Philippe Rushton vs. David Suzuki: Debate for the ages about race

Caucasians had to plan for winters, and that changes wiring of thought processes and results in the morphology of certain parts of the brain over time. Delayed gratification for survival is huge and is what separates Africans from Caucasians the most, arguably. In Africa it was beneficial to have the most offspring because most would die of from disease, but in colder climates it was best to have fewer children but put forth more resources and time into them; the indidual child got more attention and had to properly learn how to combat the harsher environment and that was better strategy for survival than poppin our kids like a human PEZ dispenser.

But arent there plenty of whites in Greece, Italy, Spain, that dont have harsh winters, and basically living in paradise?

Ancient Egyptians are white correct? Or do they break up Euros and Arabs. The nile valley has a long growing season.

And what about the Asians? The Mongorians were always trying to knock down dat shitty walr, and pretty much always stayed tribal. It is cold up in Mongoria. Whereas the Chinese had southern China's year long growing season, and have the most people of any nation, yet have had a big cities and such for the longest. The Koreans and Japanese just tried to be like China.
 
The African negroid stayed in Africa and chilled. They developed to be more athletic to compete with each other, whereas we had to compete more with environments. While the caucasoid and Asian were freezing their balls off and spending all day looking for food and water and prepping, the negroid were fucking, fighting, and taking down animals in a nice climate.

Black women today produce more eggs, black kids learn to walk quicker, have sex earlier on average, have shorter life expectancies and mature physically quicker, and are less inhibited and anxious, more aggressive.

On the other side of the spectrum are Asians who produce the fewest eggs, have sex less frequently and less kids on average, and show the least amount of first and secondary sexual characteristics. Are the most docile and anxious. Off all the different atteibutes rushton studied, white people sat firmly in the middle of Asians and blacks, in many many categories of physical and mental characteristics. Remind me again how these things are related to socioeconomics? Of upbringing? Rushton admits in the debate that up to 50% of the variance could be accounted by external factors and upbringing, but that alone can't explain the reoccurring pattern we see while evaluating blacks, whites, and Asians. We are different and it's ok. It's such an emotional topic and I can understand why.

I am sure someone is going to make a porno based on these theories.
 
Do these debaters bring up Penis Size? What is the evidence they have for that?

And do the debaters discuss South Asians? There are more South ASians than all of sub saharan AFricans, and have a highly developed ancient knowledge base in math, sciences and crap. (Well probably not crap, because they have no plumbing)
 
Last edited:
The context was northern Europe. Cold, as in cold most of the year, with temperatures only really rising in summer time, and even then it doesn't get THAT hot. Beijing is hot for at least 5 months of the year (May to September). Eastern China (where ancient Chinese civilisation began) is able to grow massive amounts of natural resources (spices, cotton, rice etc etc). Why'd you think northern European cuisine, and European cuisine as a whole, barring the odd paprika-inspired dish, is not spicy? Europe lacked these kinds of natural resources because they don't grow in such a climate. Greece produced olive oil, which was a very valuable source of wealth (which cannot be produced in a cold climate). Other than that, not much. This is a major reason no ancient civilisation has ever been created in a cold climate.

So, by 'cold climate', I mean a climate where valuable resources like spices, olives, cotton etc etc cannot grow.



Or, they mixed with the Behring Strait folk.

1.- Beijing is still cold and if they had access to resources is because their empire extended quite far away.

2.- That doesnt explains why didnt these argueably cognitively superior northern europeans didnt simply moved south and took over the lesser europeans.

3.- If they mixed with them that was tens of thousands of years ago, so they were nothing like modern polynesians. Amerindians evolved in colder climates before moving south.
 
Like animals.

Yup, there was no civilization in Europe until middle-eastern religious individuals brought the morality of christianism.
 
Very interesting, they had a debate that white dude came there prepared with data, tests, studies, observations scientific studies. The Japanese dude started off with no counters just playing the crowd, he brought nothing to counter the other guy, he just basically saying we shouldn't entertain this guy he is a racist in lesser words.

There is no question that there are differences physically and mentally between races.

Well, he is a racist, and he is pitching outside of his league.

The issue with social sciences is that they tend to compensate their lack of scientific rigour with overarching claims.
 
Caucasians had to plan for winters, and that changes wiring of thought processes and results in the morphology of certain parts of the brain over time. Delayed gratification for survival is huge and is what separates Africans from Caucasians the most, arguably. In Africa it was beneficial to have the most offspring because most would die of from disease, but in colder climates it was best to have fewer children but put forth more resources and time into them; the indidual child got more attention and had to properly learn how to combat the harsher environment and that was better strategy for survival than poppin our kids like a human PEZ dispenser.

IQ gonna IQ i wouldn't over analyze it.

 
Yup, there was no civilization in Europe until middle-eastern religious individuals brought the morality of christianism.
Yeah, thats exactly what I said.
 
This is gonna be good. This debates are never honest though since both parties always have 'skin in the game' no pun intended. I feel that whatever differences we actually find in races are too minuscule to have any ramifications anyway. Secondly we are all going to be beige soon enough.

lol, 100m runners are almost all black. This isn't an accident. Jews have much higher IQ on average to other races.
 
I'll ask you again and maybe you'll answer this time: How come on average a black woman has more eggs than women of other races? How come on average a black infant will learn to walk 2 months before an asian infant? How come every IQ test has the same patterns over and over? Why does an asian brain weigh more than a black man's brain on average? Is it all socioeconomic like they say? Are we all the same? What is your take on racial disparity Rod1, i'm interested to hear it.

Actually, if you live in paradise, why do you need more eggs? It should be easier to conceive with less eggs, and be less of burden on the body anyways. If you live in environment with high infant mortality, then wouldnt more eggs be more advantageous there?
 
The Greeks, and Romans were not christians during the height of their empires.
I'm talking about society today. Not Ancient Europe and Greece. I'm talking about the direction society has turned as religion becomes less of a factor. Failing family units, the death of the classic community etc.
 
Are there cliff notes or did everyone here actually watch that entire thing?
 
1.- Beijing is still cold

You're so fucking dense. No Rod, it's not. It's above 78F for at least 5 months a year. That is not 'cold'.

and if they had access to resources is because their empire extended quite far away.

Chinese civilisation began in eastern China, where natural resources exist in abundance and could be traded. When Chinese civilisation first began, it was quite small actually. Northern Europe had none of these same kinds of resources to trade.

And why are you so hung up on Beijing? The point is, ancient Chinese civilisation had access to vast amounts of natural resources which made them very rich. The only part of Europe which could accumulate wealth from natural resources was Greece & Italy, due to their hotter climates.

2.- That doesnt explains why didnt these argueably cognitively superior northern europeans didnt simply moved south and took over the lesser europeans.

You're asking why didn't they ALL just get up and move to a hotter climate? You're really asking such a dumb question? Also, there are the Germanic invasions of Rome. Is that what you were looking for?

3.- If they mixed with them that was tens of thousands of years ago

What are you talking about? I'm talking about Polynesians mixing with Native American populations after the migration from Asia to the Americas via the Behring Strait, which was about 15,000 years ago, and the migration of Polynesian people via the Pacific, across small islands (when sea levels were significantly lower, meaning there would've been more islands in the Pacific, making it easier to navigate from one to the other). Tens of thousands of years? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Amerindians evolved in colder climates before moving south.

And once they moved south down into Mexico and Central/South America, this is when the mixing with the Polynesians would've taken place. This would not have happened "tens of thousands of years ago".
 
This happened in 1989. Very good debate about differences between races. Highly controversial for the time and a very entertaining watch.




Typical, and just as suspected:

Rushton supplies dispassionate data and scientific arguments.

Suzuki supplies emotion based personal attacks, "muh racism", and denigrates free speech.

This encounter was quite portentous of the future of scientific debate (or lack thereof) on dearly held topics.
 
Suzuki did not want to debate Rushton. Nobody did, but someone had to. They all knew Rushton's evidence was irrefutable and it also went against their moral conscience. They might have even thought that Rushton's study was "dangerous," as explained in this video much later after the debate.

 
We are speculating about a lot of "unknowns" here.

The reasons for Viking Age are very debatable. One of the theories actually suggests that there was a population boom.

If warfare was the reason for future vikings to have more children then that would be the case for other Germanic tribes as well thereby making claim that Germanic tribes had few children inaccurate.

Scarce resources never stopped people from breeding. Low population does not necessary mean fewer children, it can be do to fewer families to begin with or/and with high infant deaths.

I am not sure what to do with your information about Fins :)

You ought to acknowledge that the evolution process does not take hold in a period of perhaps 200 to 300 years. If the Russians, for example, are separated into two people, and forced to live on two different parts of the Earth, they will not develop to be genetically different from one another in period of a century or so. We are talking about tens of thousands of years of development overall, which separate the European people from the African (particularly those populations who have not seen much interactions between one another in the past tens of thousands of years). To understand how physical differences may have developed, one has to observe the general trend, rather than grasping to the exceptions.

I believe the Viking age represented a deviation from the norm, in regards to the Nordic way of life. It spawned as a result of an external threat, Christianity, and the expanding Christian empires. Previously, as the climate had grown tougher than normal, and as technological innovation allowed for increased mobility of people, but without having developed to the point of allowing the continued sustainment of excess population, Nordic people had abandoned Scandinavia, conquered lands in Southern Europe and settled there. The Goths, for example, were believed to originate from Scandinavia's harsh climate. The Visigoths eventually settled to Spain and the Ostrogoths eventually settled to Italy. The Vandals conquered lands in North Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutasaga#Emigration_to_southern_Europe

The information about the Finns is meant to enlighten you on the primitive way of life in northern Europe, before farming, building houses, making settlements. It required extra-ordinary capacities from the individual, and a close attachment to nature, and exceptional understanding of it. It's a very different way of life from what, for example, the Mediterranean man would've been accustomed to.

There is no way that families of 7-8 children could've been raised under such conditions. That is the condition under which the Nordic man has operated, for the better part of the tens of thousands of years that he has been inhabiting Scandinavia, and other Northern climates. The Viking era, or the era of Germanic migration to the South, or this era, would be a blip on the radar by comparison.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top