"White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.
"Since we tend to think of European populations as quite large, we did not expect to see a significant difference in the distribution of neutral and deleterious variation between the two populations," said senior co-author Carlos Bustamante, an assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology at Cornell.
It's been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.
But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.
The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.
"What we may be seeing is a 'population genetic echo' of the founding of Europe," said Bustamante.
The Cornell team hopes to study other population groups in search of similar results.
For example, Native Americans show even less genetic diversity than Europeans, having descended from a few thousand people who entered North America about 10,000 years ago.
That fact was reinforced by a larger-scale study, also published in Nature, led by scientists from the Universities of Michigan and Virginia who analyzed genetic samples of 485 individuals scattered around the globe whose DNA is recorded in a French databank.
As would be expected with the "out of Africa" theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed in turn by Middle Easterners, then Europeans and South Asians at about equal levels, then East Asians.
Native Americans had the least genetic diversity of all, indicating that part of the world was settled last.
"Previously, we've been able to look at the genome and say, 'This part is from Africa, this is from Asia,'" explained Virginia research Andrew Singleton to Wired News. "Now we can look past that and say, 'It's from this part of Africa or Eurasia.'"
A third study, published in the journal Science on Friday, may be the most fascinating of all.
Drawing on 935 individual samples from the French databank, a Stanford University team found deep traces of long-ago population movements, all originating from a "ground zero" in Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.
For example, the Pygmies of the Congo forest were found to be quite close to the Bushmen of Namibia — but both were very different from most other sub-Saharan groups.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood.
The Asian-looking Hazara of Afghanistan are correct in claiming ancestry in Mongolia, but the Han, the dominant ethnic group in China, may be disappointed to discover they're actually two peoples, one north, the other south.
Native Americans have at least one closely related group in Asia — the Yakuts of eastern Siberia, who themselves are related to other hunter-gatherer Siberian tribes, some of whom build wooden teepees.
The Basques in northeastern Spain and southwestern France may be right to demand their own nation — they're not closely related to anyone else. Surprisingly, neither are the residents of Sardinia off the coast of Italy.
As with the other large-scale study, the Stanford team found the greatest diversity outside of Africa among people living in the wide crescent of land stretching from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to northern India.
Not only was the region among the first colonized by the African migrants, they theorize, but the large number of European and East Asian genes among the population indicates that it's long been the human highway, with large numbers of migrants from both directions conquering, trading and generally reproducing along its entire length."
Related Stories: o Identical Twins Often Have Different DNA o Early Americans May Have Been 'Stuck' for 20,000 Years o Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related o Scientists Produce Synthetic Bacterial DNA o DNA Molecules Display Telepathic Abilities
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Old news. Several threads on this.
Well, I am more surprised about the East Asian bit, I knew we would not be as genetically diverse as Africans but I had no idea we were genetically weaker than white Europeans.
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Old news. Several threads on this.
Well, I am more surprised about the East Asian bit, I knew we would not be as genetically diverse as Africans but I had no idea we were genetically weaker than white Europeans.
^ Are you from japan? The articles does'nt say anything on the relative genetic fitness of europeans/east asians, just africans in comparison to europeans and possibly native americans.
I would surmise as east asia is thought of as more diverse than europe that that is not the case.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Old news. Several threads on this.
Well, I am more surprised about the East Asian bit, I knew we would not be as genetically diverse as Africans but I had no idea we were genetically weaker than white Europeans.
^ Are you from japan? The articles does'nt say anything on the relative genetic fitness of europeans/east asians, just africans in comparison to europeans and possibly native americans.
I would surmise as east asia is thought of as more diverse than europe that that is not the case.
Yes I am originally from Japan. Then perhaps I am interpreting wrong? This is the section I am referring to:
As would be expected with the "out of Africa" theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed in turn by Middle Easterners, then Europeans and South Asians at about equal levels, then East Asians.
You could be right though, being less genetically diverse does not mean being genetically less fit, but I still have not read the in depth study yet. Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, interms of genetic diversity I'd imagine Europeans' placement is the result of the fact that they have more historical (scientifically recent) African ancestry.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: This is turning in a black Stormfront site indeed.
Huh?
I posted off topic, it is an interesting article I think. Why not post an article about race that has historical facts in this section, specially as OT?
You know, look closer, blacks are not the only ones in this post! Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ If you was stormfront you would'nt even have been able to make taht last comment seeing as they edit out opposing views
But you both are extremists, and that is the point.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ You mean southern europe? Even so, how do you explain low diversity in the european population?
Same reason that's the case for Native Americans - other than Europeans' African component, they are more recently settled populations.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
These choice of terms used to describe the study can be seen as a bit curious I guess, but one should be able to infer such anyways with all of the available genetics research out there.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood. ARABS Ha: TURKS!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hunh? That statement seems to contradict itself. It would seem logical to me that a "harmful variation" must have a harmful effect on overall health to be classifed as a harmful variation. Unfortunately, that was not the criterion that they used. Their criterion was to look only at the protein-synthesis effect. If an SNP was a synonymous change (such as a mutation changing the RNA triplet UUA to UUG or to CUA, which all produce the amino acid Leucine), then they classified it as neutral. If the change produced a different amino acid, like a change from UUC (Phenylalanine) to UUA (Leucine), but that difference did not greatly change the final shape of the protein molecule being synthesized, then they termed it "possibly harmful."And if the change produced an amino acid that completely deformed the resultant protein, they called it "probably harmful."
All three of those terms are shaky since (1) even though a synonymous SNP produces an identical protein, it might easily have a real health impact. See the current issue of Natural History for an example. And (2) and (3), just because a mutated protein has the "wrong" shape does not necessarily mean it is harmful in the adaptive sense. Otherwise, we would all be prokaryotes floating in the primordial broth. That europeans (a derivative population) are less genetically diverse than africans (the source population) does not seem like ground breaking news.
Yes genetic mutations tend to be weeded out less than in African populations. But those mutations can be harmful or helpful. So beneficial mutations can be lost more frequently in African populations as well.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So beneficial mutations can be lost more frequently in African populations AS WELL.
Do you see how your statement is nonsensical and oxymoronic? It is also a non-seqitur in terms of the post you seem eager to agree with, which in its self is full of straws. Since the study was comparative, there's no such thing as something being lost "more as well", it's either more or less by a comparative measure.
The point which hasn't been disputed is that African populations of diverse lineage seem more efficient in weeding out harmful mutations due to the said diversity while having a lot more to work with (due to the said diversity) from a beneficial standpoint. Harmful mutations don't have to apply to someone's full blown bodily health, that's ridiculous. It can be in a local sense, like for instance, skin color in whites which can or can't be seen as a genetic defect given that melanin production was disabled.
No need to take it personally Chim.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Straw man. Not once has anybody besides you "assumed" that ALL mutations are harmful. Probably due to your lack of common sense. It is established however that MOST are either harmful or neutral with the premise being that given the diversity among Africans, there is more material to work with in terms of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of bad ones. Stop blabbering.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Straw man. Not once has anybody besides you "assumed" that ALL mutations are harmful. Probably due to your lack of common sense. It is established however that MOST are either harmful or neutral with the premise being that given the diversity among Africans, there is more material to work with in terms of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of bad ones. Stop blabbering.
Sorry bub, nice try. More genetic material to weed out both beneficial and harmful ones.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Since human beings are equipped with 5 senses and survival strategies (external and internal), wouldn't good mutations (ex. disease immunity) be promoted more than ones seen as bad (ex. baldness, small physiques), therefore beneficial mutations have a far less chance at being "weeded out"??
Therefore these "good" mutations would seem to have a better chance to OCCUR and have a better chance of promotion by said populations amongst Africans than any other groups?
(Gotta bring up old posts since many new ones suck)
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Straw man. Not once has anybody besides you "assumed" that ALL mutations are harmful. Probably due to your lack of common sense. It is established however that MOST are either harmful or neutral with the premise being that given the diversity among Africans, there is more material to work with in terms of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of bad ones. Stop blabbering.
Sorry bub, nice try. More genetic material to weed out both beneficial and harmful ones.
Jesus Christ, aren't you tired of making a complete fool of yourself, you straw man building simpleton?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Straw man. Not once has anybody besides you "assumed" that ALL mutations are harmful. Probably due to your lack of common sense. It is established however that MOST are either harmful or neutral with the premise being that given the diversity among Africans, there is more material to work with in terms of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of bad ones. Stop blabbering.
Sorry bub, nice try. More genetic material to weed out both beneficial and harmful ones.
Jesus Christ, aren't you tired of making a complete fool of yourself, you straw man building simpleton?
Hey Akoben...still think the Jews or should I say the PEOPLE CLAIMING to be Jews are of God... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu4vn1DhdWY&feature=channel_page This is how they feel...lol how can anyone have respect for those people...They claim black culture is cursed but they orcestrated their own Holocaust..LOL
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Straw man. Not once has anybody besides you "assumed" that ALL mutations are harmful. Probably due to your lack of common sense. It is established however that MOST are either harmful or neutral with the premise being that given the diversity among Africans, there is more material to work with in terms of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of bad ones. Stop blabbering.
Sorry bub, nice try. More genetic material to weed out both beneficial and harmful ones.
Jesus Christ, aren't you tired of making a complete fool of yourself, you straw man building simpleton?
You know I always wondered why people hate Jewish people...I guess now we know.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. The assumption is that all mutations are harmful. That simply is not true. If that were so then evolution was harmful. As it is based on mutations. Yes a bottleneck can lead to mutations standing out more. Good or bad.
Straw man. Not once has anybody besides you "assumed" that ALL mutations are harmful. Probably due to your lack of common sense. It is established however that MOST are either harmful or neutral with the premise being that given the diversity among Africans, there is more material to work with in terms of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of bad ones. Stop blabbering.
Sorry bub, nice try. More genetic material to weed out both beneficial and harmful ones.
Jesus Christ, aren't you tired of making a complete fool of yourself, you straw man building simpleton?
Hey Akoben...still think the Jews or should I say the PEOPLE CLAIMING to be Jews are of God... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu4vn1DhdWY&feature=channel_page This is how they feel...lol how can anyone have respect for those people...They claim black culture is cursed but they orcestrated their own Holocaust..LOL
Huhhh, I didn't say anything about anyone being "of god". And since there is no Jewish race, ancient or modern, whites who adopt the religion are as authentic as those misguided black American Hebrew African Israelite blah blah blah, doing the same.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But back to the "race" thing--so to speak. I cannot help but notice that West Africans--including those who live in the Americas--are dominant--on a per capita basis--in almost all sports that require speed, reflex actions, strength, hand-eye coordination, etc. Asians--i.e. the whole of Asia--West Asia, South Asia, East Asia--despite its huge populations hardly make a dent in sports requiring speed, strength, and good reflexes.
On the other hand East Africans are just overly dominant in endurance sports such as distance running. North Africans and Southern Africans come in a distant second. One curiousity though is that Egypt with over half the population of North Africa has made minimal impact in African athletics.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The title of the piece is misleading though because genetic diversity in reality has no evaluative meaning. Cheetahs are known for being very inbred but that does not hinder their capacity for hunting or for producing viable offspring.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Does it end with physical attributes? I believe it was mentioned that African immigrants also achieve the highest level of education comparatively speaking with other immigrants and including the "natives" of that country.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But back to the "race" thing--so to speak. I cannot help but notice that West Africans--including those who live in the Americas--are dominant--on a per capita basis--in almost all sports that require speed, reflex actions, strength, hand-eye coordination, etc. Asians--i.e. the whole of Asia--West Asia, South Asia, East Asia--despite its huge populations hardly make a dent in sports requiring speed, strength, and good reflexes.
On the other hand East Africans are just overly dominant in endurance sports such as distance running. North Africans and Southern Africans come in a distant second. One curiousity though is that Egypt with over half the population of North Africa has made minimal impact in African athletics.
You might be forgetting that in many sports like the NBA or NFL you're looking at the top of the tops, the tiniest crust of the best of the nation, though in those two in particular it's obvious we'd thouroughly dominate anyway.
This is likely because of some sort of diversity loss with physiological adaptation to cool climate.
Mentally, we on average have better developed psycho-motor abilities, even at very early ages (babies). We also more often tend to show signs of right brain dominance -- and it has been determined that thinking in terms of left brain things like discrete values (numbers), limits (eg. like how much you last maxed out at and what you're trying to lift now), proper conditions and definitions can have detrimental affects to the individual trying to 'just do it', to, 'discover' their maximal abilities.
I especially bring up our 'creative' right brain orientation because of our inventiveness in terms of the way we put the moves on ya in sports like B-ball and Football, even those of us who are slower. Anyone who has played alot of these in a black or mix neighborhood as a child and does same in a white one will know what i'm talking about, even though more youth like to try to put the moves on em like they've seen the people do on TV nowdays.
We process things faster and have more quick-twitch muscles as well (but this may not speak for 'black people' everywhere possibly mainly some of those of West African descent).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon now, you guys are buying into the old "African superman" nonsense. Monkeys have better reflexes, speed, and strength than all of us...so what? This is irrelevant and not even what the paper is about. This article here about Kenyan women developing seeming immunities to HIV support the thesis of this paper, not NBA players, track stars and endurance runners, which is likely more a product of environmental adaptations being more suited for those activities as swimming and hockey seems to be for Europeans. Let's not get distracted.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
^^ Does it end with physical attributes? I believe it was mentioned that African immigrants also achieve the highest level of education comparatively speaking with other immigrants and including the "natives" of that country.
Let's try to avoid notions of "racial" supremacy for now and simply see this study for what it is. It suggests a "genetic advantage", not so much any form of intellectual superiority. We are getting off-topic.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
agreed, and for the record i put no stock in "racial" superiority and hold no pride in "better" averages of one group over another in terms of one's physicality.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: C'mon now, you guys are buying into the old "African superman" nonsense. Monkeys have better reflexes, speed, and strength than all of us...so what?
As well as faster rote memory
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin wrote: --------------------------- I cannot help but notice that West Africans--including those who live in the Americas--are dominant--on a per capita basis--in almost all sports that require speed, reflex actions, strength, hand-eye coordination, etc. ---------------------------
Who would be these "west" Africans be? Tuaregs, Kabyles, Fulani, Hausa, Mauritanians, Moroccans, Niger, Algerians, Tunisians, Malians?
Are the "west" Africans you are referring to in both Africa and who live in America the above people?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: C'mon now, you guys are buying into the old "African superman" nonsense. Monkeys have better reflexes, speed, and strength than all of us...so what? This is irrelevant and not even what the paper is about. This article here about Kenyan women developing seeming immunities to HIV support the thesis of this paper, not NBA players, track stars and endurance runners, which is likely more a product of environmental adaptations being more suited for those activities as swimming and hockey seems to be for Europeans. Let's not get distracted.
Who said anything about an "African superman"? I've never even heard of such a thing. Secondly, this is a comparison of human beings, not of humans to Apes (not monkeys). Thirdly, how can you infer that swimming and hockey seem to be suited for europeans? Africans simply don't participate in those sports enough to make that assumption. Even still, there was a black hockey league in Canada once that made vast improvements even in that sport that are still in use today...see here.
My point was that some readily accept the idea of black superiority when it comes to certain physical activities, but why must that be? I provided an example where this can be the case mentally also , and may have to do with the subject of this thread of genetic supriority due to variation, which cannot be compared with Cheetah's as someone else erroneously tried to compare.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^lol.. Now what gave you the idea that that comment was directed at you??
But by the way..
quote:My point was that some readily accept the idea of black superiority when it comes to certain physical activities, but why must that be? I provided an example where this can be the case mentally also , and may have to do with the subject of this thread of genetic supriority due to variation
How would that work anyways?
I responded to a post of yours citing African academic dominance in the western world and was wondering what it had to do with this thread.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ I didn't say that the comment was directed at me, but was simply responding to it since it was at odds with what I said.
Secondly, I already explained what the "academic domince" has to do with this thread. It's quite simple to understand.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who would be these "west" Africans be? Tuaregs, Kabyles, Fulani, Hausa, Mauritanians, Moroccans, Niger, Algerians, Tunisians, Malians?
Are the "west" Africans you are referring to in both Africa and who live in America the above people?
.
No and yes. i am referring to all those people in the Americas who are E3a or are from a lineage that is predominantly E3a. On the distaff side it would be L1 and L2.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No and yes. i am referring to all those people in the Americas who are E3a or are from a lineage that is predominantly E3a. On the distaff side it would be L1 and L2.
Its either no or yes. It can't be both. Stop sounding like a dyslexic.
Now lets try this again, its a simple "Yes" or "No" question. See below.
----------------------------------- Who would be these "west" Africans be? Tuaregs, Kabyles, Fulani, Hausa, Mauritanians, Moroccans, Niger, Algerians, Tunisians, Malians?
Are the "west" Africans you are referring to in both Africa and who live in America the above people? -----------------------------------
lamin, is the answer "Yes" or "No"?Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of question is that? An answer can be both yes and no. In my previous answer I narrowed "West African" to mean anyone who belongs to the E3a/L1, L2 haplogroups--but not exclusively--hence, "yes" and "no". Get it?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin wrote: ----------------------------- What kind of question is that? An answer can be both yes and no. In my previous answer I narrowed "West African" to mean anyone who belongs to the E3a/L1, L2 haplogroups--but not exclusively--hence, "yes" and "no". Get it? -----------------------------
You made the statement not me. What are some of the ethnic groups in the so called E3a/L1, L2 haplogroups?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thegaul: ^^ Does it end with physical attributes? I believe it was mentioned that African immigrants also achieve the highest level of education comparatively speaking with other immigrants and including the "natives" of that country.
That would explain why I have to literally keep a low profile about my academic achievements these days.
They make for an excellent CV but soon as you get the gig, it's sabotage-time from jealous colleagues soon as you mention that you have a 1st-class honors degree or postgraduate from Oxbridge. Or a slew of top grade industry certifications or a bunch of high-profile work you've done...the apres-scee of EgyptSearch and their activities online and offline are a tantamount example of DEDICATED SABOTAGE activities carried out by natives of a country when African immigrants appear to be superior to them in anything.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there is always the repartee from some quarters: why do you have to come to our(sic) countries and rely on our educational systems to show that you could imbibe the knowledge we impart to you? Why not show that you could run first rate systems at home? Now that would be noticed.
So how to get out of this catch 22 situation?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's easy. If we STOPPED all the robbery that your countries are doing in the 3rd world TODAY, would you STILL be able to sustain all your "grand systems" by TOMORROW morning?
-------------------- state of mind Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic