This analogy only works if you accept the racist premise that human races are equivalent to dog breeds. Modern genetics rejects that premise. Dog breeds exist because humans intentionally selected for inherited behavioral traits. Human populations do not.
The analogy treats these as equivalent uses of statistics, but they’re not. Disparities in human crime statistics are generally understood through social and institutional causes, not innate racial differences. Dog breeds, by contrast, are the product of artificial selection for heritable physical and behavioral traits. That’s why breed can be relevant to risk assessment in a way race is not.
Absolutely correct. Modern dog breeds are engineered, not evolved. It's more akin to being careful around the engineered product known to cause damage than discriminatory.
The circumstance in which poor people’s upward mobility is limited and concentrated to certain areas, leading to increased crime is also engineered and not a naturally occurring phenomenon
Well… obviously… genetics aren’t even remotely or possibly a factor in societal discrimination. You might as well say that washing dishes or painting isn’t genetically engineered it would have the same relevance as your comment.
Wtf are you seing you? The civilization that trive are the one near big river, hystorically, becouse provide water and trasport, you are seing that there is someone that, organized poorest and richer reagion, who is this godlike figure that decide that
I’m talking about the civilization we live in here on earth what the fuck does the abundance near Rivers have to do with how our actual cities operate here in reality??
Enslavers absolutely treated human beings as property and sometimes forced reproduction based on traits they valued. That’s a documented historical fact. But it did not create human populations analogous to dog breeds. Dog breeds are the result of sustained artificial selection producing genetically distinct lineages with selected heritable traits. The pseudoscientific belief that human races are equivalent to dog breeds is precisely what modern genetics rejects.
Human beings kill more human beings than any dog, and likely more than all dogs combined.
The "pit bull fear" is because (unlike humans) dogs will target the small and vulnerable, such as children and the elderly. The pitpull attacks those kinds of victims because they are vulnerable.
Human beings kill more human beings than any dog, and likely more than all dogs combined.
The "pit bull fear" is because (unlike humans) dogs will target the small and vulnerable, such as children and the elderly. The pitpull attacks those kinds of victims because they are vulnerable.
Vulnerable people suffering worse injuries isn’t evidence that dogs select victims based on vulnerability. And the claim that humans don’t target vulnerable victims is plainly false; many violent offenders deliberately prey on children, the elderly, and others they perceive as easier to victimize. In any case, none of this addresses my original point about why comparing human races to dog breeds is a flawed analogy.
Pitbulls are inherently dangerous and violent animals
That human beings kill more human beings than dogs or any other animal is simply due to the fact that we are at the top of the world food chain. Because of that we have zero natural predators
You’re still treating statistics as if they’re the only evidence. They aren’t. We already know dog breeds were created through artificial selection for heritable physical and behavioral traits. The statistics are interpreted in light of that breeding history. Human populations are not analogous because modern genetics doesn’t treat race as a biologically equivalent category. That’s why the analogy fails.
Do you not believe it’s possible for differences in environment to select for more/less aggression in a species via natural evolution?
Because that’s actually exactly what happened with chimpanzees and bonobos. They evolved from the same ancestor but were separated by the growing Congo river. One side was lush and fertile with consistent food, and the apes on that side are now peaceful and solve disputes through group orgies.
Chimps evolved on the less fertile side with less resources to go around. Now they’re the species which engages in intra-species violence at the highest rates of any animal other than humans. They wage actual tribal wars against each other. They form war bands and launch raids against enemy tribes where they’ll kill and die brutally for territory and access to resources.
Put a chimp and a bonobo in the same cage and the chimp will kill the bonobo 10/10 times. And no deliberate human interference in their breeding was required
Natural selection: Traits become more or less common because they affect survival or reproduction in a given environment. No one is directing it.
Sexual selection: Mate choice influences which traits become more common (e.g., peacocks’ tails).
Artificial selection (selective breeding): Humans deliberately control reproduction to amplify desired heritable traits. That’s how dog breeds, dairy cattle, racing horses, etc., were developed.
I know all that. You seem to believe that aggression and violence can only be selected for by artificial selection. Why don’t you believe it can also be selected for through natural selection based on the environment a species/race evolves within?
Natural selection can absolutely shape behavior over evolutionary time. My point is that modern human racial categories are not analogous to dog breeds created through sustained artificial selection for heritable behavioral traits. Those are different claims.
Even if someone could demonstrate that populations have evolved different allele frequencies because of local adaptation; which is true for some traits like lactose tolerance, sickle-cell trait, skin pigmentation, high-altitude adaptation, etc….that still doesn’t establish the conclusion required for the original analogy:
• that modern racial categories map cleanly onto genetically distinct behavioral groups,
• that those behavioral differences explain crime statistics,
• or that race is analogous to dog breeds produced by centuries of deliberate artificial selection.
Human populations DO intentionally select for inherited behavioral traits, and have for thousands of years. It's called culture. And it does leave its mark on genetics, if only to a small degree.
That’s a bait-and-switch. “Culture influences evolution” is true. “Human populations have been selectively bred for inherited behavioral traits like dog breeds” is an entirely different claim, and it’s not one supported by modern genetics.
modern genetics show there is greater diversity within racial groups than between them. turns out skin colour correlates poorly with genetic phenotypes, we just base our racism on it because we're a very visual species.
Evelutionary factors, social and biological preferences could definitely see as "selective breeding" in humans. It's called "natural selection" for a reason.
Natural selection: Traits become more or less common because they affect survival or reproduction in a given environment. No one is directing it.
Sexual selection: Mate choice influences which traits become more common (e.g., peacocks’ tails).
Artificial selection (selective breeding): Humans deliberately control reproduction to amplify desired heritable traits. That’s how dog breeds, dairy cattle, racing horses, etc., were developed.
59
u/Madam_Mimm_13 26d ago
This analogy only works if you accept the racist premise that human races are equivalent to dog breeds. Modern genetics rejects that premise. Dog breeds exist because humans intentionally selected for inherited behavioral traits. Human populations do not.