it appears to moreso argue for moving the goalposts in terms of redefining very specific terms that I don't actually use. That sort of paper can be very enlightening, good reading for those that are unaware of the more subtle elements involved in making such a judgement - but ultimately I wouldn't expect it to provoke any sort of a reconsideration of my fundamental position; that all human beings should be presumed equal, and judged only on performance or examination, and certainly not on skin color.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:34AM (1 child)
Yeah, I don't know if it's worth the trouble to read.
Maybe he really believes it, or maybe he's like some people that try to court controversy to get people to notice them.
Which makes sense when you have hordes of people all trying to be recognized.
Who knows.
Try not to let the trolls get to you,
later.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:39AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?