Review of Human Races J Philippe Rushton: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (2nd Special Abridged Edition)
Convincing overview but the vast panorama leaves a bit of doubt..., September 9, 2010
Highly recommended (and—maybe I shouldn't say this—the abbreviated version is downloadable; it appears to be a fifth or less in size than the unabridged version). I have a few doubts:--
12 Years later:
Looking again at r/K theory, I'm struck by the insistent way in which both Brand and Rushton avoid Jewish issues. I'd guess that they were part of controlled opposition, designed to make it seem that serious examination of anything Jewish would lead to disaster. and the way in which both got wide publicity. - RW 19 02 2022
Note on r/K or r and K selection theory. I'd suggest intelligent people treat this phrase, and deductions supposedly from it, with scepticism. I've been unable even to find where the phrase came from, or what the abbreviations mean, or any theoretical derivation, or what sort of populations it is supposed to apply to.
The general idea is that some organisms have huge numbers of tiny offspring, but don't take much care of them: clouds of spores from fungi, plants with large numbers of tiny seeds, fish which eject clouds of eggs and clouds of sperm illustrate the r type.
K-type is illustrated by mammals, where the complications (heart, lungs, skeleton, digestive system ...) and need for viability at all stages of growth make vast numbers of offspring impossible.
BUT in human beings this simplicity need not quite apply, since care and feeding can be offloaded: under Jewish influence, parasitic human offspring are encouraged as part of their anti-'goy' policy. Probably this fact made Jews censor the original idea. In its simplest form, k/R does not mention parasitism, but it begins to approach it, in a style worrying to Jewish financial controllers of science.
Looking again at r/K theory, I'm struck by the insistent way in which both Brand and Rushton avoid Jewish issues. I'd guess that they were part of controlled opposition, designed to make it seem that serious examination of anything Jewish would lead to disaster. and the way in which both got wide publicity. - RW 19 02 2022
Note on r/K or r and K selection theory. I'd suggest intelligent people treat this phrase, and deductions supposedly from it, with scepticism. I've been unable even to find where the phrase came from, or what the abbreviations mean, or any theoretical derivation, or what sort of populations it is supposed to apply to.
The general idea is that some organisms have huge numbers of tiny offspring, but don't take much care of them: clouds of spores from fungi, plants with large numbers of tiny seeds, fish which eject clouds of eggs and clouds of sperm illustrate the r type.
K-type is illustrated by mammals, where the complications (heart, lungs, skeleton, digestive system ...) and need for viability at all stages of growth make vast numbers of offspring impossible.
BUT in human beings this simplicity need not quite apply, since care and feeding can be offloaded: under Jewish influence, parasitic human offspring are encouraged as part of their anti-'goy' policy. Probably this fact made Jews censor the original idea. In its simplest form, k/R does not mention parasitism, but it begins to approach it, in a style worrying to Jewish financial controllers of science.
[1] Geographical and biological: Is Africa benign, or dangerous? The climate is more manageable than the colder northern climates. But it's not only man that likes it—there are snakes, insects, parasites, poisonous and spiny plants, predatory animals that make books on African diseases such horrific reading. Large parts have soil (as does Australia) that isn't much use for growing things—laterite, full of iron oxide. Does Africa encourage fast breeding with little parenting? Maybe. Or maybe not.
Much of the world is something like pure accident: some areas have dates, or rice, or crops able to be bred as maize, or wheat. Some seemed to have no staple. Some have clean springs of water; others presumably don't. Some have edible animals. Some have tameable animals. Some have timber suited for building. Some have good soil. Some have specific raw materials: gold, copper, naphtha as in 'Greek fire'; some don't—I believe Australian soil is low in molybdenum. 'Raw materials' are themselves a matter of knowledge: from a sheep farmer's viewpoint, grass is a raw material. Some have earthquakes. Some have everyday aspects which have long-term risks. There must have been a huge element of luck in human development.
Because of the way inventions depend on other inventions, and because science is so recent, empiricism must have had a tremendous effect throughout human evolution. Fire, metal alloys, plants suited to make fabrics, ropes, easily-cut stone... pottery, knives, symbolic writing ... gunpowder, shipping.. Thus for example glass was unknown in China for centuries. Science was invented by a few westerners and this depended to some extent on inventions: fire, lenses, weights and measures. It's easy to imagine the amazement of aborigines in Australia on entering a wooden sailing ship.
Another important distinction is defensibility: Europe is exceptional in having territories marked off by mountains, seas, snow barriers—to this day, countries are identifiable by these geographical markers. But other areas are trackless and unbounded and vast—prairies, steppes, mountainous regions, jungles, marshes, seas. Any area unable to defend itself is at risk: imagine mediaeval London magically moved to Timbuktu or Turkey.
I'm just making the perhaps obvious point that environments have a vast effect. If China had had a calm inland sea like the Mediterranean, maybe they'd have colonised the world. If nobody had happened to find that urine could be used to make potassium nitrate, perhaps gunpowder would never have been discovered. It's as well to be cautious in speculation.
[2] Rushton considers blacks, orientals (these are 'yellow'—rather than Indian), and whites. As far as I can see, he doesn't face another taboo, of 'semites'. They appear to be completely omitted. Kevin MacDonald has filled this gap on analogous lines to Rushton, though his work is more ideas-based than biological. MacDonald's work is an important reminder of the importance of 'memes'. Rushton has an r-strategy, and K-strategy. MacDonald adds in- and out-group strategies for internal competition.
[3] Inheritance is a digital matter, but Rushton doesn't (I think) look at the cases where some characteristic definitely does, or doesn't, exist in an individual. For example, the ability to make enzymes that digest alcohol or milk. And he doesn't look at mixed effects, like sickle-cell anaemia, and haemochromatosis. He concentrates on gross effects, which of course may be the sum of many genes. One has to assume that (e.g.) genetic tendency to violence can't be mental, but must be a function of hormones and musculature and quickness of irritability and recognition; reasonably enough, Rushton doesn't go into detail. However it's as well to be aware that the actual mechanisms are not known or not well understood, so this allows a loophole for environmentalists to criticise.
[4] AIDS. It's fairly well-known this is a mistake. (If you prefer, a fraud). Discount all this material in Rushton!
[5] The problem with genetics has been that it's easier to study rare, isolated genetic oddities ... but populations are another study in themselves. It's amazing really that Rushton seems novel—people have been saying much the same since long-distance sea travel. The reason of course is the 'Jewish' stranglehold on education and information. NB Rushton's full-length book may answer many of these comments; I hope so. Well worth reading. Much of it in fact has a familiar, if remote, ring to it; surely you've heard it before? You have, and it's been censored or buried or evaded. Revise your outlook, therefore! It's too important to ignore.