Eugenics, Race, IQ, Crime Genes, Sterilization, Blah, Blah, Blah

Welcome to the real world.

All over Europe birthrates are below replenishment level. Populations are crashing and graying. Without young people there is no future. Nobody to pay for the pensioners. Nobody to pay for the infrastructure.

Welcome again to the real world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The solution, of course, is to let services die and stop importing those who would dilute the country into an unrecognizable cultureless Grey Race.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We gotta plant the seeds of liberalism into the Chinese.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sorry. The opinions of people on the internet don't count as a peer reviewed journal. Either stand up and tell me where on the genome intelligence is located, or sit the fuck down.

 

Charles Wong can’t tell you where the intelligence genome is located because he probably isn’t a geneticist, and there are many new things that scientists will have to learn before your questions can be answered. There are many genes that play role in determining how smart a person will be. Some genes control the growth of your neural pathways. Some genes control the release of the various chemicals that makes you feel happy, sad, anxious, relaxed, scared or angry. Some people are naturally happier than other people because they have genetic traits that allow them to function normally in a stressful environment. Why is it that some people are suffering from psychological disorders like depression and PTSD while other people always seem to be happy or at least in a neutral state of mind? Perhaps some people naturally have higher levels of serotonin in their prefrontal cortex. A person’s emotional well-being is very important because stress hormones can severely impair your cognitive abilities. Glucocorticoids can damage the hippocampus.

I think everyone is born with a cognitive potential. Most of us never get the opportunity to reach our full potential; otherwise there would probably be a higher number of so-called geniuses in the world. (Someone with an I.Q above 140) I think most of the geniuses in the world are average people that had the opportunity to reach their full potential because they worked hard or they had access to best education that money could buy.

But there is another group of people within the genius population. There are some people that are born with natural talents. I think some children have genetic traits that can cause them to develop a higher than normal amount of neurons and dendrites in specific areas of their brain. I think it is the reason why some children are able to read and talk fluently by the age of 3, while others may not be able to accomplish this task until 5 or 6. It is the reason why some children are able to master a musical instrument within a few years, while other people may have to practice for a decade or more. I think there is a gene or genes that is responsible for the higher than normal neuron and dendrite growth. Perhaps these genes remain dormant in most people. Some genes are also probably more prevalent in some people. (Ashkenazi Jews, some Orientals, Ect.) It is also likely that there are multiple “genius genes” that are responsible for neural growth in specific areas of the brain. For example, some genes may only affect the Broca’s and Wernicke’s area in your brain. Which could give you the ability to speak 5 or more languages fluently.

 

I stopped reading here.

I asked Wong to find me a paper that supports his position with concrete proof, not obviously racist blatherings whose bias puts their information highly suspect at best.

So there's no actual science behind any of this. Just hypotheses without evidence. Now don't you think that it would be important to figure exactly where and what the problems are before you begin to take away people's inalienable rights?

It's interesting that these racists and eugenicists claim they're scientific and that they're proposals have scientific merit, when they don't actually have science to back them up, don't you think?

 

This is what the West is trying: in order to reduce competition from the Chinese, they are trying to genetically/technologically/culturally weaken China by trying to get the Western Marxist media into the country. This is why the Chinese government has banned most Western media and control what websites the public have access too. Chinese government believes that "the end justifies the means," not "the means justifying the end."

Cultural/ethnic unity is one of several prerequisits to becoming a lasting advanced nation. Other requirements are a high IQ average, high conscientiousness, creative thinking personality (open-to-experience), and access to amble raw natural resources. Liberalism denounces all of these prerequisits, so it's in the interest of the West to bring this ideology into China.

 

Here's what I find absurd. Once nano-tech becomes mainstream race and class will be non-existent. We're a fucking cyborgs why can't you people realize that? The old race and class dogma is only seriously debated by the uninformed. Seriously, look around you, and tell me how many machines do you see? Lets go back 100 years, how many machines did man have contact with? Very few, what I'm saying is machines are increasingly becomming more intimate. We have a symbiotic relationship with machines. The intimacy of machines are only gonig to increase.

 

Here's the difference between the west and the east. The east especially china doesn't give flying fuck about it's citizens. If you look at China's history it's been a tortue chamber for the working class citizens. Very little rights, very little respect, forced to work without food until death. You thought the pollution in Southern Cal was bad... HA China makes Southern Cal look like the Garden of Eden. The only reason why China is becomming a world power is because they're exploiting their people beyond immagination. Nor do they care about human rights, state sponsored organ extraction, mass pollution, the sars coverup, and running over student protesters with Tanks live on national TV.. Christ! When you're willing to sacrafice your people to the degree that they do, ofcourse you're going to be a world power. For them being so smart they sure are the most brutal industrialized nation on the planet.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=china

http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision_id=2410&item_id=2409

 

Torture is absolutely wrong, can you give a logical reason or rational purpose behind it to prove it's not absolutely wrong? Government exists to manage the people, if it lets people rape and murder then why should government exist at all? Thats anarchy.



ANother straw man argument: I have not ranked anyone as "inferior" or "superior." Rather, I stated that I value the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests, and since I value this, I will vote for policians who will support social policy to increase public IQ.

But IQ has no meaning, it has no basis in reality, it's a number. It's like increasing GDP, it's just a number. It means the brain is active but it does not calculate talent, or usefulness.

YOur other argument is that we might accidentally sterilize a Beethoven: but as another person mentioned, you have to weight one genius against 20 million retarded persons who will be allowed to reproduce just incase one of them becomes a genius.

That's absolutely ridiculous. 20 million retarded people? you are saying it's 20 million to 1? Where did you get this extremely high number? There could be Beethovens right now that we don't take advantage of due to our own stupidity and inability to recognize talent. You just don't get it.

What will cause more societal problems: everyone having high IQs but one out of many geniuses ends up getting sterilized even though other geniuses were not and end up making tons of contribution minus the one sterilized one;

A high IQ does not make you a genius, it does not mean you'll be good at anything in life, it does not mean you are talented. A high IQ simply means you scored well on the test. I don't think you should judge the worth of a person based on one test, thats ridiculously stupid.

Or, having a society of 100 million average and retarded persons, but one Beethoven who came from the retarded masses?

Most people with high IQ's are average too, it's not like people with high IQ's are all Einstiens. Also you don't even recognize that artistic talent exists, you refuse to even give different types of intelligence tests that would recognize a Bach or Beethoven, your IQ test only captures academic intelligence, book smarts. It does not capture artistic or imaginative intelligence. Your IQ test therefore is biaseds toward certain brain/neuro types and not others, making it irrelevent.

Why should anyone trust any scientist what so ever? Afterall, scientists, engineers, chemists, architects, physicians, etc. are not computers: so we should thus never make any science based decision from this point on.

You should not trust any human like that. You should be able to crunch the data in the computer yourself. I don't trust one test to judge all people, I think it would be a stupid way to live if you trust the test makers with your life. What next? sterilizing people who don't get all A's in school? Don't you realize that genius comes in all forms and not the same form?

Maybe you think that IQ test, which tests the myth of "general" intelligence, will matter, but I don't think general anything can tell you how good someone will be at something. You cannot know someone will be the next Bach by testing their general intelligence, you have to test their musical intelligence.

You cannot know someone will be good at sports, or good at anything physical without testing for that type of intellgience.

You cannot know how smart a person will be emotionally, without testing emotional intelligence.

So you do realize, your world will generate emotionally retarded, uncreative scientists, who get good grades, who are obedient, and who build whatever they are told to build.

Problem is that you won't have much innovative if you do it like this. Innovative comes from people who think outside the box. Often people who are "crazy" do a lot of the innovating. Einstien was very smart in some ways and very stupid in others, and if you judged him based on how well rounded he was as a human he would be considered slightly retarded. Hell, most people who seem to accomplish something, have some sorta flaw, do you know any flawless successful people?

Take Michael Jackson, he is obviously flawed, but does this mean he is not a musician and dance genius? You might think he is a bit crazy and eccentric, but he has talent. What about comedy? How would you have anyone to make comedy is you don't have a measurement for that talent?

Do you see, that IQ alone, at least one kind of IQ, cannot figure out all the human traits and rate them? It's going to take more than one IQ test, hell it's going to take more than just an IQ test, it's going to take a complete psychological exam.

And while you say IQ test is more important than if someone has a tendency to be a serial rapist or serial murderer, your society would keep the smartest highest IQ'd serial murderers and rapists alive, I guess so they can more intelligently do it. Tell me, what are the benefits of a society, that breeds intelligence only for self destructive purposes, and why should I support IQ which does not even calculate all the different types of intelligence? What if a lot of people with high IQ's are jerks, do you even take this into account or do you suddenly like the person just because they have a high IQ? What if you have a lot of jerks who disobey all their orders, drop out of school, and start criminal organizations, BECAUSE they have a high IQ?

Maybe people with a higher IQ will be better criminals, and be able to rob you and be more likely to get away with it. IQ tells you nothing about crminality.

 

Hey I'm an American grey, I think the grey race is the best idea.
Why? Because I don't think race IS culture, you do. There is culture online, but what is the race of your computer?

 

The way to spot a racist, racist people have an obsession with generalizing, and averages. Whenever there is a general this, or an average that, it's usually the kind of statistics or number that can be used to promote a racist agenda.

We can say for example that Americans are generally greedy as a race, and that the average IQ in America is lower than most other countries, and use this information to say for example, that China or Europe is better.

But I guess people don't see that when you generalize, and when you rely on averages and numbers that you can manipulate these statistics in any way to prove any point. China could have the highest IQ in the world and the most people, but it does not change the fact that America is the most creative country on earth. If we tested creative intelligence, well, there is a reason why most things were invented in America, it's because Americans are creative as hell. Americans rebel a lot too, and work hard.

So it all depends on what you test for. If we test for greed, America would definately rank at the bottom of the test. If we test for IQ America would be somewhere in the middle. If we test for innovation, America would be at the top, so obviously whatever it is that Americans are doing with their IQs, it's bringing us computers, and technology of all sorts.

So it's not enough to have a high IQ. It's about how you use your IQ, and it's about which IQ test you take. I don't think general intelligence means anything because on the average test, a person will do good on one subject and bad on another, but the talent is in what they do good in. IQ does not measure talent, it measures raw calculating brain power, which is useless if that brain has no software and no hardware specialization.

It's like judging a CPU based on how many calculatiosn per second it makes, and not by any of the other components, like the L2 cache, or the heat efficiency, or how it actually runs software. Most people who judge computers, they don't judge it based on one number, like the 2ghz being better than 1ghz, because thats not always the case. Sometimes a 1ghz cpu is more powerful than a 2ghz cpu based on the design. This is why when they benchmark CPUs (the IQ test for computers), they don't just give it one test, they test everything, from running games like quake, to word processors, to number crunching, etc.

Why? Because different computers are designed to do different things. A multi-media computer is designed to do multi-media, arts and graphic design, and it's going to have to be tested on that.

Humans are even more specialized than PCs, there are many different types of humans, we arent all going to be number crunching scientists. To give all humans ONE test to decide, would be like giving all computers ONE benchmark to test the speed in ghz of the CPU. It does not work for computers, so it cannot work for people.

 

Use the Scientific Method to prove this statement. And if you can manage to do this, try using the Scientific Method to prove that prostitution, porn, abortion, masturbation, atheism, Islam, oral sex, etc. is absolutely "wrong" or "right," arguments which have been claimed by various people and generations and leaders.

Saying that IQ has no meaning because it's a mathematical construct is like saying every single applied mathematical formula has no meaning and therefor should never be used. Do you see your logical fallacy here? Were you trying to use Gould's "IQ Reification" hypothesis?

A high IQ is a prerequisite for genius. BAsically, most of the research positively correlate IQ with life success: school grades, college grades, career choice, socio-economic status, law-abidedness, marital status, properly raising your offspring. Most of the research shows this. Much of the research has been quoted in the following eugenics debate: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453 It's your choice as to whether you want to go over it or not.

Basically, all your arguments are based on an Mtv education on the human brain. It's not your fault, rather, it's the media that pick and choose what content is politically acceptable.

Some basics: the best measure of the type of intelligence that is required to succeed in a modern technologically advanced nation is IQ tests. It positively correlates very strongly with everything the majority considers as "success": grades, college, wealth, career, family stability, criminal records, etc. No other test, like Emotional Intelligence or Gardners multiple intelligence tests, correlate as strongly. We actually know of many biological correlates of IQ: brain size to body size ratio, speed on nerve conduction, averaged evoked potentials, brain glucose metabolism rate, thickness of mylean sheaths, inspection time (how fast one intakes sensory data), etc. No other "intelligence tests" have found biologica correlates: Gardner et al. have not bothered to even try: they made a hypothesis and never tried to vindicate it. Then the popular media promoted their hypothesis as fact because their egalitarian model is more politically acceptable than the IQ model in inequality.

Okey, so its true that while IQ is very important for genius, it takes other traits to complement this: certain personality traits.

The brain scientists' consensus on personality traits are:

-Introversion versus extroversion
-neuroticism versus emotional stability
-altruism versus tough mindedness
-conscientioness versus non-conscientiousness (crime-prone, selfishness, -recklessness, non-detail oriented, carelessness, lazy/non-ambitious, etc.)
-Conventionality versus open-to-experience.

These traits have a 50% heritability rate.

So, in addition to high IQ, a genius should have high conscientiousness which gives them ambition, motivation, and detail-orientation.

He should also have the "open-to-experience" personality trait as opposed to conventionality so that he seeks new ways of doing things, inventing new things, discovering new things, etc.

I repeat, please go over the cited research data at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453

Cheers!

 

Use the Scientific Method to prove this statement. And if you can manage to do this, try using the Scientific Method to prove that prostitution, porn, abortion, masturbation, atheism, Islam, oral sex, etc. is absolutely "wrong" or "right," arguments which have been claimed by various people and generations and leaders.

What the hell does sex have to do with torture? Alright, torture is wrong because it's a waste of human capital. Torture is wrong because it's a waste of resources, time, energy, it solves nothing, it rarely accomplishes anything, and it's an emotional act which means it's not based on anything rational.

What is the rational reason, to torture someone? Is torturing good for the economy now? Torture, is like collecting kittens, to stick red hot pins into their body, just to hear them scream in pain. Tell me, what does this accomplish? What do you learn from this? What do you gain from this act?

You are telling me I have to prove why we should do something? No, you should be using scientific method to prove why we SHOULD do something. you don't use science to prove a negative. This would be like using science to try and prove why we shouldnt use scientific method. Or trying to use science to prove why we shouldnt promote human de-evolution. Or trying to use science to prove why we should avoid extinction, or avoid nuclear war, or avoid blowing up the earth just to watch everything die, or any other thought you can think of.

It should be self evident, it's irrational to torture.



Saying that IQ has no meaning because it's a mathematical construct is like saying every single applied mathematical formula has no meaning and therefor should never be used. Do you see your logical fallacy here? Were you trying to use Gould's "IQ Reification" hypothesis?

Formulas are not the same as numbers. Numbers are not real. The only real numbers are the binary of 1 and 0. On and Off. Yes and No. etc. These two numbers give you the ability to program a calculator, but you ignore this because you are too busy playing with numbers to promote the IQ test itself?! Numbers are just symbols, like letters, they have absolutely no meaning. What does 5 mean? Besides being half of 10?


A high IQ is a prerequisite for genius.

Prove that. Prove that musicians all have high IQs. Whats Michael Jacksons IQ? I bet it wasnt even tested. Whats the IQ of Al Pacino, the brilliant actor? Whats the IQ of your average sports hero like Michael Jordan, or your favorite baseball or soccer star?

What is the IQ of Kasparov or Fischer? Are you saying that we can use chess to judge IQ? Of course you won't say that, you'd rather use a number instead which has no meaning in the real world.

So the result is simple, a person can be a genius in one thing, and not a genius "generally", as is the case with most geniuses. The well rounded general genius, I don't really know what that is. I see plenty of intelligent people, I see people from ivy league university and people from ordinary university, besides the differences in the SAT test scores and how they were raised, theres absolutely no differences. Most people do ignorant shit, no matter what their score on the SAT was.

You see people who got high scores on the SAT, who have high IQ's, doing stuff like getting themselves drunk and going for a drive, or drinking themselves to death in the fraturnal environment, or having sex with random people. You see people with high IQ's breaking laws and becoming criminals because they think they can get away with it. You see people with high IQ's, having such low emotional intelligence that they can't maintain friendships or personal relationships for long. You see people with high IQ's, who can't do anything in life except score high on IQ tests and get good grades in school.

Trust me, one test cannot tell you how intelligent a person is. If you think one test, one number, can tell you how successful and how intelligent someone is, you are being a fool. The only way to know how intelligent a person is, is to know how they live their life, how they interact, how their mind works, what their ideas are, to actually talk to them. You cannot replace that with any sorta test, a test cannot judge a person better than you can. Should we give women or men, potential dates, a partnership IQ test to see how they'll do in the relationship? how stupid would it be to do this? Then again I bet you'd agree with that too.

BAsically, most of the research positively correlate IQ with life success: school grades, college grades, career choice, socio-economic status, law-abidedness, marital status, properly raising your offspring.

That's absolutely ridiculous. If you believe life is that simple, good, I want you to make sure all your friends have a high IQ, and ignore character, in fact, I hope you marry a wife with an IQ higher than yours, so when she divorces you, beats you in court and takes all your shit, you can only blame your own stupidity and not the IQ test.

Most of the research shows this. Much of the research has been quoted in the following eugenics debate: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453 It's your choice as to whether you want to go over it or not.

Eugenics is one thing, but this IQ being the most important aspects of a human is not at all related to eugenics. Honestly, try surrounding yourself with high IQ people, just try and see, you'll quickly find out that the people with higher IQ's are not automatically better quality than the people with low IQ's, because it depends on HOW they are intelligent. They might have absolutely no social/emotiona/street/life intelligence. They might only know book knowledge and nothing else, and might be a horrible friend, but their IQ might be 200. Do you want an asshole with a high IQ as a friend or do you want a true friend no matter what the IQ says? Do you even know what social intelligence is?

Basically, all your arguments are based on an Mtv education on the human brain. It's not your fault, rather, it's the media that pick and choose what content is politically acceptable.

I don't even watch MTV. It has nothing to do with politics. It's simple, I don't want to decide who can and cannot be my friend based on a number. I think thats so oversimplified as to be even more ignorant than racism. It's one thing to be racist and judge by appearance, its another to judge everyone by a number. Yes you can take IQ testing into account, but you have to still meet them and talk to them to confirm it, otherwise you are putting blind faith into the test itself and not your own intuition and judgement.

What I'm saying is, sometimes the test can be wrong.


Some basics: the best measure of the type of intelligence that is required to succeed in a modern technologically advanced nation is IQ tests.

Which IQ test? Theres many many of them. There are also personality tests which I think are even more important than IQ tests. What good is brute calculating intelligence if you can't get along with the intelligent jerk?

It positively correlates very strongly with everything the majority considers as "success": grades, college, wealth, career, family stability, criminal records, etc.

Actually, most criminals have a high IQ, they think they are so smart they'll never get caught, and most of the time they are right and don't get caught. Criminality is a sign of high IQ. Only the people with low IQ's get caught. Once again though, the IQ test along does not mean you'll be more likely to be a successful criminal, it simply means you'll be less likely to get caught if you were to go into a life of crime.

No other test, like Emotional Intelligence or Gardners multiple intelligence tests, correlate as strongly.

How do you know? You offer no statistics or data to back any of this up. Emotional intelligence actually is the most important aspect for relationships, if you had common sense you'd have known that much. Different intelligences apply to different things. Someone can have a perfect pitch and perfect audio recall, this person would be able to remember everything you ever told them, and will be able to memorize lectures, and do all sorts of things with this type of intelligence. The IQ test, as far as I know does not test for this.

We actually know of many biological correlates of IQ: brain size to body size ratio, speed on nerve conduction, averaged evoked potentials, brain glucose metabolism rate, thickness of mylean sheaths, inspection time (how fast one intakes sensory data), etc.

You are sexist too. Women have smaller brains than men, is what your neuro-scientists like to say, trying to morph that into the whole men are smarter than women myth. It's not that men are smarter than women, it's a weak generalization. It's more that brain size has nothing to do with brain speed or brain composition. You can have a smaller yet faster brain with more connections. Women are known to be good communicators, and the hypothesis is that this is because women have more connections in this part of their brain because they use it more than men do. So it's simple, brain size is meaningless, and IQ cannot calculate communication ability.

No other "intelligence tests" have found biologica correlates: Gardner et al. have not bothered to even try: they made a hypothesis and never tried to vindicate it. Then the popular media promoted their hypothesis as fact because their egalitarian model is more politically acceptable than the IQ model in inequality.

I understand you, you are one of those guys who believe men are smarter than women.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm


Okey, so its true that while IQ is very important for genius, it takes other traits to complement this: certain personality traits.


The brain scientists' consensus on personality traits are:

-Introversion versus extroversion
-neuroticism versus emotional stability
-altruism versus tough mindedness
-conscientioness versus non-conscientiousness (crime-prone, selfishness, -recklessness, non-detail oriented, carelessness, lazy/non-ambitious, etc.)
-Conventionality versus open-to-experience.

These traits have a 50% heritability rate.

So, in addition to high IQ, a genius should have high conscientiousness which gives them ambition, motivation, and detail-orientation.

I'm not disputing that brain ability is heritable. I'm saying that IQ alone is not enough to map out a persons brain and all it's capabilities. I think that one number or an entire brain is ridiculously simple.


He should also have the "open-to-experience" personality trait as opposed to conventionality so that he seeks new ways of doing things, inventing new things, discovering new things, etc.

Jung has a very accurate personality test. I think it's a very good example of why IQ alone is not so important. You can have a high IQ and have a personality that is just, designed in such a way so that you never get to express yourself or use your IQ on anything but doing puzzles or playing chess games or whatever.

I repeat, please go over the cited research data at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453

Cheers!

Since you live and die by IQ, here is a site. Take the test, lets see your IQ http://www.iqtest.com/

 

Here is an interesting thought . . . woops, I mean a thought I personally find interesting, for I cannot scientifically prove that the following thought is interesting by nature: it's a subjective matter:

My ultimate goal is the formation of a completely superior non-organic species that is built for inter-stellar travel and IQ power of One billion trillion plus.

So, it really does not matter what the initial stage of this process is: it can be a bunch of ideal genotypes from a single race, or a bunch of ideal genotypes from different races: any genotype can be transformed into the super-species I desire. Groups like Transtopia.org is very politically incorrect or "racial," but they accept "ideal" members from any race: White, Black, Oriental, Mullato, South-Asian, South-East Asian, Native Indian, etc. Though median characteristics differ between these groups, every group has at least some "ideal" members: plus, there is much gene overlapping between groups: ethnic groups have statistically fuzzy boundries.

But though the above may work on private projects like Transtopia.org, I do think it's not achievable on a national level since ethnic groups as a whole tend to have too many group-interests that differ: it would be too chaotic. It's more practical to work nationally when everyone is similar.

 

Charles Wong:

What scientific evidence do you have that non-organic species are even a possibility? And why would this be superior to remaining organic?

 

Organic matter is easily distroyed on Earth, let alone in space. And it seems too hard to upgrade the brain intelligence of organic people: how can you add more neurons to the brain, plus the constant increase in skull size to accomodate more and more neurons?

But yes, I agree that it's all speculation at the moment: I can't say for sure if we can create human intelligence (called the "g" factor) in lets say silicon for example.

Consider the character "Leutenant Data" from star trek: the next generation. That would be my initial goal: again, it's speculation as to whether this is even possible: but I like to try non-the-less: it gives me something I find interesting to do while waiting to die.

Actual gene manipulation though is currently doable via selective breeding, embryo screening, cloning, and germ-line genetic engineering, and sperm/egg banks where one can choose them based on the profile of the donors.

It is very doable for every race, if they desire, to improve themselves via the currently available methods as I just described. Eugenics need not be "racist," it can be globally altruistic. In fact, many new-age liberals who believe that eugenics is inevitable are now writing books telling us to prepare to make sure this technology is not only reserved for previleged individuals and races, but for everyone via government subsidize and inter-national eugenic assistance for poor countries that cannot afford it. "It's all good" I say.

 

Charles Wong:

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is the number of neurons that determines intelligence?

But yes, eugenics as a practical means to improve humanity is certainly available to humanity now and has been, albeit in a diminished capacity, for tens of thousands of years.

 

Yes, I have several professional research data sources. I will go ahead and post excerpts of the relative data and cite the source shortly: it's takes some time to compile everything. Give me a little time . . . I'll do it today or tomorrow.

 

I'd love to see them. Thank you.