
This is a topic that has brought about some heated debates among some of my closest friends and I write it at the risk of sounding like a total racist, although which race I would be insulting, I'm not sure. I am a firm believer that a balance exists between all things. Yin and Yang, point and counterpoint, cause and effect. Our lives are comprised of a balance and nature is a nearly perfect balance. Well, I also firmly believe in Darwinism and many of its complementary theories such as survival of the fittest, natural selection, evolution, and so on. I have believed these things for as long as I can remember, for as a child, they helped answer some of the fundamental questions I had in areas such as race, religion, species origin, and moral obligation. Now, applying these beliefs to mankind, it is my belief that different races DO have different qualities, different advantages and disadvantages, and that all men are NOT created equal.
Now, before I delve any deeper down this rabbit hole, please let me point out that I said I believe things exist in a balance, therefore if you take something away, something else must be added in its place. I am not placing any greater importance on one attribute over another, so please don't misinterpret what I am saying, you can draw your own conclusions.
Now examples of evolution are apparent everywhere, from flying squirrels, to anteaters, to birds that can make nests out of their saliva on a cave wall due to a lack of grass and trees. I think it is fairly difficult to dispute evolution's effects, and unless you count the bible as a scientific journal, I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the principles of evolution. Why then, do some people find it so difficult to believe that mankind followed along a similar path of natural selection?
Most of my argument has to do with the topographical, geological, and cultural differences that led to different cultures and races valuing different traits, and therefore allowing those traits to flourish and develop down through the ages. Going back to Pangaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea), all organisms on earth were fairly simple and existed fairly close to the equator (as the theory would suggest). Upon its break-up, continents were thrust into different climates and the shift resulted in massive topographical changes. Now basically, regardless or whether you subscribe to an indigenous or migration theory, mankind was forced to evolve under different circumstances throughout the globe.
Throughout the ages, it seems that the results are evident. I'm going to throw a lot of stereotypes out there, but stereotypes become what they are because the majority of a certain category of people are associated with them. In other words, I didn't come up with this stuff. We have Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures that are extremely industrious, hard working, and damn good at math, but are known for there less-than-stellar physical endowments. I believe this to be the result of several things. Without going into too much detail (and boring the hell out of you), the geographical location of these areas and the topography within them created a harsh land where crops do not grow easily. The vast system of money-lending and division of wealth determined by your rice crops or livestock yield led to a people that value a precise methodology in their work and lives. Also, throughout many of these cultures, marriage was always something that was arranged, therefore attractiveness and physical prowess had very little to do with the process of natural selection.

On the flip-side, we have the cultures that developed in the harsh climate and rugged terrain of Africa. Early Africans had virtually no farmland, had little workable natural resources such as lumber or ore, and existed in one of the hottest and most desolate climates on earth. Due to these conditions, early African cultures were little more than glorified hunter-gatherers. With the exception of Northern Africa and the areas that were occupied by Arabs or Europeans, they had no centralized government, no uniform currency, no trade routes, little to no education save local lore, and no system of long-distance communication. The result was a culture that valued strength and physical prowess, was deep seeded in lore, and has a strong tradition of arts and music. The man in the village that could provide the most utility to the village, usually the best hunter, was often seen as the chief, and he would take for himself the most attractive and physically endowed wife available. The result was that Africans became more athletic, have a leaner form, and are, in general, more artistically and musically creative. However, because they didn't develop a complex system of mathematics, or hold great debates in philosophy, it also resulted in a culture that hadn't developed those portions of their brains associated with more cognitive thinking.
These are merely what I believe to be the extremes in both cases. You can take any race or culture in between and list the ideals and geography of those cultures throughout the years to determine their own course of development. It will be similar in all cases.
Over the last 400 years or so, the line between these differences has been blurred, and is getting more and more blurry every year. As communication methods improve and travel gets easier, the lines that divide our cultures slowly begins to fade. Education has improved, information is more readily available. As the identity of a culture gets diluted, as its members spread out throughout the globe, they begin to adapt different aspects of their life to fit in with their new environment. 2nd and 3rd generation children of these families will grow up entirely enmeshed in a new culture and will begin to look at the ideals and ethos that gave rise to their original culture as little more than a novelty. So as the dividing lines fade and one culture, such as the United States, can hold a huge number of mixtures of different cultures that continuously combine with other cultures, what then, will determine the course of the future evolution of mankind? As technology satisfies needs that would otherwise take great effort to attain, what then becomes the driving force that determines who is fit to survive, and what traits are most desirable to cultivate? The obvious answer is that we are going to evolve into a race of A-sexual super-beings that are really good at getting tan, lifting weights, talking on their cell phones, and driving luxury vehicles, ya know, the important stuff.
Tom Pain


