There is an incredible amount of variation in humans.

What are the ramifications of this?

A greater ability to adapt. I'm not sure our variation is more than other animals, we could just be more tuned in to human variations because they are relevent to our interests.

In the FUTURE humans will be able to modify their genes to change themselves into many other variations perhaps to adjust to climate change or radiation exposure as examples.

We have much bigger brains than most animals, which translates into an ability to terraform landscapes and truly change things on a large scale. Therefore, variation in humans can have huge consequences.

In the FUTURE humans will be able to modify their genes to change themselves into many other variations perhaps to adjust to climate change or radiation exposure as examples.

I agree.

Do you guys think biological differences in humans can cause them to have different values? To live together, don't we need to agree on a set of values? Whose values do we agree with?

That seems to be an aspect of culture.

That seems to be an aspect of culture.

Yeah, I know, but can't culture be caused by biology?

For example, there's growing evidence that psychopaths have brains that are wired differently from us normal folk. Doesn't the lack of empathy which characterizes psychopaths influence what they value and how they value? The point is that biology influences culture. To what extent does biology influence culture? How is this question important when it comes to deciding whose ethics is superior?

The point is that biology influences culture. To what extent does biology influence culture? How is this question important when it comes to deciding whose ethics is superior?Carl Jung and his students like Joseph Campbell teach us that archetypes, the instinctive beliefs that are hard-wired into our brain, are universal and the same ones occur in all societies and all eras. This seems to be the extent to which biology influences culture, and so far it seems that all cultures start with the same set of influences. The variations among cultures, therefore, must be the result of conscious manipulation of our environment.

Any role of biology in this variation is argued against by the evidence throughout history of societies that were vast melting pots of multiple populations (e.g. distinct biologies), yet nonetheless forged a strong cultural identity. Examples include Sumer, Rome, the Mongol Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the United States, and perhaps the recently hatched European Union.

As for judging the superiority of ethics, this is obviously a subjective issue. Nonetheless by analysis the subjectivity can be sorted out and distributed over the eras of human development. We are currently living through the emergence of our culture out of the tribal era, in which it can logically be demonstrated that the ethics of the Stone Age were rational and in some situations it was "ethical" to kill other humans. In the coming era when our culture will finally congeal into a single planetary civilization, there will be no more rational justification, ever, for taking life. The only rational consideration will be the maintenance and advancement of civilization. Any cultural motifs that promote that maintenance and advancement will be ethical, or at least ethically neutral. Any that work against it will be unethical.

Carl Jung and his students like Joseph Campbell teach us that archetypes, the instinctive beliefs that are hard-wired into our brain, are universal and the same ones occur in all societies and all eras. This seems to be the extent to which biology influences culture, and so far it seems that all cultures start with the same set of influences. The variations among cultures, therefore, must be the result of conscious manipulation of our environment.
But what about individual values? What about the culture that is unique to the individual or individuals who are more closely genetically related to each other than other individuals in general, such as families and races?

I think as we begin to learn more about genetics in the coming decades, we're going to learn more about how deeply we are influenced by genes. I've started reading a book called "How the Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker, but haven't had much time to get into it due to time constraints. But in the introduction he says that genes deeply influence not only our coarse, macroscopic traits, like brain size, personality type and IQ, but also the finer things, like opinions, such as politics, whether you're republican or democrat, the length you like to keep your nails cut, favorite color, etc. Stuff that's counterintuitive, stuff you wouldn't think would be in reach of our genes' fingers. With that in mind, I can see it being true when I look at family members. Often you hear people comment "Despite against my efforts, I'm becoming exactly like my old man." People don't want to be like their parents, but it's often exactly what happens, and it's because of their genes.

Have you ever heard of the Jim twins, Fraggle? Here's an excerpt at the bottom of my post if it interests you.

We've already established that, as a matter of fact, genes influence what and how we value. The question I posed is: to what extent is that true? I believe the answer is: deeply. That is not to say, however, that between individuals and groups of closely related individuals there is not a great deal of agreement and overlap, as you say, archetypes. That agreement allows us to have civilization. But there are still differences which cause strain on civilization, and I'm sure that's at least part of what fuels racism and causes different genetic groups to favor different sets of values. Ever notice how East Asian cultures value differently from us? Sure, it's culture, but culture comes from biology. In some historic agrarian societies, polygamy was actually socially accepted. It was acceptable because that's what human bodies wanted. Alpha males with a lot of capital ought not to limit themselves to one woman if they don't need to. That's evolutionary biology which made itself into culture. Maybe East Asians are biologically predisposed to value the group because they have such small, and individually weak bodies. The only way they can be strong is to huddle. And that aspect of their biology made itself into culture, quite organically.

Lots of things and explanations follow from this line of thinking.






The Jim Twins from Ohio
(Excerpt from a U.S. newspaper)

Jim Lewis and Jim Springer first met February 9, 1979 after 39 years of being separated. They were the rarest of twins, and most prized by researchers: identical twins who had been separated at birth, were raised in different families, and had grown to adulthood completely unaware of each other's existence. When Jim Lewis finally found his twin brother, Jim Springer, after years of searching through court records, he knew their unwed mother had put them up for adoption shortly after giving birth.

When the two first met, Lewis described it as "like looking into a mirror." For starters, both had the same first name. They were physically identical. But when they got talking, the similarities were astounding. Both had childhood dogs named Toy. Both had been nail biters and fretful sleepers. Both had migraines. Both had married first wives names Linda, second wives named Betty. Lewis named his first son James Allen, Springer named his James Alan. For years, they both had taken holidays on the same Florida beach. They both drank Miller Lite, smoked Salem cigarettes, loved stock car racing, disliked baseball, left regular love notes to their wives, made doll furniture in their basements, and had added circular white benches around the trees in their backyards. Their IQs, habits, facial expressions, brain waves, heartbeats, and handwriting were nearly identical. The Jim twins lived apart but died on the same day, from the same illness.

i think we humans overestimate ourselves.

i think we humans overestimate ourselves.

I don't think that's possible.