No no, nothing like that. Despite being an Afrikaner (who are a notoriously religious bunch), I am (like Dawkins) a “Level 6″ agnostic and completely accept evolution and that we and every other living thing share a common ancestor. In short, I am a huge fan of Dawkins and the brilliant job he is doing confronting religion with reason. But there are two issues where I think Dawkins gets it wrong.
Firstly in The Selfish Gene (published 1976) he essentially suggests that people “act” altruisticly in order only to promote themselves. But in Episode 2 of The Genius of Darwin (2008), a recent TV-series, he says that he wasn’t convinced and that he now feels that we’ve in a way “outgrown” evolution; we can understand suffering and that we act against that. According to him we can do this because we have become so clever; enabling us to break free from the rules and shackles of Evolution.
I agree with him that we are intelligent enough now to reflect on and understand evolution. But I don’t think this in itself is the reason why we do altruistic deeds. I think it is because as a species our evolution is not driven by competition and our survival instincts have been dimmed by our success as a species. In Dawkins’s UK and the rest of Western Europe there hasn’t really been a Fight for Survival for 65 years. I believe that this has dimmed the survival instinct and because of that people are more altruistic.
In South Africa it is a different story. A very good friend of mine was brutally murdered last week by a gang of robbers. They shot him in cold-blood AFTER he handed over his money. Tragically this is not an isolated incident. All over the country murders are being commited on an astonishing scale; indisputably crime is out of control. Here the survival instinct is much stronger. Here people are less inclined to be kind. I have lived in the UK and South Africa for extensive periods of time and I am convinced this is the case. In South Africa specifically white lives, jobs, and lifestyles are severely under threat. It makes evolutionary sense for people that are under threat not to expend energy on “unnecessary” acts of kindness. This occurs in Israel/Palestine and other places where people are being perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being under threat.
This neatly brings me to the 2nd point which is the real toughie. Race. I believe that there IS a difference between races. It makes complete evolutionary sense. There are no white sprinters in the Olympic 100m final. Why? Because for generations Africans have through the dreadful natural selection of slavery become physically superior. It makes complete evolutionary sense. Why then is it such a problem for mainstream scientists to accept that whites are intellectually more suited to the modern world? I’m not saying that this applies to ALL blacks or that this will always be the case. There are certainly many blacks (like the very impressive Ben Carson) that are intellectual giants. Evolution through natural selection should uplift blacks to the intellectual levels of whites. Globally though this process is severely being hampered by unnatural selection policies like Affirmative Action.
Presently though blacks, on average, do not have the modern intelligence of other races. There is evidence of this all over Africa. The overwhelming majority of African countries are abject failures. There is certainly not one country that can compete on any level with the West. When South-Africa, previously and wrongly, was ruled by whites we competed in medicine (the first heart transplant in the world was done in Cape Town by Chris Barnard, a white South-African), science and technology (the G5 cannon, still used today by the US and Israel, was developed in South-Africa). Now 14 years after South-Africa’s first democratic election and the start of black rule, we are not a major contributor at any scientific level.
Blacks are more likely to commit crime
In Europe and the US the story is slightly different, but with the same conclusion. The U.S. Department of Justice’s statistics from 1976 to 2004 confirms that black people are 9 times more likely to commit a serious crime than whites or other races. Why? I sincerely and without prejudice believe that it is because blacks haven’t evolved as much intellectually. Simply because in Africa they haven’t had to; until recently physical attributes were more important for survival than mental strength. It isn’t right or wrong or better or worse or moral or amoral. It just is; just like evolution.
For me the fact that esteemed scientists like Dawkins are denying or at the very least avoiding this issue is disappointing. In 2007 James Watson, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century and Nobel Prize winner, said the same thing and he was ostracised from the scientific community. Charles Darwin’s theories were also unpopular at the time, but that didn’t stop it from being true. I believe the same applies to James Watson’s theories.
The most valid argument against discussing race and intelligence is “What does it achieve?”. I have thought about this a lot and it is not an easy one. Critics say that race & intelligence arguments are counter-productive, polarising & prejudicial. I actually agree with this, but that is still not enough reason to avoid the search for the truth. Even more so when Europeans are constantly trying to help Africa on the basis that Africans have the same intellect as Europeans. This, I believe, is one of the major reasons why one Aid Package after another fails in Africa.
Very important: Although I don’t think anyone can deny that there are differences between races, I am not a racist; I am 100% against racial discrimination. In other words if a black candidate is the best person for the job he/she should get the job. If a guy like Bryan Habana is the best in his position, who cares what colour he is. If 10/10 finalists in the Olympic finals are black; great. I applaud Ben Carson MD for being the world famous Director of Paediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. I also supported Obama for President, because I felt and still feel he was the best candidate for the job.
I want blacks to succeed. More than anything. But don’t expect me to call a spade an axe!
November 30, 2009 at 11:18
Nice one.
Your sentiments about race have already earned you the label of being a racist. Now that that’s out of the way, we can get on with the discussion.
In our culture we act altruistically in order to promote ourselves, within reason. We’ve become clever and understand suffering and therefore act against it. This whole issue of altruism and intelligence goes back to the Age of Enlightenment, which started during the 18th century. The emphasis in our European culture changed from spirituality to reason. People began putting reason and individuality above faith and religion. People developed a general assumption that all men are good and capable of using reason, as opposed to the Christian religious dogma that all men are evil and need God’s forgiveness. It’s when the whole freedom and individuality of religion was developed; and the idea of equality was also developed resulting in today’s liberalism philosophy.
But the notion that we’re NOT capable of doing evil, combined with an understanding of the atrocities that have been committed by mankind during events like the Holocaust, have stirred an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance within the white race – call it white guilt. Prior to the Enlightenment the scale was tipped in the extreme to religion and spirituality. Afterwards it became tipped in the extreme towards reasoning. We have become obsessed with trying to understand our ‘evil nature’ when we should know that deep down inside that we are all good people. It is this imbalance that is threatening the survival of the human race and impacting on our evolutionary success. We have not broken free from the rules and shackles of evolution.
Just have a look at the details of the climate change debate and you’ll get some idea of the mess that humanity is finding itself in at the moment. Humanity is in SERIOUS TROUBLE. We should be afraid about the world’s population problem and its impact on the environment yet we are still reasoning about ways in which to improve people’s lives of others. By implication we will be increasing the world’s population. There is that imbalance again. Too much thinking and not enough spiritual guidance.
November 30, 2009 at 15:11
Attie, indeed ‘n good posting! You are not afraid to write honestly about a debate that is deemed out-of-bounds – a debate that is severely restricted by self-censorship and denialism. It remains strange that we can scientifically discuss almost anything in the world, but race. This I attribute mostly to the white guilt complex, as you have pointed out. Of course people will now call you a racist and thereby totally miss your point. And that is really sad.
November 30, 2009 at 16:31
Dis nie regtig waar dat wetenskaplikes wegskram van hierdie kwessie nie. Lees gerus vir Steve Jones hier:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/6436114/Its-time-to-lay-this-race-issue-to-rest.html
November 30, 2009 at 17:06
@Alleman: Niemand sê dis ‘n aangename topic nie en ek self hou nie daarvan om in die goed vas te kyk nie, MAAR om dit te ontken slegs omdat dit onaangenaam is is ‘n helse fout. Stem jy nie saam nie?
Wat Steve Jones aanbetref stem ek saam. IK syfers is besig om te styg onder swart kinders en dit is fantasties en ek kan nie wag vir ‘n tyd wanneer dit wel op ‘n gelyke vlak is nie. Maar om nou te probeer maak asof Zuma/Dr Manto/Malema en soveel ander intelligent is, is lagwekkend.
Nee wat; hierdie Keiser het nie klere aan nie!
November 30, 2009 at 22:27
Wat se soort argumente is dit nou die? Volgens dieselfde logika kan witmense nie juis baie slim wees nie, want spesifieke voorbeelde, byvoorbeeld die Reitz 4 is maar onnosel.
November 30, 2009 at 17:22
Alleman, your reference enforces the idea that it is taboo for academics to investigate the differences in intelligence between the races. The author decided that there is no difference based on his personal experience and that is VERY POOR coming from an academic. There is data available that he could have used to investigate his claims, although it doesn’t support his theory.
The data is discussed in the book The Bell Curve and it’s based on IQ tests that have been done for all races.
Off the top of my head, here are the averages for the respective races:
Jews 115
Orientals 107
Whites 105
African Americans 85
Indians 83
Sub-Saharan Africans 67
Aborigines 63
It has been shown that IQ is not a product of one’s social environment. There is no evidence to support this notion. There is only evidence that proves that the contrary is true, that intelligence is determined by genetics.
A statement along those lines is what caused Watson to be ostracized from the scientific community, even though the facts around the issue were very clear. Instead Watson experienced peecee censorship at its best.
November 30, 2009 at 23:27
Scientists quite often hide the truth because it is inconvenient . Race based statements are inconvenient and so untrue, despite day to day layman scientific observance. So is the fact that through simple ground erosion and tectonic plate movement it is impossible to have fossils older than 20 million years.
December 1, 2009 at 09:28
Juiceboy, your comment is full of contradictions.
“Race based statements are…so untrue..”
What is true or untrue about a race based statement? That’s like saying a species based statement is true, or untrue. It makes no sense. With that comment, effectively, you’ve just shut up anyone talking about race. Alternatively, it’s called censorship.
Science is about quantifying observations and making logical deductions. You get layman observance and scientific observance, but not “layman scientific observance.”
December 2, 2009 at 13:25
I didn’t actually know these exact numbers, but I must say they make complete sense to me.
November 30, 2009 at 17:29
I think that hammering on about the differences in intelligence between the races is counter productive though. The important thing is for the white race to find the balance between reasoning and emotions/spirituality. By reasoning about evolution, intelligence, or whatever, we are not rectifying the imbalance that’s been created by the Age of Enlightenment.
December 1, 2009 at 09:44
Upon further reflection, I think people have an understanding that there is an imbalance between spirituality and reasoning in our culture. People understand that we need to place more emphasis on spirituality, but they don’t know how. Organized religion has failed in many aspects. There are other forms of spirituality that may be pursued though. But instead of actively pursuing spirituality people are rebelling against reasoning. I suspect that is why whites are embracing the less intelligent races. As a scientist, I have to wonder what the future holds for me.
December 1, 2009 at 10:17
Have we run out of time? Now at a time that we need science most to prevent a global warming crisis, people are rebelling against reasoning. There are some crazy arguments out there that the global warming threat does not even exist.
December 1, 2009 at 17:32
Ek verskil met Attie Heunis oor die ras issue
1)Die mens Homo sapies (almal van ons op aarde) het deur ‘n lang proses van evolusie ontwikkel. Ons en die sjimpansees het tussen 5 mil en 7 miljoen jaar gelede geskei van die gemeenskaplike voorsaat.
Daar het baie evolusie plaasgevind, maar basies is ALMAL op aarde geneties baie meer dieselfde as verskillend.
2)Ons verskille, en dit sluit ras in, is minimaal en het maar die laaste 100 000 jaar of self minder ontstaan. Dit LYK baie, maar dit is min. En die haplogroepe wys dit.
3) Die meeste soogdiere is altruisties, om die dieselfde rede, dit help om die groep te bond.
4)Jy verwar, soos baie ander “darwinisme se survival” met sosiale darwinisme.
5)James Watson was amazing in 1953, hy is nou ‘n gek ou man wat vir jare lank al k*k praat. Mense het hom getolerate oor DNS, nie meer nie.
6) Almal weet al lankal IK-toetse kan maar by die deur uitgegooi word, omdat:
– mense dit in hulle moedertaal moet neem (wat selde gebeur)
— dit moet by die kultuur van die groep aangepas word (en dit is nie, dis westers)
– IK is ook niks met slimgeit te doen nie, maar dit vergelyk jou net met die gemiddelde van die groepie wat dit saam met jou neem. Jy kan dis nie een groep s’n met ‘n ander s’n vergelyk nie. aiaiaaiai
ps. darwin en sy familie was van die grootse anti-slawerny aktiviste in brittanje. hy het nooit ooit oor verskille tussen mense gepraat nie, behalwe op mbt tot vergelykende anatomie, wat totaal iets anders is.
Juiceboy: please go and read a proper biology book and then join the debate. you are ignorant.
December 1, 2009 at 17:56
Nou ja Rosalind, was dit nou so moeilik? Hoekom moes jy eers aangaan oor die feit dat jy Darwin gelees het, pleks van by te bly, te sien wat hier geskryf word, en daarop te antwoord.
Goeie antwoord, in elk geval.
December 1, 2009 at 17:56
Yet there is a correlation between IQ test results and Human Development Index.
December 1, 2009 at 17:58
And there is a correlation between HDI and oppression.
December 1, 2009 at 18:30
@ Alleman. There is no correlation between HDI and oppression. Singapore was colonized yet it’s HDI is on par with other countries in the region. Ethiopa was never colonized and ditto. Yet there is a correlation with IQ.
December 2, 2009 at 12:49
Eerstens jou vermaning van Juiceboy is priceless!
Jou punt 4. Die mens se breinfunksie (en dus sosiale patrone) is tog sekerlik biologies. Jy het self vir Theodosius Dobzhansky aangehaal in my vorige post. Dus…
Jou punt 5. Hoekom was James Watson in 1953 ‘n erkende genius, maar nou is sy teorieë gek? Is dit dalk omdat dit nie nou baie populêr is nie. Die mense het dieselfde van ons held Charlie gesê in 1859!
Mense soos jy (en as jy gereelde leser van jou blog het ek baie respek vir jou sienings) is vinnig om Darwin en sy teorieë op te heil, maar julle is nie bereid om dit te vat tot waar dit mag offend nie. Ek noem dit polities korrek, sensuur of plein weg oneerlikheid. G’n mens kan mos argumenteer dat die gemiddelde (baie belangrik) Afrikaan intellektueel aangepas is vir die moderne wêreld nie. Kyk net hoe lyk elke liewe land in ons ou kontinent!!
Ek wil net gou ‘n paar goed op rekord sit. Eerstens, daar is twee Heunisse wat hier kommentaar lewer; moet ons nie verwar nie. Tweedens, ek verafsku slawerny of enige onderdrukking van mens of dier. Derdens, ek het baklei (ek is letterlik gebliksem) teen Apartheid. Vierdens, ek is ‘n closet sosialis. En laastens, ek diskrimineer NIE teen swartes nie. Doodernstig.
December 2, 2009 at 14:04
Haha Attie, laat my radikale sienings jou ‘n bietjie ongemaklik voel? Vir die rekord, hierdie Heunis verafsku ook slawerny, onderdrukking van mens en dier. Ek is ook teen Apartheid en diskrimineer nie teen swartes nie. Ek is nou wel nie ‘n sosialis nie
December 1, 2009 at 19:23
Nice post
Do blacks in the US commit more crime because of low IQ?
or is it rather lower achievement compared to other groups.
Prison population IQs are no guide, as prisoners are just criminals who got caught – because of their lower IQs !
It’s a sad day when stating facts about IQ is dismissed as “racism”
December 2, 2009 at 11:47
Alleman, ek het nie die nuwe post gesien nie.
Ah Madonna! IQ tests: if I take an IQ test in Afrikaans in Cape Town, that is set up to take my sosio-econmical background, culture, language skills etc etc into account I will score much higher, than if I take an English test, set against their background in London.
Or what if you are black and must take one, designed by Westerners in your 3rd language??
December 2, 2009 at 21:16
If all the races were equally intelligent then according to your reasoning, that the IQ tests favour Westerners, all the other races should do equally badly in the IQ tests. Yet they don’t. Westerners don’t perform best in the tests either.
December 2, 2009 at 14:42
Attie,
Mbt tot Watson sy werk was goed, maar sedert 1953 het hy nie veel gedoen buiten om vreeslike wilde statements te maak, sonder bewyse nie. Hy is nie ewe skielik vir my onaangenaam nie, hy is al jare. Hy het vreeslike dinge gese.
Oor punt 4 = mense verwar kom ons noem dit maar biologiese darwinisme, met een of ander gogga wat sosiale darwinisme genoem word. 2 verskillende dinge.
Darwin = hond eet dalk die hasie as hy hom gevang kry
sosisale darwinisme = hond eet hond in die werksomgewing
sien die verskil?
en darwin het NIKS met laasgenoemde te doen nie, iemand het net verkeerdelik sy naam daaraan gekoppel.
Ek hemel nie Darwin op nie, hy is net so fenominaal korrek.
Ek weet nie wat politieke situasies en die post-effek van kolonialisme met natuurlike seleksie te doen het nie. Ek kom op vir evolusieleer indien dit verkeerd geinterpreteer word, wat ongelukkig baie gebeur.
Goed ek hoor wat jy se in jou laaste paragraaf
December 5, 2009 at 16:33
Darwin se teorie is NIE dat alles perfek is en met tyd meer perfek word nie. Darwin se teorie is dat daar soms foute in die natuur gemaak word. Mens kan uit die mens se model uitvind dat twee elemente krities is om dominant te word: 1) Lang lewe en die vermoee om die kennis wat lang lewe bied te gebruik, 2) Intelligensie. In 100,000 jaar het mense van grunters na space travellers gegaan. In die laaste 200 jaar het ons alles wat ons weet en in staat is om te doen reeds 5 keer verdubbel. Dit is hoe vinnig evolusie werk. NOW, having those as a factual base: Hoekom het geen dier nog die 80 year barrier gebreek nie? Dit is tog highly desirable om slim te wees en langer te lewe…?! Mense het in 1800 40 jaar oud geword en word nou in Japan 80. “Ja, maar dis opposing thumbs, en net mense het opposing thumbs, so net ons kan skielik slim word, so Darwin is steeds reg.” Bull Sht! Squids is so slim soos ‘n hond, het AGT bene waarmee hulle kan maak wat hulle wil, maar nie een van die TRILLIONS van hulle lewe langer as een jaar nie en nie een raak slim genoeg om sy naam met ‘n klip teen ‘n rots uit te krap nie. Oor biljoene jare. As een slim word en langer lewe gaan dit ‘n chain reaction afsit wat hulle dominant sal maak. Take one Trillion squid x 1 year life x 1 Billion years. EEN moes slim geraak het, maar hy het nie. There is no Billion years, there is no 100,000 years and there is no slime pool hit by lightning. There is also no Biology book that can tell me lightning hitting a dam can make DNA sonder dat die author actually lag as hy dit skryf nie.
December 5, 2009 at 17:51
Broer, die oudste skilpad het 266 jaar oud geword.
December 2, 2009 at 15:26
Rosalind,
Ek moet eerlik sê ek is self nog nie seker van waar ek staan mbt Sosiale Darwinisme nie. Ek stem dat Darwin nooit dit so gesien het nie, hy het slegs na biologie gekyk. Maar daar is tog baie korrelasie tussen biologiese en sosiale Darwinisme. Ek weet nie.
December 4, 2009 at 19:32
This was a very interesting post indeed. You raise many valid points, all of which are doomed to be squashed. You mention it yourself, “What will it achieve?”
It seems to me to be an impossible hope that we will all one day be able to say to each other (all of us black and white, by consensus) that yes, blacks have been “artificially” selected and favoured for physical traits through the slave trade, and yes, the fine sieve of natural selection in turn over a much longer period also bred fine and noble physical traits, but at the expense of their higher faculties.
Now, what do we do about it????
Can you imagine it? No, no, it is far better to shove in an intellectually stunted person of the right melanin tint into a position of power, and keep them on even after wreaking havoc and bringing down an entire Corporation/ Country/ Continent rather than face that brutal (and for ALL of us, shameful) reality. We just go on denying reality.
All your points are good Attie. The only fault I find is that you seem to misunderstand the issue of Europeans being “blunted” by 65 years of “easy living” That’s not the case. Those genes (red in tooth and claw) were accumulated over millions of years. They do not go blunt, they are there within us, all the time, waiting for a need to be expressed.
December 4, 2009 at 20:59
To summarize my viewpoint, I agree with your second point but I don’t agree with your first point. I don’t think that whites, or Westerners, have a dimmed survival instinct or that they are acting altruisticly when they ‘help’ Africa. Whites are embracing the less intelligent races because they are rebelling against the extreme shift in balance from spirituality to reasoning caused by the Elightenment.
December 26, 2009 at 18:31
Die aandrang op kultuur relefante IK toetse is sekerlik `n geldige een, maar dan moet ons dit ook tot sy volle konsekwensies kan deurvoer en aandring op spesie relefante toetse. Met so `n toets vind ons dan dalk dat `n vlakvark, `n chimp, `n dolfyn en ou wagter net so intelligent is as enige mens? Dit klink vir my so effe absurd.
Maar indien IK toetse dan nie ware intelligensie weergee nie, dan moet ons na die prakyk kyk, praxis, soos Marx dit genoem het. Die maklikste manier om dit te doen is om in jou 4×4 te klim en van hier af Noord deur Afrika te ry tot in Kairo. Jy ry op daardie fantastiese Autobahn met sy Petroprte elke soveel km, by moderne motorfabrieke, kerkragsentrales, wolkekrabbers in die stede, duisende hektaar groen landerye met groot groen trekkers en moderne hidroliese implimente, en as jy in Kairo aankom dan verduidelik jy aan my aan die hand van Darwin, die totale, absolute gebrek aan enige van bogenoemde goed, goed wat ons as alledaags in die res van die wêreld beskou.
Verduidelik (objektief en sonder sentiment of skuldgevoel)waarom Afrika, wat nou onlangs weer beskryf is as die kontinent wat die rykste aan grondstowwe is van alle kontinente op Aarde, maar ook die armste kontinent op aarde is en waarom Japan, `n onbeduidende klein eilandjie wat byna al sy gronstowwe moet invoer, een van die rykste lande ter wêreld is.
Die probleem is dat ons met ons Westerse skuldkomplekse en gevolglike erge sosiale gewete, dit `n sonde verklaar het om in graad een te wees terwyl jou broer in graad 7 of 12 is. Ons beskou dit as `n sosiale onreg teen die mensdom.
Niemand is dom omdat hy in graad 1 is nie, maar dit is dom om te beweer hy kan wiskunde en wetenskap op dieselfde vlak as `n BSc student doen en verstaan.
Ons behoort alles in die stryd te werp om so veel as moontlik graad eentjies tot by graad 12 te kry sonder om die standaarde te verlaag soos tans by ons gedoen word.
Kennis van evolusie gaan ons absoluut niks help nie. Prakties moue oprol, skouer aan die wiel is al wat die wa deur die drif sal kry.