Is There A Sound Basis For Racial Profiling?

[Svartalf]

try making a kid with a member of your own gender and see how much of a social construct that is

[Galaxian]

I can hear a sound basis for profiling, but not for racial profiling.

but isn't race a sound basis for profiling?

Outward racial features are fine as part of a suspect's description or photofit, but not when linked to psychological profiling...

Behavior is linked to inheritance. Even our earliest civilized ancestors knew this ten thousand years ago when agriculture and animal domestication were first practiced.

Yes, some 70% to 80% of ALL characteristics are inherited. But no one should select specific ones; we're not cattle

[Seth]

I can hear a sound basis for profiling, but not for racial profiling.

but isn't race a sound basis for profiling?

Outward racial features are fine as part of a suspect's description or photofit, but not when linked to psychological profiling...

Behavior is linked to inheritance. Even our earliest civilized ancestors knew this ten thousand years ago when agriculture and animal domestication were first practiced.

Yes, some 70% to 80% of ALL characteristics are inherited. But no one should select specific ones; we're not cattle

Why on earth not? What's wrong with selecting for intelligence or strength or resistance to disease? That's what evolution does, and if we can advance the species and its ultimate survivability why shouldn't we?

Eugenics got off to a bad start what with Planned Parenthood and Hitler, but the scientific basis of crossbreeding humans to bring out favorable traits and eliminating undesirable traits is perfectly sound.

It's not a matter of whether eugenics is a good thing or not...it is unequivocally a good thing to breed for the best genes. It's a matter of HOW you do it.

Voluntary eugenics, like refusing to have children if you bear a dominant gene for a genetic defect, is perfectly ethical.

On the other hand, shipping a presumptively inferior genetic strain off to gas chambers and ovens is not ethical.

[MrJonno]

Why on earth not? What's wrong with selecting for intelligence or strength or resistance to disease? That's what evolution does, and if we can advance the species and its ultimate survivability why shouldn't we?

Are any of those particularly good traits? , strength is irrelevant, a world filled with intelligent people is likely to be a very dead world very quickly and with resistance to disease there is no such thing as a free lunch in nature. If you are resistant to a disease you will be paying in other ways, some people are close to totally immune to HIV however they are more vulnerable to currently some other extremely rare diseases. At the moment that's an advantage but if this disease returns humanity would be screwed.

[pinkharrier]

Good traits? Well evolution usually rewards strength and intelligence and things like reaction time. So weakness, idiocy and slow reaction time may not be "bad" as such but they don't have the odds in their corner either. Perhaps you feel different when these qualities are judged in a human context. That is a moral issue. If racial profiling saves lives, that is a moral issue too.

[Seth]

Why on earth not? What's wrong with selecting for intelligence or strength or resistance to disease? That's what evolution does, and if we can advance the species and its ultimate survivability why shouldn't we?

Are any of those particularly good traits? , strength is irrelevant, a world filled with intelligent people is likely to be a very dead world very quickly and with resistance to disease there is no such thing as a free lunch in nature. If you are resistant to a disease you will be paying in other ways, some people are close to totally immune to HIV however they are more vulnerable to currently some other extremely rare diseases. At the moment that's an advantage but if this disease returns humanity would be screwed.

Nobody said it was easy.

[Svartalf]

But isn't racial profiling sight rather than sound based?

[rainbow]

I am 99% the same as my sister. Therefore there is no such thing as gender. It is a simple argument for,well, peopie who like easy answers.

Ya know, there are kooks out there that do think gender is a social construct.

There are kooks out there that believe race classification of humans has a scientific basis to it.

...they can't explain what the scientific basis is, but they are sure it must be there.

[MrJonno]

Why on earth not? What's wrong with selecting for intelligence or strength or resistance to disease? That's what evolution does, and if we can advance the species and its ultimate survivability why shouldn't we?

Are any of those particularly good traits? , strength is irrelevant, a world filled with intelligent people is likely to be a very dead world very quickly and with resistance to disease there is no such thing as a free lunch in nature. If you are resistant to a disease you will be paying in other ways, some people are close to totally immune to HIV however they are more vulnerable to currently some other extremely rare diseases. At the moment that's an advantage but if this disease returns humanity would be screwed.

Nobody said it was easy.

It's not a case of being easy its impossible unless you have complete control of your environment down to every single bacteria. You could probably selectively breed humans for specific tasks (most of which would involve lowering their intelligence not increasing it) but to be better generally better when generally is impossible to define is not going to happen

[rainbow]

You could probably selectively breed humans for specific tasks (most of which would involve lowering their intelligence not increasing it) but to be better generally better when generally is impossible to define is not going to happen

They could be bred to taste better

[JimC]

You could probably selectively breed humans for specific tasks (most of which would involve lowering their intelligence not increasing it) but to be better generally better when generally is impossible to define is not going to happen

They could be bred to taste better

Unnecessary!

The addition of garlic, white wine and an intelligent combination of herbs is all that is required!

[rainbow]

You could probably selectively breed humans for specific tasks (most of which would involve lowering their intelligence not increasing it) but to be better generally better when generally is impossible to define is not going to happen

They could be bred to taste better

Unnecessary!

The addition of garlic, white wine and an intelligent combination of herbs is all that is required!

Granted, but wouldn't self-basting humans save a lot of preparation time?

[Babel]

That's what solaria are for, no?

[JimC]

You could probably selectively breed humans for specific tasks (most of which would involve lowering their intelligence not increasing it) but to be better generally better when generally is impossible to define is not going to happen

They could be bred to taste better

Unnecessary!

The addition of garlic, white wine and an intelligent combination of herbs is all that is required!

Granted, but wouldn't self-basting humans save a lot of preparation time?

There's always self-marinating...

In Gin...

[rainbow]

There's always self-marinating...

In Gin...

Irish missionaries always were the best, with livers robustly flavoured with whiskey.
Unfortunately they are very rare these days.