How best to divide Humanity

[FireGarden]

This topic could have gone in science or politics, but I'd like to find out what the people who read CSSMariner's thread think, so I posted it under Philosophy.

From the other thread, I think it would be fair to say that everyone agrees that humanity can be divided into groups (we can call these races), but that there is no agreement on whether these divisions serve any useful purpose, whether they are objective or arbitrary etc. The plaudit of "scientific" was being argued over. I hope that this thread will clarify matters by comparing possible methods of division.

Sure,
people have different shaped eyes and skin of different shades of brown, but where does dividing along that criteria get anyone?

Why not divide along whether or not people can touch their nose with their tongue? Or whether or not they are colour blind? (Physical ability)

Or on whether or not people have inherited the genes for cystic fibrosis? (Health characteristics - which the insurance companies may want to use, especially if genes associated with cancer/heart disease risks are found.)

Republican/Democrat?
Maybe you think dividing by territory is enough.

Anyway,
have a vote, post your opinion.

 

[Plutarck]

I'm for "Why bother?"

Ultimately the usefulness of a measurement can only be judged relative to what one is trying to achieve; to divide humanity just for the sake of doing it, one may just as well pick any way of doing it and be equally justified.

First one must define the goals - only then can one create the proper measurements, which themselves are only a guide in service of directing actions to help achieve the stated goals.

I le'rn'd thata from thu Theory O' Constraints, ayup

 

[Christian]

The answer depends on why you want to divide (classify?).

If you want to divide into the group of five in order of arrival to serve dinner, this is good.

If you want to divide into group of three in order of height to shoot them, that is bad.

First answer why do you want to divide, then I will answer if it useful and objective.

 

[FireGarden]

Well,
The "why bother" option is off to a flying start.

I'm happy.
Four other people are happy.
Eventually someone will come along and explain why the concept of race hasn't been abandoned.


Christian,
I gave one reason on behalf of insurance companies. Not one I like, but there it is.

Invent your own reasons.
World cup football teams....
Haves and have-nots....
Breeding "super-humans"...

I don't have a reason to divide into races.
Obviously, I can see why schools are divided according to age, but I'm not aware of anyone calling this division "race" (Nobody inherits their age, of course, so that's a bad example)

 

[Ladewig]

It seems to me that the vast majority of people find ways of dividing themselves into groups.

 

[Nova Land]

There are 2 very useful tools for critical thinking. One is the ability to see that 2 things are essentially the same in some respect. The other is the ability to see that 2 things are essentially different in some respect.

Knowing which tool to apply when is important.

There are people who only draw distinctions, never see samenesses. This makes it harder for them to empathize with others -- makes them argumentative.

And there are people who hate drawing distinctions, feel it is divisive, want to consider everything the same. (I see this among a lot of New Age types.) This makes it harder for them to make good judgments.

I think the ability to draw meaningful distinctions is one of the most important tools we have for advancing as a civilization.

 

[fishbob]

How best to divide Humanity

I voted for "Why Bother" as the next best choice to "It would be best not to". Dividing up Humanity leads to a lot of Us vs. Them which leads to lots of inhumanity.

 

[Guest]

Let them join up and post on this forum it has got pretty good at dividing people if you feel the need for such.

Sorry humanity is one large family why should it be divided? We are all humans we should look after each other, and not look for ways to divide it into the them and us

I will not divided humanity into categories, that goes against my nature and heart. Color, creed, sexual orientation, beliefs, wealth, age, etc etc etc... sorry under all of that you are still human and part of humanity. There is no need for division.

 

[stamenflicker]

I selected "Other." I say let the Genome Project finish, then let a computer pick the natural kinds. I suspect we would see some interesting groupings.

Flick

 

[FireGarden]

Nova Land,
Re: "There are 2 very useful tools for critical thinking.... Knowing which tool to apply when is important. "

You may be right, but you've dodged the question. So I'll ask you a specific question.

Insurance companies may well feel inclined to divide people along lines of health risks. They are seeing an "essential difference". Would you be willing to deny a group of people medical insurance because they are at greater risk of developing diabetes/Alzheimer's/whatever? (And raising prices isn't an escape, you'll still be denying some people access) Or would you be motivated by seeing an "essential sameness" and decide that everyone needs access to medical insurance?

Insurance companies already split by age, male/female and past record when setting premiums for driving insurance. Are you in favour of something similar for medical insurance?


Flick,
The problem is that so far there does not seem to be any "natural kind"

How many genes have to be unique to a group before it qualifies as a "kind"? What if the groupings end up being family sized?

And (most importantly) are you grouping OBL with the muppets?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Your question is biased, so I haven't voted.

A better question would be:

"Given the definition of subspecies/race, which of the geographically varying characteristics of the human species would you find most useful as the basis for a classification scheme?"

 

[Guest]

Bilaterally.

 

[arcticpenguin]

I would divide humanity based on two criteria: sex and sexual preference. Then I would ignore the other three groups and concentrate my attention on the heterosexual females.

 

[Guest]

I have decided I am selecting a strong hold of the strongest males, a few women(saves inbreeding and I need girly time occasionally) and I am chucking every body I don't want out of the whole of America, Canada, Mexico basically that half of the world and New Zealand as I like the place and re-naming it Pie's own Island.

The rest of the world and it's population can go live on the other bit.

There you go divided, so start packing unless you recieve a note under your pillow from me.

 

[Plutarck]

Insurance companies may well feel inclined to divide people along lines of health risks. They are seeing an "essential difference". Would you be willing to deny a group of people medical insurance because they are at greater risk of developing diabetes/Alzheimer's/whatever? (And raising prices isn't an escape, you'll still be denying some people access) Or would you be motivated by seeing an "essential sameness" and decide that everyone needs access to medical insurance?

Insurance companies already split by age, male/female and past record when setting premiums for driving insurance. Are you in favour of something similar for medical insurance?

I'll take the question upon myself, too.


Sure, I have no problem with what insurance companies do (specifically what is mentioned above) - so long as it is a judgement based on reality, and not mere folk discrimination.

Insurance companies have a simple motive in this regard: sell risk-reducing products at a profit. Fact is, you can't make a profit selling to an AIDS patient. Sorry, but if the premium is affordable for them then it is highly, highly unlikely that you could ever make money at doing it. To that extent, those with a high risk of becomining an AIDS patient are equally undesirable for the selling of insurance, as you are increasingly likely to loose money on them too. They could do it, but to keep both the employees and the investors happy they would have to raise rates on everyone else - and "everyone else" might not be ok with that, either.

Thus the question of "shouldn't everyone have health insurance" is a question not for private companies, but for government (at least to some considerable extent, anyway); or, even more desirable from a capitalistic standpoint, it is a question for the market as a whole. Would you actually buy a health insurance plan which is more expensive than others, yet provides health insurance to certain "high risk" or "loss leader" people? If you would then that's fine, and if a company can keep/make their investors and employees happy then more power to them!

However, I have yet to hear an insurance adjusters say, "I'm sorry, but according to the statistics it would not be likely that insuring you would be profitable, therefore, I can't go to dinner with you." This shows the point I said earlier: a given measurement can only be judged relative to a purpose or goal.

Thus insurance rate tables are a valid, good measurement in relation to the goals of running an insurance business, but not a valid or good measure in relation to the goals of deciding whether or not to go to dinner with someone (unless you have something strange in mind...).

There is no good, valid measurement of humanity as a whole relative to some non-specific all-inclusive purpose or goal. There are simply too many conflicting goals which must be weighted against each other to permit it.

 

[Guest]

There are two types of people in this world: those who will let you smoke their weed without charging you, and everyone else.

 

[Nova Land]

You may be right, but you've dodged the question. So I'll ask you a specific question.

You're right. Sorry, it wasn't an intentional evasion. I was skimming the thread quickly, and what caught my eye was people saying division wasn't good, so I wrote a quick post in defense of drawing divisions.

Your question about which divisions of humanity make sense is a good one. I agree with Plutarck, though -- I don't know what divisions would make sense unless I know what the situation is that makes us consider drawing distinctions. Sometimes the division into female and male makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Dividing people by blood type can be a good idea -- as the past weeks sad events show.

Unfortunately the example you ask me to respond to -- insurance companies -- is one I can't answer well. I deliberately don't have any insurance because I don't approve of the way the for-profit insurance industry works.

(The idea of people in a society setting up a system to share risks and help each other out when unexpected hardships strike individual members is a good one. The for-profit system which exists, however, pays excessive salaries to a few while not adequately meeting the needs of those contributing to the system. Until an adequate not-for-profit system exists, I'd prefer to keep the money use it for my own needs, giving what I can spare to help out others. Fortunately I'm disgustingly healthy; my average annual medical expenses, not counting veterinarians, is $0.00.)

Since I don't really approve of insurance companies as they are set up, it's hard for me to think of which divisions I'd approve of them using. Could you give me a different example to respond to?

 

[Guest]

Two kinds: Those who are holding and those who are not.

 

[stamenflicker]

Good Props,

How many genes have to be unique to a group before it qualifies as a "kind"? What if the groupings end up being family sized?

More than 6. Which is currently the number of genes that determines skin color. I don't think that would be too hard for a CPU once the project is completed.

Flick

O yeah.. edit...
And (most importantly) are you grouping OBL with the muppets?

Evil bert rules.

 

[FireGarden]

DanishDynamite: "Your question is biased, so I haven't voted."
OK, I put in a joke option and a "why bother".
Did this put off all but 2 people from voting for the first 3 categories?

But you answered anyway.
You're going by characteristics that have grown up due to territorial barriers. Barriers which are being broken today. How many more generations will your definition of race last (assuming that it works to begin with)? Not long, unless it's backed up by some other kind of division that prevents interbreeding.


Plutarck,

To that extent, those with a high risk of becomining an AIDS patient are equally undesirable for the selling of insurance, as you are increasingly likely to loose money on them too.

[...]
Thus the question of "shouldn't everyone have health insurance" is a question not for private companies, but for government (at least to some considerable extent, anyway)

But if the government provides adequate health care, what need is there for private medical insurance? And remember that AIDS is the disease of today. Wouldn't you want universal coverage today (even if it meant paying more to help cover the cost of the high risk groups - eg: haemophiliacs) so that you in turn would be covered if you happened to be in tomorrow's high risk groups?


Nova Land,
It's a habit of mine to put words into people's mouths and wait for them to tell me that's not what they meant. At least I phrased the insurance example as a question.

You seem to be saying that you'd use different divisions in different circumstances. That makes sense, and I'd agree in principle (the blood group example is a good one). But such "in context" divisions don't seem to match the general concept of race.


Flick,
Surely there has to be more than 6 genes different between me and my own mother!!