0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
why do black people hav wide noses why do...
Quote from: Joosh on 05/12/2007 15:01:11 why do black people hav wide noses why do...on the whole, white europeans come from a colder climate than those of a darker skin. A smaller nose helps to warm the air you breath in, and thus gives warmer air to the lungs.
Large nostrils probably do the same as elephants' ears - act as good heat exchangers in hot, dry conditions, as air wafts past them. This may not be a particular advantage where humidity is high so not all races at the same latitude would be the same.
Long limbs probably achieve the same sort of thing - 'northern' races are, as a rule, more stocky, which reduces surface area for a given mass and, consequently, heat loss.Narrow eyes could be useful in high, cold, winds.
Black pigment is clearly a protection against UV.
Diet is often responsible for size. Since 'the war', kids have eaten more protein and now they're all ten foot tall. Under nourished sections of society tend to be shorter than their more wealthy 'ruling classes'.
Modern medicine is really upsetting the survival of the fittest system. It is, potentially, producing a time bomb whereby a lot of very un-advantageous characteristics are multiplying. Your average human being is becoming less and less robust and more reliant on technology to keep healthy.Quite a scary thought.
So does that mean that as im dependble on our society, medicines and so on i woudlnt neccerserly be able to hack it in the rainforests of lets say, borneo or any other?
Also if Caucasoids can live succesfully in Africa. As we are doing now and Negroids can survivor in Europe. What was the point in Evolution of the species?
By the whats the point in evolution bit i ment what was the point in blacks evolving into whites when blacks can live in the same environment anyway?
Also anyone know what race inuits are?
I agree with sophiecentaur about the increasing weakness of the species. It is a time bomb, and very worrying.
In my view, the two time bombs we have in the human population is increased lifespan (and so reduced adaptability, since it takes longer to create a new generation that can adapt to a new environment)
QuoteIn my view, the two time bombs we have in the human population is increased lifespan (and so reduced adaptability, since it takes longer to create a new generation that can adapt to a new environment)That's one argument but your previous argument seemed to suggest that our evolution is taking place in other ways - information , communication and technology are providing the necessary adaptation.
There is also the fact that a disease which has no immediate cure could spread disastrously via our global transport systems - that's technology giving us a disbenefit.
As far as getting weaker is concerned - physical / mechanical weakness is less and less relevant but the levels of fertility and what we refer to as genetic disorders could increase (are increasing) to a degree where the proportion of able bodied individuals becomes a social, if not a practical problem. Even now, the age profile of the population is a cause for concern where the cost of care and pensions for older members of society is generating resentment amongst the young.
Can we rely on mechanisms evolving which can cope with this before some serious breakdown in society? Who is to supply all the income to support a growing proportion who cannot contribute effectively?
Euthanasia and wars may well be the result.
On an intellectual level and in the 'grand scheme of things' this may not matter; evolution will carry on, even if that means humans becoming extinct. But, to us humans, it is a bit of a potential disaster. As a parent / grandparent, I cannot ignore this.
If one takes the example of the present bet noire, HIV/AIDS. This disease is causing very severe problems in parts of Africa, with around 30% mortality in some areas. Yet, despite all the panic in the West, the level of HIV/AIDS in the West, while not something to be complacent with, is certainly not at a comparable level. There is room to speculate as to whether there was greater social immunity to the disease (a by-product of past problems with syphilis in Europe), or whether there is greater biological immunity in the West (some have speculated that this might be because of our past exposure to diseases such and the bubonic plague). We still have enough social and biological diversity within the species that we can yet prevent diseases from effecting all groups equally; but with greater homogenisation (both social and biological), such diversity would no longer provide a bulwark against future disease.
would not the main problem in south Africa be a social and education one? rape and suppression of women, tribal doctrine, superstition and the fact that a one time "hero" publicly stated that sex with virgins is a cure for aids. men with aids having multiple partners....and so on.This does not happen (to such an extent) in the west.
Certainly, in South Africa itself, rape and murder levels are high, but whether high enough to account for the level of AIDS - I rather doubt it. Furthermore, if men only had sex with virgins, then where did the men get the disease from?
But that aside, I did not try and pin down a particular cause for the difference (none that has been suggested has ever been more than speculative), but reasons like the above were what I classed as the social immunity of Europeans (i.e. the European social behaviour probably changed in the aftermath of the arrival of syphilis, and this change in social behaviour made us more resistant to HIV/AIDS).
I never said rape was the main factor, and i never even mentioned murder! what i did say is that there are many factors why south Africa has the problem that it has.The men having sex with virgins already have HIV/aids, which is why i said "...publicly stated that sex with virgins is a cure for aids"...note: cure, not prevention.The virgins in question are not just teens or older girls, many times they are babies! So they are inflicting HIV/aids on all age groups, this is the problem.
Quote from: paul.fr on 09/12/2007 17:08:16But that aside, I did not try and pin down a particular cause for the difference (none that has been suggested has ever been more than speculative), but reasons like the above were what I classed as the social immunity of Europeans (i.e. the European social behaviour probably changed in the aftermath of the arrival of syphilis, and this change in social behaviour made us more resistant to HIV/AIDS).The differences are vast, and i doubt they are down to us being more resistant due to social immunity.here are a few differences between the south Africans, and western gov. culture and health care:The lack of antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women who are HIV positivepresident mbeki refuses to state that HIV causes aids, with statements such as "Does HIV Cause AIDS? Can a virus cause a syndrome? How? It can't, because a syndrome is a group of diseases resulting from acquired immune deficiency. Indeed, HIV contributes, but other things contribute as well."Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, the health minister, has questioned the effectiveness of ARVs, and urges people to eat lots of beetroot and garlic to fight off HIV.Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has also voiced support for the Dr Rath Health Foundation, an organisation that promotes vitamin supplements as a substitute for ARVs. The foundation has previously published adverts in South Africa claiming that ARVs are toxic and cause AIDS.One reason for the support that alternative HIV treatments have gained in South Africa is the popularity of traditional medicines. Around 80% of people living in African countries consult traditional African healers and use traditional African remedies, even if they use conventional medicines as well. Some of these traditional methods of treatment are potentially harmful to people living with HIV; for instance, some people (such as the health minister) claim that African potato boosts the immune system and thereby helps to fight off AIDS, yet a recent study shows that people taking antiretroviral drugs should not eat African potato, because it lowers the level of antiretroviral chemicals in the body and increases the likelihood of HIV developing resistance to the drugs.I hope it is clear that there are many reasons why HIV/aids is so bad in south Africa, and most of them are social, educational, tribal and superstition.
...media reports inevitably overplay the degree to which this reflects everyday life.
Quote...media reports inevitably overplay the degree to which this reflects everyday life.overplay! There were 21,000 child rapes reported in south africa in 2001 ( i can't find updated figures). That's reported rapes, how many went unreported? Overplay! I think not.
Quote from: rhade on 07/12/2007 18:51:51I agree with sophiecentaur about the increasing weakness of the species. It is a time bomb, and very worrying.How many individuals have to be affected before it does become a weakening of the species, though? Also, regarding the possible causes of the spread of HIV in Africa, I've heard it suggested that, in certain African religions, anal sex is widely practised, as vaginal sex is regarded as too taboo. I don't know the truth of this, but if true, it would account for the areas where HIV is most prevelent (Africa and the gay community). I hope this comment isn't upsetting anyone.In my view, the two time bombs we have in the human population is increased lifespan (and so reduced adaptability, since it takes longer to create a new generation that can adapt to a new environment), and reduced internal competition within the species (i.e. that we become one global homogenised tribe, and so in the long run may have little global social and genetic variability, and thus again reducing our ability to react to environmental changes).As I said above, I really do not believe the species is getting weaker (at least not in the sense that SophieCenteur was talking about), just far too specialised. You are confusing the species with the individual.We got to where we are by being highly adaptable, and highly competitive; and we are losing both of those historic traits. We never got to where we are by being big and tough as individuals.