African-American IQ in the 80s, with only 20% European admixture, shows that African IQs are depressed by environment.

I wouldn't say so. I think it shows that genes for higher IQ are inherited dominantly.

This has also been proposed as an explanation for the Flynn effect - whole countries getting "smarter" over time - being due to the gene pool mixing more in cities, and thus with dominant pro-IQ genes gaining ground.

The same mechanism has been proposed for the increasing height.

Animals have short lives so it wouldn't work well, and I care less about them than people with long term plans hopes and fears.

See, that's fine with me. You want to indulge in X because you like it, not because of rationalization Y or Z. Just like I want to indulge in chocolate. That's fine with me.

I just don't like the claim that it is morally superior. Or that it's something everyone should do. Or that it's how resources "should" be spent. If it is an indulgence, though, then indulgences are fine with me.

If the recipients are highly functional and creative thereafter, they should make money. If they make money, even if you don't want it, they can pay you back.

I do approve of charity which gives to things that do go on to create more than was invested. An example would be investing into basic research that isn't going to pay off until decades later. Investing in that is, I think, one of the most commendable charitable acts.

Most charity, however, is not that. It is more so charitable indulgence; it is spending money on something that is emotionally appealing, but never provides a return; neither to the giver, nor to anyone else.

I despise the travesty of such acts being framed as morally valuable charity, rather than as an indulgent throwing of resources away.

I'm sure this is often the case, but please don't overgeneralize.

True; point taken. I find it likely that many (perhaps most here) are not like that.

Your grandparent post is at +2 as I write this.

True. But overall, I'm down about 50 karma today, and still counting. :)

Even the maximalist (and implausible in light of other data) Rushton-Lynn hypothesis

I've been looking for about a decade now, but have not encountered evidence that would discredit Lynn. I have however seen a lot of evidence which corroborates his findings.

If you have evidence that discredits his work, I would appreciate it.

is perfectly consistent with aid (external provision of disease treatment, etc) having massive benefits in reducing disease and increasing wellbeing until biotech or more radical things can bypass any genetic disadvantage.

Why stop at Africa then? Shouldn't we invest billions in animal shelters, so that dogs and cats can live long lives until we find a way to bypass their genetic disadvantage? Wouldn't those be just as "massive benefits"?

And there's no need to be smug.

Perhaps it came across as smugness, but I do find that every piece of news I see, either from South Africa, or from Haiti, or from Nigeria, or from Zimbabwe, or from Turks and Caicos, just adds to the pile of evidence.

Also, I myself live in a place like that. Which is why I suggest (in all seriousness!) that people should consider visiting a country like South Africa for a while.

There's no better cure for academic distance than direct contact with the hard facts on the ground.

I don't believe that I'm shifting the goal posts; I stand behind both my original comment and the one above. They are different aspects of a greater concept.

Are you now saying that charity shouldn't be directed to countries inhabited by races which by virtue of low IQ will be unable to make good use of it?

That's part of what I'm saying. It should also not be directed towards the homeless and other failures.

I am in favor of a social net for those who are legitimately out of luck and soon regain gainful employment.

It still seem clear that health, nutrition and education can have major effects on IQ regardless of the extent to which IQ differences might be due to genetic factors associated with ethnicity. (Imagine raising your kids in exactly the same conditions as slum dwellers in Haiti or Africa.)

I've been looking for about a decade now, but have not encountered evidence that would discredit Lynn. I have however seen a lot of evidence which corroborates his findings.

If you have evidence that discredits his work, I would appreciate it.

If it makes one happy to go around and cure people of TB, then one should by all means do so. However, I do not perceive this as significantly different, or more valuable, than running a huge animal shelter, if the recipient of aid doesn't pay you back. As with an animal shelter, you are expending external resources to maintain something for the sake of it. Doing so does not contribute towards creating resources. It is a form of indulgence, not investment.

Points taken, thank you.

Seems like a funny link, I've watched a bit of it and will continue to watch it.

But comparing the per capita GDP of $7,000 in Mauritius, vs $39,000 in Singapore...? Granted, $7,000 in Mauritius is more than $270 in Zimbabwe, but still.

The difference remains similar in PPP terms.

Also, about 2/3 of the Mauritius population appear to be Asian.

But the definition of "humanity" isn't even coherent, and is actually incompatible with shades of gray that actually exist.

Until these fundamentals are thought out, there can be lots of hot air, but progress toward a goal cannot be made, as long as the goal is incoherent.

It seems to me that the type of humanism you're talking about is based on an assumption that "other people are like me, and should therefore be just as valuable to me as I am".

But other people, especially of different cultures and genetic heritage, have strikingly different values, strikingly different perceptions, different capacities to think, understand and create.

The differences are such that drawing the compassion line at the borders of the human race makes about as much sense as at any other arbitrary point in the biological spectrum.

I believe that, to be consistent in valuing empathy as a goal on its own, you have to have empathy with everything. I find that a laudable position. But the sad fact is, most of us here aren't vegan, nor do even want to be. (I would be if most people were.)

People are selfish, and do not have empathy for everything. In fact, most people pretend to have empathy for the world as a whole, whereas in fact they only have empathy for the closest people around them, and perhaps not even them, when push comes to shove.

All that having been said, and the world being as selfish as it is, when you say that you're a humanist, that you want to better the lot of other people, and that you contribute 50% of your income to charity (just as an example), you are basically saying that you're a sucker, and that your empathic circuits are so out of control that you let other people exploit you.

Given that we are the way we are, I think a much more reasonable goal is to foster a world that shares our values, not to foster the existence of the arbitrary people who don't share our values, but exist today.

I didn't read Guns, Germs and Steel, but I read the synopsis on Wikipedia. My impression is that Diamond discusses the reasons why civilization developed in Europe (rather than elsewhere) in the past. The synopsis on Wikipedia does not, however, discuss anything relevant to why Africa has been unable to pick up civilization after it has already been developed. Are you aware of a synopsis of Diamond's argument that addresses specifically that?

I gave the example of Singapore specifically because it is a country that grew from virtually nothing to prosperity in a matter of decades. Japan and Taiwan could also be used as examples, and China is not faring too bad either. There are still a large number of countries in Asia that are dysfunctional, but many countries, some of them very large, have picked up the lessons of what works, and have applied them, or are now applying them, to create a functional civilization.

This, however, is not happening in Africa, nor in Caribbean (where independent), nor in the Philippines, nor in the Bronx - nor anywhere with a majority of largely African descent.

In all these places, the reverse process took place. The locals took control away from colonizing foreigners, and then instead of a proliferation of prosperity, it all broke down and fell apart. Why is that?

The short answer is: their average IQ is 70.

The long answer is:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/159368021X

If you want to be shocked some more, follow an international news source such as BBC for a few years, and pay attention to news from Africa and the Caribbean. The pieces will fall in place in time.