NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

The racial diversity? Nope. Certainly not worth preventing intermarriage.

How do you propose to prevent this 'omni-genocide'?

We're all humans and all should be treated as such. When we begin referring to "endangered races" we make them nothing more than animals who need to be protected by breaking off all "unnatural" contact with them, making them the object of research and studies which objectify and dehumanize them, and might even encourage breeding programs.

If there really is no difference between the black, the white, the yellow, the brown, the red, and whatever other skin color there is, then why should we worry about preserving those colors?

The racial diversity? Nope. Certainly not worth preventing intermarriage.

Not necessarily legislation. Just a change in the current trends of thinking.

Not necessarily legislation. Just a change in the current trends of thinking.

Not even that. The culture should be as accepting of interracial couples as of all other kinds.

If there really is no difference between the black, the white, the yellow, the brown, the red, and whatever other skin color there is, then why should we worry about preserving those colors?

You don't believe in the importance of aesthetics?

Not even that. The culture should be as accepting of interracial couples as of all other kinds.

Why? Because the hegemony of society tells you that you should be?

not in this sense, no. preserving local traditions and languages is fine, it doesn't matter what colour the people who uphold them are.

That's not really a fair definition. Genocide is when one race is asserting its dominance over another by methodically destroying it. What you're talking about is more like all races merging together.

It's like the difference between Nazi conquest and world unity.

Besides, it'll be one less thing for us to fight over.

You don't believe in the importance of aesthetics?

The most beautiful person I ever met was half-Lebanese, quarter-Black and quarter-Chinese.

Agreed. Interracial marriage and relationship is good. I enjoy having a black girlfriend.

Why should it be seperate, I have a feeling of bigotry or something, especially if it is related to the change of what thoughts are.

I thought the thread was about whether the human race was worth preserving.

I was conflicted about my answer to that, too.

You don't believe in the importance of aesthetics?

I think that a person's physical beauty is irrelevant.

Why? Because the hegemony of society tells you that you should be?

No. (Actually, the hegemony of society, if anything, says the opposite.)

Because I don't believe in restricting, culturally or legally, who people should love and marry (beyond certain obvious standards like age.)

Irrelevant, it'll never happen. The "races" have been mixing forever. While many traits are more prevalent, even specific in, certain populations according to geography, even recessive genes aren't simply eliminated by mixture with other genotypes. If more social and political barriers were eliminated between populations, the distribution of all the same, familiar types would just become more random and spread over a wider area of the globe.

... yes, for obvious reasons

No. (Actually, the hegemony of society, if anything, says the opposite.)

Because I don't believe in restricting, culturally or legally, who people should love and marry (beyond certain obvious standards like age.)

Seconded.

I think it's a daft idea. I for one will not listen to any Nazis who preach racial purity. I'm not going to have a baby with a man just because he's blonde. Women aren't just breeders! :mad:

We're all humans and all should be treated as such. When we begin referring to "endangered races" we make them nothing more than animals who need to be protected by breaking off all "unnatural" contact with them, making them the object of research and studies which objectify and dehumanize them, and might even encourage breeding programs.

If there really is no difference between the black, the white, the yellow, the brown, the red, and whatever other skin color there is, then why should we worry about preserving those colors?

You actually said something that I completely agree with! :eek:

Russell Peters. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-S-dHiwRZY)

:p

I think it's a daft idea. I for one will not listen to any Nazis who preach racial purity. I'm not going to have a baby with a man just because he's blonde. Women aren't just breeders! :mad:
Hey! Shut up and do as John Gibson orders you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af-RiRDoGk)!

:p

Hey! Shut up and do as John Gibson orders you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af-RiRDoGk)!

:p

He's a right prick. There's nought wrong with Hispanic people! :mad:

I've suddenly got the urge to emigrate to America and have a lot of mixed race babies.

Hey! Shut up and do as John Gibson orders you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af-RiRDoGk)!

:p

Ugh, what a nasty man.

Women aren't just breeders! :mad:

Correct. Women make good sex slaves and have good house-keeping skills. :p

It's nice to have diversity of human races, but I don't see how you're going to enforce that without violating ridiculous amounts of human rights. So it's not really worth preserving.

Correct. Women make good sex slaves and have good house-keeping skills. :p

So do some men. :p

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.
Race? No. Culture, ethnicity, sure. But race is a construct we'd be better off ditching.

If there really is no difference between the black, the white, the yellow, the brown, the red, and whatever other skin color there is, then why should we worry about preserving those colors?

red? wrong species!

and if there are no white people less skin cancer everybody wins! (plus I get to have hot hot sex with whatever race takes my fancy)

it will preserve itself in many ways

You actually said something that I completely agree with! :eek:

:eek:

I better say something, quick!

Pi = 3
Gays are subhuman!
Science is the devil!

(I really don't believe any of those.)

Correct. Women make good sex slaves and have good house-keeping skills. :p

That is totally out of order. I know lots of women whose housekeeping skills are barely adequate.

I think it should be up to individuals whether or not they want to preserve their racial makeup; it shouldn't be enforced on anyone. Personally, I think preserving the diversity of culture is a lot more important because there really isn't any such thing as "racial culture"; every race has a ton of unique and diverse cultures, some of which are different enough that the only thing they have in common is their racial background.

However, it's rather specious because it's impossible to trace lineage back far enough to really see racial background, and all of us ultimately came from the same places at the dawn of humanity.

Race? No. Culture, ethnicity, sure. But race is a construct we'd be better off ditching.

What about a culture that says you can't marry or interact with anyone from another culture? Cultures need updating and intermixing as much as race...

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

Sorry to tell you, but you are about 150,000 years too late top prevent H. sapiens idaltu from going extinct, and that's the only way you's be able to preserve the diversity of human races.

I'm totally preserving my racial make up. Anybody from my family married another race, and they're out of the family.

I think 500 years from now everyone's skin will be the color of chocolate milk and I can't wait. So many problems in the United States and the world have to do with race, getting rid of it is one less thing wrong.

Also allowing interracial couples means there's more people to love. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

poor nazi. of course, interbreeding between different population groups actually increases genetic diversity.

so, back under your rock and/or rotting log then?

I am against this because it reduces my potential dating pool.

What about a culture that says you can't marry or interact with anyone from another culture? Cultures need updating and intermixing as much as race...

And if they don't, they generally either die or become increasingly irrelevant. It's not like the Amish are the hot new religion, are they? It's a losing strategy, long term.

The society can only hold a certain amount of diversity, out of which racial and religio-cultural are the least worth preserving.

*Religio-cultural refers to strong religious following, not just going to the church when you are bored or like that.


I prefer diversity of individuals to diversity of crowds.

As a blue eyed person, it is my solemn duty to carry on the blue-eyed trait.

So, is this question suggesting that we practice selective breeding?

I'm totally preserving my racial make up. Anybody from my family married another race, and they're out of the family.

I'm all for preserving my racial make up, but if somkeone from my family married outside thjeir race, I'd be more curious how they got ahold of an idaltu to marry in the first place (as well as being curious and a bit upset as to why someone from my immediate family is re-marrying without my having been told).

Not really, no. Since I find mixed-race people are often very attractive anyway.

I'm all for preserving my racial make up, but if someone from my family married outside their race, I'd be more curious how they got ahold of an idaltu to marry in the first place (as well as being curious and a bit upset as to why someone from my immediate family is re-marrying without my having been told).

Yeah, that would raise some real questions; as far as I know, there's no law against marrying the ancestor of modern humans but I think there might be some legal quandaries surrounding the whole extinction aspect.

You can't deny your feelings. Love has no colours. And to kick someone out because they weren't your "race" just isn't right. They're part of the human family.

I'm totally preserving my racial make up. Anybody from my family married another race, and they're out of the family.

If someone in your family besides you marries another race how does it affect YOUR racial makeup? Last I heard getting married doesn't affect certain genetic expressions that control the amount of melanin you have. :confused:

I'm all for preserving my racial make up, but if somkeone from my family married outside thjeir race, I'd be more curious how they got ahold of an idaltu to marry in the first place (as well as being curious and a bit upset as to why someone from my immediate family is re-marrying without my having been told).

Hehehe. :)

Not really, no. Since I find mixed-race people are often very attractive anyway.

Indeed, which is why my quest is to find a blue eyed brazilian :drool:

Indeed, which is why my quest is to find a blue eyed brazilian :drool:

I have to admit, while I prefer whites, Brazilians are very hot as well. *nod*

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

WTF?

People of 'mixed' races are devoid of culture and represent genocide of human history?

Come up to my Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Italian-Jewish-Russian-German face when you say that and see what response you get.

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

The races are nothing more or less than a side-effect of geographic isolation. Now that geographic isolation no longer exists, for the most part, the races as we know them are obsolete. They will cease to exist. This isn't optional. The only thing we get out of fightng it is tension and conflict.

Perhaps new races will come to exist some day. This can either be good(environmental adaptation to space, underwater, etc.) or bad(class isolation).

But the races of the past belong in the past.

I have to admit, while I prefer whites, Brazilians are very hot as well. *nod*

Incidently Latin Americans are a mixed-race resulting from a mix of Spanish/Portugese colonisers (along with other European immigrants thrown in), the Black slaves they brought over and the native South Americans.

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

No. Indeed, I believe to the contrary to such an extent, that I would be willing to vote for policies to outlaw 'same-race' marriages.

In other words, a situation where one could only legally marry (or even procreate with) someone outside of their defined 'race'.

No. Indeed, I believe to the contrary to such an extent, that I would be willing to vote for policies to outlaw 'same-race' marriages.

In other words, a situation where one could only legally marry (or even procreate with) someone outside of their defined 'race'.
... what?

I accidentally voted 'yes' when i meant 'no'. D'oh!

dude, your poll sucks.

... what?

Okay - let me set out my stall a little - I absolutely believe in people being able to love who they wish, etc. I am pro-gay-marriage, pro-crossculture-marriages... even pro-polygamy.

But...

If a few generations of us 'suffered' under a system where we were only allowed to pick our legal partners (and legal parents of our children) from 'other' groups... the racist elements would die out pretty quick, and the so-called diversity would become less of an issue for our children just a few generations removed.

Okay - let me set out my stall a little - I absolutely believe in people being able to love who they wish, etc. I am pro-gay-marriage, pro-crossculture-marriages... even pro-polygamy.

But...

If a few generations of us 'suffered' under a system where we were only allowed to pick our legal partners (and legal parents of our children) from 'other' groups... the racist elements would die out pretty quick, and the so-called diversity would become less of an issue for our children just a few generations removed.

Wow! That's like using a tourniquet to stop major arterial bleeding in an extremity!

:p

Wow! That's like using a tourniquet to stop major arterial bleeding in an extremity!

:p

I know... it doesn't 'fit' with my usual perspective, and I have trouble reconciling it with my 'everybody is free' arguments. I just think, just maybe, this is a situation where something extreme in the short-term, might be the quickest (and maybe, the safest) route to a better world.

Okay - let me set out my stall a little - I absolutely believe in people being able to love who they wish, etc. I am pro-gay-marriage, pro-crossculture-marriages... even pro-polygamy.

But...

If a few generations of us 'suffered' under a system where we were only allowed to pick our legal partners (and legal parents of our children) from 'other' groups... the racist elements would die out pretty quick, and the so-called diversity would become less of an issue for our children just a few generations removed.
Hey, why not just exterminate all races except one? Only a few generations will have to suffer, and after that we'll have a peaceful, non-racist planet.

I'm totally preserving my racial make up. Anybody from my family married another race, and they're out of the family.

There was a very interesting documentary on Channel 4 the other day.
People who considered themselves 100% English and could on request provide pedigrees going back a couple hundred years were tested and their DNA geographically mapped.
Turns out, not a single one of them had 100% Northern European DNA, most have between 40 % and 70%. The rest was East Asian, Arab, North American Indian, Subsaharan African, Eastern European, etc.
They showed DNA profiles that would have been typical for Russians, or for Romany Gypsies, or even for Arab and Persian countries, despite the fact that they all looked the typical pale-skinned, fair-haired European phenotype.

So, unless you have a DNA test stating that you are indeed exclusively European, forgive my doubts about your actual "race".

Hey, why not just exterminate all races except one? Only a few generations will have to suffer, and after that we'll have a peaceful, non-racist planet.

Serious question?

Did you totally miss the point?

I'm not talking about exterminating anyone. There is no 'master race'.

We are all just people, and if these little cosmetic differences cause some people to freak-out so hard, then why don't we integrate those cosmetics into ALL of us.

I'm talking about addition, not subtraction.

Hey, why not just exterminate all races except one? Only a few generations will have to suffer, and after that we'll have a peaceful, non-racist planet.

I dunno - his way I get to have an orgy with a chinese chick, a latin american, a black chick and an itialian bird - solely in the efforts of producing an homogenous race at the end of course.

Your way I prolly get turned to ash :(

I dunno - his way I get to have an orgy with a chinese chick, a latin american, a black chick and an itialian bird - solely in the efforts of producing an homogenous race at the end of course.

Your way I prolly get turned to ash :(

Exactly... there is no 'bad' to this 'cross-pollination', and you even get to claim a 'higher purpose'.

Serious question?

Did you totally miss the point?

I'm not talking about exterminating anyone. There is no 'master race'.

We are all just people, and if these little cosmetic differences cause some people to freak-out so hard, then why don't we integrate those cosmetics into ALL of us.

I'm talking about addition, not subtraction.

And we all know + > -
Math to the rescue!

Serious question?

Did you totally miss the point?

I'm not talking about exterminating anyone. There is no 'master race'.

We are all just people, and if these little cosmetic differences cause some people to freak-out so hard, then why don't we integrate those cosmetics into ALL of us.

I'm talking about addition, not subtraction.
The point is that it's silly to make current people suffer to create a better situation for future generations. Plus it would be unfair on Brazilians. :p

Exactly... there is no 'bad' to this 'cross-pollination', and you even get to claim a 'higher purpose'.

I'm willing to 'lay' myself down in the name of this glorious cause :)

Someone has to make the sacrafice.

The point is that it's silly to make current people suffer to create a better situation for future generations. Plus it would be unfair on Brazilians.

I'm all up for the kinda suffering this could result in for me :D

The point is that it's silly to make current people suffer to create a better situation for future generations. Plus it would be unfair on Brazilians. :p

Why would it be silly? We do the same thing in reverse, all the time.

Why are we using so much fossil fuel? We are making future generations suffer, to create a 'better situation' for current people?


And, on a personal level, those of us who are parents are more than just passingly familiar with the idea of 'suffering' for a future generation - taking less for ourselves so that we can pass on a little more to our offspring.


So - if we even consider this 'cross-breeding' to be 'suffering' (I certainly don't), there is nothing silly about me 'suffering' to hope for a better world tomorrow.

I'm willing to 'lay' myself down in the name of this glorious cause :)

Someone has to make the sacrafice.


I know, I know. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

All that horrible, horrible sex with all those cute latinas and east asians...

Your sacrifice will be remembered. :D

Your sacrifice will be remembered. :D

You bet it will!

No way i'd be forgetting that in a hurry...

Gotta remember to take the lenscap off the camera too...

You bet it will!

No way i'd be forgetting that in a hurry...

Gotta remember to take the lenscap off the camera too...

I need to go scrub my brain.... I took the wrong path - trying to work out what sort of statue they would 'erect' to commemorate such selfless giving...

:o

I need to go scrub my brain.... I took the wrong path - trying to work out what sort of statue they would 'erect' to commemorate such selfless giving...
:o

There are plenty of existing ones that could just be renamed - Washington Monument, Eiffel Tower, Nelsons Column...

Hell - If my name was Nelson the existing name would be pretty fitting already :P

not in this sense, no. preserving local traditions and languages is fine, it doesn't matter what colour the people who uphold them are.

Well put.

Exactly... there is no 'bad' to this 'cross-pollination', and you even get to claim a 'higher purpose'.

You've convinced me. Bring on the Japanese-Kenyan lovelies with a touch of Persian and Polynesian thrown in, and I'll increase the mixed-ethnic population by an extra dozen. :D

This idea is . . . interesting to say the least. However, I've a question:

I'm a mixed race person myself. Do I avoid all other mixed race people or just all the races that are part of my makeup?

This idea is . . . interesting to say the least. However, I've a question:

I'm a mixed race person myself. Do I avoid all other mixed race people or just all the races that are part of my makeup?

I think the idea proposed by the OP is that you avoid everyone altogether, so as not to further spread your racially mixed genes, which, apparently, are an abomination...

As Homer Simpson would say, in one word "evolution of the species". Over a hundred years since Darwin and some people still don't get it! Lets just freeze some samples now so when whatever is in charge of the world in a thousand years can study them and come up with some theory on life in the 21st century thats so wide of the mark 21st century man can't even begin to comprehend it. What would an ancient Egytian make of the present day Egyptologist's...not a lot?;) phew glad i got that off my chest

whoops, my mistake. I was talking about Grave_n_idle's idea, not the entire thread.

not at something elses expense, although no forcing cultures out of people just generally breedung and slowly moving forward. The cultures that develope would be highbred ideally, not just one taking over the other.

No. Indeed, I believe to the contrary to such an extent, that I would be willing to vote for policies to outlaw 'same-race' marriages.

In other words, a situation where one could only legally marry (or even procreate with) someone outside of their defined 'race'.

This quote, way hey lets outlaw things, don't do this don't do that culture, nanny state, mother knows best etc

I'd vote for a law against that;)

I'm totally preserving my racial make up.

Caucasian lip sitck?

Caucasian lip sitck?

A winnar is you!

Caucasian lip sitck?

Ayrian eye shadow. Blue, I guess.

Caucasian lip sitck?

XD ::applauds::

This idea is . . . interesting to say the least. However, I've a question:

I'm a mixed race person myself. Do I avoid all other mixed race people or just all the races that are part of my makeup?

We are all 'mixed-race' to some extent, if we are honest about it. A factor many of those who would argue any sort of 'supremacy' are keen to overlook.

If we were seriously going to allow a mechanism like the one I suggested, the best way to do it would be by genetic profiling - finding quartiles, if you will, of diversity... and then allowing the people to pick from their most distant quartile.

To start, at least, I suspect fairly good results could be obtained from a more phenotypical approach though... so - someone looking at my own mixed heritage (heavily Celtic, Romany Gypsy, Jewish, 'Viking') would probably be suited quite well to the average Japanese/Chinese/Indian catchment.

This quote, way hey lets outlaw things, don't do this don't do that culture, nanny state, mother knows best etc

I'd vote for a law against that;)

And normally, I would definitely vote against anything that impacts the right of the individual in matters like marriage...

But, for the most part, we stopped living in caves and bopping each other with rocks a long time ago, and yet there is still a large part of our so-called civilisation that practises old fashioned tribalism based on factors as insignificant as skintone.

Maybe we NEED a nanny state, on certain issues... we don't seem to be doing a very good job of solving the 'problems' of diversity on our own.

We are all 'mixed-race' to some extent, if we are honest about it. A factor many of those who would argue any sort of 'supremacy' are keen to overlook.

If we were seriously going to allow a mechanism like the one I suggested, the best way to do it would be by genetic profiling - finding quartiles, if you will, of diversity... and then allowing the people to pick from their most distant quartile.

To start, at least, I suspect fairly good results could be obtained from a more phenotypical approach though... so - someone looking at my own mixed heritage (heavily Celtic, Romany Gypsy, Jewish, 'Viking') would probably be suited quite well to the average Japanese/Chinese/Indian catchment.

Well, the races that I'm aware of are: Native American, Pacific Islander, and several random European ones. (German and French are the only two I can name, probably a whole load of others too.)

Who would I fit with?

I'll concede the point, but if you want to horribly mangle civil rights to stop racism you may as well just chuck the racists in jail, much easier.

Well, the races that I'm aware of are: Native American, Pacific Islander, and several random European ones. (German and French are the only two I can name, probably a whole load of others too.)

Who would I fit with?

African and East Asian, I'd say :)

I'll concede the point, but if you want to horribly mangle civil rights to stop racism you may as well just chuck the racists in jail, much easier.

Doesn't cure the 'problem', though. There will always be people that discriminate on 'race', as long as there is a 'race' issue. So - you humanely stop the racists breeding (after all - if they HAD TO 'shop' outside their normal preferences, they wouldn't reproduce), AND you reduce the 'disparity' in appearance of 'foreign-ness'.

On the other hand, jailing someone for an opinion seems more barbaric, to me - and doesn't actually stop the 'racist' from spreading their views to the next generation.

To start, at least, I suspect fairly good results could be obtained from a more phenotypical approach though... so - someone looking at my own mixed heritage (heavily Celtic, Romany Gypsy, Jewish, 'Viking') would probably be suited quite well to the average Japanese/Chinese/Indian catchment.
Admit it - you just have an Asian fetish :P

Well, the races that I'm aware of are: Native American, Pacific Islander, and several random European ones. (German and French are the only two I can name, probably a whole load of others too.)

Who would I fit with?

Cabra makes a keen observation - since 'phenotypical' differences are probably sufficient markers at this stage, you can just look for what is 'most different'... which sounds like it would probably end up with you looking for an African, or maybe Indian partner.

The human species has very little diversity genetically speaking. And from an evolutionary viewpoint it would be dangerous to lose the little we have. If some virus can kill one of us, there's a good choose it can kill any of us, because we're so alike. So our homogeneity is just begging for a pandemic to wipe us out.

Admit it - you just have an Asian fetish :P

Nothing to admit. I've admitted before to having an aesthetic attraction to the 'asian' looks - from India to Japan, as well as to Latino types. However, I also like the Europeans... and am married to a Native American.

My tastes are fairly cosmopolitan, when it comes to the colour of potential partners. :)

The human species has very little diversity genetically speaking. And from an evolutionary viewpoint it would be dangerous to lose the little we have. If some virus can kill one of us, there's a good choose it can kill any of us, because we're so alike. So our homogeneity is just begging for a pandemic to wipe us out.

Except, you miss a vital point - which is that each so-called 'race' has more INTERNAL diversity - in terms of genetics - than there is between 'average' members of two different 'races'.

From a purely scientific point of view, the real problem in the threat of racism, is the fact that it is not self-regulating. In other words - if the 'white supremacists' wiped out everyone who doesn't fit their profile today, they'd have a refined list tomorrow. And, that is the route to evolutionary dead-end, because you can only finesse a gene-pool so far, before you make it stagnant.

The human species has very little diversity genetically speaking. And from an evolutionary viewpoint it would be dangerous to lose the little we have. If some virus can kill one of us, there's a good choose it can kill any of us, because we're so alike. So our homogeneity is just begging for a pandemic to wipe us out.

That is logical. Human genetic diversity is important for our continued survival. Whether or not racial diversity is necessary to maintain genetic diversity is for someone more experienced than I in genetic sciences.

What makes sense to me is to have a lot of humans. More humans = more human genes. More humans also means an overpopulation problem. I think we should spread to the stars.

That is logical. Human genetic diversity is important for our continued survival. Whether or not racial diversity is necessary to maintain genetic diversity is for someone more experienced than I in genetic sciences.

What makes sense to me is to have a lot of humans. More humans = more human genes. More humans also means an overpopulation problem. I think we should spread to the stars.

The only downside to that idea (apart from the fact that, as yet, we can't) is that we are still 'broken'. If we don't fix the problems in the human condition before we start heading for new horizons, we will just run into the same thing again, a little further down the line.

Expanding into the stars, is today's equivalent of the expansion to the 'new world' a few hundred years ago. It didn't fix the problems (just postponed them), and when they came back, they had bigger guns.

African and East Asian, I'd say :)

Damn, not many of them around these parts. ::gets out beating stick:: now I'm gonna have to hunt some down.

Damn, not many of them around these parts. ::gets out beating stick:: now I'm gonna have to hunt some down.

:D No one ever said it was going to be easy, but - this is for the benefit of all mankind. :)

Well, the races that I'm aware of are: Native American, Pacific Islander, and several random European ones. (German and French are the only two I can name, probably a whole load of others too.)

Who would I fit with?

Those are ethnicities, determined primarily by culture, not races.

:D No one ever said it was going to be easy, but - this is for the benefit of all mankind. :)

;_; but I'm LAZY

Those are ethnicities, determined primarily by culture, not races.

fine then: White, umm. . . asian I suppose, and . . . nope can't think of another word for native american. Except Indian, but that gets confusing.

;_; but I'm LAZY

Too lazy to have sex? Is that possible?

Too lazy to have sex? Is that possible?

If you're lazy because you have a red blood cell deficiency, then yes, it's very possible.

Too lazy to have sex? Is that possible?

Nah, too lazy to find one of those races. I suppose I could post a sign.

Except, you miss a vital point - which is that each so-called 'race' has more INTERNAL diversity - in terms of genetics - than there is between 'average' members of two different 'races'.I wasn't even aiming for that point, so to say I missed it is besides it.
We shouldn't lose diversity period.
Besides which the internal/external diversity measure is somewhat irrelevant. Because tripes of chimps differ more from each other than us as well. Variance of a large population of humans will invariable be less than that of a small one; that's a simple consequence of statistics.

I wasn't even aiming for that point, so to say I missed it is besides it.
We shouldn't lose diversity period.
Besides which the internal/external diversity meausre is quite irrelevant. Because chimps differ more from each other than us as well. Variance of a large population of humans will invariable be less than that of a small one; that's a simple consequence of statistics.

You weren't aiming for that point.... you were talking about 'race' as a matter of diversity? If you didn't include 'internal' diversity then you did miss that point, whether you knew to aim for it or not.

I have no idea what your point with chimps is supposed to be - perhaps you think we should breed with them? Because they are 'more diverse'?

Large populations or small populations... has nothing to do with 'race' or diversity. There could be six billion 'white' people on this planet, or six billion green ones...

Maybe I just don't 'get' what you are saying. I can't see what you are trying to argue here, or how it follows from what you said previously.

I don't know anything about "racial diversity", as there really aren't human races to speak of.

We certainly do have diverse ethnic groups. However, inter-ethnic or intercultural marriage isn't going to get rid of any of that diversity. In fact, it will increase diversity. We will have people who hail mostly from a single ethnic background and we will have those of many ethnic backgrounds, in many combinations. If we have more "mixing" of a sorts, that can only increase diversity, not decrease it. Each individual will have their own background, likely very different from most of the people around them.

We need to promote diversity of humans. Different ethnic groups how such a great variety of flavours mmm

miscegenation

I've never heard anyone except people in the KKK use that word.

Since there's only one human race alive on this planet right now, I'd say it's well worth preserving.

Then again, just look at what man has "achieved" - and all of the sudden I'm not so sure if this our planet wouldn't be better off without us.

We need to promote diversity of humans. Different ethnic groups how such a great variety of flavours mmm

I don't think you can "promote" the diversity of humans.
Yes, different ethnicities are yummy, people of mixed ethnicities are yummy too.

This isn't very relevant.
Someone who tries to tell my future children to only love their own race will certainly be kicked out of my house.

I prefer a slight color myself and I find dark hair and asian characteristics often more attractive than the blond whites of "my" "ethnicity".

People who promote segregation between religious groups and ethnicities are anti-nationalists who want to disturb the harmony in the country. They are not here for the better of my country, but for the better of their own selfish interests.

What do you think? Personally I think it is an important part of the human experience and history, and large-scale miscegenation is nothing but omni-genocide.

It will be preserved. Most people breed within their race...

Since there's only one human race alive on this planet right now, I'd say it's well worth preserving.

Then again, just look at what man has "achieved" - and all of the sudden I'm not so sure if this our planet wouldn't be better off without us.

There is no human race, it's a species.

I would like to make it clear that I am in no way favorable to any idea of ethnic separation or racial purity lines etc., far from it. I endorse a single humanity, a single future culture and a single human population as some future ideal that should be strived for.

With that said...

I find it interesting that as ecologists and naturalists fight tooth and nail to save and keep safe every diverse population of every kind of animal in the world from being lost (be it every type of different mouse population or tiger gene pool ever discoverd), but to keep them all alive and separated and 'pure' and, safe from interference from the outside world or from being lost as a separate group, why do we find any similar advocacy for the human species as repulsive and despicable.... Just a thought.

all alive and separated and 'pure' and, safe from interference from the outside world or from being lost as a separate group, we find any similar advocacy for the human species as repulsive and despicable.... Just a thought.

Separate and pure? I havent heard of that happening before. Not killing a species until its near extinction is what environmentalists are most commonly found doing. I don't think any group of human should be killed to extinction either. But I, myself, am half of an interracial couple. I don't believe that interracial relationships will be the end of any ethnicity, only genocide will do that. (see Native Americans)

I find it interesting that as ecologists and naturalists fight tooth and nail to save and keep safe every diverse population of every kind of animal in the world from being lost (be it every type of different mouse population or tiger gene pool ever discoverd), but to keep them all alive and separated and 'pure' and, safe from interference from the outside world or from being lost as a separate group, why do we find any similar advocacy for the human species as repulsive and despicable.... Just a thought.

This isn't true.

If the 'threat' to two mouse populations was that they liked boinking each other, the ecological 'collective' as a whole, would be 'go mice'.

When humans destroy the ability of a mouse population to breed, ecologists and naturalists want to step in. When humans destroy the genepool of a mouse population, ecololgists and naturalists want to step in.

Almost all the work these 'ecologists and naturalists' are trying to do, is to undo the damage 'we' have done.

I don't see that being the case in human populations.

In the words of Mohammod Ali:

"Me and him are of the same race. The only race that matters...THE HUMAN RACE!"

The chances are that the OP and the others who agree with him are not as racially pure as they think (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947276,00.html).

This isn't true.

If the 'threat' to two mouse populations was that they liked boinking each other, the ecological 'collective' as a whole, would be 'go mice'.

When humans destroy the ability of a mouse population to breed, ecologists and naturalists want to step in. When humans destroy the genepool of a mouse population, ecololgists and naturalists want to step in.

Almost all the work these 'ecologists and naturalists' are trying to do, is to undo the damage 'we' have done.

I don't see that being the case in human populations.


Sure it's true. If, say, the European door mouse is accidentally introduced to the Mongolian door mouse region and the Mongolian door mouse population is less efficient and finds itself replaced by the English door mouse, then the naturalists and the ecologists will cry for help with that dilemma. Yes?

However, if in reverse, the Mongolian people begin to displace and outnumbered the English people in the United Kingdom, who but a racist would complain?

Separate and pure? I havent heard of that happening before. Not killing a species until its near extinction is what environmentalists are most commonly found doing. I don't think any group of human should be killed to extinction either. But I, myself, am half of an interracial couple. I don't believe that interracial relationships will be the end of any ethnicity, only genocide will do that. (see Native Americans)

Displacing a Group to extinction is possible. Genocide of cultures has happened throughout history.

It would be uncomfortable that you might not be able to use English everywhere, at the most. I wouldn't mind any Asian group to replace the Brits, I mean... :rolleyes:

Sure it's true. If, say, the European door mouse is accidentally introduced to the Mongolian door mouse region and the Mongolian door mouse population is less efficient and finds itself replaced by the English door mouse, then the naturalists and the ecologists will cry for help with that dilemma. Yes?

You are talking about two separate species, not races or varieties. Naturalists are concerned when an entire species is in danger, not so much when it's a variety (because those come and go all the time anyway).

Same with humans. Even though there are a few varieties, they are all pretty much interchangeable and form just one species. In fact, swapping bits of genetic code here and there makes for a generally healthier population. I'd be more concerned about preserving cultural diversity; not that a particular culture should survive forever and ever, cultures come and go, but that at any one time there are several cultures active.

Sure it's true. If, say, the European door mouse is accidentally introduced to the Mongolian door mouse region and the Mongolian door mouse population is less efficient and finds itself replaced by the English door mouse, then the naturalists and the ecologists will cry for help with that dilemma. Yes?

However, if in reverse, the Mongolian people begin to displace and outnumbered the English people in the United Kingdom, who but a racist would complain?

It goes like this. The climate in mongolia is different than the climate in europe. If a person in europe packs european mice into their suitcaase and flies to mongolia and lets the mice free, then they breed with the local mice and create a new type of mouse that cant survive in the different climate. There is then a dramatic decrease in the mouse population and other animals who eat mice can't find enough food.
However if a person immagrates from on climate to another they can compinsate by wearing extra sweaters, or extra sunscreen. Problem solved with human technology.

Sure it's true. If, say, the European door mouse is accidentally introduced to the Mongolian door mouse region and the Mongolian door mouse population is less efficient and finds itself replaced by the English door mouse, then the naturalists and the ecologists will cry for help with that dilemma. Yes?

However, if in reverse, the Mongolian people begin to displace and outnumbered the English people in the United Kingdom, who but a racist would complain?

If the Mongolian dormouse is driving the European out of it's habitat because of human interference (squirrels are a good example), then ecologists may want to try to address that situation. That's us screwing up the delicate balance of an eco-system.

On the other hand, if 'Mongolian people' start outnumbering 'European people' in the UK... well? Yes - who but a racist would complain? We are all people, we are not bumping each other out of ecological niches like dormouse populations.

So - Mongolians outnumber Europeans in this vision of the UK. So? I don't care - this isn't a competition, 'we' don't get 'a prize' for being most numerous.

I find it interesting that as ecologists and naturalists fight tooth and nail to save and keep safe every diverse population of every kind of animal in the world from being lost (be it every type of different mouse population or tiger gene pool ever discoverd), but to keep them all alive and separated and 'pure' and, safe from interference from the outside world or from being lost as a separate group, why do we find any similar advocacy for the human species as repulsive and despicable.... Just a thought.

There are quite a few differences. For one, the various strains of mouse really are quite often subspecies, or "races", biologically. Many are actually separate species (and cannot interbreed with one another). They have been genetically isolated for long enough to form said distinctions and find their own place in an ecological niche, and those ecologists do not worry about disturbances to those distinctions or niches except when they are caused by human interference. Those disturbances can affect the ecology as a whole, affecting the survival of every species and subspecies within it.

Human populations, on the other hand, are segregated more by cultural differences than genetic ones. As has already been mentioned in the thread, there is much more genetic diversity within a given ethnicity than there is between them. And human beings, from what we can tell, have never been split into genetically isolated groups for long enough to form true subspecies (ie. races). The ecological niche they fit, with the possible exception of some tribal societies, is the same throughout the human species. There are no true genetic distinctions such as "race", because the genetic isolation simply hasn't been there. Interethnic or Intercultural breeding among humans isn't going to disrupt any ecosystems. It isn't going to, in and of itself, affect the survival of other species.

Edit: Another way to look at it is that the separateness of human ethnicities is a human-derived distinction. Ethnic distinctions within an area are artificially enforced by human beings - they are not due to environmental pressures, but societal ones.
Human beings also create strains and such of animals. We keep quite a few strains of mouse around for use in the lab. However, ecologists would not fight to preserve such strains. They are artificially derived by human beings, rather than a part of any ecological niche. In fact, if any of these strains were accidently released into the wild, ecologists would do everything they could to wipe out the population.

oh, crap. I voted yes. Meant to say no... sorry! :headbang:

Of course, I dunno wether that was a good thing, or a bad thing? :confused:

well the title is pretty manipulating...

You are talking about two separate species, not races or varieties. Naturalists are concerned when an entire species is in danger, not so much when it's a variety (because those come and go all the time anyway).

nah, we like protecting particular populations within a single species too. even have a term for them - evolutionarily significant units.

There are quite a few differences. For one, the various strains of mouse really are quite often subspecies, or "races", biologically. They have been genetically isolated for long enough to form said distinctions and find their own place in an ecological niche, and those ecologists do not worry about disturbances to those distinctions or niches except when they are caused by human interference.

Human populations, on the other hand, are segregated more by cultural differences than genetic ones. As has already been mentioned in the thread, there is much more genetic diversity within a given ethnicity than there is between them. And human beings, from what we can tell, have never been split into genetically isolated groups for long enough to form true subspecies (ie. races). The ecological niche they fit, with the possible exception of some tribal societies, is the same throughout the human species. There are no true genetic distinctions such as "race", because the genetic isolation simply hasn't been there.

To put it in perspective. I think we can agree that the Neanderthal was the most recent human species of a different race? If so, then consider; The Neanderthal was lost 30,000 years ago in Europe (to genocide, extinction or breed out of recognizable existence). The Australian aborigine began their culture and isolation nearly 50,000 years ago. Native American Isolation must be consider as well as both the Islands like Easter Island and the Islands around Ushuaia in southern Argentina, all of which are more than capable of creating a Galapagos island scenario for separate races within a species of humans. A Mongolian door mouse and an English door mouse may even be able to breed together, like different types of tigers can breed together or even a tiger and a lion, they are still considered separate and worthy of protection despite that they could be bred as a singular species henceforth.

Diversity is necessary for human evolution, and the overall good of the human race. Without it, we have no way to adapt to an everchanging world. That's about all that needs be said without going into a long rant on genetics, diversity, and importance of "unwanted" genetics in the gene pool.

To put it in perspective. I think we can agree that the Neanderthal was the most recent human species of a different race?

I think you mean the most recent "other" race of the human species, but yes, this is probably accurate. There is some discussion as to whether or not the Neanderthals truly were genetically isolated enough, but it is a distinct possibility.

If so, then consider; The Neanderthal was lost 30,000 years ago in Europe (to genocide, extinction or breed out of recognizable existence). The Australian aborigine began their culture and isolation nearly 50,000 years ago. Native American Isolation must be consider as well as both the Islands like Easter Island and the Islands around Ushuaia in southern Argentina, all of which are more than capable of creating a Galapagos island scenario for separate races within a species of humans. A Mongolian door mouse and an English door mouse may even be able to breed together, like different types of tigers can breed together or even a tiger and a lion, they are still considered separate and worthy of protection despite that they could be bred as a singular species henceforth.

None of them have been truly genetically isolated, however. The aborigines in Australia would be close, but introductions from other areas have occurred throughout their development, as is also true of the Native Americans.

Meanwhile, your use of years is incorrect. You are saying that the Neanderthals were the last known separate human race, which is correct, but the time since they died out says nothing about the amount of time in which they needed genetic isolation before they met the definition of a separate human race. The fact that they died out 30,000 years ago has nothing to do with how long a human subpopulation would likely need to be genetically isolated to form a distinct race. Note that this would take quite a long time in human beings, as our breeding cycles are relatively long compared to many other species.

Meanwhile, some of your comparisons are incorrect. The tiger and lion can breed, yes, suggesting that they are very similar species. However, their offspring is rarely able to reproduce, much like mules. So we wouldn't be looking to see Ligers and Tigons all over the place.

The reason that the different types of mouse are important has already been discussed. They exist in different niches. If we transplant the Mongolian door mouse into the ecosystem of the English door mouse, the mouse population may only be altered by interbreeding. However, depending on what traits are brought into the population by the Mongolian door mouse, the entire ecosystem may be disrupted. It may hinder the ability of the English door mouse to fill its particular niche, and the door mouse may begin to compete with species it did not previously compete with. These species can possibly be wiped out by said competition, further disrupting the ecoystem. And so on.....

No such effect is going to be caused if I marry and have children with a man with much darker skin than my own, even if many others do the same.

...
The reason that the different types of mouse are important has already been discussed. They exist in different niches. If we transplant the Mongolian door mouse into the ecosystem of the English door mouse, the mouse population may only be altered by interbreeding. However, depending on what traits are brought into the population by the Mongolian door mouse, the entire ecosystem may be disrupted. It may hinder the ability of the English door mouse to fill its particular niche, and the door mouse may begin to compete with species it did not previously compete with. These species can possibly be wiped out by said competition, further disrupting the ecoystem. And so on...

Why is the old ecosystem destroyed by the new mice worthy of being saved? If LIFE is the goal, the new unknowable ecosystem would have just as much meaning as the old one did. IF we believe in a designed world, a designed with meaning and purpose ecosystem, we could argue that each one is worth saving on it's own merit. But to believe in the world we can see around us, change in an ecosystem cannot be inherently good or bad unless we define what good and bad is first.

As far as I know, most of us here are not IDer’s, so the designed to be this way thesis can be dismissed out of hand. But if I cut down all of the Washington State redwood forests and replace it with faster growing and reusable and sustainable soft pines and fur trees forests for lumber, how in essence is this 'good' or 'bad?'

You said each one is worth saving because it survives in it's own niche, yes? But I’ll point out that the needs of the niche has changed, the pressures of the world and the other species of life around it have changed the needs of the niche.

Again, back to my original thought, why do we believe it's a worthy cause to protect species and ecosystems that can't protect themselves from the man made changes of the world? But we also say that the diversity of mankind itself is not worthy of protection?

I still don't see it as a completely logical decision. However, I feel I must reiterate before someone thinks I'm saying something I'm not. I think we WILL all be one culture/race/ethnicity eventually, I think this is better than not doing so because I think being more similar to each other will reduce the number of reasons we have for killing each other, not because I don't think native societies aren’t worth protection, only that it would continue to keep things as they are and the status quo is not good enough, IMO.

Are cultures worthy of protection even if it's not the gene pool of the people within the culture group being protected?

The chances are that the OP and the others who agree with him are not as racially pure as they think (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947276,00.html).

That's the documentary I was referring to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973534&postcount=62). Thanks for the link, that was a very interesting program, I thought. :)

But if I cut down all of the Washington State redwood forests and replace it with faster growing and reusable and sustainable soft pines and fur trees forests for lumber, how in essence is this 'good' or 'bad?'

it destroys the inherent value of non-anthropogenic evolutionary processes, history, and evolved systems, and it fails to properly take into account the full moral community relevant for making such decisions.

Wow there are a lot of supporters of miscegenation here. Hmmmmmm.

it destroys the inherent value of non-anthropogenic evolutionary processes, history, and evolved systems, and it fails to properly take into account the full moral community relevant for making such decisions.

What moral community authority do you recognize?

For example: What value is oversized mammoths in and of themselves? Ten thousand years ago we could eat them but they breed slowly and they eat a lot of grain/space to be sustainable. Instead, we choose to raise beef cattle and bison for our food source, far more efficiently and sustainable, why would we need to save the mammoth at all? Evolutionary needs have changed, we are as much a part of evolutionary forces as any other species on the planet.

What moral community authority do you recognize?

For example: What value is oversized mammoths in and of themselves? Ten thousand years ago we could eat them but they breed slowly and they eat a lot of grain/space to be sustainable. Instead, we choose to raise beef cattle and bison for our food source, far more efficiently and sustainable, why would we need to save the mammoth at all? Evolutionary needs have changed, we are as much a part of evolutionary forces as any other species on the planet.

I'll venture a guess here : Humans are scared of change. Particularly when it's not possible for them to predict the consequences the change will have, and they are at the same time aware that the change could potentially have catastrophic consequences for themselves.
One of our biology teacher summarised the sentiment : "Nature will survive. Nature survived meteroids, earthquakes, ice ages, volcanoes, CO2 atmospheres, anything. life exists in the deserts and on the poles, it exists on mountains and deep in the oceans. Nature won't have a problem adapting to whatever circumstances we create. The question we have to ask ourselves is : Can we?"

By artificially introducing a new species into an isolated environemt, humans can provoke ecological disasters. Just look at what happened when Europeans brought rabbits to Australia.
The consequences are impossible to predict.

However, to take this as an example of how one "human race" drives another to the brink of extinction by monopolising the food resources is neither biologically not socially correct, and it doesn't even answer the question posed in this thread.
This thread is not about one population driving out another, it's about several populations interbreeding and thereby losing their respective phenotypical appearances.

What moral community authority do you recognize?

For example: What value is oversized mammoths in and of themselves? Ten thousand years ago we could eat them but they breed slowly and they eat a lot of grain/space to be sustainable. Instead, we choose to raise beef cattle and bison for our food source, far more efficiently and sustainable, why would we need to save the mammoth at all? Evolutionary needs have changed, we are as much a part of evolutionary forces as any other species on the planet.

that's just anthropocentrism. the mammoths were valuable both intrinsically and extrinsically, without any reference to humans at all.

The chances are that the OP and the others who agree with him are not as racially pure as they think (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947276,00.html).

On the other side of the coin, genetically, some populations do cluster together:


http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1130/populationsaz8.jpg

Why is the old ecosystem destroyed by the new mice worthy of being saved?

Because a whole lot more creatures may be driven to extinction otherwise? Because disturbances like this to the ecosystem can harm us, as well as the creatures living within it? Because we don't want to destroy nature as it is just because we can?

If LIFE is the goal, the new unknowable ecosystem would have just as much meaning as the old one did. IF we believe in a designed world, a designed with meaning and purpose ecosystem, we could argue that each one is worth saving on it's own merit. But to believe in the world we can see around us, change in an ecosystem cannot be inherently good or bad unless we define what good and bad is first.

Change in an ecosystem can be either caused by us, or not caused by us. As human beings who try to take responsibility for our actions, many of us would rather not disrupt an ecosystem when we have no need to do so.

As far as I know, most of us here are not IDer’s, so the designed to be this way thesis can be dismissed out of hand. But if I cut down all of the Washington State redwood forests and replace it with faster growing and reusable and sustainable soft pines and fur trees forests for lumber, how in essence is this 'good' or 'bad?'

It could very well drive quite a few plants and creatures into extinction. That, in my opinion, would be bad, just as destroying the ozone layer is bad or cutting down all the rainforests and losing countless species is bad.

You said each one is worth saving because it survives in it's own niche, yes? But I’ll point out that the needs of the niche has changed, the pressures of the world and the other species of life around it have changed the needs of the niche.

In this case, humans are the "pressure" that causes the niche change. We are the only species causing problems, even though we do our best to live outside of that ecosystem in the first place.

Again, back to my original thought, why do we believe it's a worthy cause to protect species and ecosystems that can't protect themselves from the man made changes of the world? But we also say that the diversity of mankind itself is not worthy of protection?

Who said that diversity of mankind is not worthy of protection? Of course, since there are no true subspecies of humankind, diversity can only be increased by mixing. If we truly wish to "preserve diversity," the way to do it would be to discourage mating only within your ethnicity and increase interethnic mating. The other option - the one people are touting as "preserving diversity" really does no such thing as far as humankind is concerned.


However, to take this as an example of how one "human race" drives another to the brink of extinction by monopolising the food resources is neither biologically not socially correct, and it doesn't even answer the question posed in this thread.
This thread is not about one population driving out another, it's about several populations interbreeding and thereby losing their respective phenotypical appearances.

And instead gaining new and interesting phenotypic appearances.

People seem to have this crazy idea that interethnic breeding is going to cause everyone to look the same. It will not. Segregating into smaller groups (as being advocated by some here) will make the people within those groups look similar. However, f anything, interethnic breeding will increase the diversity in appearance. We aren't going to lose the various features unless we actively select to breed them out. But interethnic breeding will lead to many more combinations of those features.

Who said that diversity of mankind is not worthy of protection? Of course, since there are no true subspecies of humankind, diversity can only be increased by mixing. If we truly wish to "preserve diversity," the way to do it would be to discourage mating only within your ethnicity and increase interethnic mating. The other option - the one people are touting as "preserving diversity" really does no such thing as far as humankind is concerned.


Maybe no subspecies but all scientists agree on population specific differences whether they call them races or clines or whatever...



And instead gaining new and interesting phenotypic appearances.

People seem to have this crazy idea that interethnic breeding is going to cause everyone to look the same. It will not. Segregating into smaller groups (as being advocated by some here) will make the people within those groups look similar. However, f anything, interethnic breeding will increase the diversity in appearance. We aren't going to lose the various features unless we actively select to breed them out. But interethnic breeding will lead to many more combinations of those features.

If everyone on Earth were to breed today, there wouldnt be a blond north european looking person. There would be blonds (much less in number due to its recessivity) but the full correlation (nose, skin colour etc...) wouldnt exist...

Maybe no subspecies but all scientists agree on population specific differences whether they call them races or clines or whatever...

Ethnicity seems to be the best term, in my opinion anyways. And of course there are. There are also differences from one family to the next.

If everyone on Earth were to breed today, there wouldnt be a blond north european looking person. There would be blonds (much less in number due to its recessivity) but the full correlation (nose, skin colour etc...) wouldnt exist...

Why not? Do you think if we allow people to mate as they please, you will never get two blonde north european looking persons mating?

Even if a group of traits is largely recessive, there is no reason to believe that they would not show up from two parents who did not express all of them.

On the other side of the coin, genetically, some populations do cluster together:

that image is rather dramatically wrong. like, not even close. misses out on like three of the biggest divides completely, actually.

If everyone on Earth were to breed today, there wouldnt be a blond north european looking person. There would be blonds (much less in number due to its recessivity) but the full correlation (nose, skin colour etc...) wouldnt exist...

First of all, blond hair and fair skin colour are geneticlly linked. You very rarely get blond people with darker skin.
Second, why wouldn't they exist? Interbreeding has always been happening, apart from very few completely isolated areas, and blond people still exists. They even exist in Central Europe, a place that has seen more than one ethnic group coming through and leaving their genetic information.
And third, you seem to be talking about a very small group of people indeed if they all have the same skin, hair colour and even nose. If you force this very small group to inbreed, all you would get would be genetic diseases and problems of degeneration.

that image is rather dramatically wrong. like, not even close. misses out on the three biggest divides completely, actually.

I find it funny that apparently the Maghreb is complely devoid of humans... the Tuareg don't exist, it would seem ;)

Ethnicity seems to be the best term, in my opinion anyways. And of course there are. There are also differences from one family to the next.


However, breeding within family is not acceptable.


Why not? Do you think if we allow people to mate as they please, you will never get two blonde north european looking persons mating?

Even if a group of traits is largely recessive, there is no reason to believe that they would not show up from two parents who did not express all of them.

We already allow people to mate freely (in theory) in many parts of the world. However, I was going under the hypothetical if everyone in each race breed with another.
Besides, noone is suggesting to ban interracial breeding. For ex, let's say there's this rare breed of persian cat. They arent preserved by all of them being rounded up and only coupled with eachother. Instead they do this to some while some other are free.
Of course I'm not saying we should round up a group of people. But currently game field is not fair. For ex, Newsweek can make this a front cover story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339611/

But no magazine could make a front cover of "Perfect baby" with two whites in the background. They might even get jailed for racial hate incitement. In current political climate, when you encourage race mixing, you are open minded, but when you encourage the opposite you are racist...

that image is rather dramatically wrong. like, not even close. misses out on like three of the biggest divides completely, actually.

Actually, major groupings are: Caucasoid, Sub-Saharan African, Far Eastern and Native American...

Caucasoid is devided in the pic...I think it's commercial (i.e:more European samples then African)...If they had enough Far Eastern samples, they could have made more sub groupings as well...

First of all, blond hair and fair skin colour are geneticlly linked. You very rarely get blond people with darker skin.
Second, why wouldn't they exist? Interbreeding has always been happening, apart from very few completely isolated areas, and blond people still exists. They even exist in Central Europe, a place that has seen more than one ethnic group coming through and leaving their genetic information.
And third, you seem to be talking about a very small group of people indeed if they all have the same skin, hair colour and even nose. If you force this very small group to inbreed, all you would get would be genetic diseases and problems of degeneration.

1) Exactly...Rarely...And impossible to match all the correlation of the phenotype of a north european...

2) Was interracial breeding common all the time? This was impossible due to lack of technology. Brits werent breeding with Africans in large numbers before 20th century.

3)Link? Prove they are very small....

Of course I'm not saying we should round up a group of people. But currently game field is not fair. For ex, Newsweek can make this a front cover story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339611/

But no magazine could make a front cover of "Perfect baby" with two whites in the background. They might even get jailed for racial hate incitement. In current political climate, when you encourage race mixing, you are open minded, but when you encourage the opposite you are racist...

I only skimmed the article, it's mainly about our perception of beauty as far as I can tell.
We generally percieve health as beautiful. We perceive averages as beautiful. I think it's no coincidence that we perceive people of mixed heritage as the most beautiful.

I only skimmed the article, it's mainly about our perception of beauty as far as I can tell.
We generally percieve health as beautiful. We perceive averages as beautiful. I think it's no coincidence that we perceive people of mixed heritage as the most beautiful.

Who's that "we" you are talking about?

1) Exactly...Rarely...And impossible to match all the correlation of the phenotype of a north european...

Which as a genetic makeup is a statistical invention. There's no such thing as a person with a purely Northern European DNA profile


2) Was interracial breeding common all the time? This was impossible due to lack of technology. Brits werent breeding with Africans in large numbers before 20th century.

Central European DNA consists of DNA from Northern Europe, Southeast Europe, Northern Africa and Arabia, Asian, etc.
Groups from all those areas migrated through Central Europe at one point or another. And they did breed.


3)Link? Prove they are very small....

I challenge you to find even two people with the same nose.

However, breeding within family is not acceptable.

Actually, it is. Breeding within *close* family is not acceptable. Within a given ethnicity, you would expect that most people are at least somewhat related. It's the whole "breeding within a set group" thing.

We already allow people to mate freely (in theory) in many parts of the world. However, I was going under the hypothetical if everyone in each race breed with another.

But why would that happen?

Besides, noone is suggesting to ban interracial breeding. For ex, let's say there's this rare breed of persian cat. They arent preserved by all of them being rounded up and only coupled with eachother. Instead they do this to some while some other are free.

Of course, breeds and ethnicities are not the same, and we don't treat human groups like commodities.

There is no reason that any human beings should be pushed to mate in any way. They will choose their partners as they please. Some will choose within their general group, because that is who they will be attracted to. Some will choose very different-looking persons, because that is who they are attracted to.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339611/

I'm not certain that you linked to the story you wanted.

In current political climate, when you encourage race mixing, you are open minded, but when you encourage the opposite you are racist...

Why encourage either? Encouragement of "race mixing" would make no more sense than encouraging the opposite. Both are, in a sense, racist. Each individual, regardless of race, should choose their partner(s) as they please. They shouldn't be pushed to choose a person that looks different, and they shouldn't be pushed to choose a person who looks the same.

My fiance and I are of similar lineage. We both can trace back to European lineages (Irish/English mostly). I can also trace back to Germanic and Native American. But we didn't choose each other because of this fact. It just happened that way.

Who's that "we" you are talking about?

Myself and the editors of Newsweek, apparently.

Which as a genetic makeup is a statistical invention. There's no such thing as a person with a purely Northern European DNA profile


However Northern Europeans do genetically cluster together, meaning they are closer to each other than to an African...


Central European DNA consists of DNA from Northern Europe, Southeast Europe, Northern Africa and Arabia, Asian, etc.
Groups from all those areas migrated through Central Europe at one point or another. And they did breed.


Central European DNA clusters with Northern Europeans in some parts and Southern Europeans in other parts. Non-European affect was minimal. There have never been tens of thousands of NAfricans and MEasterns arriving every year in history.



I challenge you to find even two people with the same nose.

"Same" is subjective here. A european nose and a black nose is quite different and in that sense two european noses can be "same"without having the same metric measurements...

Actually, it is. Breeding within *close* family is not acceptable. Within a given ethnicity, you would expect that most people are at least somewhat related. It's the whole "breeding within a set group" thing.



But why would that happen?


Yes, it wont. It was a hypothetical, an example. I was making a point of uniqueness of each race. And that's kinda the point of this thread.



Of course, breeds and ethnicities are not the same, and we don't treat human groups like commodities.

There is no reason that any human beings should be pushed to mate in any way. They will choose their partners as they please. Some will choose within their general group, because that is who they will be attracted to. Some will choose very different-looking persons, because that is who they are attracted to.



I'm not certain that you linked to the story you wanted.


?


Why encourage either? Encouragement of "race mixing" would make no more sense than encouraging the opposite. Both are, in a sense, racist. Each individual, regardless of race, should choose their partner(s) as they please. They shouldn't be pushed to choose a person that looks different, and they shouldn't be pushed to choose a person who looks the same.
<snip>


Well, one is encouraged now, why not encourage the other?

Myself and the editors of Newsweek, apparently.

A rather small set of people...

I strongly support ending the diversity of the human race, though not by any violent means certainly.
Race, religion, cultural differences, these things ultimately lead to conflict or, at the very least, facilitate conflict.

Well, one is encouraged now, why not encourage the other?

Why should either be encouraged at all?

And which are you saying is encouraged? If anything, the breeding within your own ethnicity is much more strongly encouraged that interethnic breeding.

However Northern Europeans do genetically cluster together, meaning they are closer to each other than to an African...


It has been pointed out numerous times before, but I'll say it again :
gentetic diversity between members of the same ethnic group tends to be much larger that genetic differences between groups.
Don't fall for the phentotypical difference, your DNA might have much more in common with someone from Pakistan than with another European.


Central European DNA clusters with Northern Europeans in some parts and Southern Europeans in other parts. Non-European affect was minimal. There have never been tens of thousands of NAfricans and MEasterns arriving every year in history.

Really? What would you call the Huns, then?
And do you think all Roman mercenaries where of pure Northern European decent?
Not even the Irish have a 100% Irish/Celtic genetic profile, and that is the one country that has been most isolated throughout European history.
Central Europe has always been a thouroughfare of people from different geographical areas and ethnic background. The fact that they didn't come all at once doesn't diminish the influence they had on the gene pool.



"Same" is subjective here. A european nose and a black nose is quite different and in that sense two european noses can be "same"without having the same metric measurements...

So, you're saying that two noses can be the same looking being the same? I think you're really falling for phenotype. If you want to talk genetics, look beyond the looks.
The fact that dolphins and tuna look similar doesn't mean they're closely related.

Why should either be encouraged at all?

And which are you saying is encouraged? If anything, the breeding within your own ethnicity is much more strongly encouraged that interethnic breeding.

Race mixing is encouraged now.

A rather small set of people...

Yep. But we're not interbreeding yet.

Race mixing is encouraged now.

It is?
Where? And by whom?

In my experience, it is socially strongly discouraged both in Germany and Ireland.

Not even that. The culture should be as accepting of interracial couples as of all other kinds.

As a proud part of an interracial couple, I must say I heartily agree.

Actually, major groupings are: Caucasoid, Sub-Saharan African, Far Eastern and Native American...

Caucasoid is devided in the pic...I think it's commercial (i.e:more European samples then African)...If they had enough Far Eastern samples, they could have made more sub groupings as well...

actually, several of your major differences show up in sub-saharan african populations - like between pygmies in zaire and pygmies in the central african republic. and the people of highland png and the australians are not all that close to east asians. hell, they're fairly distant from each other. europeans, if divided at all, are divided based on the three ice age refugia that we hung out in for ten thousand years or so. there is also some fairly good distance between a couple of the amerind populations, based on both geographic seperation, and there being maybe three different colonizations still represented in the populations.

It has been pointed out numerous times before, but I'll say it again :
gentetic diversity between members of the same ethnic group tends to be much larger that genetic differences between groups.
Don't fall for the phentotypical difference, your DNA might have much more in common with someone from Pakistan than with another European.


That thinking dates back to 1970's and that's why it's so popular. It's been challenged by Edwards in 2003.


In popular articles that play down the genetical differ-
ences among human populations, it is often stated that
about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to
individual differences within populations and only 15%
to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It
has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo
sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic
data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is
unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact
that most of the information that distinguishes popu-
lations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data
and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.
The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early
years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple
genetical example.

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf



Really? What would you call the Huns, then?


They were nomadic warriors. How many of them coupled with Central Europeans? What %?


And do you think all Roman mercenaries where of pure Northern European decent?
Not even the Irish have a 100% Irish/Celtic genetic profile, and that is the one country that has been most isolated throughout European history.
Central Europe has always been a thouroughfare of people from different geographical areas and ethnic background. The fact that they didn't come all at once doesn't diminish the influence they had on the gene pool.


Noone is pure. But 2% Asian influence and 44% Asian influence are different things...




So, you're saying that two noses can be the same looking being the same? I think you're really falling for phenotype. If you want to talk genetics, look beyond the looks.
The fact that dolphins and tuna look similar doesn't mean they're closely related.

Except the fact that two north Europeans are of same species while Tuna and dolphin arent...

actually, several of your major differences show up in sub-saharan african populations - like between pygmies in zaire and pygmies in the central african republic. and the people of highland png and the australians are not all that close to east asians. hell, they're fairly distant from each other. europeans, if divided at all, are divided based on the three ice age refugia that we hung out in for ten thousand years or so. there is also some fairly good distance between a couple of the amerind populations, based on both geographic seperation, and there being maybe three different colonizations still represented in the populations.

It was a commercial map to underline different correlations...But not all of them, apparently...

actually, several of your major differences show up in sub-saharan african populations - like between pygmies in zaire

Yay Zaire! :D

*gives FS an anarchist cookie of uberness*

It is?
Where? And by whom?

In my experience, it is socially strongly discouraged both in Germany and Ireland.

Take the Newsweek example. In media, you can encourage race mixing, but you cant do opposite...

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf...


Ah, good quote this;

But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality. One is reminded of Fisher’s remark in Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference(12) ‘‘that the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments, which seems to be equally true in the intellectual and in the moral sense.’’

Ah, good quote this;

But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality. One is reminded of Fisher’s remark in Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference(12) ‘‘that the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments, which seems to be equally true in the intellectual and in the moral sense.’’

And...?

Race mixing is encouraged now.

Not that I've seen - anywhere.

Take the Newsweek example. In media, you can encourage race mixing, but you cant do opposite...

The article doesn't encourage anything. It simply details a trend. Based on our interactions with each other (not on ethnic mixing, anyways), the Western and Eastern ideas of beauty are becoming more similar. This could be true with or without ethnic mixing. The more Western and Eastern societies interact with each other, breeding aside, the more the ideas of beauty are going to change.

But the article doesn't encourage ethnic mixing in any way. It simply points out that, because the ideas of beauty change, children of such mixing are often seen as beautiful. Of course, that is a logical leap I wouldn't make. I think children of such mixing are seen as beautiful because they look exotic. Their features are often arrangement we haven't seen before, and thus we find them attractive.

In general society, however, staying within your ethnicity is much more strongly encouraged. And I still maintain that neither should be.

Do you think the diversity of human races is worth preserving?

No. Red Pandas are Superior.

Not that I've seen - anywhere.



The article doesn't encourage anything. It simply details a trend. Based on our interactions with each other (not on ethnic mixing, anyways), the Western and Eastern ideas of beauty are becoming more similar. This could be true with or without ethnic mixing. The more Western and Eastern societies interact with each other, breeding aside, the more the ideas of beauty are going to change.

But the article doesn't encourage ethnic mixing in any way. It simply points out that, because the ideas of beauty change, children of such mixing are often seen as beautiful. Of course, that is a logical leap I wouldn't make. I think children of such mixing are seen as beautiful because they look exotic. Their features are often arrangement we haven't seen before, and thus we find them attractive.

In general society, however, staying within your ethnicity is much more strongly encouraged. And I still maintain that neither should be.

Society, yes...Media, no...As I said, a magazine couldnt make an article about white blond people seen as most beautiful and how it's preferred, etc...

That thinking dates back to 1970's and that's why it's so popular. It's been challenged by Edwards in 2003.

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf

Actually, this just goes to show that Edwards has nothing to say. He criticizes a paper from the '70's and ignores all of the work that has been done since then.

There are more recent papers that have done things quite differently from what Edwards describes. One of the more interesting ones (I'll try and find it) actually took people of various ethnicities - essentially continental groupings, as those would be expected to be the most different and tested their DNA using a couple of different methods. They put together a database with this information, so that they could then see if the information could be used to determind the ethnic background of a new sample. When they used blinded samples against this information gathered by ethnic groupings, they could not, with certainty, determine the ethnic background of the sample.

If this cannot be done, there is absolutely no scientific reason to classify these largely social groupings as races.

Actually, this just goes to show that Edwards has nothing to say. He criticizes a paper from the '70's and ignores all of the work that has been done since then.

There are more recent papers that have done things quite differently from what Edwards describes. One of the more interesting ones (I'll try and find it) actually took people of various ethnicities - essentially continental groupings, as those would be expected to be the most different and tested their DNA using a couple of different methods. They put together a database with this information, so that they could then see if the information could be used to determind the ethnic background of a new sample. When they used blinded samples against this information gathered by ethnic groupings, they could not, with certainty, determine the ethnic background of the sample.

If this cannot be done, there is absolutely no scientific reason to classify these largely social groupings as races.


It's done actually. When you provide a source, I'll respond...

Society, yes...Media, no...As I said, a magazine couldnt make an article about white blond people seen as most beautiful and how it's preferred, etc...

They could if it were true. If most of Western society saw white, blonde people as the most beautiful, then they could certainly write an article on it. However, it doesn't seem to be true, at least not on average. There are certainly people who do find white blonde people to be the most beautiful, just as there are those who find people with Asian features or with red hair to be the most beautiful.

An article could, with no problems, do some sort of survey to determine the percentages here, and could publish the data on those who see white and blonde people as the most beautiful.

In general society, however, staying within your ethnicity is much more strongly encouraged. And I still maintain that neither should be.
I suspect that the more mixed an area is, the more likely there is to be some sort of prejudice against interracial dating between the most prominent groups, as they on some level see themselves in a competition.

In my area, the two largest groups by far are Whites and Hispanics. When two members from those groups are in a relationship, people talk. I see no similar reaction to any other variety of extra racial relationship.

Also, why would you not encourage multi-racial relationships? Only good can come from it.

Also, why would you not encourage multi-racial relationships? Only good can come from it.

I think people should pick their partners as they choose. If people are pushed into an interethnic relationship, then no good comes of it. If people are pushed out of one, no good comes of it. There is no reason that people should be encouraged to partner within or outside of their ethnic groups. It should be their own choice.

They could if it were true. If most of Western society saw white, blonde people as the most beautiful, then they could certainly write an article on it. However, it doesn't seem to be true, at least not on average. There are certainly people who do find white blonde people to be the most beautiful, just as there are those who find people with Asian features or with red hair to be the most beautiful.

An article could, with no problems, do some sort of survey to determine the percentages here, and could publish the data on those who see white and blonde people as the most beautiful.

And how "blond" isnt true but "indian" is? Newsweek is making a claim. However you cant make the opposite claim due to political environment. That's bias...

I think people should pick their partners as they choose. If people are pushed into an interethnic relationship, then no good comes of it. If people are pushed out of one, no good comes of it. There is no reason that people should be encouraged to partner within or outside of their ethnic groups. It should be their own choice.

Meh. Almost all relationships fail at some point anyway. Might as well let those failures do some social good.

Meh. Almost all relationships fail at some point anyway. Might as well let those failures do some social good.

You are a reverse Nazi...

Eh. In the long run, it probably won't matter. Races and ethnicities have been mixing for thousands of years, and most of them are still in existence. By the time we would have to worry about races being eliminated, humanity will either be totally extinct, or getting our "race" from petri dishes.

You are a reverse Nazi...
That isn't the first time I've been called that, and it will not be the last. :)

That isn't the first time I've been called that, and it will not be the last. :)

Reltih Lieh !!!!!






















PS: Read backwards...

You are a reverse Nazi...

...reverse Nazi? How the hell does that work?

And of course, everybody decides to leave after I post. Bastards.

And of course, everybody decides to leave after I post. Bastards.
You have a funny name.

And how "blond" isnt true but "indian" is?

Actually, nothing like that was said. You didn't actually read the article at all, did you? The article stated that, in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more Asian features. On the other hand, in the Eastern world, ideas of beauty are tending more towards the skinny models often seen as beautiful in the West. Nothing was said about blonde vs. Indian. The claim was that both sides currently go for beauties of mixed ethncity, not because they are of mixed ethnicity, but because they generally combine the two features - the traditional Eastern and Western ideals of beauty.

Newsweek is making a claim. However you cant make the opposite claim due to political environment. That's bias...

It has nothing to do with political environment. You can't make the opposite claim because it doesn't appear to be true. The majority opinion on beauty these days doesn't seem to be the traditional Eastern or Western view of beauty. It seems to be a mix of the two. That's all it says.


Meh. Almost all relationships fail at some point anyway. Might as well let those failures do some social good.

How do failed relationships do any good?

Cabra makes a keen observation - since 'phenotypical' differences are probably sufficient markers at this stage, you can just look for what is 'most different'... which sounds like it would probably end up with you looking for an African, or maybe Indian partner.

Indian women... Ooooh HUBBA!

They were nomadic warriors. How many of them coupled with Central Europeans? What %?

They were but one tribe during passing through Europe and leaving their genes. The left enough to leave an English woman with a "pure English pedigree" today with 9% East Asian DNA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947276,00.html).


Noone is pure. But 2% Asian influence and 44% Asian influence are different things...

True. And what would you say someone with 10% Middle Eastern, 11% South Asian, 37% south-eastern European and 43% northern European DNA is?

That is a pretty average DNA profile in Europe.


Except the fact that two north Europeans are of same species while Tuna and dolphin arent...

Oh, right. But it's ok to claim that similar appearance means similar genetic makeup as long as it's the same species, despite the fact that similar appearance can even occur between vastly different species. :rolleyes:

I know... it doesn't 'fit' with my usual perspective, and I have trouble reconciling it with my 'everybody is free' arguments. I just think, just maybe, this is a situation where something extreme in the short-term, might be the quickest (and maybe, the safest) route to a better world.


Meh, screw you, I'm going to marry whoever the fuck I want (well, someone who also wants to marry me, obviously) to.

I highly doubt it's a danger, myself. There are 6 billion people out there, so I imagine it would take a whole lot of interracial marriage to seriously impact diversity.

Aside from being a means of population control (and personally I think AIDS was more effective as that anyway), I don't really see the point. If people don't want to breed with members of their own particular colour they don't have to.

If everyone on Earth were to breed today, there wouldnt be a blond north european looking person. There would be blonds (much less in number due to its recessivity) but the full correlation (nose, skin colour etc...) wouldnt exist...

Is that supposed to be a good or bad thing?

Who's that "we" you are talking about?

I might not have seen the exact same article cited, I'm not sure. But, I have seen a number of articles based on the same science.

The 'we' in question... is 'humans'. We observe certain characteristics in others as 'attractive', and these attributes have been shown to match certain key markers in a statisitically significant number of cases.

Specifically - we are attracted (and by 'we', I still mean humans) to symmetry, as an indicator of general health, and to 'difference' as an indicator of possibility of hybrid vigour for our offspring.

These attributes aren't entirely visual cues - apparently we (and by 'we' I still mean the human animal) detect a lot of this information through our sense of smell... maybe, even more than the visual cues.

Our clever little noses seek out genetic diversity, and 'viability' for us.

Meh, screw you, I'm going to marry whoever the fuck I want (well, someone who also wants to marry me, obviously) to.

How unnecessarily vitriolic.

This is a debate format... we debate. I suggest an idea, you can discuss it on it's merits, or it's flaws - you don't have to get aggressive.

But, you illustrate something for me - the fact that we place our personal preferences above what might be best for our societies. I'm included - I married the girl I love, not because I had to fill some quota.

It is just that kind of 'selfishness', that might - in the end - be the reason why 'enforced crossbreeding' might be necessary.

Actually, nothing like that was said. You didn't actually read the article at all, did you? The article stated that, in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more Asian features. On the other hand, in the Eastern world, ideas of beauty are tending more towards the skinny models often seen as beautiful in the West. Nothing was said about blonde vs. Indian. The claim was that both sides currently go for beauties of mixed ethncity, not because they are of mixed ethnicity, but because they generally combine the two features - the traditional Eastern and Western ideals of beauty.


We are going in circles. It was an unsupported claim. If Newsweek can make an unsupported claim of "in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more Asian features", some other magazine should be able to make the claim of "in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more "blond" features".



It has nothing to do with political environment. You can't make the opposite claim because it doesn't appear to be true. The majority opinion on beauty these days doesn't seem to be the traditional Eastern or Western view of beauty. It seems to be a mix of the two. That's all it says.


And what methodology did they use to say "The majority opinion on beauty these days doesn't seem to be the traditional Eastern or Western view of beauty. It seems to be a mix of the two." This is an unsupported claim which, IMO, doesn't appear to be true.

They were but one tribe during passing through Europe and leaving their genes. The left enough to leave an English woman with a "pure English pedigree" today with 9% East Asian DNA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947276,00.html).


Again, that's just one person. Doesnt mean much outta population of 60 million. What's the Asian influence in overall ethnic British (Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings, etc...) population?


True. And what would you say someone with 10% Middle Eastern, 11% South Asian, 37% south-eastern European and 43% northern European DNA is?


I'd say 100% Caucasoid.


That is a pretty average DNA profile in Europe.


This is an unsupported claim.



Oh, right. But it's ok to claim that similar appearance means similar genetic makeup as long as it's the same species, despite the fact that similar appearance can even occur between vastly different species. :rolleyes:

As I said, similar can be subjective. You might thing tuna and dolphin are similar but not everyone would agree.

We are going in circles. It was an unsupported claim. If Newsweek can make an unsupported claim of "in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more Asian features", some other magazine should be able to make the claim of "in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more "blond" features".


And where does it say that they can't report that if it were true?
Fact is, blonde has been going out of fashion since the 60s.


And what methodology did they use to say "The majority opinion on beauty these days doesn't seem to be the traditional Eastern or Western view of beauty. It seems to be a mix of the two." This is an unsupported claim which, IMO, doesn't appear to be true.

They could simply have gone with trends in fashion magazines. Asia is BIG in fashion, and so are Asian facial features.

Is that supposed to be a good or bad thing?

Obviosuly, it's subjective. For me, it's a bad thing.

I might not have seen the exact same article cited, I'm not sure. But, I have seen a number of articles based on the same science.

The 'we' in question... is 'humans'. We observe certain characteristics in others as 'attractive', and these attributes have been shown to match certain key markers in a statisitically significant number of cases.

Specifically - we are attracted (and by 'we', I still mean humans) to symmetry, as an indicator of general health, and to 'difference' as an indicator of possibility of hybrid vigour for our offspring.

These attributes aren't entirely visual cues - apparently we (and by 'we' I still mean the human animal) detect a lot of this information through our sense of smell... maybe, even more than the visual cues.

Our clever little noses seek out genetic diversity, and 'viability' for us.

You are making assumptions based on an unsupported claim, which is inter racial breeding increases symmetry.

And where does it say that they can't report that if it were true?


But the question is, is it true?


Fact is, blonde has been going out of fashion since the 60s.


Really? Most models I see is nordic looking.



They could simply have gone with trends in fashion magazines. Asia is BIG in fashion, and so are Asian facial features.

Again, when I switch to Fashion TV, almost all modes are White and the majority is Nordic.

But, you illustrate something for me - the fact that we place our personal preferences above what might be best for our societies. I'm included - I married the girl I love, not because I had to fill some quota.

And people who are attracted to ethnically different people do the same thing - marry and possibly mate with the partners they love, rather than trying to fill some quota. There is no reason to believe that allowing things to happen that way is going to be a problem.

It is just that kind of 'selfishness', that might - in the end - be the reason why 'enforced crossbreeding' might be necessary.

You would advocate forced breeding at all?


We are going in circles. It was an unsupported claim.

No, it wasn't. They used top models and movie stars in both areas to figure out what people apparently see as beauty.

If Newsweek can make an unsupported claim of "in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more Asian features", some other magazine should be able to make the claim of "in the Western world, ideas of beauty are tending towards more "blond" features".

If they have some support for it, yes, that would be true. If most of our top models and movie stars were blonde, blue-eyed, button-nosed beauties, then it would make sense to suggest that ideas of beauty in the Western world generally included these things. However, this doesn't seem to be the case. The models and movie stars most often cited as beautiful tend to be more exotic than this - of a more mixed lineage.

And what methodology did they use to say "The majority opinion on beauty these days doesn't seem to be the traditional Eastern or Western view of beauty. It seems to be a mix of the two." This is an unsupported claim which, IMO, doesn't appear to be true.

They make it pretty clear what they used - the lineage and appearance of the top models and movie stars in both areas. There is a reason the start out by talking about Preeti in India (can't remember her last name). Personally, I think she's absolutely gorgeous, and she meets the description of the traditional Indian beauty. However, she is constantly beat out for popularity and in beauty contests by those who bear more Western features.

Likewise, the women winning such contests in the Western world are tending to have more Asian features.

You are making assumptions based on an unsupported claim, which is inter racial breeding increases symmetry.

No, he isn't. You even quoted him as saying that human beings are generally attracted to "different". Symmetry was presented as a general factor in attraction unrelated to ethnicity, but instead related to general health.

Really? Most models I see is nordic looking.


I can't name a single model who would meet this description. I definitely can't name a world-famous one who would.