This highlights the problem as to why some global issues can not even be discussed intelligently as it results in accusation of "isms...". I did not even specify a specific race and it still stirs the pot. UNESCO could call race merely a social construct. That could also be a statement to fit in place with a particular political agenda. Lets go back to the physical differences of ethnicity. If race is not a biological thing, why do people of certain ethnicity become dominate in certain sports? Clearly something about their physiology gave them an advantage to excel in their sport. Their physiology came about due to evolution of their people in their specific region of origin. If you looked across a very wide range of sports (not just the highly popular ones) you would probably find that in each one there is probably some ethnicity that tends to excel the most until all major ethnicities are eventually represented. It is concrete that there are physiological differences. Science, and not even political idealists try to debate that part. For example it is widely and proudly proclaimed that Kenya produces the world's best long distance runners, due to high altitude in their home land among other things. That is a sentiment embraced by main stream media. However is that not then racist to admit that people from Kenya are biologically different somehow? Or is it simply not racist because it is embracing a positive attribute of the people of that region rather than a negative? Physiological differences are one thing, but when suggesting possible mental difference it goes into a world of taboo where many people would rather point fingers and yell "racist" rather than discuss what may (or may not) be real.
Issues like survival and not dying do not account for an IQ spread of 30 points or more from the countries of highest IQ. I think East and South East Asia best reflect this more than any place in the world. They have nations which represent the highest IQ levels in the world. This region is divided up among the very wealthy and very poor, internally within a nation and also when comparing one nation to it's neighbor. This however does not create a great differential in IQ levels, as intelligence is much more biological than circumstantial. The other point being as I mentioned in the previous post. When you remove people from a low IQ nation and put them in a high IQ nation, those people do not join the high IQ. Their offspring will usually also not thrive and will remain well below the intelligence of the host nation, maintaining the approximate intelligence of their area of origin. The United States is a great shining example of this. However I could not see a way to discuss that particular situation on this forum without naming specific races and therefore likely being banned from the forum. I don't even think I can speak about it as a euphemism.
There is a theory that many believe that intelligence came about through environment a people live in. Some people lived in environments where food is plentiful, one just needs to live from one day to the next. Hunt, maybe there is easy local prey, forage some plants and so forth. Day after day without end. Evolution will develop a being as far as it needs to go to thrive in it's environment. Some other peoples found themselves in much harsher environments through migration, or other circumstances of ending up where they are (depending on what one believes in as far as how people ended up in different regions of the world). People in harsher environments would have to think ahead or die. They need to craft warm clothes to survive the cold. They need a strategy to have a food supply when food may be scarce (such as in a cold winter), they can not just live day to day, they need to think to the future and act accordingly. It is not simply survival of the strongest in those environments as it is in other environments, intelligence would play a much more crucial role. This a theory as to the basis of intelligence differential around the world. Its not even a matter of proclaiming what is "superior" or "inferior." Just a matter of fact that there was this much evolutionary pressure to make these specific people survive in this environment. "Superior" and "Inferior" are subjective and a matter of opinion.
