Are we born to succeed or are we made to succeed? Lizah van der Aart illustrates a recent Nature Human Behaviour article:
Are we born to succeed or are we made to succeed? Lizah van der Aart illustrates a recent Nature Human Behaviour article:
Posted in Economics, Education, Policy, Science | 2 Comments »
Isegoria is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
Not true at all. Status hierarchy preceded settled farming: non-sedentary hunter-gatherers used slash and burn to periodically cultivate cereal grains thousands of years before any evidence of sedentary agriculture, which was adopted in order to pay taxes to a pre-established state structure.
It’s pretty obvious that what provides status is religion. If the native religion says that status depends on having gene expression as a red-headed retard, then that affords status. If the native religion says status comes from success in hunting, then that affords status.
Our present-day religion says that status comes from being a dumb woman who draws idiotic cartoons, apparently.
Eugenics — literally, “good birth” or “well-born” — is, as everyone knows, “a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population” through the same mechanisms that produce champion racehorses, remarkably handsome and talented dogs, and stunningly beautiful cats.
Millions of years’ worth of sensitive young men forming war bands to invade the territory of neighboring tribes, killing the insensitive old men and horrible old women, taking the comely young maidens as war brides, and refounding society on a newly enlightened basis surely has had no influence in the structural evolution of human society, human cognition, human anatomy.