Why Bother With Chairs?

I wonder if ergonomics usually affects the legs of japanese and koreans. They are used to squat on the floor, legs flat and fold for several centuries and even today. I wonder if that's genetics or some sort of evolution had happened that eventually attributed to their leg structure. No offense, these people are pretty and adorable.

I hope this is an attempt at facetiousness.

If not, why is it that we cannot ever mention genetics as playing a part in how certain races have developed? Sorry, but in the case of those in question here, they were fairly well isolated form the remainder of the world for centuries, and would of course develop differently than say an European. We know that the environment causes genetic mutations to allow adaptation, and a self imposed environmental factor, such as how one sits, would of course develop a bit of a change in the leg structure. And as I mentioned before, perhaps we all need to take note of this and change our sitting habits to save our knees.

Trial and error would easily prove that theory on 'Asian leg mutations' false. Children can do it of any society. If there's a genetic factor it's because most of us Americans are too fat and sedentary to do it. I don't see any many overweight Asians squat to sit either. I would like to think that with a little practice, anyone can 'squat' to sit. Even being fat, I can with a little stretching and I'm a 50ish typical overweight white guy.

Also, Which Europeans are you speaking of? The light skinned, red haired ones - the darker skinned, dark curly haired ones - the light skinned, light haired ones? If you want to talk about isolationist genetics, look at the height variations of Asians by large regions. You will find the same thing among any race. Also, Eastern Russians look very Asian. With the Asian population so much larger than the White population, who exactly has the mutation? It would suggest that the Europeans and the Americans (and Aussies?) have mutated to need a chair to sit comfortably.

It's so easy to say that someone with a different culture is 'genetically' altered from us. Sure makes disassociation and prejudice so much easier.

If my rant is unfounded, I apologize. However, I do not apologize for standing against armchair geneticist with no references nor proof and only separatist ideas.

Now see - there we go again. Why is it so hard to admit that the races are a tiny bit different? (what is it a fraction of 1% or so) Perhaps there are no races? No - that is obviously not true or we wouldn't be having this discussion. And what is wrong with a mutation which if it holds true, is obviously a better one than that in other races? Problem is the word mutation - that does not mean what it does in 50's sci fi - it is not a horrible change - it is almost always for the better. We need to face the fact that we are just animals and we too mutate over generations because of our environment. ALL races have certain mutations to the original human genome to adapt to their environment. Science can now trace your origins from your genetic make up. Which is the better mutation? Depends where the person in question is and what they are doing. I guarantee you I would not be as comfortable in say Africa or the Middle East as a race that originated there, without modern appliances. Like wise, they would not be as comfortable in say Scandinavia as I would. So who has the inferior mutation - neither if adapted to by modern conveniences. Now, with relocation so easy, and the various races living in different environments and cultures, that will diminish a bit, and may even vanish many centuries in the future.

Doesn't matter which Europeans - that was entered to point out where they were isolated from other well established civilizations.

? ... Well, I guess it's fair to say that YOU have decided which side of the fence |you| are on, and, in which trench you reside.

There are those who exhibit "zero tolerance" to such discussions (for fear of where they will ultimately lead), as well as those (most all 'clear thinkers') who will not even associate themselves with the so-called "scientific_variant" of such idiocy. I, for one, resemble the former of those categories.

Even wiki states that:

"Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications."

...further stating...

"...others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species"

...and still further...

"Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and emotionally charged synonyms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context."

"In the early 20th century, many anthropologists accepted and taught the belief that biologically distinct races were isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups, while popularly applying that belief to the field of eugenics, in conjunction with a practice that is now called scientific racism. After the Nazi eugenics program, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity. Race anthropologists were pressured to acknowledge findings coming from studies of culture and population genetics, and to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation. A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation."

"...(reject) the claim that 'races' (are) equivalent to 'subspecies'."

Why is it hard to 'admit' ... (your words) 1% or so "difference"...(?)

When a man & wife conceives a child, that child bears resemblance to one-or-the-other, or both. Yet he/she is a totally different being. And, as generations proceed, the accumulated differences will mount (perhaps, in some cases, what some might insinuate as being "staggeringly" different).

Yet ... generation-after-generation, we remain the same. Neither you nor I are in any way-shape-or-form any "different from", or "superior-to", the poor child who finds himself curling-up to sleep under a bush, because he has lost his parents to a "civil war" in his country.

And, your espousing of "mutations" ('etc') are just as dubious and uncertain (unproven) a part of your own religion as the actual whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant is within my own. So, when you respond to a thread about CHAIRS interjecting your out-of-context religious beliefs ... well ... in the words of Sergeant Major Basil L. Plumley "...prepare to defend yourself(selves)"...(!)

Lets take this out of the main stream - it is not relevant to a chair.

I don’t really care where your genetic make up, or anyone else came from. You are right - we are all a part of the human race. Excuse me, I am largely an isolationist and didn’t know the word race is out of fashion, except with liberals who want to throw it at others. It is too broad a term to describe certain common genetic make up, so let me go with small regional traits then. You are right that there is not a true white race, as there is a tremendous mix of genetics there, nor is there a true black race, again quite a diversity. You have to admit that in the past, before travel and relocation became easy, we as a human race, stayed put in a general area and certain traits, through procreation became predominant in certain locals. Can you not fairly well predict what regional area a person with red hair got that gene from? Bet there is someone in the family tree who was in the North West section of Europe. Or even better, the fair white skin and blond hair trait which a certain dark haired individual jumped on and tried to take to domination over other regional traits by declaring this a separate race? We are all individuals with a different genetic makeup, or at least a very small fraction of a percent different, but we can pretty well localize where a certain gene developed. And a large part of that genetic local has to do with environmental adaptation. Geneticists can now determine where your linage came from because of this grouping of certain traits in a regional area. So why is it racist to assume some different gene in Japanese, which was largely isolated by choice and the sea, that allows them an easier time to sit on the floor? No I have no proof, but without being allowed to mention it, no one would ever check to see if this is true.

The thing I do care about is the liberal tendencies these days to look for any little sign that someone might be racist and immediately jump all over that person. That is why I have remained largely isolationist in recent years. I do not wish for a face to face discussion such as this, as I have a genetic tendency to cower, whine, and get a sick feeling in my stomach when facing an angry person, especially when I don’t understand why. About the only time I’ve had a superiority feeling was in school, where, not my genetic origin, but my mental abilities made it far easier to grasp knowledge than the other students. Other than that, I’ve been in awe of most other people, no matter their skin color or facial features, or hair, concerning athletic abilities, personal relationship abilities, communication abilities, and so on.

Okay – let’s get to the truth here. You are right – I am a racist – I hate the entire human race. I usually try to hide it, but why bother – it always comes out eventually, and you have brought it out here. I have hinted at it on this site before, that it is best I don't try to interact with others. I have known this since early in grade school when it became obvious I was mentally better than the rest, but not deemed good enough to be in their mindless games or invited to their parties. In high school I was a total failure in sports, but damn could I crush them all in class work. In college I found there were some other strong minds, but most were like me and did not want to socialize.

It appears as though I am a cross between a sociopath and an egotist. Fortunately I have the mental capacities to know not to do as a typical sociopath would, and try to cheat and steal from others. Instead I just stay away from human contact as much as possible. I’ve been married 43 years because she does her thing and I do mine. Works great for me.

Work has been a great stroke of luck in getting positions where I usually am my own boss and seldom deal with you other idiots. When I do, I am in charge and they have to listen to me. My hobbies are always a singular activity without need of other human interaction. I ride bike - alone 99% of the time. I have a train layout - no help needed for that. I drag raced - my own car/my own mechanical work/ alone at the wheel for the racing.

There – not what you expected, and yet just what you were.

Sorry if I offended you, but I know I really shouldn't get into discussions on human nature.

And yet, our Creator ... the One who wrote the millions of volumes of code that NO man could write ... still loves you ... (no matter how many times and how emphatically Dawkins {and his minions}, and those who worship him, would heckle otherwise).

And, the cosmic battle between good & evil will continue, irrespective of what you or I care to scribble here. I am not offended by anything that you could possibly say (here or elsewhere). And, I am not 'angry', as perhaps the "emoticon" suggested. I *am*, however, intrepid, with regard to my convictions.

No matter how much we learn about this cosmos into which we were created (and about which guys like Carl Sagan knew little)... and no matter how much we learn about the miraculous code that went into each of us, and every other LIVING creature... that knowledge will never change the facts that our salvation came to us; did exactly what He said He was going to do¹... and departed this existence leaving us with some very clear instructions.

I love science as much as the next guy (my job involves a bunch of it!) ... but ... I'll not drink the "stupid-kool-aid", being told that it is "hard science". You know as well as I what constitutes "theory" versus "conjecture" versus "fundamental laws". So, forgive me when I laugh at some of the nonsense-articles ... even if they're not quite so corny as "We must be (or "Are we") living in a simulation..."

^{1 ((did exactly what He said))} ... which included the promise to 'preserve His word (for us, forever)', which He has certainly done in spite of all the attempts through the ages to eradicate it; from the multitudinous 'book burnings', including Diocletian's edict to burn all sacred writings, on through Voltaire's haughtily-arrogant declaration (stating, in 1776, that: “100 years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity-seeker” (meaning, "in a museum"). Voltaire, boasting of himself said, “It took 12 men to start Christianity; one will destroy it.” That very year, he died. A quarter century after Voltaire's death the British & Foreign Bible Society had been founded, sparking an unprecedented era of Bible distribution, and, 100 years later Voltaire’s own home was being used as a distribution point for spreading Bibles throughout Europe. "In your face", so-called "Beacon of Enlightenment"...(!)

A four year old grandson walked into my neighbour's large lounge filled with chairs in transition, some just arrived and some going to greener floors. His simple reflection on seeing such a large range and number of sitting opportunities ... HOW MANY ARE COMING NANNA?

Different story. My grandfather was a practical joker and he had a special chair for guests with a spring loaded pin that only raised to the occasion when sat on ... and when slightly rolling to one side to feel for the unwanted addition, it disappeared. The guest would usually try to keep a straight face and my grandfather was equally straight faced, and would ask the guest if they were OK, but knowing completely the grief of the guest!