Re: Race: real or imagined?

With regard to Richard Hutchinson's post, I have not, thankfully, received 
Rushton's text but accepting Hutchinson's over view of the text, I can 
present an anthropological perspective on these views:

>I just received the Rushton tract in the mail today.
>
>At a glance, here is what his central claim seems to be:
>
>1) Environmental conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, with malaria and other
>rampant tropical diseases, were conducive to an "r strategy" of
>reproduction in humans:  bear lots of young, but don't care for them too
>much because most of them will die.

Humans are K strategists, period. Europeans also had high fertility rates 
well into the historical period for reasons having nothing to do with 
malaria and everything to do with the urbanized consequences of capitalist 
expansion.  Malaria was common in Italy and Rome during the times of the 
early Roman empire, indeed the name "malaria" comes from the Latin "bad 
air" which they thought to be the cause of the disease.  Fertility 
responses to malaria would have been evident in Rome, the archetypical 
early "democracy" whose standard now adorns the US house of representatives.

>2) When humans migrated out of Africa, they encountered different
>environmental conditions which were conducive to a "K strategy" of
>reproduction:  bear fewer young, but care after them more and ensure their
>survival.

The human species that initially migrated out of Africa was Homo erectus 
and the event happened at least 1.25 million years ago. Malaria and the 
genetic consequences of selection for the heterozygote individual that 
carries the trait for the sickling red blood cell developed when the 
development of agriculture in Africa brought humans into more frequent 
contact with the two species of mosquitos that serve as the vector for the 
three variants of the malaria plasmodium. Under those conditions, a genetic 
mutation in the coding of hemoglobin gained selective advantage in the 
heterozygote only (the homozygote for sickling blood cells and the 
homozygote for normal red blood cells had poor reproductive fitness).  The 
vector and the plasmodium quickly migrated into the entire circum 
Mediterranean area including into area whose Homo erectus ancestors would 
eventually develop into white guys and gals.  There is some justification 
in the idea that there were three separate Homo erectus migrations that 
formed three reproducing populations (demes) but gene flow, the strongest 
force of evolution for the human species by far, prevented the formation of 
distinct and separate human populations. Hence, there resulted a host of 
brown, tan, whitish, and black skinned humans with an assortment of hair 
types, eye colors, morphological characters in stature and height 
distributed throughout the Eurasian, African and Australian continental 
areas. Distinct and pure "races" never developed. In short, if you look 
back far enough, we are all mutts.

>3) This resulted in 3 races (Negroids, Mongoloids, Caucasoids) or
>subspecies with different traits that are adaptations to the environment
>via reproductive strategy.  These traits include intelligence, aggression,
>and so forth.  Basically, the Negroids are less intelligent and more
>aggressive because these traits were selected for as part of a package of
>traits that go along with the "r strategy" of reproduction.

See above with regards to the distribution of morphological 
characteristics.  The idea that white folks are less aggressive than 
peoples of African origin, given the history and brutality of European 
expansion is absurd.  Further, there is no paleo demographic evidence that 
I am aware of that supports the idea of high fertility in Africa but not in 
Europe for the prehistoric period. Indeed, rapid population growth is a 
characteristic of all societies during times of economic stress. How does 
Rushdon directly link high reproductive rates with aggression and how does 
that link to lower inherent intelligence NECESSARILY?


>4)  These racially/genetically different traits *partially* explain, along
>with current environmental factors, differences in crime rates, family
>structure, IQ, etc, etc, among the 3 "races."
>
>** ** ** ** **
>
>Rushton's racial theory is a particular subcategory of the larger whole,
>which includes Murray, Hernstein (?), etc.  His theory, although clearly
>ideologically motivated and not well supported, is logically a perfectly
>reasonable application of Darwinian evolutionary principles.

Not unless he demonstrates form the archaeological evidence that those who 
appropriated a higher fertility rate necessarily had higher reproductive 
fitness. Given the idea that higher reproduction was required to compensate 
for higher infant mortality, there is no reason to assume that the higher 
fertility necessarily resulted in higher surviving offspring (as opposed to 
a strategy of having few children but working to assure their survival) and 
therefore higher differential reproduction. How, as well, does he explain 
the obvious and continuing gene flow between these races? We know that 
human reproduction is characterized universally by positive assortative 
mating. If the brown folks were stupid and the white folks were smart, and 
smart folks disproportionately reproduce with smart folks, then how did the 
hybridization that is evident in the spectrum of morphology of humans in 
the entire old world come about?  It seems like flawed Darwinism but 
perfect Social Darwinism to me.

>To refute it requires only challenging each factual claim and causal
>claim.
>
>For instance, Rushton claims that the racial differences that are his
>dependent variable are real.  This is obviously open to challenge.
>
>Beyond that, his argument has several steps of causal logic, none of which
>is more than speculative and can easily be challenged:
>
>1) different environments cause differing reproductive strategies
>         in human populations,

Environmental determinism has never by itself explained differential 
reproduction in any human group. Indeed, even in the historical period, the 
"demographic transition" can not be explained by reference to a single 
deterministic factor. This assertion is horse pucky.


>2) differing reproductive strategies cause differing clusters of
>         biological traits,

No form of intelligence or other human trait (aggression) is simply 
determined by biology no direct relationship between overt morphology and 
intelligence has ever been conclusively established. That doesn't mean that 
strongly supported arguments should be brought to bear on Rushton's thesis, 
only that the data are already not in his favor.

>3) clusters of traits persist (because they are genetic) under new
>         environmental conditions (ie, blacks in the U.S. and Caribbean
>         have the same traits as blacks in Africa, Asians outside of Asia
>         have the same traits, etc),

How do these traits persist separately in the face of evident gene flow in 
human populations? Further, IQ evidence also could be interpreted as 
showing that Asians are more intelligent that Europeans since that America 
Asian population does seem to score higher on standardized tests.

So....my 2.5 cents worth.
C. Stevens