17 Comments
Feb 9Liked by Michael Magoon

Well said.

Expand full comment

Of course, it's also possible that humans living in different society types have adapted to them in different ways.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, that is exactly what I argue.

The society type evolves due to a combination of geography and technology and then humans are forced to adapt to their new environment (the society type). This is much the same as animals having to adapt to their biome, it just adds on another level of complexity.

I go into more detail here:

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global

So society type is the key concept that enables us to understand different levels of development in human history, not race or racism.

Expand full comment

My point is that the races may very well have (genetically) adapted to different society types.

Expand full comment
author

Groups very likely genetically adapted in ways that enabled better success within their society, but there are too many differing society types on the same continent to suppose that race is the best way to understand the process.

In other words, individuals in differing society types in Sub-Saharan Africa evolved separately from each other. Same race, but differing society types.

Same for Europe, Asia, and the New World.

And to come at it from the opposite perspective, individuals in the same society type in different continents evolved in similar directions. For example, Europeans and Asians within Agrarian societies. Same society type, but differing races.

Expand full comment

On the other hand, until recently races corresponded to breeding populations reasonably well. Thus adaptations would get smeared across the races.

Expand full comment
author

Until recently marriage was largely within the same village or neighborhood, so I don’t see how there was much smearing there could have been across such a large group as races. Marriage to other people on the other side of the continent was very rare, except among elites.

Genetic tests can easily detect ethnicity and in some cases even villages showing that there is still substantial genetic differences within races. Race is just too high a level to be useful.

Expand full comment
author

By the way, the argument that you are making sounds like what Nicholas Wade argued in favor of in this book:

https://techratchet.com/2021/06/17/book-summary-a-troublesome-inheritance-genes-race-and-human-history-by-nicholas-wade/

I think my argument is more persuasive.

Expand full comment

I've read Wade's book. He's not the only one making that argument.

Expand full comment

Doesn't the reality of avg. racial/ethnic/group differences in intelligence factor into this?

Expand full comment
author
Aug 22·edited Aug 22Author

No, because you still have to explain the cause of those differences. There is no evidence that I know of for intelligence differences between Hunter gathers by region 10,000 years ago.

Variations in average intelligence are more likely the outcome of different types of societies rather than the cause of them. In other words, more complex societies gave far greater advantages to intelligence than relatively simple societies. And certain geographies enabled different types of food production which enabled more complex societies.

I believe this theory explains differences in historical outcomes and average differences in intelligence (though I do not mention intelligence specifically, it is clearly one of the most important heritable characteristics).

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global

My theory goes something like this:

Geography > Food Production > Society Type > Avg differences in heritable characteristics (of which intelligence is one of the most important).

Expand full comment
deletedJul 12
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

Then how can DNA tests identify the racial ancestry and often ethnic ancestry of an individual human?

Here is just one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Africa#/media/File:ADMIXTURE_analysis_of_Horn_of_Africa_populations_in_a_broad_context.png

Expand full comment
author

Note: the author of this comment deleted their own comment, not me.

Same for other comments below.

Expand full comment
deletedMar 6
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

You are correct, but your point is not really relevant to the topic of my article. Conquerors have always been cruel, regardless of race or racism. It was the same in Europe and Asia.

Expand full comment
Mar 6Liked by Michael Magoon

Yes, that is true. My point is that your presentation of some of the facts, which you dismiss as unfortunate but ordinary historical events, is not entirely accurate, because some of it was extraordinary even by historical standards. That doesn't change the conclusion of your article, which I read with great interest and which is why I subscribed to your Substack.

Expand full comment
author

Good point and thanks for the sub!

I guess my reply is that most of human history has been dominated by horrible events of violence and oppression.

I think realizing that enables us to set a baseline expectation that enables us to realize just how fortunate we are today, and why it is worth studying how we got here.

Expand full comment
deletedMar 6
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the article.

Expand full comment