No, it seems to refer to the entirety of humanity pre-Adam. Those people would have come from all parts of the world and been of all extant “races” (using quotes because I don’t know that that term would have even meant anything at the time–I’m not totally sure of the time frame for Adam’s arrival.)
I do see your point more here. It’s definitely alluding to a race-related problem. It seems to mean that the idea could tend to promote racism, at least.
I’ve tried to read up on it a bit. You do seem to be saying that Adam could have lived in recent time frame which would be broadly consistent with the events described in Genesis, am I correct? What implications would that have for Adam’s race? I really have no clue. “Eurasian” doesn’t mean much. Couldn’t he have been African? Would a new person created by God even have a “race”? I’m not saying it would matter either, I’m just trying to understand a bit. Just for a start, as has been noted above, I wouldn’t base my assessment of facts on whether they seem appealing or not on the surface.
That goes back to the very foundations of ethics and racism. Are differences real, and do those differences justify the value a human has?
If a human population is objectively less intelligent, does this mean we should view them has having less value as a human? In the past, poor treatment of subpopulations has been justified on the basis claimed differences in innate intelligence. We even justify our treatment of animals in agriculture and research science based on their lower levels of intelligence and sentience. At the same time, we go out of our way to help out the mentally disabled and treat them with kindness.
Human society is a big twisted knot of morality, ethics, biases, and history. This is why people get nervous about ideas that are controversial because they carry the danger of being twisted and misused.
As an aside, I once quipped how ridiculous it would be to discriminate against people based on their blood types. As it turns out, this actually happens in Japan where people with type B blood are discriminated against based on the idea that your personality is determined by your blood type. It’s as if humans have this built in bias that tries to separate people into groups.
I agree with everything that you are saying, and especially for your concern over egalitarianism. But in discussions like this, it is important to understand the terms we are working with. Let’s use blood type as example… there is nothing inherently racist about blood type. It is simply a byproduct of one’s makeup. The same is true with ethnicity and gender. They are what they are because of how a person has been “assembled.”
Once people are able to be put into groups, there is always the potential for discrimination to occur. Discrimination is a choice wherein some person or group decides to apply a label that says or suggests that one is less than the other. One is more elite than the other. I hope that you don’t misunderstand me. I’m not at all insensitive to the aspect of racism. I think that you are right to point out that “people get nervous about ideas that are controversial”… but we need to avoid going so far as to avoiding the truth for fear that the truth could be misused.
Truly they do! People are the problem. They will often leverage any situation to gain an advantage, even if it means that someone (or group) gets trampled in the process. That’s why this defining of terms is so important. People need to know that racism is wrong. Knowing one’s blood type is not wrong. It can be lifesaving to know. Using one’s blood type against them is the problem.
There is an ethos in science that encourages scientists to ask dangerous questions in the search for truth. One of the earliest examples is Galileo challenging church theology on the perfection of heavenly bodies and their place in the Universe. I completely agree that we should push past our fear of controversy and seek out the truth.
The point of this conversation (the overall conversation about racism) is good and should be applauded. Racism is bad. If concepts are discovered and put forth for consideration and those concepts can be exploited by racists, then by having this discussion and differentiating between the racist and the neutral concept is helpful!
I always feel the need to point out how recent a sin racism is - it’s really only a variety of hatred without a cause, which covers much more, and clarifies that the colour of skin is not a reason, but an excuse.
Though this is not the rhetoric that is helpful now, it is worth remembering that polygenesis was not always racist, nor must it become racist. Star Trek is a great example of world of polygenesis, where there isn’t racism. Also, in Europe, polygenesis was not always racist.
This is important to remember, because even though we are all the same species, there are genetic differences that we can identify between some populations. Identifying a difference is a neutral act, especially if it is not related to intelligence, and need not be a reason for concern. The decision to say one variety is better than the other, however, is a value judgement from outside science that could be far more dangerous. The fact that people can use differences for racist ends should not prevent us from enumerating and understanding differences. The truth of the human condition is this: we are different but we are the same.
This is precisely what I was saying. There are parameters that determine who we are… those parameters are aspects of difference. When those differences can be aggregated and a human being (or group) can discriminate on that basis, it becomes racism (or other -isms.) It is not the parameters that are racist, it is the humans who discriminate who are racist. It’s very important that I’m not misunderstood. I do not wish to minimize racism in any way. Racism is deplorable. That said, we need to be careful to not avoid conversations about parameters themselves because they may be misused by racists to divide. They are what they are.
As you say Joshua, we are different but we are all the same. This is how we should all be viewed by everyone! If someone prejudges me because I do not possess your stunning good looks, it is not the fault of your good looks. It is the fault of the person casting judgment (discriminating.)
