.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to no wait what.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="no%20wait%20what:1373607"]I'm not sure this deserves a serious reply, but what the hell, maybe we'll get some useful definitions out of this. First, how big is a 'race'? What boundaries are we using here? Are Germans and Slavs in the same 'race'? What about Han and Hakka? Inuk and Fuegan? Bear in mind that people with the phenotype that we identify as 'black' -- sub-Saharan ancestry groups -- account for about as much of H.sapiens's genetic diversity as every other lineage group on the planet combined. Before we can answer the question "is it good or bad to interbreed between races", we need to know exactly how big a gene pool a 'race' represents. [QUOTE="informed%20racialist:1373587"]As an individual, you have a child that looks less like you. It also has biological problems caused by mixing things of two different specializations.[/QUOTE] The second sentence needs extensive qualification. Like, with multiple actual examples. A core principle in the selective breeding of everything except humans is the idea of 'hybrid vigor', the tendency of first-generation crosses from widely separated parent stocks to manifest more of the positive traits of both parents, and fewer of their negative traits, on the idea that negative attributes are the result of combinations of recessive genes, which would be unlikely to persist in both non-related parents. Why is it that humans are the only species of life that we know of where hybrid vigor doesn't hold? Alternatively, if you accept the need for periodic outmarriage to avoid inbreeding, how big is the 'race' pool that can be outbred to while avoiding negative effects? Again, examples. [QUOTE="informed%20racialist:1373587"]As a group, you have obliterated your heritage and replaced it with a hybrid. Further, this experiment has been tried before, mostly in the impoverished republics of the near-east, middle-east, Eastern Europe and South America. By removing a sense of group identity, you make yourself subject to more laws since there's no culture in kind. Hope you like lots of rules and the wealthiest having complete control, since that's the direction you're taking.[/QUOTE] So in the first graf, 'race' was about genetics, and in the second, 'race' is about culture. Which is it? How much does culture play a part in defining the allowable gene pool? How much does genetic diversity/population size affect what variations in culture are allowable? More problematic, though, is the idea that a society will be able to avoid this fate by breeding true. There's no examples offered to indicate that this is the case, and there are some ready counterexamples that most people should be aware of. Japan is a closed society, racially, but is highly regulated and legalistic and run for the benefit of the wealthy. Racism has not prevented Japan from falling exactly into this trap. China is multi-ethnic, but with an enforced monoculture that promotes a single idea of Chinese identity; Chinese society again is heavily regimented and run for the sole benefit of the wealthy. "A lot of rules" and "the wealthy control everything" are characteristics not of multi-racial societies, but of societies with a large and developed economy. Is it the case that racism restricts people to an agrarian subsistence economy? Can you illustrate mono-racial societies that became economically developed while retaining folkish democracy rather than developing a plutocratic class? [QUOTE="informed%20racialist:1373587"]Finally, there's an aesthetic/naturalistic argument. You have destroyed what you were. This reflects a hatred of self and of origins, and implies that maybe you consider yourself an evolutionary dead-end and find nothing beautiful in yourself.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to comment on anyone else's neuroses, but breeding to a set standard is the definition of an 'evolutionary dead end'. Populations that do not change, and do not generate new characteristics, are at an advanced risk of failing to survive if conditions change. [QUOTE="informed%20racialist:1373587"]It's not a question of supposed/not supposed. People have been race-mixing for centuries. It just hasn't ended well for any of the races involved.[/QUOTE] Again, [citation needed]. Please identify several societies that became mixed race, how it ended poorly for these societies, and on what kind of timescale. Similarly, please also identify several societies that have avoided race mixing, and document why this has produced uniformly better results.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][