>>14285934>all the facial and bodily differences are due necessary evolutionary adaptationsof course, no one disagrees how these differences came to be. I agree with everything you said, but none of proves that race is a social construct. If we have biological foundations for race (IQ, physical differences, etc.) then how can these differences be social constructs?
>>14285956If we are all very diverse and different on the whole, and evolved in different places which allowed for some to develop sophisticated tools out of necessity to survive in cold climates, then why is it surprising we find differences in the averages of features in humans? What I am struggling with is if race is the best category that neatly divides humans along IQ and evolutionary features.
>maybe in the future we will have greater intelligence and become post human and will not judge humans based on structure of face and skin colour until then many low iq racists will still be relevantI don't think I am a "low IQ racist" so I can't speak on their behalf, but I am sure they discriminate based on the behaviors of these people (e.g. criminality, sociability, low intelligence, etc.) not simply the color of skin and differently shaped facial features. Funny enough, you are describing women here. They judge the opposite sex based on facial features, skin color, height, and other things of this sort. I am not so sure this is really that stupid though. It is biologically advantageous to discriminate against less desirable mates and admire the mates that are the most fit.
Plus it is not entirely sure to me if the absolution of the concept of race is beneficial to us. Differences in people is good, for some of these differences prove to be better than others, which should outbreed the others. (e.g. intelligence, if we are all to be smarter in the future, the smartest people ought to breed and the idiots/primitive civilizations die off)
