Evolution isn’t what it used to be

Finally finished the 10,000 year explosion. Humans adapted to agriculture faster than I read this book. Not because it’s dense. It’s rather breezy for the subject. But I’m so often distracted that I can’t blaze through a book even when it’s about the evolutionary roots of genetic differences among races. As a good racist I want scientific support for my intuitive understanding.

We have educated ourselves out of recognizing and accepting the obvious. And now we need renegade experts and evolutionary science to convince us of plain reality. The godless, egalitarian numb-nuts who mock supernatural explanations for natural phenomena also blame disparate racial development on mysterious, phantasmic forces. Systemic racism is the secular, antiracist equivalent to satan, an invisible, pervasive power that only the anointed can sense and oppose.

When an old religious fool got caught in bed with another man’s wife, he might excuse himself by saying “the devil made me do it.” Similarly, when a noble dindu torches his own city, he’ll likely pardon himself with the charge,”white supremacy made me do it.”

Science is the solution to backwards beliefs unless it happens to confirm them. Then it’s no longer science but more bigotry masking itself in truth. Just like in the old days when racialist beliefs were commonplace in the scientific community. Those old racist scientists, with their discovery of evolution and their innovations in math, physics and chemistry were only doing real science when they weren’t noticing certain traits and patterns in different races.

We’ll take the speed and efficiency of modern transportation, we’ll take the comforts of electricity, heating and plumbing, we’ll take life saving procedures, vaccines and medicines, we’ll take the entertainment and convenience of advanced electronics and communication systems, but we’ll reject the racist overrepresentation of europeans in modern science and technological innovation.

Thanks to centuries of progress, we now know that some truths are dangerous. The hope that science will free humanity has turned into the fear that it could also reinforce domination. Science must be reigned in and used strictly for egalitarian and democratic ends. There’s no such thing as a neutral or objective investigation, so if you aren’t liberating the underserved then you’re burdening them with destructive ideas and disempowering data. Uncontrolled scientific exploration leads to the atom bomb and IQ statistics. One pulverizes a population and the other makes black kids feel bad about themselves. Only one is to be prevented at all costs.

But even so, egalitarian dogmas are beginning to disintegrate. Heretical scientists and dissident scholars are refusing to repeat progressive lies. They’re charging forward with their instruments and intellects into forbidden territory that used to be publicly shared space where people could talk freely about what stared them in the face.

For the impassioned materialistic idealist, evolution is the perfect theory for dispelling the religious spirit and relegating superstition to the trash heap of history. Up until 200,000 years ago, or maybe 40,000 years ago, evolution explains the development of the natural world and the descent of humans from their apish ancestors. But then evolution grinds to a halt and all humans emerge exactly alike, cut from an identical cloth. From then until this present moment evolution hasn’t touched our genes or shaped our biology. Natural selection decided to focus elsewhere and left us to remain unchanged for the rest of time.

Other species changed, environments changed, but we didn’t. Evolution would take much longer to act on us, they said. Much longer than the 40 or 50 thousand years since our genes were set in the modern stone they remains stuck in to this day. So if we end up with different populations of humans with different levels of social complexity then evolution through natural selection fails as an explanation. There must be some other force operating on these populations that makes them seem superficially divergent.

Once you have agriculture, you also have settlements, storage and excess population. And once you have those things, you have hierarchy, scarcity and inequality. Power takes shape and unevenly distributes resources and rights. Those who rise to the top get all the grain. The few prosper and the many languish.

But biology never budges under the pressure of cultural, social and historical change. Societies develop and technology advances but our underlying genetic material remains firmly wedged where it was before we started planting seeds in the ground.

We weren’t designed to digest wheat or live in stratified societies, so the paleolithic reasoning goes. We’re anatomically identical to humans 200,000 years ago, and we’re meant to live in small egalitarian bands, eat mostly meat and idle the greater part of the day away fucking and painting and whittling flint. And occasionally sinking an ax into a rival group member’s skull.

It was nothing like the organized warfare of civilized humanity. With the genes of wandering hunter gatherers we pack ourselves into crowded, polluted cities, fight over artificially withheld resources, gnaw on indigestible grain and chug cow’s milk. No wonder we’re physically and mentally ill, plagued by civilizational discontent. Rapidly evolving technology and scientific progress only intensify the disturbances of agriculture and urbanization.

But if africans haven’t contributed much to science and technology then the cause can’t be biological. Because europeans and africans are the same underneath their polarized pigmentation. And european innovation must spring not from who they are and what they’re made of, but rather who they’re oppressing.

Culture causes europeans to hold down africans, indians, asians and pygmies. It’s a uniquely european culture of exploitation and racism, of plunder and slavery found nowhere else on earth. But culture is merely fashion, culinary habits, traditions, artistic styles, religious practices, beliefs and history interwoven with climate and environment floating freely above the unchangeable realm of hard genetic determinism.

If it’s only culture that generates unequal outcomes in different races then that’s an easy fix. The only thing standing in the way of a quick cultural transformation that would level the civilizational playing field is hideous, monstrous racism, which is not based in nature and only happens to flow in one direction; from whites at the top down to everyone else.

A few scientists are waking up to the idea that maybe evolution doesn’t take millions of years to adjust a few heritable traits. Maybe there’s no set pace to adaptation, and different environments and different selection mechanisms yield variable rates of genetic change. But then that might mean that over the last 10,000 civilized, wheat eating years, various endogamous populations have emerged and developed markedly distinctive societies and unique, inherited alleles that express themselves in recognizable patterns of culture and behavior.

Such a possibility is nearly unthinkable. To ponder it is to come dangerously close to condoning a racial caste system.

Having evolved in a different environment under different selection pressures, amerindians were biologically unprepared to fight off diseases brought by the invading europeans. The europeans were also culturally alien and threatening to the amerindians, but without the underlying genetic difference of radically lackluster immune systems, the amerindians could have put up a a much stronger fight.

No one would suggest that resistance to disease is a cultural construction or a narrative open to critique and revision. Even egalitarians can grasp that immune systems are determined through evolutionary adaption and not through the particular manner a group weaves its baskets or sing its songs. So if evolution conditions whether or not a group can fight off exotic pathogens, why would it stop short of also forming intelligence and morality?

According to the currently enlightened, the heavy hand of evolution molds the molecular structure of the human body in rough accord with its environment and then hangs back and lets arbitrary culture take over and finish the job. This explanation spares the tender feelings of people who identify themselves with their group and don’t want to be judged by the general characteristics of their type.

But no one takes offense to the fact that members of their own group are more likely to contract certain diseases. No one thinks that averages apply to every individual when it comes to certain traits. You could tell a black person that blacks are genetically predisposed to sickle cell anemia and they probably wouldn’t take offense (at least I think) and they also probably wouldn’t assume that it meant that they themselves had sickle cell anemia.

Genetic predisposition to disease is relevant to medicine, and genetic predisposition to stupidity and barbarity are relevant to civilization. When giant piles of tax money are involved, it’s useful to understand group behavior, evolutionary history and biological tendencies. An appreciation of social dynamics and realistic rates of genetic change could add clarity to conversations and inform policy decisions.

And it’s also interesting for its own sake, even if it has no utilitarian value.

The ashkenazi jews are smarter than any other group in the world. They were subjected to accelerated selection pressures that changed their genes in a few hundred years. Prior to the middle ages they were not known for their brains. Greek and roman histories don’t mention jewish intelligence and it wasn’t until the modern era that jews began to dominate math, science and literature. So the meaningful genetic changes occurred between the early middle ages and the late 19th century.

Because they were forbidden from marrying out of their group and also barred from less cognitively demanding jobs, natural selection worked quickly to raise their general intelligence while ignoring their physical fitness. In the middle ages almost no ashkenazi were laborers or smiths and almost all of them worked in finance or law, as middle men, lenders and tax collectors. Intermarriage would have diluted the inherited intellectual powers of the jews, but they didn’t allow it and strangely enough no one else wanted to marry and breed with them.

Over the next few hundred years their verbal and mathematical abilities increased and their spatial and visual skills declined. This is why jews are crawling all over journalism, academia, law, science and finance and absent in athletics, sculpture and painting. In some cases it doesn’t take long for evolution to work its magic. Biological difference is manifested in culture and shaped over time by cultural and environmental influences. Social sanction has an effect on underlying genetic condition, but biological material still supplies the stock to be worked over by more superficial social forces.

As a case in point: I doubt that if we banned blacks from basketball that in a couple hundred years they’d be leading the field of quantum physics. But that might just be my bigotry thinking for me.

Ashkenazi are also prone to deadly genetic conditions related to their superior intelligence. When explaining jewish predisposition to the horrors of Tay-Sachs, it would be clownish to suggest a merely cultural cause. But when we want to explain their elevated cognitive abilities then we still hesitate to invoke biology; it’s the talmud and their celebration of hair splitting scholarship, you antisemite. How dare you suggest there is something internally different or special about the jews. Unless you want to adore them.

Yes, centuries of rewarding effeminate quibblers and scribblers with prestige and reproductive opportunities might just create a biological baseline of higher than average intelligence and lower than average athletic ability. Not that we should ever seek scientific and rational confirmation of harmful stereotypes. It’s better to be wrong for the right reasons. At some point reality will catch up to our advanced ideas.

The idea of evolution working on human biology in the last 10,000 years is treated as a scandal. It invites swift denial, deflection, and automatic accusation. Everyone knows right where scientific investigation into human biological difference leads: the gas chamber or the plantation.

Only a slave driving nazi would consider a scientific inquiry into the biological underpinnings of observable characteristics because we might find that we can’t swiftly fix civilizational imbalances with policies and social engineering. And so entire fields and disciplines are tightly circumscribed, researchers and scientists handicapped and hamstrung, and piles of money narrowly funneled into party approved channels.

There has to be a safe middle ground of philosophical thought and scientific study between egalitarian chicanery and ethnic genocide. There must be some way to consider different needs and inclinations of incompatibly evolved peoples without overheating and shutting down. We should be free to admit uncomfortable truths without ruining our careers and tentatively discuss painful information without meltdowns and freak outs.

But this might be too much to ask.