ScienceAnd Blog

December 14, 2009

THE UTILITY OF THE HIERARCHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF HOMO

Filed under: What is Race? — admin @ 2:56 pm

I believe I have a record that can prove I am not a racist but I do take issue with many geneticists who claim that race is irrelevant because we all differ from one another by a minute amount of our DNA. For example, Richard Hayer of the Center for Genetics and Society said “modern science reveals that genetic differences are trivial and that ‘race’ is an almost meaningless descriptor”. Whereas he was correct in his first statement he is decidedly wrong in his second. The notion of separate interbreeding populations forming distinct ethno-cultural gamodemes is a very valid concept for understanding Protosociety. As a social concept to understand Protosociety, the spatial distribution of human variation is clearly significant, despite the ideologues of the west coast of the USA who rightly see genetic variation within the global population as continuous – missing the point that Cultures are separated on their differences not their similarities and that physically each geographic area did show a unison of characteristics that led earlier anthropologists to define human variants. These variants were not significant, and probably did not exist during Archaeosociety and are breaking down since Eusociety commenced. However, during Protosociety they developed and were important concepts influencing people and even today accepting such differences can have decidedly important benefits to health and education and the general well-being of all of humankind.

The problem seems to me to be related to the modern education of bio-scientists.: one flaw is that they do not seem to understand TAXONOMY. The older generation had a strong background in both taxonomic theory and practice, and understood that taxa are separated primarily by differences not similarities. A useful taxonomy of humankind does use a variant-based hierarchy; and the resultant classification is based upon a unison of measurable and visible physical traits. To deny this is bowing down to political correctness: to use it as the basis for racism is both unethical and evil. It is for this reason that I continue to use the geographically based, physical gamodeme classification. for humankind. As I have said elsewhere:

“The combination of various geographical effects was evident in the isolation of the cultural gamodemes that formed the traditional interbreeding populations of Homo sapiens by the end of the Pleistocene Epoch [11,500 years ago]. By this time the archaeosociety of the hunter-gatherer was being replaced regionally by protosociety as agriculture developed”, Hart, 2008, p73.

THE CLASSICAL CLASSIFICATION OF HOMO SAPIENS

Homo sapiens var africanensis and the African Cultures.

Homo sapiens var caucasensis and the European Cultures.

Homo sapiens var mongolensis and the Asian Cultures.

Homo sapiens var australensis and the Australasian Cultures.

Homo sapiens var Khoisanensis and the Southern African Cultures.

An interesting observation by Geoffrey Miller in the Economist: “The World In 2010” is that “The looming crisis in human genetics” is precisely the problem that genetic studies are showing how we are all a product of out physical gamodeme.  I believe this is something we should embrace, for the good of humanity, not shun as incorrect.

October 28, 2008

The 2006 Living Planet Report of the World Wildlife Fund

Filed under: The Social Future — admin @ 11:25 pm

The WWF* 2006 report “confirms that we are using the planet’s resources faster than they can be renewed” with humankinds ecological foot print having more than tripled in 45 years, so-much-so that Earth cannot regenerate its resources quickly enough to avoid a constant deterioration. Moreover, the Living Planet Index “shows a rapid and continuing loss of  biodiversity – populations of vertebrate species have declined by about one third since 1970”. 

 

The substance of the report should be frightening but the authors – like so many others who have a political agenda, fail to point their finger clearly at the root cause of the problem – an increase in population selection pressure.  It is population numbers and their critical index of population density that are the cause of the stress being placed upon the Earth System.  The WWF statement that “The biggest contributor to our footprint is the way in which we generate and use energy” is simply a dumb statement with strong political overtones suggesting an organization that has set its eyes on increased funding rather than solving the problem of Earth’s deterioration.  Yes, “our reliance on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs continues to grow and that climate-changing emissions now make up 48 per cent – almost half – of our global footprint”;  and, yes “the challenge of reducing our footprint goes to the very heart of our current models for economic development”. But the prime selection pressure on the Earth System is, and has been for 150 years humankinds prodigious growth and expansion which increasing consumes Earth’s resources.  The rate of consumption is a function of population selection pressure – primarily population density.  As I pointed out in “Evolution and the Future of Humanity” [Hart, 2008] both global corporations and religious institutions have an interest in increasing global population. The politicians of the Institutionalized Liberal Democracies have a vested interest in keeping in the good graces of both Corporations and Religious leaders and will do nothing that hints of population culling – more people mean more consumers and more competition for work [i.e. lower wages can be paid]; and’ more Roman Catholic [or Hindu, or Muslim] children means a larger flock to be fleeced.

 

The WWF like so many other environment related groups seems scared of pointing to the real culprit because it would have to address the question of reducing humankinds numbers.  Again as I pointed out earlier [Hart, 2008] this must address the issue of  who shall live and who shall die” and a morass of ethical principles: euthanasia, eugenics, and restrictions on breeding.  These are the issues that must be placed before the public because population reduction is critical – as I have said repeatedly for at least 20 years the “global population is too large for a sustainable Earth System”. 

 

The WWF does do the things it does well – they do work “with leading companies that are taking action to reduce the footprint – cutting carbon emission, and promoting sustainability in other sectors, from fisheries to forests.”  This is admirable but the environmental groups need to link the problems to the real cause – unrestricted reproduction by humankind.  The meat of the study is good science.  The Living Planet Index monitors the health of Earths ecosystem by globally monitoring trends in bio-diversity based upon 1,313 vertebrates species.  In the 33 year period ending 2003 it fell 30%. The Ecological Footprint Index tracks the biospheres productivity in terms of the “area of biologically productive land and water needed to provide ecological resources and services – food, fibre, timber, land on which to build, and land to absorb carbon dioxide”.   The amount of biologically productive areas is termed the bio-capacity and the report shows that since the late 1980’s the Ecological Footprint Index exceeds the Earth’s bio-capacity by about 25% i.e. the resources are being used up faster than they can be replaced. Both of these indices show overload of the Earth System. The fact is that by 2050 humankind’s resource utilization will be twice the amount the Earth System can sustain and this will lead to ecosystem collapse.

 

The WWF recognizes that decreasing the human population is one part of the problem and families that choose to have fewer children should be supported. “Offering women access to better education, economic opportunities, and health care are three proven approaches to achieving this”.  Reducing per capita consumption, increasing efficiency in the production of goods and improved land management are other offered solutions.

 

For anyone concerned about the Earth System and it’s future the report is a necessary acquisition: like many I now download such .pdf  reports and archive them on DVD as part of my digital reference library. Please read the report for it concerns the whole of humankind.

 

Get the report: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf

 

George F. Hart, 291008

 

 

 

*The WWF’s stated mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:

- conserving the world’s biological diversity

- ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable

- promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

October 2, 2008

Cognitive expansion technologies

Filed under: What is Humanity? — admin @ 1:17 pm

COGNITIVE EXPANSION TECHNOLOGIES

by W. S. BAINBRIDGE.

Journal of Evolution and Technology, 19[1]:8-16, 2008.
——————————————————————–

Review by Professor George F. Hart, LSU.
Recommended reading.

——————————————————————–

Professor Bainbridge’s theme is that the human mind is being transformed as individuals become more intertwined with electronic technologies that perceive, process and present information. This process will continue with advancements in W3 technologies that use human criteria and reasoning in their search methodologies: following the concept of W3 as an extended brain [memory + reasoning] that can be utilized by individuals. Professor Bainbridge, however, sees beyond this stage to one in which computers include personality traits of a user.

From my viewpoint, the excitement of this article is that Professor Bainbridge outlines one way whereby we may eventually be able to identify what I have called the ‘humanity trait(s)”; and, help to answer the question I posed “What of humanity do we want to incorporate into our robotic descendents?” [Hart, 2008]. The kind of development he envisages and documents is a ‘bottom up’ approach to training computers about the human mind. The cleverness of this lies in that such an approach is soundly grounded in the Theory of Evolution: the individuals within the cultural gamodeme will generate the important criteria that will dominate the system.

Professor Bainbridge outlines an approach that I find strikingly simple but with potentially profound consequences for the evolution of robotic intelligence. His unique approach is that the capture of an individual personality may be possible by one person answering many questions set by many other individuals. This could cause an intelligent computer to derive associations that provide a deeper insight into human reasoning: I wonder now if my own estimate of 300 years to develop a robot that has a manufactured consciousness and incorporates the ‘humanity trait(s)” is too long. Although I think Ray Kurzweil’s estimate is too short, perhaps this century will see Robotico earthensis (Hart, 2008) evolve.

————————————————————-
Hart, G. F., Evolution and the Future of Humanity, Homo sapiens’ galactic future. eBook edition. ScienceAnd Publications, Boulder, Colorado. ISBN-13 978-0-9818642-0-4 ,

Reference link: www.ScienceAnd.com.

Powered by WordPress