Did free trade destroy the british empire? Or was it big government?

My point is not that genetics work any differently for Humans than for any other species. The point is that in every species there is a huge amount of genetic variation because of recombination. Just because you are intelligent, or tall, or prone to heart disease, doesn't mean that your children will be. It makes them more LIKELY to be, but there's never any guarantee. Genetics is very complex with a large redundancy factor. You can’t wipe out the genetic heritage of an entire nation through one generation of bloodletting. Probably not even 100 generations.

On a purely practical level, yes a lot of soldiers died, but most of them survived. It was only part of the male component that was lost anyway. The female gene component was untouched. And a great many of those who did die had already reproduced. Anyway, although soldiers make up a higher proportion of the “brightest and the best” – certainly the youngest and the fittest anyway – it is the less bright and best among them that are more likely to get the chop. A lot of work has been done on the mental and psychological characteristics of good soldiers (mostly by the US military incidentally) and their conclusions are that intelligent, “ballsy”, sociable people with a good sense of humor and leadership ability make better soldiers. And they measured “better” to mean “less likely to be killed”.

That’s all moot anyway, as the environment and upbringing of people – that mysterious combination of things we call “culture” - is far more important than genetics in determining the characteristics of a people. It was the effect the war had on those things that was really important.

Prior to WW1 it was thought by most Brits that imperialism was a good thing - it made the country great and powerful and it fostered trade (although there had always been some disquieting voices who complained it was expensive and got the UK embroiled in foreign wars). The horrors of WW1 trench warfare shook that paradigm. When the dust settled, it was increasingly felt (and not entirely unjustifiably) that the entire war had been a pointless conflict fought merely because of imperial ambition to make rich men even richer. Little had been achieved at enormous cost. Millions had died, millions more were paupered. The economy had been badly damaged, pacifism soared. The nation faltered, no longer sure of itself. No longer sure of the entire reason it existed.

What died on the bloodbaths of Ypres and the Somme was not the genetic heritage of Great Britain, it was the very idea of its empire.

This is where you make your fundamental error. The evidence is that 2/3 to 3/4 of the personal characteristics are from nature, not nurture. See for example, studies of identical vs. fraternal twins, the persistence of traits in particular population groups under various environmental conditions, etc..

As for "culture," you conveniently overlook the fact that people make their culture--the culture reflects the complex of genetic types interacting in a population group--admittedly not all players making equal contributions.

I do not know if you spent anytime in Rhodesia, when it was the garden spot of Africa, or you would have seen the difference in a great many characteristics, when contrasted to those living, at least somewhat contentedly, in modern Socialist Britain.

For one thing, the Rhodesians showed not only military competence, but extraordinary ability to adapt to adverse conditions, being created by the international lynch mob.

The other point that you ignore is that the British Army during the first two years of the War had a disproportionate percentage of those who you suggest--probably correctly--tend ordinarily to survive. Unfortunately their survival characteristics were overwhelmed by German machine gun fire, in a number of major instances.

No one is now suggesting that there are still not good genes in Britain, only that the proportion has declined, while third world immigration has also changed the landscape of the total resident population.

I don't see how you can assert that 2/3 - 3/4 of the characteristics of a people are from nature, not nurture. How can you calculate such a thing? To prove that there was a basic genetic distinction between peoples you would have to eliminate every possible environmental influence over the characteristic you were checking against, and that is impossible to do. It's probably even impossible to quantify all of the environmental influences. How do you quantify the "quality" of a genetic allele anyway? What makes a gene "good"? It isn't down to our perception of quality, that's for sure. Is it better to be blood group O or blood group A? In certain circumstances one is better, in others the second is. And that is a characteristic of a lot of genetic variation - good in some cases, disastrous in others.

OK I agree that culture is manufactured by a people, who have a genetic distinction about them, but you must surely agree that a culture is not solely developed by the people themselves. Its also a reflection of other characteristics that they have little or no control over - nature, habitat, influences of other cultures - the proportion of Roman blood in modern Britons is vanishingly small - but the cultural inheritence of the island's interaction with the Roman Empire is immense.

As for the Rhodesians - ok they showed extraordinary resilience and ability to adapt - but was that because they had "superior" genetics, or simply that their situation forced them to behave like that? As you say, those adverse conditions were created by "the international lynch mob" ie were not something they had much control over. If modern Britons were placed under similar stresses, would they react in the same way? I think that after a period of adjustment they would. This isn't something that you can test, as obviously I don't particularly want to find out! But to suggest the decline of Britain is solely due to the "breeding out" of some mythical gene combination that makes people adventurous, innovative, creative and so on is pure speculation at best.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.