> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of martin schiller
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 4:55 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Cybersilliness
>
>
> Christopher Susi said on 10/22/00 10:47 AM
>
> >No, what I said is "By the very nature of genetics we all start out with
> >differing chances of success". How do you read this as "People in other
> >countries are genetically inferior to us?" (shaking head).
>
> What is your definition of "success"?
At minimum, success would be survival. Then there are varying degree's beyond that. Strictly a nature point of view, survival and being fruitfull and multiplying and my lineage continuing. But from a social/career/lifetime perspective success might mean the number of social attachments you form, monetary accumulation, your impact on the world. That would vary from person to person. Am I providing you a very specific answer? No because "success" may mean different things for different people, but you would probably have general common traits within them. Whereas Bill Gates is successfull to some, Mother Theresa is more successfull to others.
But again, my point was that you will have differing chances of success based on genetics. The kid who has the advantage of being tall and a good ball-player has a distinct advantage over his peers who do not. Another kid that is exceptionally smart goes on to harvard and becomes a doctor or lawyer. These are specific traits that were bestowed on them by sheer luck of the gene pool that provided them with a better chance of success. For them, they go on to have successfull careers and families. Whereas their peers do not have these opportunities.
>
> If you're a child of a western culture you're more likely to have been a
> bottle baby or have been the product of assisted childbirth. It seems
> that this might put you at a -natural_ disadvantage if not a genetic
> disadvantage.
Really? I'd be interested to hear more about this.
>
> Global changes in process will determine what a genetic dis/advantage is.
> What has survived to this age has been advantageous.
Yes exactly. As I pointed out, a plague could wipe out 3/4 of our population over night. Despite being a tall, dark, handsome, and wealthy male (all highly desireable traits for finding a mate) if they lack the gene to protect them from the plague, they have very little chance of survival despite all they had going for them. Those who did have that gene (even if they lacked all the desireable traits) now have a fantastically better chance at reproducing for the sheer fact that they survived. This is an extreme example, but brings home my point. We all have difference chances of success.
This goes back to the original point. If a famine wipes out 3/4 of a population overnight, individuals who lived in an area without the famine would have a better chance to live. Again, their success was based solely on a somewhat random factor, where they chose to live. Then as generations progressed those in the plentifull areas would grow numerous whereas those in the baren areas would diminish. This is life.