I think we face more ethical problems when it comes to who is losing and winning. Sometimes companies and govs make decisions that are the cheapest or the most profitable, even if they aren't that beneficial or ethical. They also tend to put the interests of the rich above the wellbeing of the least responsible and the most vulnerable communities.

Even the seemingly great things can have different value. Like, for example, "planting trees" can be done through planting quick-growing foreign monocultures in the Indigenous land. Or it can be done through replacing rich man's golf courts or dried up agricultural land with diverse local ecosystems and native plants. These things have different value and impact, but they can be presented as equal. Imo, it's important to consider that those are actually good options, and not the rich getting richer from patching up the problem instead of fixing it.

Reindeer might play a role in the ecology of the region at this point, like bisons in the US prior to colonisation, who were both the source of food for the Indigenous communities and the essential part of the local environment. Preserving biodiversity, local species and the environment are as crucial for mitigating climate change and carbon capture as finding clean energy sources. Reindeer might be helping that - by moving the soil, proving natural fertilizer, transporting seeds, etc, and their role in the ecosystem needs to be researched and be accounted for. Indigenous peoples generally have better understanding of the role of the animals in their local ecosystem because they historically depend on this ecosystem being healthy for survival.

It still can be heavily impacted by cultural component. Cultures that have heavy focus on football have more top football players, regions that emphasise fighter culture and invest a lot in wrestling sports have top wrestlers in the Olympic games. Cultures that practice running and have running as their top preference will focus on running and encourage this skill through training, financially and by trying to seek the people who have good characteristically for running through screenings. A person living overseas will still be at least somewhat impacted by their country of origin or by their culture through their family and identity. Natural advantage would mean little with no training, financial support or cultural encouragement.

Yeah. I don't understand how intelligence can be accurately measured across ethnicities (considering that most ethnicities aren't monolithic and isolated) in the current limitations of social inequality, barriers in access to education and workforce, recovery from colonisation, racism, gender prejudice and so on. I don't know how can you possibly account for all of that. A very intelligent and capable woman from post-colonial country with practical skills might score much lower in IQ tests than a less intelligent and less capable university student from a wealthy country who has done IQ tests before, and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with inequality.

They will have to account for racism and gender bias even in the context of wealthy countries. If a very intelligent person is systematically discriminated, told that they are less intelligent, experience racial or gender prejudice in education and workforce or even outright harassment, have low expectations and little representation to inspire them, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy of how well they perform. And somehow account for the Indigenous knowledge, too, when it's been only in the recent decades that some Indigenous skills (like more efficient land management techniques) started getting proper attention.