Racial links to drug use?

[spok]

I get what you're saying, but environmental selection and sexual selection are considered different

you're not looking at the bigger picture. there are predatory influences, nutritional influences, meteorological influences, sexual influences etc. they all ultimately tie in to shape that animal for survival in that environment, there just isn't anything else, it's illogical to suggest there is, unless of course you want to give parallel universes a try

peacocks don't have to run away because they are bigger than all their potential predators, and the frill is also used to intimidate prospective predators and rivals. that's what makes them sexy, because the bigger and scarier they are the better chance they have at surviving that environment

While that is true, genes don't mutate in response to any environmental pressures. They mutate randomly and then environmental pressures select for those genes that that are adaptive.

okay? who said otherwise?

you stated that genetic evolution doesn't occur during a lifetime. i merely pointed out that it does. here it is again:

The genes of one individual can't change over a lifetime

 

[footscrazy]

you're not looking at the bigger picture.

I said at the beginning of my paragraph that I get what you're saying. Did you miss that? I know you are considering 'environmental' factors to include any factors that impact a certain individual's survival. I was considering a different definition of 'environmental factors', which doesn't include sexual selection. The only difference we have here is in words.

Now the reason I don't consider sexual selection to be the same is that it does often work against a species' adaptiveness against predators etc. Check out this famous study of guppies which illustrates this nicely - female guppies select mates with the brightest colours. However, the brighter the guppie, the more conspicuous it is to predators. This study shows the balancing effect of sexual selection vs selection by predators - guppies in streams without predators will be much brighter than those in streams with predators. The females aren't selecting any differently in each stream - rather, the effect of selection by predators is balanced against sexual selection. If your theory was correct, the females would have selected for the dull guppies all along, considering this is what increases the survival of guppies.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ I've never heard of that sexual selection theory before but its pretty interesting.

I also can't believe you have never got shards off a middle eastern person, I have also obtained and been offered to be sold it from many middle easterners.

 

[spok]

I said at the beginning of my paragraph that I get what you're saying. Did you miss that?

no i did see that. after which you proceeded with the agenda that sexual selection is arbitrary and should be considered an influence apart from environment on genetic evolution. you can't say "what you're saying makes sense" then proceed to try and prove that it doesn't, you are completely contradicting yourself

The only difference we have here is in words.

that would only be true if I also believed that sexual selection were arbitrary

Now the reason I don't consider sexual selection to be the same is that it does often work against a species' adaptiveness against predators etc. Check out this famous study of guppies which illustrates this nicely - female guppies select mates with the brightest colours. However, the brighter the guppie, the more conspicuous it is to predators. This study shows the balancing effect of sexual selection vs selection by predators - guppies in streams without predators will be much brighter than those in streams with predators. The females aren't selecting any differently in each stream - rather, the effect of selection by predators is balanced against sexual selection. If your theory was correct, the females would have selected for the dull guppies all along, considering this is what increases the survival of guppies

if the guppies bright colours have backfired and made it more visible to predators, that's unfortunate for them, but it doesn't undermine the notion that sexual selection is based on environmental factors. if a predator gets thrown into the mix and it's bad news for the brighter guppy they'll find a harmonious balance with it or die off, they wouldn't be the first species that didn't make it. the female guppy will still choose the brightest males in the predator stream, they may be comparatively darker than those in the predator-free streams, but their colours are still apparent for a physiological reason which is beneficial to their survival beyond just being sexy, it’s sexy to the female guppy because it instinctively says something to her about him and his genes, it has to

the female isn't going to overcome instinctive attraction to bright males overnight because there is a predator in the water, that could take millions of years. if that is too slow for them to avoid demise on account of predation there's nothing that can be done. it's illogical to assume that they just became bright because the females would find it attractive, there has to be an environmental cause driving their bright colours which the female in turn finds attractive, namely genetic health

if based on what you understand of this famous study of guppies from the 1970's you would like to believe that sexual selection is arbitrary go for your life, but you absolutely have not proven it, and there is no valid reason for me or anyone else to believe that sexual selection is not dictated by environmental requirements, or should be considered a separate influence on genetic evolution

 

[footscrazy]

In fact even Darwin believed that sexual selection was arbitrary - calling it 'female whims'. In fact it's not abitrary, but it's not based on adaptiveness - instead its the result of positive feedback. The desire a female has for a male with certain attributes is a genetic variable just like anything else. So, for example, in any one population you'll get females peahens with preferences for small, medium and large tailed peacocks. But the important thing is that the males also contain genes for female preference of large tails - because his father was most likely a large tailed peacock who was chosen by a female preferring long tails. So, large tailed peacocks produce offspring that contain genes for both long tails and for preferring long tails, and in this way, large tailed peacocks are self sustaining. As soon as the slighest majority of females began to prefer one type of tail, in this example large tails, positive feedback will ensure the large tail is reinforced and will become dominant. So, whenever the balance becomes unstable - and this usually is abritrary; random - positive feedback will start and become self reinforcing, leading to an abritrary attribute to become dominant.

This isn't a new or radical theory. There is heaps of literature to support it - Chapter 8 of Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker' would be a good place to start.

 

[madmick19]

yeah im sure theres got to be some research around regarding this, there are many impacting issues in this one but i would expect that the culture one is born into and the cultural tradition/taboo's/ highly influence;

-what people have access to or percieve as desirable (opium and afghanistan)
- the way people use eg recreationally, problematically
- social saftey; trying them seems less of a moral indecency
-drugs percevied as less harmful are more likely to be used
- may be simialities between traditional uses of substances and current illict drug types
- any physiological differences that make a person have a adverse reaction to substances; such as in some asian cultures and the physiology that creates a sick feeling when injesting alcohol.

also globalisation has changed everything, how marketing has fundementally changed peoples desire or interest also cuts across this as well. globalisation has meant more and more availability of knowledge and technology to the world. when a new "craze" comes out its sure to cut across transnational borders pretty quickly.

look at how quickly pill presses got to australia and full scale production of local (amphetamine/ ketamine) pills became the norm. ontop of this the rave scence as a counter culture was booming- of course the economy wanted a part of that and even coke and various music giants were soon promoting the rave scence by virtue of its popularity.

this is a wide philosophical debate but one worth having, On a side note 40-50% of australias population growth in the future is predicted to be people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background.

 

[chugs]

We compiled our analysis and noticed that in VIC:

Asian = pills and amp
European= pills, amp, coke, weed
Indian= LSD, weed
African= Weed

My question is has any one else noticed this?

huh? I get all those drugs from a huge variety of humans and definitely cannot see any basis in your claim other then strange coincidence.

 

[hyroller]

Few Asians associated with the shard market too but I'd say in the bigger context there's a much deeper link with heroin, nowadays...

Every drug deal between a not-very-well-known Aussie involved has been average at best. And I'm caucasian myself. They just don't have a very good track record I'm afraid, and that's that.

From what I've seen they're good for weed though
What an odd topic, the links had crossed my mind before but it's funny to just conjure into words.

 

[bit_pattern]

Considering most smack, ice, and a good deal of bikkies come out of Asia it's little surprise they have considerable showing in the marketing of those drugs.

 

[spok]

footscrazy,

when i thought about the fact that i was arguing about peacocks and the colour of guppies on the net i couldn't stop laughing

much in the same way people dwell on old philosophers, brilliant as they were in their day and in their own right, like darwin in the science community, we've learned a bit since then

it would be silly of me to say that there's no chance you're right, but as it stands, i don't see it, only a lot of evidence to the contrary.......

i give you my word thought that if one day it all makes sense to me and i realise your brilliance i'll let the bluelight world know that i am not worthy

 

[baysieguy1]

Please avoid being racist in response to this as this thread is not about pointing out who does what and such please leave your prejudice at the door.

I have noticed some unusual things in relation to drug use and how your skin colour/general appearence effects what is available to you.

I have noticed that I am a very italian/greek looking white boy so to me getting amps, pills, coke and weed is pretty damn easy but anything else is nearly impossible.

I have asked my Asian friend about my little analysis and at first they thought I was just being mental but they have noticed it too.

We compiled our analysis and noticed that in VIC:

Asian = pills and amp
European= pills, amp, coke, weed
Indian= LSD, weed
African= Weed

My question is has any one else noticed this?

You fogot to add
Israeli = pills, amp, 4mmc, LSD, weed

 

[psytaco]

You fogot to add
Israeli = pills, amp, 4mmc, LSD, weed

True that, I think people forget about them because they stick to the psy scene. Its often all pretty good quality too.

 

[baysieguy1]

Agreed!