Different groups of human beings have been reproductively isolated for tens of thousands of years, long enough to accumulate obvious morphological differences.
If you can tell at a glance, or looking at a piece of hair or earwax under a microscope, which continent someone’s ancestors are from, then what on this great green earth makes you think that somehow, magically, all people everywhere are exactly the same in all other respects? Do you think that things like average levels of key mood or behavior influencing hormones are somehow immune to genetic variation? Keep in mind this is variation so significant that it can cause powdery earwax, epicanthic folds, and shovel teeth. I simply cannot grasp such idiotic and irrational thinking that would blatantly assume all people, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, must somehow be biologically and behaviorally identical.
Obvious physical differences between various ethnic groups are just the tip of the iceberg. Differences in key metabolic pathways, differences in immunological function, differences in average and peak levels of key hormones and enzymes, are forming the basis of ethnically and individually targeted medical therapies. In a few years you’re going to be prescribed drugs tailored to your ethnic background, and hopefully therapies targeted specifically at your familial and individual profile.
Yet you think that differences like that can’t possibly influence maturation, behavior, or measurable ability? That somehow the biochemistry responsible for us being able to communicate in the first place, and engage in abstract reasoning, must be exactly the same in all respects between all persons and groups of persons? That culture is the only possible cause of differences in between groups of people? That somehow human beings magically stopped changing when they left Africa?
You do realize that such fairytale rationale can cause more harm than good? How about this scenario: say that a few years from now researchers discover that persons of a certain familial background have significantly lower average and peak levels of key growth differentiation factors in utero - leading to a measurably reduced rate of neurological development. Said researchers hypothesize that simply supplementing pregnant women of said group with injections of said GDF is an intervention likely to improve the neurological function, and hence overall life outcome, of an entire generation of persons. Do you ignore those measurable biological differences as well and argue that good schooling will somehow make up for a 15 point IQ deficiency?
How about a real-world example. Years back a few maverick researchers wanted to explore the possible hereditary nature of schizophrenia. The very idea was abhorrent to many in the academic establishment, with comparisons to eugenics and nazi science brought forth and numerous attempts made to deny the researchers funding. Eventually the researchers were able to secure some funding from people not so obsessed with phantom boogeymen of eugenic deathsquads, and were able to demonstrate that yes indeed schizophrenia is significantly heritable. This discovery didn’t cause the government to sterilize the mentally ill, it didn’t cause a resurgence in hate crimes, it didn’t cause us to turn our asylums into crematories — it DID however allow doctors to identify at risk families as well as individuals and engage in early medical and psychiatric intervention that measurably improved the quality of life for a large number of persons.
Just because differences exist between individuals and groups doesn’t mean the end of the world or the start of a eugenics war. Admitting that people differ biologically, and that such differences in biology effect both behavior and life outcome, is the first step in generating new and effective medical therapies and social interventions to improve quality of life for large numbers of people. Sticking your fingers in your years and screaming “LALA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU” is not a good substitute for rationally discussing the risks and benefits of quantifying biological differences between persons and groups and addressing the consequences of those differences - you can’t just wish away differences. Quite the opposite, stubborn denial delays the formation and adoption of reasonable, moral frameworks to guide the discussion about said differences.
Not really.
If you start learning about world genetics you find that we are far more mixed then most people could believe. Genes from around the world are found around the world. We travel, we trade and we have lots of sex. Whenever you find any group that has contact with any other group there is, to a greater or lesser degree, an exchange of genes. And then that group trades with a third group and it goes on and on.
If you can tell at a glance, or looking at a piece of hair or earwax under a microscope, which continent someone’s ancestors are from,
Well, you see that is just the problem. You can't.
Are there genetic traits? Of course. Are they stronger then culture? So far unproven to say the least.
This flies in the face of those who think we can "breed" better people rather then training better people.
They think that if they can just find the right mix of genes the hard consistent work of creating and maintaining a culture that encourages people to be better will be over.
To quote you "Sticking your fingers in your years and screaming “LALA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU” is not a good substitute for rationally discussing the risks and benefits of quantifying cultural differences between persons and groups and addressing the consequences of those differences - you can’t just wish away differences."