But, but, but I thought scientists don't have agendas??

[Akrazotile]

Cliffs for those who are allergic to reading, however I'll post the article underneath:

-Samuel Morton, an anthropologist in the mid 1800s, published research on race and skull/brain size. He found that on average, caucasians had larger skulls and brains than african blacks.

-In a 1981 internationally recognized book, The Mismeasure of Man (which was translated into 10 languages), Harvard paleontologist and writer Stephen J. Gould criticized Morton for being biased in his research on brain size and race and charged him with mismeasuring the skulls to support his personal racist beliefs.

-In February 2012, an archaeology team at Rutgers University went and thoroughly examined Morton's initial data, and exhaustively remeasured thousands of skull samples themselves, and found that, in fact, Morton was accurate and credible all along.

-Morton, Lewis says, did find that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller. This occurs, he says, because humans living in colder regions are larger overall. However, Morton did not believe that brain size had anything to do with intelligence, Lewis says. “Obviously it was right before the Civil War and there were a lot of racists,” says Lewis. “But in what we were able to read Morton was not pro-slavery but rather pro-emancipation. What we found was that Gould made an assumption. It was clearly guilt by association.”






Rutgers Anthropologist Sets Record Straight on Brain Size and Race
Your Source for University News
Jason Lewis’s research chosen in top 100 by Discover Magazine
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
By Robin Lally
Rutgers Anthropologist Sets Record Straight on Brain Size and Race

Credit: Courtesy of Jason Lewis
Jason Lewis involved in archaeological field work in southeastern France.

Evolutionary anthropologist Jason Lewis was passionate about his life’s work even before he got started. He was just 13 when he picked up a book at a friend’s house detailing the 1974 discovery of the famous three million year old fossil – “Lucy” – that has become a landmark in the story of human evolution.

http://news.rutgers.edu/sites/medrel/files/plone-img/photo/issue.2012-02-02.7844909214--article.2012-02-14.7247023894

Over the next few years, Lewis, who comes from a blue-collar town in central Pennsylvania that became embroiled in a 2005 court battle to make creationism part of the biology curriculum, was set on learning all he could about ancient history and cultures, nature, science, and evolution.

As a high school student he began collecting replica ancient swords and then trained in medieval martial arts and jousting. In an upcoming National Geographic documentary, Warrior Graveyard: Samurai Massacre, which recreates the bloody Kamakura battle in medieval Japan, Lewis, who has researched cut marks on ancient bones, is featured as an expert on the types of swords used at the archaeological site.

“I knew from the first time I picked up that book as a kid that this is what I wanted to do,” says Lewis, a 29-year-old assistant instructor in the Department of Anthropology, Center for Human Evolutionary Studies, who has been recognized recently for resolving a famous scientific controversy focusing on manipulation, bias, and race. The outcome of his research was chosen as one of the top 100 science stories of 2011 by Discover Magazine.


Jason Lewis Standing

Jason Lewis at the West Turkana archaeological project in western Kenya.

Still, when Lewis started out as an 18-year-old undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, working in its Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology helping to curate ancient skulls, he never thought that he would debunk a notion accepted and taught by the academic community for the last 30 years: that 19th-century physical anthropologist Samuel Morton manipulated his research to prove that whites were smarter than blacks.

Morton’s data – based on the measurements of the more than 1,000 skulls that Lewis began researching as a first year student -- had been used by some at the time to justify racist claims of biological determinism which have since been discredited. In his 1981 internationally recognized book, The Mismeasure of Man (which was translated into 10 languages), Harvard paleontologist and writer Stephen J. Gould criticized Morton for being biased in his research on brain size and race and charged him with mismeasuring the skulls to support his personal racist beliefs.

This premise stuck in the scientific community for three decades until Lewis, who was studying skull size in human evolution, spent eight years taking measurements and fact-checking with a team of anthropologists. He found that the measurements taken by Morton were accurate.

Morton, Lewis says, did find that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller. This occurs, he says, because humans living in colder regions are larger overall. However, Morton did not believe that brain size had anything to do with intelligence, Lewis says.

“Obviously it was right before the Civil War and there were a lot of racists,” says Lewis. “But in what we were able to read Morton was not pro-slavery but rather pro-emancipation. What we found was that Gould made an assumption. It was clearly guilt by association.”

Lewis, who received his doctorate degree from Stanford University and began at Rutgers last semester, teaches "Introduction to Archaeology" this semester and doesn’t have the opportunity to talk to his students about dispelling the controversial research with which his name is now associated. But the process it took in coming to this conclusion has strengthened his belief in the importance of having the information needed to make accurate judgments based on real data and not perceived bias.

http://news.rutgers.edu/sites/medrel/files/plone-img/issue.2012-02-02.7844909214--JasonLewis_standing_225x369.jpg

“When we started this we didn’t have an agenda but we showed irrefutable evidence that something went wrong in Gould’s analysis,” Lewis says. “What we didn’t do – but what he did with Morton – was to take that extra step and say that Gould (who died in 2002) was biased or he did it intentionally. What students have to always remember is that if the scientific method is working correctly, something like this should never happen.”

Dorothy Hodgson, chair of the Department of Anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, says Lewis’s research is important because it reminds the scientific community how critical it is to share data that allow such re-evaluations to be made.

“It is significant in recognizing that even the most famous scientists make mistakes,” says Hodgson. “We need to understand the data in its own terms, not through the prism of ideologies – whether racist or anti-racist.”

http://news.rutgers.edu/issue.2012-02-02.7844909214/article.2012-02-14.7247023894

[Akrazotile]

Liberals trying to sell books, win fame, obtain funding, or push an agenda are every bit as prone to deception, bias, and manipulation as any other interest group. And people will use "that's racist!" to avoid logical debates til they're blue in the face.

Remember that next time some climate change witch hunter tells you polar ice caps are gonna be gone by 2018 "because look at this chart, man!!!"

Idiots like longtime lurker and phantomcreep and deucewallace and boozehound will sanctify anything said by a scientist (if it suits a liberal agenda) and attempt to profess a notion that the conclusions of individual scientists are infallible. Scientists are to them as an Imam is to a Muslim. Not to be questioned, not to be analyzed, not to be criticized. Simply believed, unconditionally. sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep.

[GIF REACTION]

I read like the first line because I knew exactly what this was

Is this the skull race shape/size study done in the early 20th century by a Jew who purposely left out information because he didn't want to bring attention to race, which for the jews were on thin ice at the time?

[Akrazotile]

I read like the first line because I knew exactly what this was

Is this the skull race shape/size study done in the early 20th century by a Jew who purposely left out information because he didn't want to bring attention to race, which for the jews were on thin ice at the time?


No, this was a 1981 book written by a Harvard professor who claimed that an earlier anthropologist from the 1800s lied about his measurements of human skull sizes, because he was racist and wanted to make his racist racism more racey. The premise of the book was "Everyone look at me, I'm calling someone racist so you should think I'm smarter and more ethical and better than others!"

A couple years ago a team of archaelogists at Rutgers University double checked all the info, and found out that the first guy had been right all along, and there was absolutely zero evidence of him being motivated by bigotry in any way.

[NumberSix]

No, this was a 1981 book written by a Harvard professor who claimed that an earlier anthropologist from the 1800s lied about his measurements of human skull sizes, because he was racist and wanted to make his racist racism more racey. The premise of the book was "Everyone look at me, I'm calling someone racist so you should think I'm smarter and more ethical and better than others!"

A couple years ago a team of archaelogists at Rutgers University double checked all the info, and found out that the first guy had been right all along, and there was absolutely zero evidence of him being motivated by bigotry in any way.
Even if he was, does it matter? If it's true it's true.

[Akrazotile]

Even if he was, does it matter? If it's true it's true.


Well right, but the standard allegation of lefties (and the one brought up by the guy trying to sell 'science' books) is that if you bring up information they don't want to hear, you must be some kind of bigoted racist! Oooh, he's a racist! Racissssst!

The original researcher was not only accurate with his data, but there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim he did it for any racially motivated purposes. A doubly damning indictment of this left-wing race-baiting clown professor, and the dumb sheep who eagerly lap up anything he says if it gives them a chance to play their favorite mindless game, 'witch hunt for racists!'

[DeuceWallaces]

You are incredibly dim-witted.

1) Morton was a racist. He believed each race was it's own species. He believed each race had inherently different intellectual capabilities with whites at the top and africans at the bottom. He supported his claims through his work on skull size. That is the definition of racist.

2) Gould is a very influential and controversial scientist. No one has taken him for his word, and he has been criticized throughout the scientific community for the way he operates.

[Akrazotile]

You are incredibly dim-witted.

1) Morton was a racist. He believed each race was it's own species. He believed each race had inherently different intellectual capabilities with whites at the top and africans at the bottom. He supported his claims through his work on skull size. That is the definition of racist.

2) Gould is a very influential and controversial scientist. No one has taken him for his word, and he has been criticized throughout the scientific community for the way he operates.


Believing races have differences is racist?

What about saying american blacks are on average more athletic than whites, and doing a study of major pro sports to support this?

Would this be racist, or simply starting with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment? Because that's called the scientific method, which you don't seem to be aware of.

Also, Morton's data was CORRECT, please recall.


"But, but, but I'm deucewallaces and all I have to stand on is calling people racist! No personality, no intellect, no looks, no humor, no respect, no confidence, but but I can call other people racist without backing it up to make myself look important!!!!! It's a massive defense mechanism bc otherwise im a empty loser"

Good job bro. You're a real winner.

[bladefd]

What about saying american blacks are on average more athletic than whites, and doing a study of major pro sports to support this?


You are incorrectly assuming that differences in physical attributes is the same as claiming that the differences somehow leading to one race being smarter than another. Blacks tend to be bigger, stronger, and faster athletically but to then believe they are not as smart as whites is horsesh!t. Size of the brain doesn't change a person's intelligence. Did you know the neanderthals had bigger brains than us? Is there any evidence that they were smarter than us? No.

We, homo sapiens, are the same species across the boards with very minor physical differences and variations in how we look. Are all chimps same on Earth? No, their faces are different from chimp to chimp (they can recognize those differences better with each other of their kin than we can) and region-to-region but you still look at them as the same species. Nobody says chimps from Western Congo are smarter than those from the Eastern Congo due to slight evolutionary differences. They are the same species!! Same applies here.

[TripleA]

Who made up the myth that Africans are more athletic. West Africans are the ones with more fast twitch muscles. Majority of Africans in south,northern,eastern and central are as or less athletic than Europeans.

[Akrazotile]

You are incorrectly assuming that differences in physical attributes is the same as claiming that the differences somehow leading to one race being smarter than another. Blacks tend to be bigger, stronger, and faster athletically but to then believe they are not as smart as whites is horsesh!t. Size of the brain doesn't change a person's intelligence. Did you know the neanderthals had bigger brains than us? Is there any evidence that they were smarter than us? No.

I'm not saying anyone is smarter than anyone else. I'm saying if you're in the 1800's and you make a hypothesis, and test it, that's the scientific method. Did the anthropologists in 1850 have access to Neanderthal fossils? I have no idea. Maybe the prevailing thought at the time WAS that big brain = smarter organism. The point is that just because he tested something, EVEN if he supposed the results would not be equal (hypothesis), it doesn't make him a racist. Just a scientist.



We, homo sapiens, are the same species across the boards with very minor physical differences and variations in how we look. Are all chimps same on Earth? No, their faces are different from chimp to chimp (they can recognize those differences better with each other of their kin than we can) and region-to-region but you still look at them as the same species. Nobody says chimps from Western Congo are smarter than those from the Eastern Congo due to slight evolutionary differences. They are the same species!! Same applies here.


You are talking about blatant differences. Sure, humans are all similar in the vast majority of ways. It doesn't mean there is no variety by region and circumstance. Even incremental variety that might not be noticeable on an individual level, but when you look at bigger trends start to show up. For instance, in the middle ages jews were tasked with white collar jobs. Lending, tax farming, scribes, lease-holders, managers. Opportunities in the guilds weren't open to them nor was agricultural labor. Jews who weren't up to the task of white collar employment basically either converted out, or lived in poverty and had fewer surviving children. Wealthy jewish businessmen would have their children marry the children of the learned scholarly rabbi. And when jews flooded the shores of America along with a bunch of other Europeans in the 1800s and 1900s, they outperformed everyone in DRASTIC numbers. Are jews a different species? NO. Can you pinpoint a spot in their brain that is responsible for their achievement? NO. Yet, evolutionary shit exists. Whites, blacks, Azns all have the same liver and kidneys. Yet, do they respond differently to different diets? YES.

YOU are making a blanket assumption that there can be no difference in intelligence among peoples of varying regions and circumstances. Why? I don't know, but it probably has little to do with science.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I've never seen anyone with a shred of intelligence argue that anyone, including "scientists", has no agenda.

[Akrazotile]

I've never seen anyone with a shred of intelligence argue that anyone, including "scientists", has no agenda.


You must have missed some of the threads here sponsored by the global warming alarmists. They consider every single graph/chart they post as being infallible and definitive, "because science."

[Nick Young]

You are incredibly dim-witted.

1) Morton was a racist. He believed each race was it's own species. He believed each race had inherently different intellectual capabilities with whites at the top and africans at the bottom. He supported his claims through his work on skull size. That is the definition of racist.

2) Gould is a very influential and controversial scientist. No one has taken him for his word, and he has been criticized throughout the scientific community for the way he operates.
If Border collies are smarter than chihuahuas, and Greyhounds can run faster than dachshunds, why are people any different?

[Akrazotile]

If Border collies are smarter than chihuahuas, and Greyhounds can run faster than dachshunds, why are people any different?

#WeAreAllOne
#JustUseScienceToDebunkReligionNotRace
#ScienceWithAnAgenda
#OnlyScienceWhenItsConvenient
#WeAreALL......ONNEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

[Timmy D for MVP]

Has anyone in the history of forever ever typed out the phrase "but, but, but..." or "bu-bu-but..." and read it aloud and realized how stupid it is to do such a thing?

[Akrazotile]

Has anyone in the history of forever ever typed out the phrase "but, but, but..." or "bu-bu-but..." and read it aloud and realized how stupid it is to do such a thing?


Great point, salient info.

But but but sarcasm's meannnn :( :(

[bladefd]

You are talking about blatant differences. Sure, humans are all similar in the vast majority of ways. It doesn't mean there is no variety by region and circumstance. Even incremental variety that might not be noticeable on an individual level, but when you look at bigger trends start to show up. For instance, in the middle ages jews were tasked with white collar jobs. Lending, tax farming, scribes, lease-holders, managers. Opportunities in the guilds weren't open to them nor was agricultural labor. Jews who weren't up to the task of white collar employment basically either converted out, or lived in poverty and had fewer surviving children. Wealthy jewish businessmen would have their children marry the children of the learned scholarly rabbi. And when jews flooded the shores of America along with a bunch of other Europeans in the 1800s and 1900s, they outperformed everyone in DRASTIC numbers. Are jews a different species? NO. Can you pinpoint a spot in their brain that is responsible for their achievement? NO. Yet, evolutionary shit exists. Whites, blacks, Azns all have the same liver and kidneys. Yet, do they respond differently to different diets? YES.

YOU are making a blanket assumption that there can be no difference in intelligence among peoples of varying regions and circumstances. Why? I don't know, but it probably has little to do with science.

The example of jews you used is based on and defined through means of culture not biological means. Cultural differences are based more on how you are raised rather than what you are born with. i.e. asians are not born better at learning in school and neither are they worse - they are raised to study nonstop for higher grades through means of their culture.

Yes, there could be differences in how we think from different regions of the world, but I am not willing to say one is smarter than other through biological means. There is a reason why eugenics research is deemed illegal. It is very dangerous because if research shows evidence that people with certain qualities are smarter than others then people would begin choosing mates based on those certain qualities (possibly race?). So far, no such evidence exists as no such research has been done on wide scale. The Nazis did a little bit but ww2 ended before they could complete any such study. Our understanding of evolution was still in its infancy in 30s.

Even if eugenics research did show differences, I suspect they would be minor. We know that in nature, such differences in other animals of same species are too minute to have much of an impact (maybe some individuals survive, some die out, but you let nature/evolution decide). If we were discussing 2 separate species of humans (which don't exist currently but an example), it might be noticeable difference, but again you are entering dangerous territory (not you specifically but in general). You don't want to justify something like slavery or biological classes or mass murder like Hitler based on eugenics research if some are shown to be superior to others. It is a can of worms best left shut, even for scientific reasons. As far as I am concerned in the name of conserving our humanity & morality/ethics, there are no such differences (remember, ethics is a huge part of science for any scientist).

Treaties have been signed across the world to stop eugenics research after ww2.

[KyrieTheFuture]

You must have missed some of the threads here sponsored by the global warming alarmists. They consider every single graph/chart they post as being infallible and definitive, "because science."
That's pretty absurd especially concerning such a well known issue where literally any media outlet or random scrub can mock up articles and charts.

[Dresta]

You are incorrectly assuming that differences in physical attributes is the same as claiming that the differences somehow leading to one race being smarter than another. Blacks tend to be bigger, stronger, and faster athletically but to then believe they are not as smart as whites is horsesh!t. Size of the brain doesn't change a person's intelligence. Did you know the neanderthals had bigger brains than us? Is there any evidence that they were smarter than us? No.

We, homo sapiens, are the same species across the boards with very minor physical differences and variations in how we look. Are all chimps same on Earth? No, their faces are different from chimp to chimp (they can recognize those differences better with each other of their kin than we can) and region-to-region but you still look at them as the same species. Nobody says chimps from Western Congo are smarter than those from the Eastern Congo due to slight evolutionary differences. They are the same species!! Same applies here.
Deny it all you like, but racial divergence is a fact of life. When sub-groups are separated for 10s of thousands of years, they will not stay the same, and will consequently vary in their general characteristics and attributes. Generalisations, of course, never apply to the individual, but ignoring general differences is simply unscientific.

You know, in the same way we breed dogs for specific qualities, so do men, bred over thousands of generations, in different environments, differ in their general characteristics and attributes - they are the same species, and can interbreed, but to pretend there are no quantifiable differences is plainly nonsense. It shows an ignorance of even the most basic tenets of Darwinian theory, those which are supported by more recent findings in genetics and neuroscience.

Honestly, i don't understand how anyone can ignore demography - it is one of the most fundamental determinants (and products) of national character, mores, habits, culture, et cetera. This can't be ignored: Christ, large behavioural differences are noticeable between even the Germans and English, let alone between Somalians and Norwegians. Genetic inheritance has shown itself to be at least as important as environmental factors, and one could even argue that environmental factors impact on inheritable genetic markers (epigenetics) - which can only mean that cultural differences are genetic as well as environmental.


(and i should add, this obsession on the unity of the human race, the belief we are all one, is derived from the Christian belief that all are equal before God, and thus what we see now are age-old Christian dogmatisms assuming a new pseudo-scientific guise, and these views are certainly expressed with a religious fervour and spirit of moral denunciation fully congruent with the most fanatic of Christians)


Liberals trying to sell books, win fame, obtain funding, or push an agenda are every bit as prone to deception, bias, and manipulation as any other interest group. And people will use "that's racist!" to avoid logical debates til they're blue in the face.

Remember that next time some climate change witch hunter tells you polar ice caps are gonna be gone by 2018 "because look at this chart, man!!!"

Idiots like longtime lurker and phantomcreep and deucewallace and boozehound will sanctify anything said by a scientist (if it suits a liberal agenda) and attempt to profess a notion that the conclusions of individual scientists are infallible. Scientists are to them as an Imam is to a Muslim. Not to be questioned, not to be analyzed, not to be criticized. Simply believed, unconditionally. sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep.
Well we well know that nothing sells better than a libtopian book which draws nice, warm and cuddly conclusions, is fitted to all the conventional pieties of the age, and imbued with a veneer of scientific credibility. See: Guns, Germs and Steel, and many, many other examples. Let's be honest here: being a libtopianist is downright lucrative - that shit sells.

[bladefd]

Deny it all you like, but racial divergence is a fact of life. When sub-groups are separated for 10s of thousands of years, they will not stay the same, and will consequently vary in their general characteristics and attributes. Generalisations, of course, never apply to the individual, but ignoring general differences is simply unscientific.

You know, in the same way we breed dogs for specific qualities, so do men, bred over thousands of generations, in different environments, differ in their general characteristics and attributes - they are the same species, and can interbreed, but to pretend there are no quantifiable differences is plainly nonsense. It shows an ignorance of even the most basic tenets of Darwinian theory, those which are supported by more recent findings in genetics and neuroscience.

Honestly, i don't understand how anyone can ignore demography - it is one of the most fundamental determinants (and products) of national character, mores, habits, culture, et cetera. This can't be ignored: Christ, large behavioural differences are noticeable between even the Germans and English, let alone between Somalians and Norwegians. Genetic inheritance has shown itself to be at least as important as environmental factors, and one could even argue that environmental factors impact on inheritable genetic markers (epigenetics) - which can only mean that cultural differences are genetic as well as environmental.

Unless if you support broad eugenics research studies as I mentioned on this very page, we will never know the exact differences from race-to-race. I suspect there are differences, but we can't sit here and say anything without said data. I do not support such a study for the very reason I articulated. It is a dangerous can of worms that would suddenly justify genocides and crimes against humanity. I do not trust the judgment of humans after such a study. We are dangerous beings.

[Nastradamus]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Cliffs for those who are allergic to reading, however I'll post the article underneath:

-Samuel Morton, an anthropologist in the mid 1800s, published research on race and skull/brain size. He found that on average, caucasians had larger skulls and brains than african blacks.

-In a 1981 internationally recognized book, The Mismeasure of Man (which was translated into 10 languages), Harvard paleontologist and writer Stephen J. Gould criticized Morton for being biased in his research on brain size and race and charged him with mismeasuring the skulls to support his personal racist beliefs.

-In February 2012, an archaeology team at Rutgers University went and thoroughly examined Morton's initial data, and exhaustively remeasured thousands of skull samples themselves, and found that, in fact, Morton was accurate and credible all along.

-Morton, Lewis says, did find that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller. This occurs, he says, because humans living in colder regions are larger overall. However, Morton did not believe that brain size had anything to do with intelligence, Lewis says.

[Akrazotile]

Of course scientists can have agendas. Science, and scientists as a group, do not, or basically cannot.

:biggums:

[NumberSix]

Unless if you support broad eugenics research studies as I mentioned on this very page, we will never know the exact differences from race-to-race. I suspect there are differences, but we can't sit here and say anything without said data. I do not support such a study for the very reason I articulated. It is a dangerous can of worms that would suddenly justify genocides and crimes against humanity. I do not trust the judgment of humans after such a study. We are dangerous beings.
How?

[bladefd]

How?

Lets say there is Group A and Group B. Group A was responsible for crimes against humanity against Group B.

Now a team of researchers come in. They do research and note that Group A is biologically superior in a couple ways to Group B. All of a sudden, Group A looks more powerful from biological perspective and has a justifiable/propaganda reason. Group A would take up the rally to finish what they had begun but with research data on their side backing them up.

Knowing humanity, it is not far-fetched to think that eugenic research can open up a can of worms. It can also give rise to a new Hitler that causes global eugenic wars based on the conclusions of the eugenic study that 1 group is superior to another. Here's one argument they can cite: "Why should their group have the same equal voice as ours when they are inferior to us?" ... Think about it. That argument has been used COUNTLESS times in human history, but now the data from the research would be cited in plain sight. All of a sudden, crimes against humanity become justified for Group A.

Once Group A becomes justified, Group B can rise up by citing: "We are still same species. We will revolt against anyone who uses the data from this study against us." Now, you have a global eugenic revolution/warfare on your hands.

I understand that we as humans must be ethical with even those inferior or superior to us, but all logic & morals go out the window in group situations. An individual is ethical & good but groups are not. There is something called 'group think' in psychology where people change in group situations (mixed with propaganda). Read the book 1984. Look at how Hitler was able to convince people in Germany to believe that Jews are inferior and use propaganda to convince Germans to join the Nazi party/SS. He was able to justify the internment camps, which slowly turned into extermination camps.

Now imagine if eugenics studies were to show that being true for another group in different part of the world? We humans have a dark side, which makes us our worst nightmare. Eugenic research is a can of worms best left shut. I understand that as scientists/researcher myself, curiosity is essential, but there are some avenues we cannot enter because they go beyond what is ethical & what isn't. That is my take anyways.

[GIF REACTION]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmvLdOkpg2M

[KyrieTheFuture]

Lets say there is Group A and Group B. Group A was responsible for crimes against humanity against Group B.

Now a team of researchers come in. They do research and note that Group A is biologically superior in a couple ways to Group B. All of a sudden, Group A looks more powerful from biological perspective and has a justifiable/propaganda reason. Group A would take up the rally to finish what they had begun but with research data on their side backing them up.

Knowing humanity, it is not far-fetched to think that eugenic research can open up a can of worms. It can also give rise to a new Hitler that causes global eugenic wars based on the conclusions of the eugenic study that 1 group is superior to another. Here's one argument they can cite: "Why should their group have the same equal voice as ours when they are inferior to us?" ... Think about it. That argument has been used COUNTLESS times in human history, but now the data from the research would be cited in plain sight. All of a sudden, crimes against humanity become justified for Group A.

Once Group A becomes justified, Group B can rise up by citing: "We are still same species. We will revolt against anyone who uses the data from this study against us." Now, you have a global eugenic revolution/warfare on your hands.

I understand that we as humans must be ethical with even those inferior or superior to us, but all logic & morals go out the window in group situations. An individual is ethical & good but groups are not. There is something called 'group think' in psychology where people change in group situations (mixed with propaganda). Read the book 1984. Look at how Hitler was able to convince people in Germany to believe that Jews are inferior and use propaganda to convince Germans to join the Nazi party/SS. He was able to justify the internment camps, which slowly turned into extermination camps.

Now imagine if eugenics studies were to show that being true for another group in different part of the world? We humans have a dark side, which makes us our worst nightmare. Eugenic research is a can of worms best left shut. I understand that as scientists/researcher myself, curiosity is essential, but there are some avenues we cannot enter because they go beyond what is ethical & what isn't. That is my take anyways.
What makes a being biologically superior?

[BoutPractice]

Of course scientists can have agendas.

In fact some are in the pockets of large corporations willing to pay them a lot of money for a dubious "study".

But your conclusion about global warming does not follow from this premise. At least two points need to be made here:

- There is little immediate interest in pushing for greener policies. Elected governments know that the issue is not popular with voters because the required policies often entail a small short term cost for a large long term benefit.

Conspiratorial conservatives are convinced that governments are desperately pushing for policies that help limit climate change, when in fact they are incentivized to do the exact opposite! When have you ever known elected governments to push for hard choices when inertia doesn't cost them anything?

Similarly, in the private sector, a few large established interests, particularly big oil, would be negatively affected by action against global warming in a significant way, whereas the benefits aren't so immediate and concentrated - meaning green coalitions are inherently harder to form. Politically, a vocal minority with a lot to lose right now is almost always more powerful than a diffuse, slightly concerned majority with an undetermined amount to win in the future.

The tech industry, for instance, generally is pro energy transition. So are banks. Both very powerful actors when they get their mind to it (especially banking; tech isn't great at lobbying yet)... But the tech industry cares more about controlling their data than they care about the environment. And the banking industry cares more about banking regulation (of which they want as little as possible).... So they devote their lobbying energies mainly to those fights. Whereas oil is almost single-mindedly focused on energy policy - makes sense.

Generally, environmental regulations and so on only occur because coalitions are painstakingly formed around those issues. Things only get done when the pro-environment coalition's insistence on action is stronger than fossil fuel industries' insistence on inaction.

- Ironically, climate change is not really about science. It's about risk. Sound environmental policies that strive to limit fossil fuel consumption are in almost complete agreement with conservative philosophy. In fact, the fit is much easier than it is for progressives... I've always found it amusing how progressives are the biggest cheerleaders for the most authentically conservative policy approach you could imagine. Conversely, pushing for 4% growth at any cost, like Jeb Bush does, is about as un-conservative as it gets.

There is also an easy fit between Christianity and caring about the planet and its resources (as Pope Francis). That the conservative, religious right would turn out to be the ones defending limitless expansion based on fossil fuels is one of the great mysteries of modern politics (and I can think of more than one religious movement that wants limitless expansion based on fossil fuels, if you'll pardon the comparison...). But then again, conservatives criticizing progressives for endangering "economic growth" has been going on for a long time... Identification as a conservative (or a progressive) is more linked to tribalism than it is to principles.