It starts out subtly, and apparently dispassionately from what had gone before, and you think you are still reading various related mere matter of fact scientific revelations, about genetic differences of different populations here and there, the ostensible integrity of certain populations, versus the mixtures, on the other hand, that interweave through most all of them, punctuated also by the innumerable dead end populations, the wrecks of history, lying all around, at junctures of every long period of time.
But gradually, you realize you are actually really also at the same time being given a gathering Whig interpretation ethics lecture on the data and its meaning.
The topic of the subchapter has to do with the impact of the development and dispersion of farming and husbandry, versus the prior prehistoric reliance solely on hunting and gathering.
Finally he reaches a crescendo of unsupportable Whiggisms, founded mainly on his selection or omission of various data at his command, in my judgment, at the end of the chapter.
You really want someone like David Brooks to plunge, briefly, all his editorials are brief things anyway, into this deep, obscure and obtuse pundits' well of genetics and ethics.
It has all the right elements for Brooks to make a real Pig's Breakfast.
You really want someone like David Brooks to plunge, briefly, all his editorials are brief things anyway, into this deep, obscure and obtuse pundits' well of genetics and ethics.
It has all the right elements for Brooks to make a real Pig's Breakfast.
No comments:
Post a Comment