> it is what you think it is.

So, racist bad science then?

Can you clarify what you mean by "the same" for societies?

I could see that a lot of various net outcomes economically similar not due to biological factors, but rather a myriad of environmental ones. The Anna Karenina principle[1] means a lot if some societies get rice and Mediterranean Basins and World Banks, while others get tubers and mountains and slave-trading ships that buy people from you.

I feel like those factors would make a more significant difference, as a few thousand years isn't very long in evolution time, from what I understand.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle

> How could you possibly think that societies evolving in different climates under different conditions are the same?

I always love new spins on old racism. Do tell how 'climate' plays a role in potential for technical workforce ability.

I would imagine the argument is as follows:

Climate, along with dozens of other factors, produced variations in human traits. Some of them, like skin color, height, etc. are obvious to everyone. Others, including intelligence, are not so obvious.

But the idea that IQ is inheritable and variable between ethnicities is not too terribly controversial, even though it is politically taboo to mention.

Thus, you'd find that some groups are more likely to dominate fields than others (due to nature) and not 100% because of societal differences (i.e. nurture).

So the actual question for a society in a competitive global economy to ask is what proportion of limited resources are used to help those in the rear catch up vs what proportion is used to push the most gifted farther ahead.

That doesn't really answer the question, does it?

So we see the resurgence of eugenics. This seems to be the last resort of the racists...