A debate on the usefulness of Physical Anthropology in the making of a society

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Milesian

That people breed with those they find attractive within their own ethnic population is all the eugenics I think is necessary.

Milesian dixit et ego congruat.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Thats sexual selection and one of the problems being that they dont breed any more but rather have just sex with each other just to mention one thing.

The problem you mention here is not one of eugenics, but rather that contraception has created a sterile society. The answer to that would be to address the issue of mass contraception. Eugenics is a different topic again

Eugenic doesnt mean just negative Eugenic, i.e. the elimination of traits or bloodlines, but also positive Eugenic measures = to promote reproduction of high quality individuals and respective bloodlines.

In order to "positively" select in favour of what you see as desirable traits and "high quality individuals", you logically have to "negatively" discriminate against others by selecting one set at the expense of others.

A further problem arises in what constitutes a "high quality individual", based on what criteria, and upon whose authority is such a judgement made.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The problem you mention here is not one of eugenics, but rather that contraception has created a sterile society. The answer to that would be to address the issue of mass contraception. Eugenics is a different topic again

Not really because even in antiquity as well as many, especially urban and modern, conditions higher classes and quality individuals had less children. Its not a different topic since the basic problem - before we will be able to select prenatal after specific traits or even correct them - is that the better ones dont get enough, the worse too much or at least more children.

In order to "positively" select in favour of what you see as desirable traits and "high quality individuals", you logically have to "negatively" discriminate against others by selecting one set at the expense of others.

A further problem arises in what constitutes a "high quality individual", based on what criteria, and upon whose authority is such a judgement made.

Thats indeed a problem and as I put it elsewhere, my approach is human and conservative in the sense of just selecting negatively whats clearly undesirable. For the positive Eugenic programs the more and most favourable variants being pretty clear if wanting a group with a high general potential, ability to adapt, good social cohesion and group orientation.

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

For the positive Eugenic programs the more and most favourable variants being pretty clear if wanting a group with a high general potential, ability to adapt, good social cohesion and group orientation.

Then, according to that logic, how can the nordic type be the most progressive or the "benchmark"? For example, heat resistance: it's logical that the mediterranean types are more tolerant to heat than the nordic while still being able to adapt to cold since they evolved in a environment that is intermediate between extreme cold (north) and extreme hot (south).

Note: i'm not advocating superiority of any type since my beliefs are different from the "progressive/recessive/positive/negative" approach.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Personally, I'm against any form of "eugenics"

You are not. Take the Catholic Church ban on inbreeding. That is eugenics.

other than ethnic populations breeding within their own group.

That is not eugenics. It can be eugenics, but it can be dysgenics too. Whatever it would be would depend on a high number of factors.

Take American "cousins kissing" for example. Then think how retarded Americans are.

That people start deliberately influencing their breeding in order to produce more of a certain phenotype (whether it be deemed "progressive" or not) is not something I find palatable in the slightest.

That's something that should come natural in people, on a healthy society.

Someone told me once that it was instinctive in women to search for a partner who would provide for good genes for her future children. A winner, not a loser.

I used to think much about that in London whenever I saw all those women walking around with Mulatto children.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Gil

Then, according to that logic, how can the nordic type be the most progressive or the "benchmark"?

There is a general potential and a niche adaptation. Nordids have the a strong accumulation of generally positive traits, but are at the same time in many ways climatically adapted as well. The same is true for almost all types to a certain degree. The dominant-progressive forms for one region will be dominant-progressive in another region too if its not a climatic extreme, but rather on the short than on the long run, because they will be able to oust the less progressive local forms no matter how good they are adapted to a given region (only diseases, strong techno-cultural assymetry and climatic extremes can stop a progressive form as a group if only infantile or primitive ones being the competitors). But once they succeeded, they really live a daily life in the region and probably no longer acting as a group or group selection becoming less important, they will be subject of local climatic pressures too obviously. That will change their type on the long run. If the conditions are good and they can culturally outbalance the worst negative influences, they will keep the progressive physical and psychic characteristics to a large degree, but some superficial traits will always be under pressure, like pigmentation in particular.
Therefore one could compare the physique and partly even the psychic peculiarities of all classic Europid forms which are the dominant form of their region like Nordoid, Atlantomediterranid, Iranid, Nordindid etc. If comparing this progressive forms one can see strong similarities, but also differences, the differences being mainly climatic adaptation, the similarities were once probably partly climatic too, but are finally more the traits of the dominant, culturally developed and progressive forms.

One can even compare similar patterns in non-Europids, f.e. Silvid and Sinid. A progressive Sinid variants shows again many similarities, most differences coming from the local adaptation, especially Mongolisation process during the Ice Age and isolation - region cultivation of the traits which once came up.

Usually the non-progressive traits are compromises - compromises for a particular ecological or social niche (especially strong pyknomorphisation and infantilisation) or the result of an absense of strong positive selective pressure, simple retardation in isolation, in habitats which are very similar to the original sapiens one.

For example, heat resistance: it's logical that the mediterranean types are more tolerant to heat than the nordic while still being able to adapt to cold since they evolved in a environment that is intermediate between extreme cold (north) and extreme hot (south).

Mediterranids are not that much more heat resistant than Nordids, especially not if speaking about the Atlantomediterranid version, they are better adapted to a warm to hot climate than Cromagnoids and related forms though. The main advantage of Mediterranids in the South in comparison to Nordids is the darker pigmentation, which makes them less UV-sensitive and probably a stronger accumulation of immunological traits which are important for being able to stand Southern diseases.

Nordids on the other hand can deal with a lack of UV, very important in the long winters, especially for children which were still growing, and a higher percentage of lactose tolerance. Both being very important for a healthy growth of the young ones in long and dark winters.

Concerning the general qualities of Nordids, according to some sources which seem plausible Nordids have one of the highest percentages of a versatile-progressive and relatively attractive strong leptomorphic physique (compare sinewy Leptosomic to Leptosomic-Athletic in the constitutional system), balanced schizothymic personality traits and higher intelligence worldwide. Sure one can find the same in other groups too, especially the progressive forms mentioned above, but the frequency seems to be higher than in most if not all other types.

One could argue about this traits very long and much more in detail, but thats roughly what is finally crucial.

Note: i'm not advocating superiority of any type since my beliefs are different from the "progressive/recessive/positive/negative" approach.

Can you elaborate your beliefs than?

[Menydh]

After long observing and analyzing the supporters of Nordic superiority, I've come to realize that there is a bit of truth in it; although this is by no means something that should be generalized on and extended to all other races (you would say sub-races), but is a much localized phenomenon.

The problem lies with people projecting their own group's complexes to the rest.

Next one should identify the direction where this worshipping of Nordic supremacy comes from, and then identify the groups related to the location.

From my observation the direction points to the Germanicized areas of Southern Germany and Austria.

There, not being or being only in part Nordic seems to have caused a general complex, which in some people it is almost traumatic. I have met few Scandinavians (if any) who showed the symptoms of this extreme Nordic supremacism.

Why doesn't this happen further South?

I admire and respect other sea races. Not the merchant races in the seas though. And I feel contempt and even dislike at times for many races alien to the seas. We have a word for such people here, gent de secà (people of dry lands), which is used derogatively more often than not. Not that I deny the positiveness in many of these drylanders.

And so, it is little wonder that a race like the Atlanto-Mediterranean feels offended when other races try to reflect their own complexes onto them. Ridiculous as this may be.

There seems to exist a battle out there, where the main contenders are the Skando-Nordic and the Atlanto-Mediterranean races. The funny thing is that it is usually none of them who provoke these battles.

Further to this, if one is into eugenics one should admit of the convenience of acquiring positive traits --or, to use the parlance of racists, superior traits-- through hybridisation. Something that the said Nordicists must be much aware of it since their Nordicism evolves much around the improvement of themselves through this method.

The results from the different hybridisation possibilities is something that would be interesting to analyze and discuss.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The problem lies with people projecting their own group's complexes to the rest.

Thats true to a certain degree, since as I said, the absense of Nordid doesnt have to mean the absense of progressive traits, but in some regions of Europe, very progressive psycho-physical traits means in almost all cases Nordoid at least. To give an example: Sweden. Nordo-Cromagnid practically all truly progressive types are. Thats true if going South for quite some time with some Western exceptions.

No matter how one views Nordindids f.e., even if seeing them as being Nordoid influenced in ancient times, one thing is for sure, they are no Nordoids any more. Still they have a similar position in the region of the subcontinent as have Nordids in Europe. They dont reach the same level I'd say, but come quite closer for world standards. They are the local dominant-progressive form, they being the primary element in the long term "Aryanisation" (Indoeuropeanisation) of the subcontinent, they were and are dominant in the military, science and business, being more often in the upper castes as well as class.

From my observation the direction points to the Germanicized areas of Southern Germany and Austria.

There, not being or being only in part Nordic seems to have caused a general complex, which in some people it is almost traumatic. I have met few Scandinavians (if any) who showed the symptoms of this extreme Nordic supremacism.

Sure its related to the Indoeuropean-"Aryan" and Germanic stories, the mythological views even. But from a racial perspective one can't argue for it being just a phenomenon of the Germanicized areas. It occured in Scandinavia too, especially when the local Nordids came into contact with very foreign elements (like pure Lapps, Gypsies, Jews etc.). Its in part a reaction towards the very foreign which seems to be so different in physique and mind, which is for some cases very true.

Now if coming into contact with such foreign elements, one immediately knows whats the own, but probably want to know whats "really the own", the core, the central element of the group. And for Germanics, no matter where they live, this can only be the Nordo-Cromagnid spectrum. Even if they accept other forms as equal and integrable, if thinking about "a typical Germanic" this has to mean Nordid or Cromagnid without a doubt. The in parts mythologised view on Indoeuropeans and Germanics helped to form Nordicism for sure - in fact I dont think it would have been possible to the same degree without. But there is some truth in it, because a certain spirit and form which can be associated with the "noble warrior" can never be associated with f.e. typical Alpinids, no matter if you accept them or not, see something very valuable in them or not, thats something which doesnt fit at all. It doesnt fit today and for sure not in past times in which certain physical as well as psychic traits were important for a successful warrior caste as well as other "professions" and the group as such. This are qualities all racial types, European and foreign, have, but some more, some less.

There seems to exist a battle out there, where the main contenders are the Skando-Nordic and the Atlanto-Mediterranean races. The funny thing is that it is usually none of them who provoke these battles.

Dont think thats the case. However, many A-M might still fancy with Nordicism if being not too much influenced by cultural dogmas against racism et al. naturally, since the typical schizothymic and leptomorphic A-M will immediately feel not to foreign to Nordid ideals if not feeling excluded and a "Mediterranicism" never came into existence to the same degree for many reasons. One part of the cultural explanation being already mentioned, another might be the time in which science made bigger steps ahead if analysing human racial variation - a time in which the North was rather dominant and imperialistic of course. One reason might be partly pigmentation related, since the light pigmentation of the Nordid make him look special - not without the noble physique which he shares with other progressive forms, but still. This special trait combination and recessive character can produce a better consciousness about the threat through mixture.

Further to this, if one is into eugenics one should admit of the convenience of acquiring positive traits --or, to use the parlance of racists, superior traits-- through hybridisation. Something that the said Nordicists must be much aware of it since their Nordicism evolves much around the improvement of themselves through this method.

Dominant progressive forms can live on their own as groups even in a situation of strong group selection. One can find whole ancient populations consisting almost exclusively of a certain physical type or being the mixture out of progressive forms especially in challenging times or specific "hot spot areas". The less progressive and subdominant forms of the same region usually weren't able to do the same. They were always just an element of the variation inside of a population. They had a specific role in variable groups or lived in isolated or protected areas, protected from the strong group selective pressures.

I dont have a mythological view on racial issues, at least not really. Neither mixtures nor inbreeding is per se positive or negative, it always depends on the context. Roughly one can distinguish useful, neutral and harmful mixtures.
The same mixture between two racial types of mankind can be in different regions and contexts all three. F.e. if in antiquity a Nordid group migrated into a tropical region, the fastest and probably only way for bloodlines and progressive traits to survive at least in a mixed form was to hybridise with a tropical form which had the pigmentation and immunological characteristics necessary for a long term survival.
The same mixture for Nordids which expanded into an area for which they could adapt slowly without mixture and without losing the bloodlines it would at best be neutral and if the tropical group would expand into the Nordid area without having anything truly amazing and significant to give for a higher potential it can be just negative and harmful.

That being said without considering socio-cultural issues, just looking at the biological side. Its about alternatives and something which can be an at least acceptable or even coercive possibility in one case might be unacceptable in another.

Just imagine a genpool in which lets say 70 percent have desirable traits (current general standard) and being good adapted to a given environment, what can they win by mixing with another group which has 65 percent? For sure both would have a similar value, a lot of individuals the same, generally, but still mixture would be just tolerable and nothing positive necessarily. Eugenic methods to accumulate even higher frequencies of positive variants would be preferable.

A-M and Nordid are so close that there is no real hybrid vigour - because of the type. Mixture makes primarily sense in this case in the areas of transition in which its at least rather neutral to positive and where it happened all the time anyway.
however, for the core areas of Nordids, things are different, I think it makes sense to keep rather "pure" reserves especially of this very valuable form. At least in those areas which are indeed primary or were even (almost) "exclusively Nordoid habitat".
Concerning mixture in general: Some argued mixture can produce something even more effective, well, mostly if one side has something specific to give the other is lacking - never if its downbreeding, which is always a loss for the higher form - primarily. The F1 generation can win somewhat through heterosis, but that works just for one generation (just above intermediate position, usually not better than the higher form), in the next they are again intermediate or lower in many cases. For plants thats easy since one can breed pure lines all the time and mix them in hybrids, but for humans it means you destroyed a pure form you can never recover. Something which might not be desirable in every case especially the pure form has a very high level and value for the group and species.
Thats of course the pure biological perspective, but obviously if speaking about mixture, its also a social issue and problem, thats again a problem of numbers and must be considered too, as well as a loser and weaker group identity because of wider racial-physical variation.

Concerning Nordicism: If it goes to far it can be very problematic, but thats the problem with all kinds of chauvinism, racism etc., in fact of all group orientations and ideals, even all things! Everything at extreme can be negative, there is not too much for which this banal truth isnt right. To see the value of the Nordid type, in prehistory, history, present and possible future is right, wanting to preserve and foster the type too. But if the appreciation for this racial type leads to a lack of understand for others, the idea of everything good and valuable coming just from this human form and all others being not even comparable, it gets negative, dangerous, even absurd.

Worst are those claiming a Nordic superiority "for whatever reason". They dont even know why, they just know they "were just always superiour". To "solve that problem" one has first to grasp what this and other type's qualities are about, what are their strength and weaknesses. What is known, what is well founded, what far fetched speculation. First one has to know what the differences are about, then what they mean in reality, in different contexts and finally how they can be evaluated.
F.e. those arguing intelligence doesnt matter can be countered with thousands of arguments in which one can prove how important intelligence is for humans - at least specific forms of intelligence in specific situations - not just for humans even, for a lot of higher animals and mammals in particular...thats just one easy example, but there are others for other traits. Something its not just about A good and B bad, but probably both being valuable, just a finally more important since A would be still effective without B, but not vice versa, even if they are both as or even more effective together. So both should be fostered, but A has the priority. Thats the case for some personality traits in particular for which wider variation can be positive, but there is a clear core so to say.

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Can you elaborate your beliefs than?

The basis of my beliefs stems from three or four sources, namely Evolutionary Biology, Behavioural Ecology, Population Genetics, and, perhaps most importantly, the r/K selection theory.

I could post hundred of pages on the subject but i'll try to be brief and to the point and at the same time define my perspective.

The r/K selection theory is perhaps the most important point so i'll just explain it briefly; basically, selective pressures are drive evolution in one of two defined directions: r- or K-selection. Typically, r-selected species produce many offspring, each of which is unlikely to survive to adulthood, while K-selected species invest more heavily in fewer offspring, each of which has a better chance of surviving to adulthood.

Now, the theory is far more complex than this brief outline but suffice to say that this applies to humans even in our day and age; this combined with the behavioural ecology notions of ultimate causation and proximate causation lead me to the most important part of my belief, optimization.

Optimization (in this sense) is defined as the advances that offer the highest return to an animal given all the different factors and constraints facing the animal. This occurs in humans according to regional/geographic location and the optimal type of development can be defined by a simple cost/benefit analysis: considering the advantages of a trait and the costs of a trait, it can be seen that if the costs outweigh the benefits then a trait will not evolve and vice versa.

Optimization is, simply put, adaptation of the individual to become more "cost efficient" and to enable him to survive and breed, hence returning to the r/K selection, which becomes at the same time a practical way of defining what type of population is present and if it is flourishing or dwindling.

In practical terms I believe that physical anthropology is as acurate as anthropometry; a interesting exercise that focuses it's attention on the phenotype, physical proportions, etc, and try to assign these types to geographically defined areas. It's a interesting exercise but, in the end, somewhat pointless and without acuracy, seeing as archeo-genetics, population genetics, clinal dissemination, etc, show us a larger and more acurate panorama.

I believe that "Nordics" and "Atlanto-Mediterraneans" as well as "Sinids" and "Silvids" are just groups of humans that evolution shaped in that particular way, genotype and phenotype, optimized to survive in particular environments.
Furthermore, I believe that, for example, european populations of 1000 years ago weren't much different from what they are today (except in known cases of population replacement and genetic drift, and then again that is well explained) while they must have been surely different 10.000 years ago, and by different I mean not more homogeneous (the old dumb "blondes in the North, dark haired in the South" dilemma) but less cohesive in terms of adaptation and development; some groups evolved very fast (europeans, far east asians) while others didn't have the need to evolve so much or the environment didn't allow them to (aboriginals, sub-saharan africans, etc).
This does not mean that any group is "superior" to another, just different and, that I concede, "superior" in their biome.

Edit: I've got alot of links for people who are interested in anyof the above areas, i'll post some more relevant and will provide links if anyone wants.

[Savage]

Just infantile hunters? This is to be taken serious?...

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Sure, they are just infantile hunters, no true Indoeuropeans nor Europeans, thats right, they are the rest of group which lacked culturally and racially the potential for higher development.
Acceptable because of that, in relativel isolation, but no enrichment. The Indoeuropean and occidental heritage has two sides, a good and a bad, I want to eliminate the bad and develop the good, which means to keep up and spread the strength of Europeans, not losing it by letting weakening influences in.
Its nice you finally accept that Saamis are no true Europeans by heritage neither...

So many many words. And rarely any points? This is harassment, presented as "science".

It is also lack of history knowledge and actual facts about the topics, and unbalanced conclutions bases on subjective interpretions of facs and dreams..

Originally Posted by Agrippa

a) Its not about my person
b) The more important Nordid traits can occur in other racial types too with some exceptions
c) This exceptions being primarily important for a very specific geographical area which is therefore the natural primary habitat of Nordids, was it and should be in the future - you can guess where this is.

a) It certainly also is, you spread a pestilenced evangelingium by your "Nordid superiority" obsession, by serving a dead horse (1945), but keept alive by masturbating misfitted teenagers and wannabe non-nordids, half nprdids or quazi nordids that grasps for any straw to compense their miserable lifes and inferiority complexes.
b) And if not? So what?
c) No, that may mean anything, please tell us.

In artic areas sami lifestyle and survival is far superior to classical Nordic lifestyles, also the use of nature.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

How can a Norwegian have anything against a progressive Mediterranid type if accepting a pure Lappid?

That would be like a joke...

First, a Norwegian lappid is a Norwegian.
Then, no one is against mediterianids, exept of your Nordicist friends. If you have experienced such, perhaps it consider you personal, and not your race.

No one here is the "benchmark".

That would be like a joke...

This is harassment again, and again it is your inferior complexe that makes you try to compense through the "racial superiority" lifebouy.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

You mean Norwegians should preach a Nationalism in which they dont care for racial matters or should even be racially aware but accepting Lappids as equals? Thats absurd. Sure one can tolerate what already happened, but nothing can change the fact that every Iranid is closer to Nordid than a typical Lappid,

Again, you seems to live in the 1930`s, and are poorly informed of whats going on today. If you are attracted to Iranoids, go to iran.

I do not think the disrespect for nature by destroying it and its climatic balance by toxic pollutions. You think that is "progression?...

Neither is the bowwow for "superior" races any "benchmark, or "official standard", exept for in quite narrow circuits and minds.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

How can a Norwegian have anything against a progressive Mediterranid type if accepting a pure Lappid?

That would be like a joke...

The "benchmark" here is subjective and tenedensions according to the displayed obsession for Nordid, and has no validity, neither scientific.

But it seems to be a vision of a holy and absolute truth, something I classify as a fanatic "nordicism". Strange that such are laughed by here in the core areas,but tried keept alive by boys not living in Norden?

Originally Posted by Agrippa

What does it mean to produce a 50 : 50 mixed group of Nordid with lets say Dinarid, (Atlanto-) Mediterranid, Iranid etc? It just means to produce something which is for a certain region probably less adapted (climatic adaptation) and looking more foreign in a Nordid group, however, the more important progressive traits will be kept in any case since they would come from both sides. Still there could be a loss since the accumulation in Nordids is very high and pronounced, but it would be a minor and predictable one. So f.e. for more Southern regions or more mountainous regions such mixtures would even make sense for adapting Nordoid groups to that regions in a fast way - at least in the past that was true.
But what can Nordids win by mixing with lower elements in their own core areas for which they were made and are unchallenged if its about their general potential? They can mainly if not only lose, thats why this should be prevented especially if the numbers of higher level Nordids going down already.

What lower elements? That lower elements exist in your brain, and you are trying to push these defunct ideas on both Nordids and their neighbours. You use the term lower Are the slavs also "lower" than the Nordids, as I understand you rank Mediterrianids according to your wonderful "value" system.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Milesian

A further problem arises in what constitutes a "high quality individual", based on what criteria, and upon whose authority is such a judgement made.

Exactly, it is subjective.

No one has such "authority", exept for in "Nordicist" boyrooms sticky dreams...