The Legal Case for Equal & Limited Human Separatism

The Legal Case for Limited Human Segregation

On May 17. 1954, the landmark decision on Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka declared that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional based upon the fact that racial discrimination violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the opinion by saying “Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Warren, 1).  This decision overturned the precedent of the earlier case of Plessy v. Ferguson which decided that racial segregation was permitted so long as the accommodations for both races were equal in quality.  

Warren’s opinion on separate facilities for races being inherently unequal stems from the fact that the separation of races during the Jim Crow era, which preceded the Brown decision, was based on the idea that the races were inherently unequal and that separating them enforced that inequality.  This very idea is based on the idea that human beings in general are only different in the variational sense where numerical differences in their faculties and bodily constitution are what only set them apart but that the constitution of the human body in itself is the same among all humans.  

If this idea is indeed correct then racial separation is completely baseless as variational differences are not true differences and so to separate people based on these differences will only serve to place higher values on certain variations of humans such as having a particular skull shape or skin color as is the case with the “Caucasian” and “African” races.   

However if there were to be differences among humans that are the opposite of variation that is to say non-variational differences which ARE differences in the bodily constitution that only occur in a particular group of humans then separating those humans would not enforce racial inequality as bodily differences in animals, including humans, will compel said animals to live separately from each other mostly due to biological incompatibility.  In the case of humans, however, who seem to be biologically compatible with each other, in terms of reproduction; the biological differences between two human groups will instead mix in a form of cooperative association where both differences work together or one difference ends up dominating the other..  Sp even if humans can mix that mixture wouldn't necessarily mean that both humans are biologically the same.  

Even in animals that are separate species but of the same genus; they are unable to create a fertile hybrid when both species mix despite having the same common ancestor or genetic origin   

So segregation based on biological differences among humans would be segregation that is based on protecting or preserving said differences that would otherwise be dominated by other human groups who have their biological differences.  The rule here is that the difference must be non-variable or the difference must not be a difference in quantity, only a difference in function or anatomy.   There can be no middle ground with non-variable differences also so a person that is mixed with both differences will either have to resemble one side of their lineage or the other side depending on which difference they represent the most.  

Segregation is based on variational differences, which is the historical form of racial segregation.  This type of segregation is based on inequality rather than protection and has served to enable racism which placed one group of variationally different humans on a lower class while other variationally different humans were placed on a higher class.  Jim Crow and Apartheid were all based on this form of segregation.  

Based on these facts are there any human groups that actually do differ from each biologically, not variationally?  There are.  

The d, differences in human coloration are non-variable and the reasons for this are as follows.  Most humans are brown-colored in every part of their external anatomy and this brown color is due to a brownish-black pigment called melanin.  Eumelanin translates to "good melanin" because of the many ways this pigment can protect human skin, eyes and hair as well as easily adapt to any environment and climate from warm tropical climates to cold tundra climates.   

Eumelanin, due to its brownish-black color, is also a light absorber which, given that the sun is a significant source of UV radiation, provides a protective layer that keeps UV rays from damaging important organs like the skin.  

This kind of pigment by itself can ensure the stability of human health and survival especially given the vast amount of variation that such a pigment provides which allows for adaptation to any biome on Earth.  

While this kind of coloration is common in humans given the immense benefits it provides there are other kinds of human coloration that are either alternative or unnecessary for human survival compared to eumelanin.  

One of these types of coloration is structural coloration or more specifically Tyndall structural coloration which is described in a cited 1927 paper which explored the mechanism of eye coloration on cats which can evolutionarily also apply to other mammals including humans.  

Mason, C. W. (1924). Blue Eyes. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 28, 501.   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.229329/page/n5/mode/2up

This paper describes how after separating the layers that make up the iris in the eyes of dead kittens it was found that the front layer of the iris, called the stroma, was of turbid media where the fibrovascular layer was filled with suspended matter of presumably biochemical origin while the posterior or back layer of the iris consisted of the layer of eumelanin-colored epithelial cells which is also referred to as the uvea.  Hence the organization of the anatomy mimicked the Tyndall Effect where suspended matter within a liquid medium was able to reflect blue light while said med m transmitted yellow light.  

In the case of the eye, the Tyndall Effect occurred as light entered the stroma and was then reflected by the turbid media within the stroma while the transmitted light that wasn't reflected ended up being absorbed by the eumelanin-colored epithelium.   The resulting color of the eye was blue in the presence of light but black when light is dim or absent.  This means that blue eyes provide the same protection from UV radiation as brown eyes but with the ability to reflect some of that light out making that eye color different from brown eyes.  This ability to reflect light is therefore not necessarily needed to protect the eye from UV rays, as pigmentation already does that, but the fact that this kind of eye color still exists among humans shows that this particular eye color must be genetically non-variable as their isn't any quantitative medium between turbid media and eumelanin since these aspects of human anatomy are not compositionally the same and given that a light reflective eye color serves no essential purpose in the health or function of the eye; its evolutionary occurrence, which I based on the formation of variation, can also be ruled out    

Another example of nonessential human coloration is the occurrence of light yellow or blond hair.  Both share the same origin and method of coloration which is the formation of melanocytes within melanocytes which are deposited to nearby cells to provide them with color.  However, the chemical consumption that makes up both pigments is different as shown by this diagram.  

    

      The main difference between the chemical composition of these two kinds of pigments is that black hair lacks cysteine, which contains sulfur, while yellow hair does have it something that is already self-evident as the color of pure sulfur is bright yellow hence why adding it to the chemical composition of, melanin would make yellow hair instead of black in this case.  This is yet another example of human biological non-variability as the biochemical composition of the pigments shares no quantitative medium as well as the fact that yellow hair serves no essential purpose in protecting or ensuring human survival unless yellow hair is considered an alternative to black hair, which also means that its evolutionary occurrence can also be ruled out.  

These evidently non-variable aspects of human coloration can and have been found to remain separate whilst being mixed among people who are considered “racially mixed”.  These “racially mixed” people will either have more in common with one parent of the other, despite this mixture, because such people are not entirely middled genetically as many of these people will either resemble the parent of black coloration more or, more rarely, the parent of nonblack coloration.  

Due to all these evident and self-evident facts, it is clear then that the separation of segregation of peoples and groups of nonblack coloration is segregation based on protection and not on inequality as separating these people from the rest of humanity will protect their genetic integrity from the genetic suppression and domination of those of black coloration which is well known to be genetically dominant in all cases regardless of variation even ones between those of mixed coloration where the parent with more eumelanin has a greater chance to be represented by their offspring than the parent with less melanin. 

This genetic domination is also reinforced by the immigration of those of black coloration regardless of race, nationality, language, religion, or culture.  Either due to high birth rates or intermingling between those of black and nonblack coloration which is all done in the name of diversity and inclusion.  

However real diversity and inclusion are about acknowledging the equality and fairness of all people regardless of their differences as history has shown a legacy of inequality defined by the suppression, domination, and oppression of certain groups of people.   Is it interesting then that while people of nonblack coloration have historically dominated those of black coloration during Jim Crow or Apartheid; those same black persons also seek to genetically suppress and dominate those of nonblack coloration for mostly vengeful reasons.   

So it seems that while people have been dominated by others for social or quantitative reasons people can also be suppressed for genetic reasons and either form of suppression is acceptable if what we wish to achieve is social equality.  

Therefore I propose that in order for humans to truly be equal and not endanger the other’s existence in any way legally or socially; segregation, is limited to those who seek protection from groups that either intentionally or unintentionally seek to dominate or endanger certain groups, should be allowed.as such segregation will not enforce social as limited segregation will still allow the integration of people who are biologically regardless of variation.  

But integration between people will still exist with selective segregation as an option for certain people.  

Allowing unrestricted segregation would result in any kind of segregation to occur whether it's based on inequality prejudice or protection and since most humans are not all different from each other limited segregation seems like the right path to preserve both variable and non-variable different humans without any reasons for these groups to fight for their equality or existence.  

This proposition, therefore, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which ensures equal protection under the law for all people regardless of difference nor does it challenge the 1964 Civil Rights Act which states that social inequality of any kind is a federal crime & all people should have equal rights in holding employment and education regardless of "racial" or "sexual" differences so no omes civil rights are in danger with this policy of limited segregation.  

So humans can be separate but equal based on this policy and the facts that support it.  

 

3 Myths about Blue Eyes

We all know humans have many different eye colors like brown, blue, green, etc.  But many of these functionalities behind these eye colors, specifically the non-brown ones,  have been obscure or not well understood by people especially due to mainstream media.  So I will be debunking some myths behind certain kinds of eye colors and subsequently show the true origins and functions behind certain eye colors.  

Myth #1; Blue Eyes are due to a mutation

It is commonly accepted that blue eyes are the result of a mutation.  But do any of us really know what a mutation is?  

To put it simply we all know that human reproduction involves the passing down of existing genetic information from parent to offspring & this genetic information contains two main parts to it.  The compositional information, or the blueprint in which the human body is made, and the variational information, or all the quantitative aspects of the human body such as organ capacity, muscle mass, skull shape, etc.  

The compositional information of the human body can't be changed because that's the part of our genetic existence that is copied generation after generation and is what forms the basis of our existence itself.  

That variational information, however, can change between generations, and mutations themselves are variational differences & mutations themselves are said to e the source of variation themselves which is why a parent and child, being the same compositionally can appear to look, act, or be different from each other.  

So blue eyes are commonly determined to be a variation of human eye color but that couldn't be further from the truth.  Blue eyes are not colored by melanin, like brown eyes, blue eyes get their color from microscopic structures within the eye while brown eyes get their color from melanosome deposits, which are mobile organelles that are created by melanocytes, within the cell themselves and the concentration and amount of these melanocytes determine the degree or shades of brown color.  

Are there any quantitative differences between depositing melanosomes within nearby cells and the structures that are created by cells that give color?  of course not.  The structural coloration of blue eyes is, due to light scattering by tiny particles in fine suspension within a certain medium or in other words Tyndall Scattering which this paper, which covers an experiment done to determine blue eye color, affirms.   

"The horizontal beam across the field of the microscope was employed for this observation. Care was taken to distinguish between effects due to the irregularities of the external surface and those due to the polarizing action within the tissue itself. The iris was separated into the stroma layer, and the black pigment layer (uvea). The stroma, by transmitted light, was turbid yellow—of the same hue as that of other turbid media; the color was not localized <l in pigment granules. Against a dark ground, the stroma scatters whitish-blue light and with a 3 mm objective, a haze of tiny points of blue light was observed. The scattered light was partially polarized, and the vibrations were in the plane normal to the direction of the illuminating beam. No evidence of a blue pigment was noted; the yellow appearance by transmitted light would preclude the possibility of such a pigment being present."

Source:(Mason, C. W. (1924). Blue Eyes. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 28, 500-501.   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.229329/page/n5/mode/2up)

The experiment thus confirms that blue eyes are due to a finely suspended structure of particles within the iris, not melanosome deposits or a mutation of pigmentation but are actually due to a non-variable compositional difference among certain humans ultimately proving that blue-eyed people are not of the same genetic composition as brown or black-eyed people.  

While there is a black-pigmented back layer behind the iris stroma; the structural color layer of blue eyes is certainly absent within most brown eyes the structural layer is absent because most brown eyes that are not mixed with blue eyes are dark and dark colors absorb light.  So Blue eyes ad brown eyes are actually polar opposites as well since blue eyes reflect and scatter light while unmixed brown or black eyes absorb light.  

Myth #2: Blue Eyes are more sensitive to Light

This is clearly a myth because of the pigmented uvea of the iris of blue eyes whichbid explained here.  

The pigment of the uvea is not purple but dark brownish-black (melanin) and serves as a background for the turbid stroma. In like manner, the choroid serves as a dark background for the sclera though the latter is frequently so thick and so opaque that the dark background is really not necessary and the sclera appears almost white.

(Mason, C. W. (1924). Blue Eyes. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 28, 501.   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.229329/page/n5/mode/2up)

A lack of melanin causes light sensitivity so clearly blue eyes aren't more sensitive to Light than brown eyed people whose dark only absorbs light.  

Myth #3: Blue and Brown Eyed prople can mix.

In order to mix something together you need to make twi different things and when combining them come up with something new.  

Do when human races mix they are mixing together their distinctive variations together which makes "new" variations because by mixing two extreme quantitative differences you end up with an intermediate variation hence race mixing creates new and interesting varieties of humans.

Blue eyes and brown eyes on contrast are not variations and they function as polar opposites.  So when blue and brown eyes mix they end up working together side by side in an anatomical association which is yet again proven by C. W. Mason.

"The development of a yellow to brown pigment in the turbid stroma would of course give shades ranging from green to hazel or brown"

(Mason, C. W. (1924). Blue Eyes. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 28, 501.   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.229329/page/n5/mode/2up)

So the existence of green, hazel, and brown eyes proves that blue and brown eye colors work together when they mix but they do not mix with each other because of their non-variable functions.  

This association is Aldo proven by the fact that their are some mixed race people who dhow this association.  These people are shown below 

.

Booker T. Washington. African-American activist, light reflective eyes, and black melanin associative coloration.  

Jeremy Meeks, Mixed African American-European, a convicted felon turned model.

 Sharbat Gula. Afghani refugee turned Italian citizen, green eyes colored by both melanin and light reflection, black hair, and dark skin.  

Lana Rockwell. American Actress, European Father, Mixed African-American & European mother.

Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel. A Jewish-American gangster from Eastern Europe, Black pigmented hair, Light reflective Blue eyes

Sultan Al-Atrash, Syrian Druze leader, blue eyes, black hair

Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, an Iranian Politician with associative coloration 

Bashar Al-Assad, Syrian President of Alawite origin, has green eyes of associative coloration.

Sneha Ullal, Indian Actress. Green eyes of associated pigment and structural coloration 

 

This association of color also indicates that blue and brown people did not share or had a common ancestor in their early history because in order for two or more people to share the same ancestor they need to all be compositionally the same in biology but different in variation or quantitative expression of said biology and so blue and brown people don't share a common ancestor because of the aforementioned non-variability between the functions that causes blue and brown eyes.    

So these are some of the myths that mislead people about the truth behind blue and brown eyes through mainstream media and anyone can look into this information for themselves so don't just take my word for it.  

The Root of Transgenderism

The Transgender Phenomena

Suppose there is a group of people that are diametrically viewed as mentally ill or just plain stupid on one side while also being viewed as empowered, liberated, and strong on the other side. In that case, that group itself is a subgroup within the LGBTQ sphere of influence who call themselves transgender.  Transgender people are those who identify themselves as being part of a gender that is usually opposite to their biological genders such as a man identifying as a woman or a woman identifying as a man or they are transitioning from one gender to another because they feel like they are a part of the opposite sex and so consider themselves being trapped in a body that was assigned the wrong gender at birth. 

This very identification of gender is therefore psychological because one's identity is obviously determined by how someone mentally views themselves in the context of society and the group.  Curiously, the origin of this internal identification of gender that ios partaking by some people is something that many people fail to acknowledge because when someone declares themselves transgenders they are determined to be mentally ill or that something is wrong with them which causes anger, resentment, and discontent towards others and so more people will identify as transgender more and more to spite the naysayers to don't accept their new gender identity.  

So by understanding the motivations, and reasons that drive someone to identify as transgender we can better cooperate with said people within society which will encourage stronger group cohesion.  

The Process   

Before we get into what drives transgender identity we need to establish what gender is.  Gender itself is something that exists among sexually reproducing animals where two animals with different but related DNA are contained within specialized cells called gametes that contain exactly half the DNA of either parent which in the case of humans is 24 chromosomes because human somatic or non-gametic cells contain 48 chromosomes.  These gametes are called egg cells or oocytes within animals that are known as females and sperm cells which are contained within animals that are known as males.  This very difference is what marks an individual animal being determined as male and female with their own respective reductive systems that produce and contain their respective kinds of gametes.  Said reproductive systems are enough to determine gender among animals because of their reproductive purposes.  

But gender itself also has other characteristics that distinguish the sexes because these characteristics are what attracts the opposite sex and vice versa such as breasts, and wide hips among human females and rugged facial hair as well as a strong upper body in human males.  

So the primary reproductive systems along with the characteristics associated with their respective genders, which are known as secondary sex characteristics, are what defines gender which is evidently a biological fact.  So now that gender has been defined and established we can now go to the main question of what drives transgender identity.  

in their curious state wishes to understand what it is like to be mentally female or mentally male because there is a natural allure towards the opposite sex that may arise among young children when they associate with the opposite sex and this association is what makes children want to further mentally explore the opposite sex to the point where they wish to be like them.  But this is just a mere curiosity on the part of young children and people because young people, being inexperienced and unknowledgeable about the world around them, will naturally want to understand different people because theory appears mysterious. o  fascinating to the undeveloped mind.  

So Transgender identity isn't driven by a passing curiosity about gender however the state of individually associating with the opposite gender does.  Since individuality itself is an ingrained part of human mental development and behavior; it is a driving force behind teenage and young adult development and while this individuality usually expresses itself in the form of self-assertive independence where said people will do whatever they want and go wherever theory want to go.  

But there is an extreme form of individuality where this sense of independence is taken to mean the full independence of a person not only from the influence and control of others, such as their parents but from their physical existence because accepting who they are physically being accepting who they are physically is conforming to a determined reality which they have no control over which is unacceptable to this kind of individuality.  It is sort of like freeing your soul from the bound of your physical existence just like religious dualism except the soul or mind is the prime driver of one's reality whereas the liberation of the soul within religion is for personal salvation.  

So those who wish to control every aspect of their reality and evidence through their free mind is what drives people to identify as transgender because determining your gender is a form of control for their physical reality and this is just one example of “reality control” as there are people who will choose to be of another race or kind of animal.  So this hyper-individuality is the main driver of transgender identity along with some sense of curiosity about the opposite gender by young adults and sometimes children in some cases of parental abuse or neglect.

Ultimately

So that we know what drives transgender identity; we now need to know what must be done to address this transition identification of gender.  The first & foremost thing that must be addressed is that this identification is the result of extreme individuality which is caused by the effects of extreme individuality by other people namely parents, close relatives, or even friends with said individualities being the result of the deterioration of human groups.  So maintaining a strong group identity would be the best way, if you are group-oriented, to address moderate & extreme individuality among young adults and children.  

If you are however an individualistic person; the best way to address said extreme individuality would be to try and inform those who are extremely individualistic to understand the difference between rational individuality, such as survival & self-assertion within a social setting, & emotional individuality which is the cause of extreme individuality in the first place.  Chances are rationality will be strongly favored by extreme individuals because irrationality and ignorance are socially negative attributes that no person within our modern information-driven world would want to have,  

Ultimately people who are transgender are victims of individuality and control by others and so showing these people compassion within the context of group unity or identity along with rational advisement is what will ease the emotional pain that transgender people have faced at the hands of other selfish people so we must do whatever we can to make such people feel welcome within human groups before they decide to irreversibly change themselves and ruin their own lives and mental health in the process.

Why America is Divided

 America’s Division

The Supreme Court, on Friday, June 24th, 2022, officially overturned the ruling of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey which guaranteed the right of abortion on a constitutional and thereby Federal level.  The overturning of this right now hands back the legalization or illegalization of abortion to the individual states of America whereas the more conservative states will fully or mostly make abortion illegal while the more liberal states will expand and maintain the right to abortion.  

This very split between conservative and liberal states has got me wondering about the setup and drive behind the divisions of social dynamics among Americans.  It seems that the United States themselves are not so united when it comes to human social structure and customs but this very division hasn't always existed among Americans, in fact, up until the latter half of the 10th Century Americans more or less had similar social structures which were centered around community, family, and heritage.  Even when America had a multitude of ethnic groups within it such as the Irish, Germans, WASP, Polish, Italians, & Jews they all formed separate but cohesive groups and lived and worked in their own part of this great land.  But that would soon change.  

Conservative=Ignorance

After the end of World War 2, the American economy was booming as returning soldiers were given government loans to buy homes and employment opportunities were plentiful and people were living comfortably for the first time after a long decade of economic turmoil caused by the Great Depression.  This newfound prosperity among American families also meant that their children could also attend universities which were paid for by government loans as well.  

The Universities themselves have always been viewed as an institute of higher education and intelligence where all kinds of knowledge could be acquired with enough time and effort put into studying such knowledge and considering that those who were able to attend University through government student loans came from socially conservative backgrounds, exposure to this new knowledge and presumably unbias environment was like a breath of fresh air for them or like being in a new exotic place that they could only dream of one day attending.  

While the Universities themselves did offer knowledge of the most advanced kind such as Calculus & Number Theory as well as Literature that only the most advanced readers could understand there was also another form of “knowledge” that, while not being an objective form of knowledge which is meant to explain some aspect of the reality we live in, managed to frame itself as such through its instruction by said Universities.  

This new “knowledge” was Cultural Marxism.  Cultural Marxism, for those who are not familiar with it, is the idea that aspects of human social structures and social norms are products of centuries of ignorance and that the existence of human groups is the cause of human suffering and misery such as war and oppression so one must break out of this ignorant and harmful human social structure to be happy and achieve widespread human cooperation and love which will eventually bring about world peace.  The reasoning behind this very idea is that when people see themselves as individuals instead of members of a group; they are less likely to be hateful and prejudiced towards others and if other people also share this individualistic viewpoint of other people then they also will be less likely to hate and discriminate against other people.  

This very reason that was given for the idea of Cultural Marxism would soon become popular among University students who themselves are individuals who managed to break from their respective groups by attending said Universities and eventually achieving a career that would make them happy; a social situation which married and agreed with Cultural Marxism perfectly.  The University students then would begin to live more individualistically for the rest of their lives and when movements like the Civil Rights Movement, the Gay, and later LGBTQ, Rights Movement & the Feminist and Sexual Liberation Movements were happening; these very students wholeheartedly supported these movements in sheer opposition to the very group that themselves unsuccessfully pushed back against these movements.  

Hence the idea of being a conservative, or being someone who supported the group and their interests, is one of ignorance, bias, and social backwardness while the students who have embraced Cultural Marxism became known as Liberals who are viewed as being socially progressive, unbias, and universally good due to their love and acceptance or tolerance for all individuals regardless of background.  

Hence the acceptance of individual social structures is one where people are individualistic, or liberal, on one side and those who are conservative or group-oriented on the other with Liberalism being more dominant in some states and conservatism being more dominant in other states.  Such states differ demographically also with Liberal states having more people of different groups living with each other while conservative states tend to have a monocultural and uniform group background.  Either way, this social division is here to stay because individualism and group orientation are two conflicting social structures because individualism cannot thrive among groups while groups themselves can't stay together because of individualism hence why America is and will continue to be socially divided nation.  

American Unity?

But can this division be reconciled?  In a way, yes but it would require abandoning Liberalism as Liberalism, being socially divisive through individualism, will only continue to tear Americans apart by destroying any sense of national & group, pride, patriotism, and a sense of the wholeness of the American people which was the reason why so many Americans, both men, and women, were willing to fight & die as well as support their country during times of conflict and turmoil and even if we are living in an era of peace; conflict itself is always looming over nations and people who all have their own goals and interests and hence will not hesitate to destroy others peoples to get it, especially if said people are socially divided.  So group unity is and will continue to be, for as long as humans exist on this planet, an important part of our existence as highly advanced kinds of animals.  

What Stifles Human Development?

Developing & Developed Nations 

Of all the countries that exist today the majority of them are considered developing nations or nations that do not have adequate human development such as high life expectancy, access to medicine ad adequate healthcare, poor standards of living as well as poorly developed infrastructure.  On the other hand, only a handful of countries have a high level of human development.  The natural question to ask is then why are so many countries lacking in human development while very few countries are high in human development? 

Many ideas have been put forth to explain this discrepancy in human development such as the controversial idea that some humans simply aren't able to develop because they are genetically capable of doing so while others assert it is due to big corporations and historic colonialism that have drained certain development of their valuable resources until there is almost nothing left leaving these people to scramble for scraps of what was there once their abundant source of potential wealth.  

Well, I believe that neither ideas are entirely correct because even if resources have been drained from their countries or some people are incapable of developing on their own, the underlying and sole reason behind stunted human development has to do with how the people who live in developing view themselves and the world around them and to understand what this means we need to look into the history behind human economies.

Traditional Trade

What do the Rajputs of India, The King of Mali Mansa Musa, and the Medieval Muslim World have in common?  They all had wealth that was all sourced from nature.  The spices of India & the East Indies were grown and cultivated en masse by farmers who would adequately profit from such spice production.  The massive reserves of Gold, a highly valuable metal, found within the Mali Kingdom and neighboring areas allowed the famous king Mansa Musa to become the wealthiest man to have ever lived & The Muslim World which stretched from Northern Africa to India controlled the famous Silk Road which was the very trade network that traded silk, spices, porcelain, and other valuable goods that were all either sourced from animals, plants and other natural resources.  

Everything that was a source of wealth for most of human history had always been sourced from natural or agricultural processes & because these very goods came from nature and only nature the people believed that such wealth was from God himself.  This belief was especially permeated into the Muslim World where most of this natural wealth was controlled and derived from & because of this very belief people only ever saw wealth coming from God and God only because, especially within the point of view of Islam, God, unquestionably, controls and rules all of humanity and the Universe

But while such natural wealth was enjoyed by those who had it for millennia; something would eventually come along that would butcher this natural wealth and leave the people who once had it stuck in the past and that was the Industrial Revolution.  

The Industrial Revolution 

While most of the world was largely agricultural other kinds of trades such as baking, blacksmithing, and mercantile trading occurred in more urban areas of the entire world from Europe to Afro-Asia,  the Americas & Oceania all had relied on natural wealth to live and prosper as a people with some places, Such as Asia & Africa, doing better.  But then a bunch of very smart people used their knowledge in applied physics & chemistry to engineering new inventions such as the lightbulb, the steam-powered ships & trains, and modern appliances such as microwaves, gas stoves, & refrigerators while other smart people discovered and invented new ways to cure disease and increase life expectancy through their knowledge of the human body which rapidly increased the standard of living and access to better medical treatment for everyone.  

These new inventions were then spread to other parts of the world through colonialism and trade, allowing even more people from distant lands to also achieve a better standard of living with some of them even improving and enhancing this technology such as the Japanese.  

These new creations by humans then become the new source of wealth for people rather than the natural sources of wealth that humans had produced before the Industrial Revolution with this new source of wealth, called Inventive Wealth, even continuing to this day with the development of computers, electric cars, and more environmentally friendly energy production such as wind or solar.  But while all of this new wealth was making human living much better than it ever had been throughout history some people while accepting this new technology did not bother to understand it in any way because they thought that such technology wasn't due to human ingenuity but due to God himself. This brings me to my next point.  

God & his People

Let's just first start by saying that within religious communities; the only thing that is of concern is the upholding of God-Given morality and God-Given standards of life and behavior.  Everything else is due to God’s will only.  So people within this community, who are subjected to God must always act and do what he believes is right and wrong & what he believes is proper behavior & thought so anyone that does anything which steps out of line from God’s standards of behavior and living is something that not only isn't socially unacceptable but punishable by torture or death.  So humans need to be obedient little subjects and nothing more and this very idea itself is what holds people back from innovation.  

Because God can only create wealth from the Earth he created, the people must rely on God’s grace to be wealthy but when the very natural wealth from God has become obsolete due to modern technology the people who still follow God’s standards and still consider themselves subject to God would not ever think that they could produce the same kind of inventive wealth that has brought the world into a better place because doing so will anger God because it shows that humans are equal to God when they create something new or innovative.    

Repression

It is no surprise that a country whose population is highly religious is also the one that doesn't have high or adequate human development while countries whose populations are more secular tend to have high human development and the reason behind this is simple.  Secular people understand that they can create wealth based on their knowledge and creativeness within the sciences and arts respectively while also knowing that the Universe at large is not run by some divine entity but is, in fact, a system with a stable constitution of existence with certain laws that run the chemical and physical processes of the Universe while those who are religious think God runs the Universe and that science and subsequent human ingenuity is an act of blasphemy and so no one should ever do it o risk eternal damnation or physical punishment from religious zealots.  These opposites of religion and science are opposites with science being more about understanding the objective world around us, which we do not yet fully understand,  while religion is about believing in a certain worldview, morality, and law that is always asserted to be right but is just a subjective viewpoint of the world.

So to answer the question of what stifles human development; the answer would probably b religion or more specificity the religions that have a God who asserts control over his creations with an iron fist to the point where humans are afraid or are unable to create new sources of wealth from new knowledge because doing so is an act of blasphemy which can mean death or severe punishment that can damage one's psyche & willpower to learn and think independently. 

This isn't to say that embracing secularism is good however as secularism has its ways of causing human destruction such as hyper individuality and a disregard of one's community due to wanting to make oneself “happy” while those who are religious relentlessly beat back modernity because of its high stance of individuality which can destroy the human group which these religions stand on.  

Nonetheless, it is now obvious that to bring about human development to all parts of the world; people need to start relying on tier own abilities and willingness to learn and innovate for the sake of achieving high human development for their own countries rather than turning to belief and living in fear of punishment or hell for daring to go against such beliefs which are subjective hogwash anyway.  Human intelligence itself is a gift brought about through thousands of years of human development and so every human should use it for the betterment of others and themselves as well as their nations.    

Social Liberalism vs. Social Cohesion

  

Nations & Groups

All over the world both today and time immemorial, there are nations, states, or countries that more or less have a common sense of unity.  Many of these countries developed their national unity mostly as a response against European colonialism and the subsequent decades that followed their eventual freedom from colonial rule created many countries which are drawn along uni-tribal, linguistic, or ethnic grounds.  Countries such as India, Angola, Nigeria, Tajikistan, and Algeria, to name a few, have all formed along these very grounds with additional reinforcement of religious identity to add to the sense of national unity.  

Many of the people within these countries, and others like them, will feel a subsequent sense of pride for their nations and their people's existence and when combined with the sense of duty that these aforementioned people have towards their fellow countryfolk means they will work hard and support their families and communities despite poor living conditions as well as the general impoverishment that many of these countries are in due to corrupt governments as well as their colonial past.  

While national, ethnic-religious, and communal unity and pride are highly present within many parts of the world there are countries where the values of community and duty are drastically different to the point that there is an internal battle among and between individuals which stems from an ideology that is widely believed to be an enlightening, progressive and uplifting.  That ideology is called Social Liberalism.  

The Foundation of Liberalism

Liberalism itself is known to have originated in Europe during the period known as the Enlightenment.  Liberalism itself was an idea that was developed by philosophers, like Voltaire, Kant, and Locke, who questioned the role of government, economic, and social life in the lives of everyday citizens.  They especially questioned the role of governance by a king or monarch through the “Divine Right of Kings” which was used to justify the rule of monarchies all across Europe.  

Hence Liberalism first began as a political ideology that advocated for more communal or constitutional forms of government such as the republics or democratic states similar to those that existed in Ancient Greece and Rome.  Liberalism also developed economic ideas, which developed in response to the old system of feudalism where the vast majority of people lived under the subjection and control of an established nobility that personally owned all the land within a European kingdom.  These new economic systems encouraged a more individualistic economy where individual people would work for themselves instead of a noble class and make money for themselves.  This economic system driven by individual money-making would later be known as capitalism which was officially introduced by the Scottish economist Adam Smith in his book “The Wealth of Nations”.  

But the most significant form of Liberalism is Social Liberalism.  Social Liberalism developed much later than political and economic Liberalism. Social Liberalism itself developed in response to old social institutions, like the Church or the established roles given to people within society, where people began to question the existence of such institutions and subsequently began to promote personal individualism as a result of their questioning.  Social Liberalism itself is quite different from economic and political Liberalism.  The difference between social Liberalism and politico-economic Liberalism is that political and economic Liberalism was meant to allow a greater amount of freedom for a people or group from tyrannical institutions that sought to control them.  Social Liberalism on the other hand sought to provide and promote personal freedom from tyrannical group institutions that sought to control the individual.

The Impacts of Freedom

The concept of freedom has a very specific meaning in the context of these three forms of Liberalism.  Freedom within political liberalism is where a group of people or an established nation seek to be free from the rule of a monarch or tyrant that is trying to control them rather than regulate them.  This freedom from a tyrant is expressed through the formation of a more communal government that is determined to always serve the interests of people and never become controlling towards said people.      

Countries like the United States, France’s five republics, The UK, and Italy have formed their communal republican governments along with this desire to be free from a monarch.  Freedom within political liberalism is autonomy or self-governance of a people and so the group governs themselves through this kind of Liberalism. 

Freedom within Economic Liberalism is one where a group of people can form an economy that is independent of the governmental authority of a feudal lord or monarch.  This kind of liberal economy is presumably meant to allow people to earn a living by trading their own skills and services with other co-equal parties.  The freedom that this form of Liberalism gives then is financial autonomy from a non-governmental economic authority where people live and work through their own means independent of others.  But such freedom, unlike political freedom, is limited to those who can afford to pursue it without mounting financial obligations as most people are compelled to work under other economic authorities that dictate their means of living and work as well as compensation for said work.    

Nonetheless,  independent and coequal trading with other people for the purpose of mutual benefit for all people within a group is the freedom that Economic Liberalism provides. Such freedom itself, if properly implemented, will allow a more equal economy where the wealth gap between the rich and poor is almost nonexistent due to most people having or acquiring their own means of production and trade without being subjected to an economic authority that controls said means of production and the same also goes for a governmental authority that also owns said means of production and trade for a people to enforce “equality” among a group of people.    

Social Liberalism, however, offers freedom to its greatest extent.  This freedom that Social Liberalism provides is freedom from not a tyrannical or monarchal government but also freedom from social institutions and norms that have existed since time immemorial.  This kind of freedom compels people to do just about anything for themselves only without regard to any authority in its most extreme form which is called anarchy.  Freedom from social institutions and norms is especially what social liberalism intends to achieve and many of the social movements that took place in the late 19th and 20th Centuries had this very goal in mind.  But such freedom, unlike the aforementioned politico-economic freedoms, was not quickly accepted by most groups or countries which is why social movements such as Feminism or the Sexual Liberation Movements in Europe were recently accepted and embraced by certain peoples and nations within the Western World and parts of East Asia during the last 70-80 years.  

Social Liberalism, therefore, will view the human group as a threat to their personal freedoms and will therefore equate the human group to that of a tyrannical and controlling entity that seeks to exploit the individual in favor of the group.  This very abhorrence for the human group that is felt by social liberals is also made greater when the human group oppresses, harms, or destroys other human groups such as the British Empire towards Asians and Africans, Nazi Germany towards Jews and other Non-Germanic peoples, and Imperial Japan against other East, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Island countries.  

Social Liberals, therefore, seek to free individuals from the group by offering them the freedom that allows them to live their lives however they wish without the intervention of the group.  Such freedom, when given to people, will however begin to encourage the breakdown and eventual destruction of certain human groups by making individuals of the said group live and work as they please and only form loose interpersonal or social relationships that maintain a high degree of freedom for those involved such that these types of relationships can easily be broken up when individual issues that are unreconcilable arise which will often lead to personal unhappiness due to the natural  lingering desire of humans to form relationships with others  

What This All Means. 

This very destruction of the group through the gradual acquisition of personal freedoms, which at best will form a prolonged loose interpersonal relationship of a platonic or sexual nature with others of best groups or outside groups, is the internal struggle between the individual and groups existence where the group will try to keep itself together while the individuals try to pry away from it.  But why does this sense of individualism and independence from the group exist if most human groups all over the world actually want to exist?

For most human groups, because they are poor or live in poor/developing countries, the need for group cohesion is very necessary to ensure that the needs of people are met.  When such people, in large numbers, are also fortunate enough to immigrate to countries with better economic opportunities; such group cohesion is maintained and even expanded to further their group interests.  

But when human groups have individuals who are personally well off without direct support from their own group or community; their own self-interest, will begin to form as a result, and when combined with an anti-group sentiment for the group the individual came from; said individual will have no need for the group and so will live and work for themselves while forming relationships here and there until one stick on long enough to form some kind of stable relationship until their or their chosen partner’s individualistic inclinations show up which will result in the eventual or immediate dissolution of said relationship. 

The individual that has been influenced by social Liberalism will now and forever remain content with themselves because of the social conditions they find and got themselves in which they also consider to be a progressive move for humanity.

But the dissolution or the abandonment of the group by those who have been influenced by Social Liberalism inevitably means the destruction of the nations that the group has formed for their own benefit.  HUman groups, themselves, are the very entity that has allowed for human survival during the early history of humans and human population growth which still continues today mostly in developing countries. 

The breakup of the human group through individualistic desires serves to cause the breakdown of a nation that another human group will gleefully be willing to conquer. After all, when individualism is dominant within a human group, even if said group is rich or economically well off, such groups leave themselves vulnerable to said conquering group because the interests of the group, which is an extension of the individual’s,  will always be dominant compared to individualistic interests. 

So when a group of humans wishes to conquer another human group, either by violent or peaceful means, they will be able to easily do so due to the lack of group cohesion of the conquered group caused by rampant individualism among its members which will eventually destroy all of the members of the said group should they be conquered or refuse to have children, due to the individual burden children are to individual people.

Ultimately social LIberalism is a destructive form of Liberalism that seems to break down and ultimately destroy human groups while political and economic Liberalism is meant to benefit a human group.  In fact, political and economic Liberalism is more widely adopted by many countries around the world because of the intended goal of group benefit, despite the occurrence of corruption which does not destroy group cohesion while social Liberalism is only accepted in developed countries because of the personal economic prosperity and contempt for the group who have once oppressed those from now developing countries and because of the nature of social Liberalism no Non-Western country is willing to accept it, especially those who are theocratic or highly nationalistic like North Korea or Russia.  So in conclusion, these are three forms of Liberalism two of which are meant to benefit human groups governmentally and economically, and the other which is meant to destroy the human group