PDA

View Full Version : Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Fire Haired14
19-04-15, 02:40
There is a big chance that before we all mix, we will start making a design babies through genetic manipulation. In this case it will be up to parents to describe phenotype of a child. We could end up even more varied, with more combination of features, than we are now. Perhaps we can see a birth of new races, based on fashion of a time. Same way we can recognize decades by style of cloths and houses.

Will we have a new occupation, "a baby designer"? Future Micheal Angelos will not shape people out of stone but out of genes.

You make a mistake by assuming everyone will mix. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. Outside of the Americas and some other former-colonies everyone has been in there home region for 1,000s of years and those regions are very undiverse. Even in America people almost exclusively mix within their "race"(mostly based on physical features and culture).

Unless there's some grand-problem what's the use of genetically modifying people? There isn't much of a reason. People realize the potential dangers and how unfair it is to do that. I don't see that happening on a large-scale anytime soon either.

Angela
19-04-15, 03:03
You make a mistake by assuming everyone will mix. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. Outside of the Americas and some other former-colonies everyone has been in there home region for 1,000s of years and those regions are very undiverse. Even in America people almost exclusively mix within their "race"(mostly based on physical features and culture).

Unless there's some grand-problem what's the use of genetically modifying people? There isn't much of a reason. People realize the potential dangers and how unfair it is to do that. I don't see that happening on a large-scale anytime soon either.

I couldn't disagree more, Fire-Haired. First of all there are all the diseases people would want to erase. One of the most intractable problems in modern industrial societies is that a good percentage of the population isn't capable of functioning at the intellectual level you need for the kinds of jobs that are available, so that would be on the list too. What about schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder or anxiety ridden. That's on a societal level.

On a personal level, I can guarantee you that parents with the money would line up to get designer babies. Right now, women spend thousands of dollars to get the "look" that's currently popular because of some actress or model. For a lot of parents, children are an accessory. They'll want the best accessory according to their own standards, but you can bet they'll all want harmonious features, intelligence, athletic ability, you name it.

It will happen. I'd bet a small fortune on it.

Fire Haired14
19-04-15, 03:44
I couldn't disagree more, Fire-Haired. First of all there are all the diseases people would want to erase. One of the most intractable problems in modern industrial societies is that a good percentage of the population isn't capable of functioning at the intellectual level you need for the kinds of jobs that are available, so that would be on the list too. What about schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder or anxiety ridden. That's on a societal level.

On a personal level, I can guarantee you that parents with the money would line up to get designer babies. Right now, women spend thousands of dollars to get the "look" that's currently popular because of some actress or model. For a lot of parents, children are an accessory. They'll want the best accessory according to their own standards, but you can bet they'll all want harmonious features, intelligence, athletic ability, you name it.

It will happen. I'd bet a small fortune on it.

The majority of humans in developed countries life normal lives with no great disasters, there's no great need for genetic-modifications. Having easy access to the ability to genetically modify people can lead to so many complex problems, and people are smart enough to realize this. It won't be regulated well and won't be equally distributed. Those are the main reason i think people will be against it. Unless it is for solving diseases and improving life and is strictly regulated, I don't think it'll happen.

It's like taking performance enhancers in athletics. Most people aren't born with incredible athletic ability, being an athlete is very hard, but people don't tolerate enhancers because it's cheating and the competition will revolve around who has the best drugs.


Right now, women spend thousands of dollars to get the "look" that's currently popular because of some actress or model. For a lot of parents, children are an accessory. They'll want the best accessory according to their own standards, but you can bet they'll all want harmonious features, intelligence, athletic ability, you name it.

Women's obsession with their image might become one of the biggest challenges to prevent genetic-modification, plastic surgery, and playing with nature in general.

LeBrok
19-04-15, 08:05
The majority of humans in developed countries life normal lives with no great disasters, there's no great need for genetic-modifications. Having easy access to the ability to genetically modify people can lead to so many complex problems, and people are smart enough to realize this. It won't be regulated well and won't be equally distributed. Those are the main reason i think people will be against it. Unless it is for solving diseases and improving life and is strictly regulated, I don't think it'll happen.
You have trust in blind mother nature, luck and your God. I'd rather trust human intelligence, or my intelligence in creating my offspring.


It's like taking performance enhancers in athletics. Most people aren't born with incredible athletic ability, being an athlete is very hard, but people don't tolerate enhancers because it's cheating and the competition will revolve around who has the best drugs. Guess what, if everyone is born a super athletes, who is going to need performance enhancing drugs?

Why don't you want all the people to be healthy, beautiful and smart?


It's like taking performance enhancers in athletics. Most people aren't born with incredible athletic ability, being an athlete is very hard, but people don't tolerate enhancers because it's cheating and the competition will revolve around who has the best drugs.
Technology makes everything cheep and affordable. 100 years ago only rich could have a car, and it was a primitive piece of engineering, with 20 HP, when compared to modern vehicles. Now everybody has one, with all the power features and all the whistles, with 200 horse power. 100 years ago only rich could fly a plain. It was expensive and very risky. Now everybody flies jets around the world, and it is the safest mode of transportation. 100 years ago only rich could have a phone. Now everybody has it in one's pocket, which is actually a computer, gps, organizer, assistant, internet, a store, etc, etc.
There is no reason to doubt that genetic technology will be cheap and available to every human being on this planet. Everybody who doesn't want to play a genetic lottery and desire to have a healthy, beautiful and smart kid.

Why won't we leave it to a parental choice?

Fire Haired14
19-04-15, 11:12
You have trust in blind mother nature, luck and your God. I'd rather trust human intelligence, or my intelligence in creating my offspring.

What does religion have to do with any of this? I don't think society is ready to take the risk. Like I said before, there can be complex problems caused by genetic engineering none of us can foretell. It's such a powerful and easily corrupted thing, why take the risk? Preventing disease, etc. is fine if it is heavily regulated. Wanting to be athletic and look good, is plain ridiculous and shallow and will cause inequality between those who can afford genetic engineering and those who can't.


Guess what, if everyone is born a super athletes, who is going to need performance enhancing drugs?

Someone will want to become a super-super athlete.


Why don't you want all the people to be healthy, beautiful and smart?

I'm afraid of the potential problems. Besides we became the way we are through evolution, and is it right for everyone to be attractive, smart, etc.? We have to have ugly and unattractive people. Genetic engineering has the potential of destroying healthy human society. Genetic engineering is not evolution and isn't natural. It'll create an artificial race.



Technology makes everything cheep and affordable. 100 years ago only rich could have a car, and it was a primitive piece of engineering, with 20 HP, when compared to modern vehicles. Now everybody has one, with all the power features and all the whistles, with 200 horse power. 100 years ago only rich could fly a plain. It was expensive and very risky. Now everybody flies jets around the world, and it is the safest mode of transportation. 100 years ago only rich could have a phone. Now everybody has it in one's pocket, which is actually a computer, gps, organizer, assistant, internet, a store, etc, etc.
There is no reason to doubt that genetic technology will be cheap and available to every human being on this planet. Everybody who doesn't want to play a genetic lottery and desire to have a healthy, beautiful and smart kid.

Why won't we leave it to a parental choice?

Genetic engineering isn't the same ting as cars, etc. I highly doubt any government anytime soon will allow genetic engineering to be sold. The animal-like fight for it and unequal distribution will be a nightmare.

Maleth
19-04-15, 15:19
What worries me with designed babies on the part of how they should look according to parents choices. (all the rest is pretty fine i think) that they might grow not approving to their parents choices and blame how they look on them. I have come across many siblings who are world apart in regards to tastes and preferences visa vi their parents choices in a multitude of ways including fashion and of course also looks. :thinking:

LeBrok
20-04-15, 07:50
What does religion have to do with any of this? I don't think society is ready to take the risk. Like I said before, there can be complex problems caused by genetic engineering none of us can foretell. It's such a powerful and easily corrupted thing, why take the risk? Preventing disease, etc. is fine if it is heavily regulated. .
In case you are not familiar with christian dogma, it says that all people are God's creation. Therefore, it means, playing with genes is God's domain, not people's.
I'm sure it will be heavily regulated anyway.


Wanting to be athletic and look good, is plain ridiculous and shallow and will cause inequality between those who can afford genetic engineering and those who can't Even if it is shallow for you, should you impose you feelings on other parents?



Someone will want to become a super-super athlete. Why don't we leave it to parents. Let's not fantasies that some parents would want 4 arms and 3 penises for their sons. And that's why genetic engineering should be forbidden.
By the same token lets forbid public transportation to all, because some can afford Ferraris. It is unfair!



I'm afraid of the potential problems. Besides we became the way we are through evolution, and is it right for everyone to be attractive, smart, etc.? We have to have ugly and unattractive people. Genetic engineering has the potential of destroying healthy human society. Genetic engineering is not evolution and isn't natural. It'll create an artificial race.
It is clear to all of us, that you are afraid of potential anything, including things that are not created by God, like atheism, liberalism or feminism.


Genetic engineering isn't the same ting as cars, etc. I highly doubt any government anytime soon will allow genetic engineering to be sold. That's right, people generally are afraid of unfamiliar things. It took a long time for people to accept female voting, democracy, birth control, artificial insemination, etc. It doesn't mean they were bad things, it rather says more about human nature. We are afraid of new, we are afraid of changes, in general.


The animal-like fight for it and unequal distribution will be a nightmare. Do you see unequal distribution of cellphones? Perhaps we should regulate this technology too?

Fire Haired14
20-04-15, 08:36
I'm tired of being dis respected and treated as weird on Eupedia because I have conservative tendencies. I'm tired of every middle aged liberal here, like you and Aberdeen, thinking it's justified to insult religious and conservative people. It doesn't just happen at this forum it happens in most public places: in schools, media, etc. and it needs to end. I deserve just as much respect.

For crying out loud will you guys stop with the sarcasm!!! You're not mr. tolerant if in every other post you're insulting someone, then lie by denying it afterwards. You can express your views without so much attitude.

I'm ready to have a civilized debate whenever you are.


In case you are not familiar with christian dogma, it says that all people are God's creation. Therefore, it means, playing with genes is God's domain, not people's.
I'm sure it will be heavily regulated anyway.

You're twisting the words of the Bible to have a certain view on genetic engineering which you want it to. There's nothing about genetic engineering in the Bible. I'm purely expressing my personal opinion.


Even if it is shallow for you, should you impose you feelings on other parents?

Tolerance is not do whatever you want. I've explained before to you how the "do whatever" philosophy doesn't work. There are hard-to-define limits, but they're nonetheless there and need to be. People in the west are too obsessed with individualism, freedom, and tolerance. There's a wrong assumption that the rule maker is always the bad guy. It's not always bad to take "take away freedoms" like too many people think. Is making LSD illegal a bad thing? Are people wrongly imposing their feelings on others?

We should impose rules on shallow parents who will give their children an unfair advantage. People should not be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to their bodies.



Why don't we leave it to parents. Let's not fantasies that some parents would want 4 arms and 3 penises for their sons. And that's why genetic engineering should be forbidden.
By the same token lets forbid public transportation to all, because some can afford Ferraris. It is unfair!

I have no idea what-type of genetic engineering you're in favor of. IF someone wasted their time on the work they could find concrete dangers of genetic engineering being widespread. It depends on the type of regulation though of course. If someone shows me the evidence with a certain type of regulation there are no dangers I'll agree genetic engineering is okay. The evidence to me right now though is pointing in the other direction.



It is clear to all of us, that you are afraid of potential anything, including things that are not created by God, like atheism, liberalism or feminism.

What the heck does feminism have to do with God? I'm not taking this!!! I have respect for myself and my views and will not be bullied into allowing the majority(inclu. you) here at Eupedia tell me what I believe, and forge in aspects of my believe that make their position seem stronger and mine weaker.

I have nothing against women. That's my view on feminism. Let male and females flow naturally in society with little regulation, that's my view on gender roles. I'm against most of whom I've seen labeled as "feminist", because they're unhealthily obsessed with the female gender, wrongly assume each gender has to be the same to be equal, and are for enforced affirmative action. The 50/50 thing by 2030 (http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/3/press-release-galvanizing-global-attention-world-leaders-celebrities-and-activists) is an example of what I'm talking about.


That's right, people generally are afraid of unfamiliar things. It took a long time for people to accept female voting, democracy, birth control, artificial insemination, etc. It doesn't mean they were bad things, it rather says more about human nature. We are afraid of new, we are afraid of changes, in general.

Fear is not why I'm against genetic engineering. It's because from what I know so far there are a lot of potential problems. It's quite clear you have a strange favoritive biased for genetic engneering anyways.


Do you see unequal distribution of cellphones? Perhaps we should regulate this technology too?

Cell phones don't make you physically and mentally superior to your peers. These two can't be compared.

Kardu
20-04-15, 16:10
There is a big chance that before we all mix, we will start making a design babies through genetic manipulation. In this case it will be up to parents to describe phenotype of a child. We could end up even more varied, with more combination of features, than we are now. Perhaps we can see a birth of new races, based on fashion of a time. Same way we can recognize decades by style of cloths and houses.

Will we have a new occupation, "a baby designer"? Future Micheal Angelos will not shape people out of stone but out of genes.
Eugenics adherents are rejoicing in their graves

LeBrok
20-04-15, 16:56
We should impose rules on shallow parents who will give their children an unfair advantage.
.
Wow, you will be the only parent in the world who doesn't want to give his kids and advantage. The unfair advantage of having kids healthy, smart and beautiful.

Maleth
20-04-15, 17:31
Even washing machines were highly criticized when invented, nothing could scrub better then a good pare of hands down at the communal laundry by the stream :). No one stays without them these days. I guess even the thought of opening up humans for some operation was considered unethical and playing god. How many people are having their lives extended these days and with gratitude?

Angela
20-04-15, 17:46
I think there's a difference between society deciding who should get to reproduce or not and individuals choosing to get genetic modification for themselves or their children.

If I were having children again and doctors could tell me that my child would normally have a high chance of contracting juvenile diabetes or cancer or becoming schizophrenic or bipolar and they could alter the genes, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. I have a hard time imagining that any parent would hesitate.

As for genetic modifications for intelligence or beauty or athletic ability, I think most would opt for that as well. It's just human nature to want your children to have all possible advantages in life. I'm different to some extent I suppose. I would want my children to look like my mother and my father. Indeed, in the throes of young passion, I wanted them all to look exactly like my husband. :) As for athletic ability and intelligence, I do think it would be nice if they all got my husband's and father's athletic ability and not mine, but it's not a big deal. The intelligence genes that are already in the pool are fine too. I wouldn't want some genetically engineered super human, but that's just me.

What the consequences would be for society is another question, and then there is the issue about the "morality" or "virtue" or lack of it in all of this.

I have some sympathy for Fire-Haired's point of view. I do think that it would just increase the disparity between the have and have nots, with the wealthy becoming even more of an elite caste than is already the case. That wouldn't be good for society as a whole.

I also don't think that parents should be allowed to do whatever they wish to their unborn children. There are a lot of crazy people out there. One notorious woman had surgery after surgery to make herself look like a cat. What if a parent wants to do the same to their unborn child?

Then there's the law of unintended consequences. Nature has done a pretty good job of weeding out deleterious traits through natural selection, although it could be argued, I suppose, that because we are controlling our environment more, it is slowing down. Still, does everyone really trust scientist to tinker around with the human genome?

LeBrok
21-04-15, 02:48
I think there's a difference between society deciding who should get to reproduce or not and individuals choosing to get genetic modification for themselves or their children.

If I were having children again and doctors could tell me that my child would normally have a high chance of contracting juvenile diabetes or cancer or becoming schizophrenic or bipolar and they could alter the genes, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. I have a hard time imagining that any parent would hesitate.

As for genetic modifications for intelligence or beauty or athletic ability, I think most would opt for that as well. It's just human nature to want your children to have all possible advantages in life. I'm different to some extent I suppose. I would want my children to look like my mother and my father. Indeed, in the throes of young passion, I wanted them all to look exactly like my husband. :) As for athletic ability and intelligence, I do think it would be nice if they all got my husband's and father's athletic ability and not mine, but it's not a big deal. The intelligence genes that are already in the pool are fine too. I wouldn't want some genetically engineered super human, but that's just me. For that reason I don't expect parents making monsters out of their children. I'm sure they will use their own DNA with some health corrections, and adjustment or two, to make sure they are intelligent and good looking.


What the consequences would be for society is another question, and then there is the issue about the "morality" or "virtue" or lack of it in all of this. I'm sure, by genetic tweaking we should eliminate psychopaths, serial killers and child molesters.


I have some sympathy for Fire-Haired's point of view. I do think that it would just increase the disparity between the have and have nots, with the wealthy becoming even more of an elite caste than is already the case. That wouldn't be good for society as a whole. I'm sure there will be government guidelines how to make a proper human being. To make sure some crazy parents won't play Frankenstein.


I also don't think that parents should be allowed to do whatever they wish to their unborn children. There are a lot of crazy people out there. One notorious woman had surgery after surgery to make herself look like a cat. What if a parent wants to do the same to their unborn child? I'm not sure if we should have restrictions what people can do to their own body. On one hand we are forced to use seat-belts, on other euthanasia becomes a commonplace. But that's another story.


Then there's the law of unintended consequences. Nature has done a pretty good job of weeding out deleterious traits through natural selection, although it could be argued, I suppose, that because we are controlling our environment more, it is slowing down. Still, does everyone really trust scientist to tinker around with the human genome? Not at the moment. We barely started understanding genetics. In the future, however, there will be increased need for genetic help in creating new babies. Thanks to modern medicine, and saving countless lives of people who wouldn't survive on their own, and who in turn will have a chance making even weaker children. Every coming generation will be less healthy, with more chronic conditions, and heavy burden to healthcare. In this case genetic engineering might be only solution and salvation to our health system.
The only other option will be to drop the civilization and go into wild to live as hunter-gatherers. Embrace natural selection for few generations to get rid of some medical conditions and overall improve basic health of society.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 03:04
Eugenics adherents are rejoicing in their graves

It is quite hypocritical of you. Aren't you the one who is advocating marring only into one's races or ethnic group? You don't see it, but you are practicing eugenics by racial and ethnic discrimination.

What I'm for is giving parents tools to improve health and mental acuity of their children. I'm not even forcing them into genetics, just giving them choices if they wish to go this way. If parents would want a blond kid or black kid, tall or short, it will be only their own choice.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 03:37
I'm tired of being dis respected and treated as weird on Eupedia because I have conservative tendencies. I'm tired of every middle aged liberal here, like you and Aberdeen, thinking it's justified to insult religious and conservative people. It doesn't just happen at this forum it happens in most public places: in schools, media, etc. and it needs to end. I deserve just as much respect.

For crying out loud will you guys stop with the sarcasm!!! You're not mr. tolerant if in every other post you're insulting someone, then lie by denying it afterwards. You can express your views without so much attitude.

I'm ready to have a civilized debate whenever you are.
Have a grip on yourself dude. You went out into a world of adults and you can't take an argument. I explained what religion has to do with human life, and it is just too much for you to bear?
Isn't Christian and Islam dogma saying that nothing happened without will of god, and that people are created by god, and in time of creation given a sole?


You're twisting the words of the Bible to have a certain view on genetic engineering which you want it to. There's nothing about genetic engineering in the Bible. I'm purely expressing my personal opinion. Surly, bible missed wisdom of genetics or relativity, but for Christians it should be obvious that god should know about genetics and laws of physics. And when god creates new people he is using genetics, right?




Tolerance is not do whatever you want. I've explained before to you how the "do whatever" philosophy doesn't work. There are hard-to-define limits, but they're nonetheless there and need to be. People in the west are too obsessed with individualism, freedom, and tolerance. There's a wrong assumption that the rule maker is always the bad guy. It's not always bad to take "take away freedoms" like too many people think. Is making LSD illegal a bad thing? Are people wrongly imposing their feelings on others? It seams that if you are a president you will tell people what to think and what to do. Holly inquisition rings the bell.


We should impose rules on shallow parents who will give their children an unfair advantage. People should not be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to their bodies.I have no idea what-type of genetic engineering you're in favor of. IF someone wasted their time on the work they could find concrete dangers of genetic engineering being widespread. It depends on the type of regulation though of course. If someone shows me the evidence with a certain type of regulation there are no dangers I'll agree genetic engineering is okay. The evidence to me right now though is pointing in the other direction. Did you ever see a business or a public institution being run without regulations? There will be regulations, a lot of regulations.




What the heck does feminism have to do with God? I'm not taking this!!! I have respect for myself and my views and will not be bullied into allowing the majority(inclu. you) here at Eupedia tell me what I believe, and forge in aspects of my believe that make their position seem stronger and mine weaker. You have huge tendencies of demonizing and being afraid of many things, especially new things.



Fear is not why I'm against genetic engineering. It's because from what I know so far there are a lot of potential problems. It's quite clear you have a strange favoritive biased for genetic engneering anyways. I'm sure that if you were a head of patent office we wouldn't see cars, cellphones, TVs, computers, etc, because you would always see potential problems. Surely there are problems with computers and internet, but would you throw away your computer and go back only to reading books?




Cell phones don't make you physically and mentally superior to your peers. These two can't be compared. Not now, when they are cheap and ubiquitous. But 30 years ago only rich people had cellphones. It gave them superiority, status and better communication. It will be the same with genetics, cheap and ubiquitous thanks to technological progress. It will give poor, stupid and ugly parents a chance to create as smart and beautiful kids as rich parents. Remember, technology is a great equalizer.

Fire Haired14
21-04-15, 04:47
Lebrok, here's a few points.

>Insults, sarcasm, and manipulating what people believe to make your opinion look good is not arguing like an adult it's unproductive and divisive. There should be no tolerance for it. I'm simply reacting to garbage which has been thrown at me ever since I posted at this forum.

>Genetic engineering has little to nothing to do with the Bible. No one believes God creates a brand new being, unconnected to others, with every person. The writers of the Bible obviously knew this and about genetics, reproduction, bloodlines, etc. Saying the Bible is against genetic engineering is like saying the Bible is against medicine, lifting weights, life support, or anything else that does things to you a 100% natural human life wouldn't

>I'm not afraid of new things. I'm afraid of things which are harmful to society. To me right now genetic engineering seems harmful to society. With the feminism thing, what I said is common believe(that's what I've noticed).

>You're miss interpreting my views on "tolerance". I think your's are too laze fair, and that most Americans and Europeans(Not you) are obsessed with the word "freedom", etc. Just watch Braveheart. The underdog, discriminated poor person, nontraditional, informal hero soundtrack has been playing for 100s of years and is overused. People need to understand how complex the world is, and that sometimes the establishment isn't the bad guy. Not every event in human history is black and white. Sometimes what seems to be progress(human engineering) won't happen. Taking my initial opposition to genetic engineering and comparing my believes to the inquisition is a huge stretch.

>Human history and our personal lives(especially as kids) are full of situations where regulations couldn't keep things regulated, and big problems are the result. Humans are often indiscipline and unable to keep promises. With something as demanding and dangerous as genetic engineering I'm not ready to take that risk. I don't know much about it so my opinion might change.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 05:38
Lebrok, here's a few points.

>Insults, sarcasm, and manipulating what people believe to make your opinion look good is not arguing like an adult it's unproductive and divisive. There should be no tolerance for it. I'm simply reacting to garbage which has been thrown at me ever since I posted at this forum. Now, this is an insult.
Sarcasm is quite valid figure of discussion, unless it turns into insult.


>Genetic engineering has little to nothing to do with the Bible. No one believes God creates a brand new being, unconnected to others, with every person. The writers of the Bible obviously knew this and about genetics, reproduction, bloodlines, etc. Most what you said here is a heresy in biblical and scientific terms. Not mentioning that these two statements are contradictory. Can you see that?
Could you cite bible about genetics please.


>I'm not afraid of new things. I'm afraid of things which are harmful to society. To me right now genetic engineering seems harmful to society. So, on a base of your belief in harmful consequences of something that doesn't exist yet (parents genetically adjusting babies), you are against it?!
Why don't we try it first, measure the prose and cons, and make a decision based on tangible consequences? The way science work.


>You're miss interpreting my views on "tolerance". I think your's are too laze fair, and that most Americans and Europeans(Not you) are obsessed with the word "freedom", etc. Just watch Braveheart. The underdog, discriminated poor person, nontraditional, informal hero soundtrack has been playing for 100s of years and is overused. People need to understand how complex the world is, and that sometimes the establishment isn't the bad guy. Not every event in human history is black and white. Sometimes what seems to be progress(human engineering) won't happen. Taking my initial opposition to genetic engineering and comparing my believes to the inquisition is a huge stretch. If you know how life in Cuba or North Korea looks like, you should know what word freedom means when used in context of Western World. When I use this word I'm not advocating anarchy. In general terms, you will give as much of personal, political and social freedom to people in democracy, till you see a grave consequences. For example I think the freedom to bear arms in US is not working in a favor of whole society. I'm not sure if new freedom to buy and smoke marijuana is beneficial one. I'm against of "freedom" wearing burka. In all these situations these are existing problems and can be measured and expressed statistically in terms of deaths and sickness, and compared to other societies which addressed these issues differently. We don't need to use people beliefs in making a decision, we can use science helping us making the right one.
As you can see, after 200 years of technological and social changes/progress, the Western Civilization is doing great. People live longer, going on vacations all the time, drive cars, fly, and enjoy more freedoms than any time in the past, and most countries in the world today. That's why I'm very optimistic about our future.

Fire Haired14
21-04-15, 09:53
Lebrok,

>The writers of the Bible knew about human reproduction and family bloodlines. There's no debating this. I never said they knew about the science of genetics. Your interpretation of the Bible is usually a bit off, and gives it a negative image which makes your position look strong.

>I never said I'm against western Democracy. I know North Korea sucks. What I said is some people are obsessed with it and are too laze fair. You're taking my statements and comparing me to the inquisition, North Korea, etc. I'm against genetic engineering just like how you're against the right to bear arms, etc. It isn't any differnt.

Maleth
21-04-15, 10:59
Lebrok,
Your interpretation of the Bible is usually a bit off, and gives it a negative image which makes your position look strong.

Instead of obsessively keep telling people that their image of the bible, quran or torah is off which are all interwoven in many ways, why don't you give examples of how to justify the obvious savagery, racism, chauvinism promoted and tell us why they are so necessary? Anyone who is able to debate and discuss should not find this uncomfortable and screaming offence is not enough in today's word for anyone to stop a discussion and expose the truth with logic and reason.

Kardu
21-04-15, 11:49
It is quite hypocritical of you. Aren't you the one who is advocating marring only into one's races or ethnic group? You don't see it, but you are practicing eugenics by racial and ethnic discrimination.

What I'm for is giving parents tools to improve health and mental acuity of their children. I'm not even forcing them into genetics, just giving them choices if they wish to go this way. If parents would want a blond kid or black kid, tall or short, it will be only their own choice.

I have liberals as wonderful mentors of hypocricy, I still have a long way to go :)

Mind your false and cheap accusations of discrimination! This word has a specific meaning today.

And don't get emotional and jump to conclusions ;) when did I say that I am against genetic engineering?

Fire Haired14
21-04-15, 11:59
Instead of obsessively keep telling people that their image of the bible, quran or torah is off which are all interwoven in many ways, why don't you give examples of how to justify the obvious savagery, racism, chauvinism promoted and tell us why they are so necessary? Anyone who is able to debate and discuss should not find this uncomfortable and screaming offence is not enough in today's word for anyone to stop a discussion and expose the truth with logic and reason.

You're the one getting emotional. You're the one who appears to hate(religions). I don't see a reason to waste my time with you, but maybe I will. I have a lot of other things to do. Maybe religious people hurt you when you were younger saying you're damned to hell or something. BTW, something like that doesn't justify your hate.

No logic justifies discrimination and hate. You are a hater and need to change.

Maleth
21-04-15, 12:16
You're the one getting emotional. You're the one who appears to hate(religions). I don't see a reason to waste my time with you, but maybe I will. I have a lot of other things to do. Maybe religious people hurt you when you were younger saying you're damned to hell or something. BTW, something like that doesn't justify your hate.

No logic justifies discrimination and hate. You are a hater and need to change.

:bored: Okay fine no answers to an in depth discussion with facts and examples with logic and reason. Just the usual beating round the bush scenario. Try to know the content of the religious texts you defend and you might spot what real hate is. If ever you will be ready we can discuss.

skaheen15
21-04-15, 13:17
I'm tired of being dis respected and treated as weird on Eupedia because I have conservative tendencies. I'm tired of every middle aged liberal here, like you and Aberdeen, thinking it's justified to insult religious and conservative people. It doesn't just happen at this forum it happens in most public places: in schools, media, etc. and it needs to end. I deserve just as much respect.

For crying out loud will you guys stop with the sarcasm!!! You're not mr. tolerant if in every other post you're insulting someone, then lie by denying it afterwards. You can express your views without so much attitude.

I'm ready to have a civilized debate whenever you are.



You're twisting the words of the Bible to have a certain view on genetic engineering which you want it to. There's nothing about genetic engineering in the Bible. I'm purely expressing my personal opinion.



Tolerance is not do whatever you want. I've explained before to you how the "do whatever" philosophy doesn't work. There are hard-to-define limits, but they're nonetheless there and need to be. People in the west are too obsessed with individualism, freedom, and tolerance. There's a wrong assumption that the rule maker is always the bad guy. It's not always bad to take "take away freedoms" like too many people think. Is making LSD illegal a bad thing? Are people wrongly imposing their feelings on others?

We should impose rules on shallow parents who will give their children an unfair advantage. People should not be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to their bodies.




I have no idea what-type of genetic engineering you're in favor of. IF someone wasted their time on the work they could find concrete dangers of genetic engineering being widespread. It depends on the type of regulation though of course. If someone shows me the evidence with a certain type of regulation there are no dangers I'll agree genetic engineering is okay. The evidence to me right now though is pointing in the other direction.




What the heck does feminism have to do with God? I'm not taking this!!! I have respect for myself and my views and will not be bullied into allowing the majority(inclu. you) here at Eupedia tell me what I believe, and forge in aspects of my believe that make their position seem stronger and mine weaker.

I have nothing against women. That's my view on feminism. Let male and females flow naturally in society with little regulation, that's my view on gender roles. I'm against most of whom I've seen labeled as "feminist", because they're unhealthily obsessed with the female gender, wrongly assume each gender has to be the same to be equal, and are for enforced affirmative action. The 50/50 thing by 2030 (http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/3/press-release-galvanizing-global-attention-world-leaders-celebrities-and-activists) is an example of what I'm talking about.



Fear is not why I'm against genetic engineering. It's because from what I know so far there are a lot of potential problems. It's quite clear you have a strange favoritive biased for genetic engneering anyways.



Cell phones don't make you physically and mentally superior to your peers. These two can't be compared.

You're making some very good points, and I agree with a lot of the things you're saying. It's true that genetic engineering services will probably be available to monied folks in the future(and I agree that it's not comparable to cell phones or washing machines, as big as those innovations were), just like cosmetic surgery is today, but it will have to be tightly regulated, I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. Otherwise, we'd almost certainly be seeing pop stars and publicity-hungry celebrities having "vanity" children who look like exotic animals or whatever.
Fear not, rules will be in place, assuming our species survives the oncoming climate nightmare we're facing, since if we don't this entire discussion will have been for nothing:laughing:.

That said, I definitely don't mean to attack or insult you, at all, but it is difficult to see how you could reconcile a belief in the Bible with what you know to be true about the sciences, history, etc.

Fire Haired14
21-04-15, 13:34
:bored: Okay fine no answers to an in depth discussion with facts and examples with logic and reason. Just the usual beating round the bush scenario. Try to know the content of the religious texts you defend and you might spot what real hate is. If ever you will be ready we can discuss.

I just said I would if I feel like it. I have a lot of other more important work to do.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 16:49
Lebrok,

>The writers of the Bible knew about human reproduction and family bloodlines. There's no debating this. I never said they knew about the science of genetics. Your interpretation of the Bible is usually a bit off, and gives it a negative image which makes your position look strong.

>I never said I'm against western Democracy. I know North Korea sucks. What I said is some people are obsessed with it and are too laze fair. You're taking my statements and comparing me to the inquisition, North Korea, etc. I'm against genetic engineering just like how you're against the right to bear arms, etc. It isn't any differnt. It is way different. My opinion is based on gun and murder statistics, a science. Your opinion is based on assumptions and feelings.
I'm not sure why you can't see that, when I pointed it out countless of times.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 16:53
I have liberals as wonderful mentors of hypocricy, I still have a long way to go :)

Mind your false and cheap accusations of discrimination! This word has a specific meaning today.

And don't get emotional and jump to conclusions ;) when did I say that I am against genetic engineering?
Speech worth of demagogue, Kardu. Lot's of words with no substance.
Now this is substance:
Isn't it you who said that people should marry into their ethnic group and race?

Kardu
21-04-15, 17:05
Isn't it you who said that people should marry into their ethnic group and race?


Only a totalitarian mindset of a leftist liberal can read "discrimination" in that

LeBrok
21-04-15, 17:17
Only a totalitarian mindset of a leftist liberal can read "discrimination" in that
Don't blame people not understanding you if you have your own definitions. Here is a common one:



Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

sparkey
21-04-15, 17:30
Kardu, have you outlined exactly what you propose should be done to prevent interracial marriage? Suppose we're living in Kardutopia. What happens to people who attempt to marry into a different race? Does the government step in and block it, refusing to allow any marriage-type contracts? Does the government step back and allow some sort of "community justice" to be administered at the discretion of whatever their home communities are (and how far would that go)?

Kardu
21-04-15, 18:42
Don't blame people not understanding you if you have your own definitions. Here is a common one:
If I choose a bacon over cereal for my breakfast it's also a discrimination...

What you say is an example of totalitarian thinking. Who isn't with you is against you....
Who does not support interracial marriage by that commits an act of discrimination, being 'evil nazi supremasist'... Brave new world it is...

Kardu
21-04-15, 18:46
Kardu, have you outlined exactly what you propose should be done to prevent interracial marriage? Suppose we're living in Kardutopia. What happens to people who attempt to marry into a different race? Does the government step in and block it, refusing to allow any marriage-type contracts? Does the government step back and allow some sort of "community justice" to be administered at the discretion of whatever their home communities are (and how far would that go)?

I am not a statist to call for a government action. That's more leftist thing to do.
What I say would work by the group awareness and it's been working for centuries actually.

Fire Haired14
21-04-15, 22:36
It is way different. My opinion is based on gun and murder statistics, a science. Your opinion is based on assumptions and feelings.
I'm not sure why you can't see that, when I pointed it out countless of times.

I admitted I don't know very much about genetic engineering, so I do see it. This is not a die-hard thing for me, but you assumed it is. From what I know I don't think genetic engineering would work out. I made simple comments and you took them too seriously.

Angela
22-04-15, 00:10
I am not a statist to call for a government action. That's more leftist thing to do.
What I say would work by the group awareness and it's been working for centuries actually.


I'm assuming you mean social peer pressure. Well, whatever is happening in other parts of the world, social pressure against inter-racial marriage is definitely lessening in the U.S., as statistics show, statistics which haven't been proven to be incorrect. As for inter-ethnic marriage, it's so common as to be unremarkable. I read a statistic just the other day that among Americans who claim some Italian descent, fewer than one in eight are of 100% Italian ancestry. These are facts whether anyone likes it or not.

I also don't think Americans would take kindly to foreigners trying to mount some sort of campaign telling them there's some sort of benefit in only marrying within their own race.

LeBrok
22-04-15, 02:17
If I choose a bacon over cereal for my breakfast it's also a discrimination... Of course it is a discrimination. You are acting with your taste and feelings against cereal and pro bacon. You can also do discrimination based on facts that bacon gives you more energy for work, therefore you will eat bacon today. If cereal had conscious and feelings, it would sue you for discrimination and demand damages. However this discrimination is not important, because it doesn't affect life of other humans, and that's what this issue is about.
Telling others what ethnicity or race to marry or not is discriminatory and racist. You can either take it and act upon it or live in denial.



Who does not support interracial marriage by that commits an act of discrimination, being 'evil nazi supremasist'... Brave new world it is... Nobody says we are pro or against interracial marriages, we say leave the decision to people involved, and whatever they chose is fine with us. This is a basic human right, a basic freedom. We don't even force the issue regardless of consequences or our feelings, we point to the statistics and the trend that it is happening faster and faster and one mixed race will be a product of this human behavior.
You are the one who disregards all the data and science behind it, telling us that world will fallow your discriminatory emotions and your old world, which needs to be supported and saved by forcing others to fallow your vision.

Vallicanus
22-04-15, 09:38
Of course it is a discrimination. You are acting with your taste and feelings against cereal and pro bacon. You can also do discrimination based on facts that bacon gives you more energy for work, therefore you will eat bacon today. If cereal had conscious and feelings, it would sue you for discrimination and demand damages. However this discrimination is not important, because it doesn't affect life of other humans, and that's what this issue is about.
Telling others what ethnicity or race to marry or not is discriminatory and racist. You can either take it and act upon it or live in denial.

Nobody says we are pro or against interracial marriages, we say leave the decision to people involved, and whatever they chose is fine with us. This is a basic human right, a basic freedom. We don't even force the issue regardless of consequences or our feelings, we point to the statistics and the trend that it is happening faster and faster and one mixed race will be a product of this human behavior.
You are the one who disregards all the data and science behind it, telling us that world will fallow your discriminatory emotions and your old world, which needs to be supported and saved by forcing others to fallow your vision.

This is all very noble but there is only going to be one mixed race in the West.

Fire Haired14
22-04-15, 09:45
That said, I definitely don't mean to attack or insult you, at all, but it is difficult to see how you could reconcile a belief in the Bible with what you know to be true about the sciences, history, etc.

Knowledge of history gives a better perspective as to the circumstances the Bible's writers were in. We shouldn't expect Jews from the Bronze and Iron age to be 100% accurate about the origins of humanity, and even their own history. God didn't come down from heaven and hold their hand as they wrote, making sure every detail was historically accurate. The Bible isn't a history book.

It's about a people(The Jews) who were chosen by God to bring humans back to him. God had been almost completely forgotten. What those chosen people(Jews) wrote about history was up to their own chose. For example, the creation story and the story of Noah were believed by several differnt ethnic groups during the time the Jews wrote it down. For all we know they believed it when they were polytheistic, and replaced the old Gods with a single God.

The argument that anything supernatural is impossible because we haven't seen it or whatever is ridiculous in my opinion. Who are we to say we know everything about the world, or even have the ability the figure everything out?

Maleth
22-04-15, 10:31
Knowledge of history gives a better perspective as to the circumstances the Bible's writers were in. We shouldn't expect Jews from the Bronze and Iron age to be 100% accurate about the origins of humanity, and even their own history. God didn't come down from heaven and hold their hand as they wrote, making sure every detail was historically accurate. The Bible isn't a history book.

It's about a people(The Jews) who were chosen by God to bring humans back to him. God had been almost completely forgotten. What those chosen people(Jews) wrote about history was up to their own chose. For example, the creation story and the story of Noah were believed by several differnt ethnic groups during the time the Jews wrote it down. For all we know they believed it when they were polytheistic, and replaced the old Gods with a single God.

I know what you mean. Here are some instructions how to keep a race pure and how a god can help you to be the victor over evils. To help, god kills the firstborn child of every Egyptian (Exodus 12:29-30) I guess this is what you mean by 100% accurate. Right? I will be bringing a few more examples so the infidels might start seeing the light of what is unquestionable.

Read also Leviticus 26:7-9 to see how god instructs genocide and how to exterminate Amalek and destroy all their possessions not to spare anyone killing off all men women infant and suckling ox and sheep and others.

Kardu
22-04-15, 10:38
Of course it is a discrimination. You are acting with your taste and feelings against cereal and pro bacon. You can also do discrimination based on facts that bacon gives you more energy for work, therefore you will eat bacon today. If cereal had conscious and feelings, it would sue you for discrimination and demand damages. However this discrimination is not important, because it doesn't affect life of other humans, and that's what this issue is about.
Telling others what ethnicity or race to marry or not is discriminatory and racist. You can either take it and act upon it or live in denial.

Nobody says we are pro or against interracial marriages, we say leave the decision to people involved, and whatever they chose is fine with us. This is a basic human right, a basic freedom. We don't even force the issue regardless of consequences or our feelings, we point to the statistics and the trend that it is happening faster and faster and one mixed race will be a product of this human behavior.
You are the one who disregards all the data and science behind it, telling us that world will fallow your discriminatory emotions and your old world, which needs to be supported and saved by forcing others to fallow your vision.

Those so-called freedoms and rights are just social constructs, however 'noble', invented to achieve certain subjective political goals. Don't present them as if they were objective universal truths.

To state again, I am for diversity and multiculturalism, state of affairs where all ethnic or other groups have the opportunity to keep their identity and develop their culture and language.

You on the other hand under the guise of the free choice promote a melting pot, where everyone mixes in one rootless gray mass. And you need a big brother nanny state to enforce your ideas.

Kardu
22-04-15, 10:39
I'm assuming you mean social peer pressure. Well, whatever is happening in other parts of the world, social pressure against inter-racial marriage is definitely lessening in the U.S., as statistics show, statistics which haven't been proven to be incorrect. As for inter-ethnic marriage, it's so common as to be unremarkable. I read a statistic just the other day that among Americans who claim some Italian descent, fewer than one in eight are of 100% Italian ancestry. These are facts whether anyone likes it or not.

I also don't think Americans would take kindly to foreigners trying to mount some sort of campaign telling them there's some sort of benefit in only marrying within their own race.

Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion speciafically designed programs?

Angela
22-04-15, 16:47
Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion speciafically designed programs?

People are always influenced by their social group. Government is of course part of that as is the media. However, so is the indoctrination about such things by the, what did you call it...the ethnic group? Certain larger social groups, or even, in certain cases, religions, play their part.

So, what's the difference logically? There isn't any; you just like what one group is teaching, and dislike what is taught by the other. You want there to be only one source of indoctrination...yours.

As to the relative impact of such various types of "indoctrination", I think the strongest influence is always that of one's parents although of course that can be modified by other influences.

The real question is whether such things are innate. There may be some hard wired inclination to feel less threatened by similar features, but it is very weak from my experience. I don't know if you have children or have ever even lived in an area where people of various backgrounds live in social proximity to one another. I have. In playgrounds where children of various races come to play, some mere toddlers, they all interact with one another quite naturally if no one interferes. The distrust comes later. The same phenomenon is described with great poignancy by great American writers of the so called "southern school" like the Nobel prize winner William Faulkner or Robert Penn Warren and others. In many cases, the children of rich southerners were raised by African American women and played with African American children. The wrench as they grew older and were "socialized" to lessen those bonds was for many a painful one.

Also, I find promoting such attitudes rather disingenuous because it ignores actual human behavior and the lessons of history. Going by personal observation as well as those lessons of history, it seems to me that men of European descent have had very little difficulty mating with women of other "lesser" ancestry and muddying the racial, social and cultural identity of others. How else could the average African American be 20% European or many Latin Americans be about 50-70% European? One could interpret that to mean that their only goal is to prevent their women from engaging in some miscegenation of their own. Good luck with that.

LeBrok
22-04-15, 16:54
Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion speciafically designed programs?

Please, post one of the zillions programs specifically design into pressuring people into intermarriages.


Those so-called freedoms and rights are just social constructs, however 'noble', invented to achieve certain subjective political goals. Don't present them as if they were objective universal truths. So is a marriage in general, a social construct. So is forcing people into marriages of their own race, a social racist construct.

Actually giving a freedom of a choice is rather a physical proposition than a social construct only. It is a physical ability of a physical body to follow a trajectory of a choice without a constraints of social systems.
Freedom of a choice comes from lack of social constructs, and not because of them.


invented to achieve certain subjective political goals. Now that's a new construct. Goal is neither subjective nor objective. Your opinion and understanding is, and so called "your truth" is.

Kardu
22-04-15, 17:35
Please, post one of the zillions programs specifically design into pressuring people into intermarriages.

So is a marriage in general, a social construct. So is forcing people into marriages of their own race, a social racist construct.

Actually giving a freedom of a choice is rather a physical proposition than a social construct only. It is a physical ability of a physical body to follow a trajectory of a choice without a constraints of social systems.
Freedom of a choice comes from lack of social constructs, and not because of them.

Now that's a new construct. Goal is neither subjective nor objective. Your opinion and understanding is, and so called "your truth" is.

As expected you picked out and focused on what was convenient for you :) do you have anything to say about this? : "To state again, I am for diversity and multiculturalism, state of affairs where all ethnic or other groups have the opportunity to keep their identity and develop their culture and language.

You on the other hand under the guise of the free choice promote a melting pot, where everyone mixes in one rootless gray mass. And you need a big brother nanny state to enforce your ideas."

Kardu
22-04-15, 17:45
People are always influenced by their social group. Government is of course part of that as is the media. However, so is the indoctrination about such things by the, what did you call it...the ethnic group? Certain larger social groups, or even, in certain cases, religions, play their part.

So, what's the difference logically? There isn't any; you just like what one group is teaching, and dislike what is taught by the other. You want there to be only one source of indoctrination...yours.

As to the relative impact of such various types of "indoctrination", I think the strongest influence is always that of one's parents although of course that can be modified by other influences.

The real question is whether such things are innate. There may be some hard wired inclination to feel less threatened by similar features, but it is very weak from my experience. I don't know if you have children or have ever even lived in an area where people of various backgrounds live in social proximity to one another. I have. In playgrounds where children of various races come to play, some mere toddlers, they all interact with one another quite naturally if no one interferes. The distrust comes later. The same phenomenon is described with great poignancy by great American writers of the so called "southern school" like the Nobel prize winner William Faulkner or Robert Penn Warren and others. In many cases, the children of rich southerners were raised by African American women and played with African American children. The wrench as they grew older and were "socialized" to lessen those bonds was for many a painful one.

Also, I find promoting such attitudes rather disingenuous because it ignores actual human behavior and the lessons of history. Going by personal observation as well as those lessons of history, it seems to me that men of European descent have had very little difficulty mating with women of other "lesser" ancestry and muddying the racial, social and cultural identity of others. How else could the average African American be 20% European or many Latin Americans be about 50-70% European? One could interpret that to mean that their only goal is to prevent their women from engaging in some miscegenation of their own. Good luck with that.

Do you compare influence of any social group with the influence of a government (special programs, legislation, education) and mainstream media?! :)

What does toddlers' interaction on a playground has to do with what I say? Don't twist my words and ideas. You all the time allude to a "race war" kind of scenario. So for you if one keeps his identity he is automatically hostile to others and wants to dominate them? Very flawed and paranoid vision it is...

Angela
22-04-15, 19:07
Do you compare influence of any social group with the influence of a government (special programs, legislation, education) and mainstream media?! :)

What does toddlers' interaction on a playground has to do with what I say? Don't twist my words and ideas. You all the time allude to a "race war" kind of scenario. So for you if one keeps his identity he is automatically hostile to others and wants to dominate them? Very flawed and paranoid vision it is...

What special programs, legislation, education can you point to that promote what used to be called miscengenation in the U.S., ie. that promote marrying someone not of your own race? I've lived here for decades and my children have gone through the school systems and I've never seen it. You really can't just make these broad claims without proof backing it up. There is indeed legislation prohibiting discrimination against people of minority genetics or culture. That isn't the same as having legislation and programs actively encouraging people to marry people of other races. You're talking apples and oranges. It isn't logical.

I'm not alluding to any type of race war. I'm afraid that's all in your imagination. You were talking about the fact that it's a good thing if some groups apply social pressure to their members not to marry people of other groups, but that if the government does that it's wrong, presumably because they have more resources. I told you that pressure is pressure, and while it may be true that the government would have more and stronger persuasive resources (see Nazi Germany where miscegenation resulted in death), the fact is that there is no institutional pressure in the U.S on anyone to marry someone of another race. Nor have I ever heard of people individually pressuring people to intermarry racially. On the contrary, any pressure that is still applied is from the minority who do not approve of it, usually on their children. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that your ethnic group or country does or at least should pressure people to marry within their own race. These are important distinctions. In your own region, I don't know whether you would support the government taking a hand and prohibiting such intermarriage.

I haven't stated an opinion as to what people should feel as to their own or their children's intermarriage with people of other groups. What I am trying to do is to present facts as to what is actually going on, and to point out the lack of logic and the hypocrisy in many of the arguments made with regard to this topic.

sparkey
22-04-15, 22:53
I like that both opponents and advocates of interracial marriage here are in agreement that the government does not need to be involved in the question. I doubt that the trend of society as a whole to keep governments out of it will ever reverse, and I think that's a good thing.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the question of how things will progress naturally if governments are left out of the equation. There are just too many places, like rural China, where there are such large pools of unmixed people that we can't currently put any reasonable estimates on how long it would take them to mix. We'd need such an estimate to compare against a similar estimate of how often new races would pop up in order to answer the question that this thread is asking.

I will say that there are certainly particular locations in the West where mixed-race people will quickly become a majority, including my home state of California. There is little pressure to marry within one's own race here, and even less to marry within one's own ethnic group. In my family, the closest I've heard to anyone even mentioning any sort of opposition to marrying out of the group has come from my mother-in-law's side, who are recent immigrants from the Middle East. And even to them, white Americans are universally considered an acceptable group to marry into (they all like me very much!).

One interesting dynamic is that certain gender/race combinations are more likely to marry other gender/race combinations than others. I don't have a study handy, but I recall that Asian women are more likely than Asian men to marry non-Asians, and black men are more likely than black women to marry non-blacks.

Kardu
22-04-15, 23:17
What special programs, legislation, education can you point to that promote what used to be called miscengenation in the U.S., ie. that promote marrying someone not of your own race? I've lived here for decades and my children have gone through the school systems and I've never seen it. You really can't just make these broad claims without proof backing it up. There is indeed legislation prohibiting discrimination against people of minority genetics or culture. That isn't the same as having legislation and programs actively encouraging people to marry people of other races. You're talking apples and oranges. It isn't logical.

I'm not alluding to any type of race war. I'm afraid that's all in your imagination. You were talking about the fact that it's a good thing if some groups apply social pressure to their members not to marry people of other groups, but that if the government does that it's wrong, presumably because they have more resources. I told you that pressure is pressure, and while it may be true that the government would have more and stronger persuasive resources (see Nazi Germany where miscegenation resulted in death), the fact is that there is no institutional pressure in the U.S on anyone to marry someone of another race. Nor have I ever heard of people individually pressuring people to intermarry racially. On the contrary, any pressure that is still applied is from the minority who do not approve of it, usually on their children. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that your ethnic group or country does or at least should pressure people to marry within their own race. These are important distinctions. In your own region, I don't know whether you would support the government taking a hand and prohibiting such intermarriage.

I haven't stated an opinion as to what people should feel as to their own or their children's intermarriage with people of other groups. What I am trying to do is to present facts as to what is actually going on, and to point out the lack of logic and the hypocrisy in many of the arguments made with regard to this topic.

I'd like to keep government as limited as possible, and I view all kinds state prohibitons or enforcements with skepticism. (to answer your question about intermarriage prohibition)

All right, can you explain me antisegregation legislation in this light, please?

And what I am trying to say, and somehow it keeps falling on deaf ears, is that I'd like to keep the world diverse! Is it that difficult to understand? Do you want Italian identity, language and culture to disappear?

Kardu
22-04-15, 23:23
So I can not post any more? :)

LeBrok
23-04-15, 02:46
As expected you picked out and focused on what was convenient for you :) do you have anything to say about this? : "To state again, I am for diversity and multiculturalism, state of affairs where all ethnic or other groups have the opportunity to keep their identity and develop their culture and language.

You on the other hand under the guise of the free choice promote a melting pot, where everyone mixes in one rootless gray mass. And you need a big brother nanny state to enforce your ideas."
Stand behind your claim, your word, your honor and address this:

Please, post one of the zillions programs specifically design into pressuring people into intermarriages.

sparkey
23-04-15, 02:58
So I can not post any more? :)

Sorry, that was the automated moderation bot, I approved your posts.

LeBrok
23-04-15, 03:03
I'd like to keep government as limited as possible, and I view all kinds state prohibitons or enforcements with skepticism. (to answer your question about intermarriage prohibition)

All right, can you explain me antisegregation legislation in this light, please?

And what I am trying to say, and somehow it keeps falling on deaf ears, is that I'd like to keep the world diverse! Is it that difficult to understand? Do you want Italian identity, language and culture to disappear?

From this post it, and few previous ones, it becomes obvious that you have difficulty recognizing and separating government programs, or restriction laws, which narrows choices of citizens, from government support and securing of freedoms for citizens, especially in Western World. There are things which government doesn't want to control, doesn't consider it vital to control, and grants freedoms of choice to citizens. This includes freedom of choice of ones spouse or a partner.

Again, to prove your point, please post one of the zillions of government programs designed to force citizens into intermarriages.

LeBrok
23-04-15, 03:20
I like that both opponents and advocates of interracial marriage here are in agreement that the government does not need to be involved in the question. I doubt that the trend of society as a whole to keep governments out of it will ever reverse, and I think that's a good thing.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the question of how things will progress naturally if governments are left out of the equation. There are just too many places, like rural China, where there are such large pools of unmixed people that we can't currently put any reasonable estimates on how long it would take them to mix. We'd need such an estimate to compare against a similar estimate of how often new races would pop up in order to answer the question that this thread is asking.

I will say that there are certainly particular locations in the West where mixed-race people will quickly become a majority, including my home state of California. There is little pressure to marry within one's own race here, and even less to marry within one's own ethnic group. In my family, the closest I've heard to anyone even mentioning any sort of opposition to marrying out of the group has come from my mother-in-law's side, who are recent immigrants from the Middle East. And even to them, white Americans are universally considered an acceptable group to marry into (they all like me very much!).

One interesting dynamic is that certain gender/race combinations are more likely to marry other gender/race combinations than others. I don't have a study handy, but I recall that Asian women are more likely than Asian men to marry non-Asians, and black men are more likely than black women to marry non-blacks.

The time frame of complete mixing wasn't specified. From posts and various people responses I gather that the time frame is seen from few hundreds to few thousands of years.
Obviously hundreds of years are not enough for full mixing. I would say that most people will be mixed already, but not looking photogenically very similar yet. There will be pockets of not mixed populations, mostly religious conservatives (and a village where Kardu becomes a dictator), the way Amish or orthodox Jews stay genetically preserved.
I'm guessing that around year 10,000 from now (roughly 400 generations), all people will look very alike, fully mixed. Of course, this is assuming that "designer" babies will be forbidden, and technology will shelter us from evolutionary forcing. With designer babies in the equation, people will be quite varied phenotypicaly. Kids might not look exactly like their parents anymore. Possibly we will see generational differences, a la fashion. Generation of mostly blond, followed by generation of mostly black kids.

Kardu
23-04-15, 10:07
From this post it, and few previous ones, it becomes obvious that you have difficulty recognizing and separating government programs, or restriction laws, which narrows choices of citizens, from government support and securing of freedoms for citizens, especially in Western World. There are things which government doesn't want to control, doesn't consider it vital to control, and grants freedoms of choice to citizens. This includes freedom of choice of ones spouse or a partner.

Again, to prove your point, please post one of the zillions of government programs designed to force citizens into intermarriages.

Where did I say 'force'? :)

Do you deny that antisegregation legislation and affirmative action facilitate mixing? Is it not a pressure that people get self-censored and are afraid to express themselves in order not to be called "racist" by totalitarian liberals like yourself, or worse get ostracized, fall victim of smear campaign, lose job etc.?

Kardu
23-04-15, 10:15
There will be pockets of not mixed populations, mostly religious conservatives (and a village where Kardu becomes a dictator), the way Amish or orthodox Jews stay genetically preserved.


Good one! :D :D

BTW, what's your ethnic background? Many people on the Eupedia do not shy away to share their origins with others.
I am sure even enlightened citizen of the world like yourself must have some remote village where his ancestors lived for centuries.

LeBrok
23-04-15, 15:47
Where did I say 'force'? :)

Do you deny that antisegregation legislation and affirmative action facilitate mixing? Is it not a pressure that people get self-censored and are afraid to express themselves in order not to be called "racist" by totalitarian liberals like yourself, or worse get ostracized, fall victim of smear campaign, lose job etc.?
You sound exactly like a communist government totalitarian propaganda I grew up with. Demagoguery, paranoia and twisted reality.

Whatever dude, find this one program specifically designed. Otherwise you have nothing except your paranoia and fantasy word. Shouldn't be difficult to find, people believe there are zillions of them.

Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion specifically designed programs?

LeBrok
23-04-15, 15:53
Good one! :D :D

BTW, what's your ethnic background? Many people on the Eupedia do not shy away to share their origins with others.
I am sure even enlightened citizen of the world like yourself must have some remote village where his ancestors lived for centuries.
If you bothered to look into my profile page you would notice that I'm Polish.
And what village of my ancestors have to do with future of thousands of years from now or who future generations will chose to marry on their own free will?

Angela
23-04-15, 15:58
I'd like to keep government as limited as possible, and I view all kinds state prohibitons or enforcements with skepticism. (to answer your question about intermarriage prohibition)

All right, can you explain me antisegregation legislation in this light, please?


Well, if you truly don't like state prohibitions and enforcements, then presumably you wouldn't have liked segregation, because it was laws promulgated by the state and enforced by the state that made it legal. They were commonly known as "Jim Crow" laws. Following the civil war and the freeing of the slaves many southern states passed legislation mandating or enforcing separation of the races: blacks could not go to the same schools, or sit in the same part of the bus, or use the same restaurants or rest rooms as white people. So, although black people descended from people who had been in the U.S. for hundreds of years and were American citizens, they were to be segregated or kept apart by force of law. I hope I don't need to tell you that although they paid taxes like everyone else their state or local tax funded facilities were far inferior to those for whites.

In the Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas case, the Supreme Court held that such laws were unconstitutional. The suit was brought on behalf of a little African American girl who wished to go to a school near her and not to the substandard "black" one.

Eventually, all such laws failed. A famous case involved a black woman known as Rosa Parks. Blacks were relegated to only a few back rows on buses. So, even if the "white" section was virtually empty, they had to stand if the "black" section was full. Rosa Parks went and sat herself in the "white" section and was arrested.

Americans would now come into contact with one another more frequently and on a more equal basis. That is emphatically not the same as a law that mandates intermarriage between the races. It's not even the case that it is encouraged through tax benefits or anything of that kind. The government doesn't interfere in this matter. It is a question of individual choice, and most Americans don't make that choice, although that number is increasing. There is more intermarriage with Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans. You were provided with the statistics upthread.


And what I am trying to say, and somehow it keeps falling on deaf ears, is that I'd like to keep the world diverse! Is it that difficult to understand? Do you want Italian identity, language and culture to disappear?

Well, who's saying you can't feel that way or teach your children to feel the same way? If you were living in America, I'd say "It's a free country.", believe whatever you want. Just be prepared to get an earful if you go around haranguing other people as to whom they should or should not marry.

No, I absolutely don't want the Italian identity, language and culture to disappear. However, I know enough history to know that identity, culture, and language are not static. Fifteen hundred years ago, my people spoke a form of vulgar Latin which only through the centuries developed into the Italian I speak today. Dante wasn't born, or Michelangelo, DaVinci, or Verdi, to name but a few of those who created "Italian" culture. In my particular area of Italy, the mountain people will still worshiping the statue stele, not Gesu Cristo. To bring it down to an absurd level, no one had ever even seen a tomato. :)

What will Italian culture and language be like in another 1500 years? I don't know, but even without the immigration of one single soul from outside the country, it won't be the same as it is today. How long ago did your culture develop into its present form? Was it the same four thousand years ago? I would bet not.

LeBrok
23-04-15, 16:23
No, I absolutely don't want the Italian identity, language and culture to disappear. However, I know enough history to know that identity, culture, and language are not static. Fifteen hundred years ago, my people spoke a form of vulgar Latin which only through the centuries developed into the Italian I speak today. Dante wasn't born, or Michelangelo, DaVinci, or Verdi, to name but a few of those who created "Italian" culture. In my particular area of Italy, the mountain people will still worshiping the statue stele, not Jesu Cristo. To bring it down to an absurd level, no one had ever even seen a tomato. :)

What will Italian culture and language be like in another 1500 years? I don't know, but even without the immigration of one single soul from outside the country, it won't be the same as it is today. How long ago did your culture develop into its present form? Was it the same four thousand years ago? I would bet not.
Good point Angela. There is not even one culture which survived unchanged for one thousand years, or even if it is still the same culture based only on continuity of it? After one thousand of years the language is usually unintelligible with old one, religion is usually changed too, customs, cloths/fashion, music, etc.

I'm not saying, I don't like variety of cultures. It makes world more interesting and vibrant. The truth is that no matter what we do, cultures will change, will drift into something else.
For us who live rather short lives, the cultures seem static and symbols of identity. If we lived not tents but thousands of years, cultures would seem whimsical, ever changing, dying as soon as they are born. They would look more like a fashion, than status quo.

Maleth
23-04-15, 17:25
, no one had ever even seen a tomato. :)

......oh my goodness, tomatoes and potatoes.....how can I live without them? and they are south American in origin. Thank you Christopher. :)

Kardu
23-04-15, 22:28
You sound exactly like a communist government totalitarian propaganda I grew up with. Demagoguery, paranoia and twisted reality.

Whatever dude, find this one program specifically designed. Otherwise you have nothing except your paranoia and fantasy word. Shouldn't be difficult to find, people believe there are zillions of them.

And I have to say that you live in denial and wishful reality..

Kardu
23-04-15, 22:31
If you bothered to look into my profile page you would notice that I'm Polish.
And what village of my ancestors have to do with future of thousands of years from now or who future generations will chose to marry on their own free will?

Pity.. I havent expected it.
I have great many Polish friends and comrades, proud of their heritage and culture...

Kardu
23-04-15, 22:43
What will Italian culture and language be like in another 1500 years? I don't know, but even without the immigration of one single soul from outside the country, it won't be the same as it is today. How long ago did your culture develop into its present form? Was it the same four thousand years ago? I would bet not.

Hystorical process is dynamic and change is part of it, but one thing is a natural change, evolution when the general identity stays the same and another is a drastic change bringing erosion of the identity. If you refer to Georgians our identity is pretty much the same for the last 1500 years at least. Same language (I can read VI century texts without problem), same alphabet, same general orthodox christian culture. People also look pretty much the same as on millenium old frescoes.

If we'd sit idle and bow to numerous enemies we would have been assimilated long time ago. So the lesson of the history is, if you want to keep your identity you must actively defend and promote it.

Kardu
23-04-15, 22:44
Referring to the USA reality (although I've seen a similar thing in the Netherlands as well), are you aware of the phenomenon of 'White flight', Angela? What can you tell me about it?

LeBrok
24-04-15, 02:21
And I have to say that you live in denial and wishful reality..

Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion specifically designed programs?
Where is it? Did you just pulled it from your paranoid dreams?
You better keep searching, because I'm not going to drop it.

Angela
24-04-15, 04:32
Hystorical process is dynamic and change is part of it, but one thing is a natural change, evolution when the general identity stays the same and another is a drastic change bringing erosion of the identity. If you refer to Georgians our identity is pretty much the same for the last 1500 years at least. Same language (I can read VI century texts without problem), same alphabet, same general orthodox christian culture. People also look pretty much the same as on millenium old frescoes.

If we'd sit idle and bow to numerous enemies we would have been assimilated long time ago. So the lesson of the history is, if you want to keep your identity you must actively defend and promote it.

You don't understand...no one would be your enemy. I can't explain to you a social reality which is so foreign to your experience . If you lived here with your family no one would care how much you celebrated the cultural identity that has developed among your people over the last 1500 years. You could speak your language with your family and friends, send your children to Georgian language classes or even set up a Georgian Orthodox school along the lines of the many Roman Catholic schools , publish a newspaper, start a public access television station, worship as you choose, get a permit for fairs and celebrations, you name it.

Still, when all is said and done, under normal circumstances your children would not approach these things with the same fervor, and your grandchildren even less so. It is happening even with the Greek Americans, one of the groups, in my experience, who have held on to a separate identity the longest, largely because they have a separate religious identity. Even Ashkenazi Jews are marrying out at the rate of 50%. In both cases, either both the traditions are practiced, or, usually, the non Greek or non Jewish partner converts. (It was different for Italians, the Irish, Poles, Hungarians, German Catholics etc. who all went to the same churches and the same Catholic schools in many instances.)

This is the inevitable result of people mixing at school, at work, and in social situations. It's also, in my opinion, a function of the fact that when people are oppressed the reaction is often to hold on to their separate traditions even more strongly. When that oppression is gone, sometimes the fervor lessens as well, although you may not believe it.

In a culture as inclusive and seductive as this one, the only way not to "blend" and "mix" is to totally wall your community off in the way that the Amish and the Orthodox Jews have done. No one would care or interfere, certainly not the government, but neither would the government help you in maintaining that community. That would be up to you.


Kardu:Referring to the USA reality (although I've seen a similar thing in the Netherlands as well), are you aware of the phenomenon of 'White flight', Angela? What can you tell me about it?

Yes of course I'm aware of it. It happens, usually in working class or perhaps lower middle class neighborhoods, when members of what you could call the black "underclass" rent apartments in the area, and white home owners panic and sell, often at below market rates, and the community "turns" over night.

That has nothing to do with the situation where a black lawyer or bank officer buys a home in an upper middle class white neighborhood, or where gainfully employed people of all races live in "mixed" neighborhoods. I assure you that no one flees in that situation. I'm afraid you may be taking too many of your images of America from movies and television shows.

I also don't see what this has to do with the fact that people are intermarrying at ever increasing rates in the U.S., although intermarriage with black Americans is still pretty rare.

LeBrok
24-04-15, 06:13
I also don't see what this has to do with the fact that people are intermarrying at ever increasing rates in the U.S., although intermarriage with black Americans is still pretty rare. Nothing really, but various inner fears coming out of Kardu. Most people cling to and cherish mostly the cultures they grew up in. For some reason people always believe their culture, they grew up with, is the best. The hyper tribal hunter-gatherer instinct, or should we say, syndrome or spectrum?

LeBrok
24-04-15, 06:18
Pity.. I havent expected it.
I have great many Polish friends and comrades, proud of their heritage and culture...
As human being I'm proud of many cultures, Polish included. I'm also proud of human achievements regardless of cultures. I'm proud of the past and looking forward to the future.
You, on the other hand, shouldn't left your village. The big free and ever-changing world is making you sick.

Maleth
24-04-15, 08:16
Pity.. I havent expected it.
I have great many Polish friends and comrades, proud of their heritage and culture...

Being proud of heritage and culture does not mean 'militantly' excluding everything else in your life. I hope that most of us are proud of where they come from, history and heritage. I am also delighted to be able to eat Sushi, Cantonese, Indian and Georgian food in my area, and none of them are out of business ;).... a much nicer experience then I ever remember being a child and what was available then.

Kardu
24-04-15, 10:41
Where is it? Did you just pulled it from your paranoid dreams?
You better keep searching, because I'm not going to drop it.

Whole system is directed against group identities (although some groups are in better position than others).

I am not gonna drop this either: I am for diversity and multiculturalism. Why do you want to melt everyone in one gray mass? ;)

Kardu
24-04-15, 10:43
As human being I'm proud of many cultures, Polish included. I'm also proud of human achievements regardless of cultures. I'm proud of the past and looking forward to the future.
You, on the other hand, shouldn't left your village. The big free and ever-changing world is making you sick.

Sorry to diappoint you, I've never lived in avillage, and probably travelled the world more than you. :)

What makes me sick are the selfhating 'social justice warriors' of European heritage...

Kardu
24-04-15, 10:44
Being proud of heritage and culture does not mean 'militantly' excluding everything else in your life. I hope that most of us are proud of where they come from, history and heritage. I am also delighted to be able to eat Sushi, Cantonese, Indian and Georgian food in my area, and none of them are out of business ;).... a much nicer experience then I ever remember being a child and what was available then.
It has nothing to do with what I say. I love sushi too :)

Kardu
24-04-15, 10:49
You don't understand...no one would be your enemy. I can't explain to you a social reality which is so foreign to your experience . If you lived here with your family no one would care how much you celebrated the cultural identity that has developed among your people over the last 1500 years. You could speak your language with your family and friends, send your children to Georgian language classes or even set up a Georgian Orthodox school along the lines of the many Roman Catholic schools , publish a newspaper, start a public access television station, worship as you choose, get a permit for fairs and celebrations, you name it.

Still, when all is said and done, under normal circumstances your children would not approach these things with the same fervor, and your grandchildren even less so. It is happening even with the Greek Americans, one of the groups, in my experience, who have held on to a separate identity the longest, largely because they have a separate religious identity. Even Ashkenazi Jews are marrying out at the rate of 50%. In both cases, either both the traditions are practiced, or, usually, the non Greek or non Jewish partner converts. (It was different for Italians, the Irish, Poles, Hungarians, German Catholics etc. who all went to the same churches and the same Catholic schools in many instances.)

This is the inevitable result of people mixing at school, at work, and in social situations. It's also, in my opinion, a function of the fact that when people are oppressed the reaction is often to hold on to their separate traditions even more strongly. When that oppression is gone, sometimes the fervor lessens as well, although you may not believe it.

In a culture as inclusive and seductive as this one, the only way not to "blend" and "mix" is to totally wall your community off in the way that the Amish and the Orthodox Jews have done. No one would care or interfere, certainly not the government, but neither would the government help you in maintaining that community. That would be up to you.



Yes of course I'm aware of it. It happens, usually in working class or perhaps lower middle class neighborhoods, when members of what you could call the black "underclass" rent apartments in the area, and white home owners panic and sell, often at below market rates, and the community "turns" over night.

That has nothing to do with the situation where a black lawyer or bank officer buys a home in an upper middle class white neighborhood, or where gainfully employed people of all races live in "mixed" neighborhoods. I assure you that no one flees in that situation. I'm afraid you may be taking too many of your images of America from movies and television shows.

I also don't see what this has to do with the fact that people are intermarrying at ever increasing rates in the U.S., although intermarriage with black Americans is still pretty rare.

Don't forget that we are talking about race-mxing in the first place, not mxing with other ethnicities.

All right, so it's more a class issue? Anyway, how many heart bleeding liberals go to live in the hoods, among the people they say they care so much?

Maleth
24-04-15, 11:24
It has nothing to do with what I say. I love sushi too :)

Just tried to say something positive to bring some cheer. Food is a big thing in heritage and culture, there are some pluses if you get my drift :beer1:

Kardu
24-04-15, 11:57
Just tried to say something positive to bring some cheer. Food is a big thing in heritage and culture, there are some pluses if you get my drift :beer1::) And all I want is that those cultures have a possibility to keep their identity and flourish, not fused in one gray mass as some desire...

Maleth
24-04-15, 12:33
:) And all I want is that those cultures have a possibility to keep their identity and flourish, not fused in one gray mass as some desire...

Yes but as it has been pointed out to you, you cannot compare a mountain village (example) say in a part of the world were people have been there for at least 100's if not thousands of years with mega cities and booming activities and economy to remain naturally homogeneous and live in ethnic quarters. If there is any mixing its a natural process of people not thinking too much about it or even perceive it as any threat. I believe 3rd generation immigrants from these deep rooted areas associate themselves much more with the country they were born with rather their great grand parents. Seeing people with differect skin colour, shape of eyes and types of noses, different customs maybe, is something they grow up with as normal. I understand this could be an issue with more homogeneous areas of the planet. Even the nature and attitude of very well traveled people is different to those who don't in regards to this issue

Kardu
24-04-15, 13:16
Yes but as it has been pointed out to you, you cannot compare a mountain village (example) say in a part of the world were people have been there for at least 100's if not thousands of years with mega cities and booming activities and economy to remain naturally homogeneous and live in ethnic quarters. If there is any mixing its a natural process of people not thinking too much about it or even perceive it as any threat. I believe 3rd generation immigrants from these deep rooted areas associate themselves much more with the country they were born with rather their great grand parents. Seeing people with differect skin colour, shape of eyes and types of noses, different customs maybe, is something they grow up with as normal. I understand this could be an issue with more homogeneous areas of the planet. Even the nature and attitude of very well traveled people is different to those who don't in regards to this issue

I understand your point, but I believe the root is not mega city vs. village. Tokyo or Delhi are not mega enough for you? is lot of race mixing going on there?

Angela
24-04-15, 14:16
Kardu: I am for diversity and multiculturalism. Why do you want to melt everyone in one gray mass? ;)

I've never said I'm for or against it. I, and LeBrok, and Maleth, are describing what happens in areas of the world where people from different backgrounds live in close proximity to one another.

Likewise, I've shown you that no one in the U.S. at least would give a darn if you kept your unique culture. The Amish have done it and so have Orthodox Jews. If you wanted to come here to live and wanted to establish a closed off subculture you'd be perfectly free to do it; no one would prevent you.


Kardu:Whole system is directed against group identities

On the chance that you were being sincere, I pointed out to you in painstaking and no doubt boring detail that there is no statism and there are no laws here promoting "mixing". Indeed, in terms of the preservation of cultural and religious identity, the laws are designed in your favor. No one can make the Amish serve in the military. They don't have to go to certain schools or past a certain age. Roman Catholics can send their children to Catholic institutions from kindergarden through university. Orthodox Jewish children go to orthodox yeshivas. Strictly observant Muslims can send their children to Muslim schools. Very conservative Protestant Christians in certain parts of the country either have their own schools or are part of home schooling networks. It's called religious freedom. You could do the same. The Amish and Orthodox Jews and strict Muslims rarely seem to leave their groups. In parts of the country where there are lots of Protestant evangelical sects who have their own schools or are in home schooling networks, a lot of their children seem to fall in line as well. Or, there are the Mormons, for example.


Kardu: I understand your point, but I believe the root is not mega city vs. village. Tokyo or Delhi are not mega enough for you? is lot of race mixing going on there?

Tokyo and Delhi have never, to my knowledge, experienced any influx or people from other countries, never mind other continents, so how could it happen?



Kardu:Don't forget that we are talking about race-mxing in the first place, not mxing with other ethnicities.

Well, have we finally gotten to the crux of the issue? Have I been wasting my time arguing with someone who has been disingenuous all along? It's not all about a concern for "Georgian" separatism, but rather for "white" separatism? After all, I have been at pains to assure you that you could indeed maintain your "Georgian" identity in this kind of world if you worked at it.

If "ethnic" mixing is not your problem, and your bete noire is that you don't want "SSA" people, or people with large amounts of black ancestry like the North Africans, or perhaps even Middle Easterners to immigrate to Europe because you don't want them intermarrying with white Europeans, and you also want to prohibit that in the U.S, then have the courage to say so and don't try to fly under a false flag.

Maleth
24-04-15, 14:23
I understand your point, but I believe the root is not mega city vs. village. Tokyo or Delhi are not mega enough for you? is lot of race mixing going on there?

India and Japan have deep rooted histories and so does China and always had mega population numbers compared to other parts of the globe. Americas and Australia are considered New world even thou they had aboriginal inhabitants but very very low populations and vast expanses of wilderness unlike the heavily populated and ancient cultures we mentioned. Dubai and Emirates decided to embark on expansion and becoming world class, it has more foreigners then locals but none can claim citizenship but without the influx it could not be what it is today.

Many west European countries had the largest empires the world has know, which explains why their cities have become cosmopolitan some more then others. Every situation to its own. But none of the mixing that goes on is forced, just a natural evolution just like what happened in the past that created the various 'races' we see today who we know through dna no one is really homogeneous. Example my autosmal dna suggests some 30% from your region (general speaking). New York today is the Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome of the ancient times, with the difference its much easier to travel by plane then on foot or donkeys. The next colonization will be of Mars :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2321114/Over-78-000-people-apply-to-MARS-life-long-reality-contest.html

Kardu
24-04-15, 14:29
India and Japan have deep rooted histories and so does China and always had mega population numbers compared to other parts of the globe. Americas and Australia are considered New world even thou they had aboriginal inhabitants but very very low populations and vast expanses of wilderness unlike the heavily populated and ancient cultures we mentioned. Dubai and Emirates decided to embark on expansion and becoming world class, it has more foreigners then locals but none can claim citizenship but without the influx it could not be what it is today.

Many west European countries had the largest empires the world has know, which explains why their cities have become cosmopolitan some more then others. Every situation to its own. But none of the mixing that goes on is forced, just a natural evolution just like what happened in the past that created the various 'races' we see today who we know through dna no one is really homogeneous. Example my autosmal dna suggests some 30% from your region (general speaking). New York today is the Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome of the ancient times, with the difference its much easier to travel by plain then on foot or donkeys. The next colonization will be of Mars :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2321114/Over-78-000-people-apply-to-MARS-life-long-reality-contest.html

As I've mentioned on this thread several times, old mixing in general and race-mixing in particular was through violence and coercion and can not be compared to current situation.

As explained there I mentioned Tokyo and Delhi in reference of your claim mega city vs village for facilitation of race mixng

Kardu
24-04-15, 14:31
I've never said I'm for or against it. I, and LeBrok, and Maleth, are describing what happens in areas of the world where people from different backgrounds live in close proximity to one another.

Likewise, I've shown you that no one in the U.S. at least would give a darn if you kept your unique culture. The Amish have done it and so have Orthodox Jews. If you wanted to come here to live and wanted to establish a closed off subculture you'd be perfectly free to do it; no one would prevent you.



On the chance that you were being sincere, I pointed out to you in painstaking and no doubt boring detail that there is no statism and there are no laws here promoting "mixing". Indeed, in terms of the preservation of cultural and religious identity, the laws are designed in your favor. No one can make the Amish serve in the military. They don't have to go to certain schools or past a certain age. Roman Catholics can send their children to Catholic institutions from kindergarden through university. Orthodox Jewish children go to orthodox yeshivas. Strictly observant Muslims can send their children to Muslim schools. Very conservative Protestant Christians in certain parts of the country either have their own schools or are part of home schooling networks. It's called religious freedom. You could do the same. The Amish and Orthodox Jews and strict Muslims rarely seem to leave their groups. In parts of the country where there are lots of Protestant evangelical sects who have their own schools or are in home schooling networks, a lot of their children seem to fall in line as well. Or, there are the Mormons, for example.



Tokyo and Delhi have never, to my knowledge, experienced any influx or people from other countries, never mind other continents, so how could it happen?


Well, have we finally gotten to the crux of the issue? Have I been wasting my time arguing with someone who has been disingenuous all along? It's not all about a concern for "Georgian" separatism, but rather for "white" separatism? After all, I have been at pains to assure you that you could indeed maintain your "Georgian" identity in this kind of world if you worked at it.

If "ethnic" mixing is not your problem, and your bete noire is that you don't want "SSA" people, or people with large amounts of black ancestry like the North Africans, or perhaps even Middle Easterners to immigrate to Europe because you don't want them intermarrying with white Europeans, and you also want to prohibit that in the U.S, then have the courage to say so and don't try to fly under a false flag.

if you were missing the point it's not my fault. This thread is about race-mixing isn't it? And I was clear what I was saying from the start.

You tell us that: 'I've never said I'm for or against it'. I ask you are you for or against?

Maleth
24-04-15, 14:48
As I've mentioned on this thread several times, old mixing in general and race-mixing in particular was through violence and coercion and can not be compared to current situation.

Not necessarily correct, humans even inbred with neandertals so I imagine that autosmal dna mixtures we see today are not soley related to violence and coercion it could well be a mixture and I am more inclined to believe that it was more peaceful then anything else.


As explained there I mentioned Tokyo and Delhi in reference of your claim mega city vs village for facilitation of race mixng

I already explained besides, you should not ignore the other cities mentioned as mixing is going on and unforcefully

Kardu
24-04-15, 15:31
Not necessarily correct, humans even inbred with neandertals so I imagine that autosmal dna mixtures we see today are not soley related to violence and coercion it could well be a mixture and I am more inclined to believe that it was more peaceful then anything else.



I already explained besides, you should not ignore the other cities mentioned as mixing is going on and unforcefully

Do you have a single concrete example of peaceful race-mixing on large scale anywhere in the world?

Do you really think that our ancestors interbred with the neanderthals peacefully?

Angela
24-04-15, 15:45
Do you have a single concrete example of peaceful race-mixing on large scale anywhere in the world?

Do you really think that our ancestors interbred with the neanderthals peacefully?

This is just another red herring. Whatever the case in the past, it's starting to happen now wherever there are disparate groups living in proximity to one another, and is accelerating.

Angela
24-04-15, 15:46
if you were missing the point it's not my fault. This thread is about race-mixing isn't it? And I was clear what I was saying from the start.

You tell us that: 'I've never said I'm for or against it'. I ask you are you for or against?

I didn't miss the point of the thread at all. You were the one who threw out a red herring like your supposed huge concern for the preservation of the Georgian ethnicity, culture and religion. You argued on the basis of that for post after post. Remember? I naively, perhaps, took you at your word that this was your particular focus.

I like the fact that there are many different cultures in the world. It makes it a richer and more vibrant place. I shouldn't like to see that end. I'm actually a rather conservative person, believe it or not, and was raised by an Italian nationalist, so I particularly wouldn't like to be around to see the culture of my youth and young adulthood die out, but the fact is that it already is dying,or if not dying, changing very quickly, and not because there's been a lot of immigration into Italy from Africa or the Middle East. The world is changing at a break neck pace in a myriad of ways. Globalization, the internet, means that young people all over the world are increasingly becoming very similar. They're all throwing much of their heritage overboard without a thought.

What should we do? Ban the internet?

The world will change whether we like it or not.

Besides, that's just another red herring that you're throwing out. I doubt whether you care about the culture part of it. Some of the people bleating the loudest about the preservation of their culture don't know very much about it or have actively rejected it. The real concern of most, and certainly your real concern seems to be that white people shouldn't be marrying non white people, however you define "white". That's what you want to prevent. Anything else is obfuscation.

I'm sure that if a black African child was adopted by a European couple and was raised speaking the language, following the local religion, learning to appreciate the local culture, eating the local foods, singing the local music and on and on you would still not want that child to marry a "white" person of that same region. Stop hiding behind culture when your concern is race.

As for me, I don't care one way or another if some people marry people of other races. A doctor in my home town in Italy went to Africa to work for Médecins Sans Frontières and brought home an African wife. Did it cause a bit of consternation at first? Yes, it did. However, his daughter is just as Italian as any of her playmates. I don't make choices like that for other people. In parts of the world like the Americas where there has been a huge amount of immigration, it's inevitable that this will happen. In rural China, if it happens, it may take thousands of years and a different kind of world. That's the way it is.

This is all separate and apart from my opinion about whether thousands upon thousands of terribly poor, uneducated, unskilled, refugees who adhere to very extreme and conservative and certainly intolerant, to say the least, versions of Islam, who moreover often seem positively opposed to integrating into the larger society should be allowed to emigrate to an economically depressed Europe already struggling to provide social services to its own people.

Maleth
24-04-15, 16:01
Do you have a single concrete example of peaceful race-mixing on large scale anywhere in the world?

Do you really think that our ancestors interbred with the neanderthals peacefully?

Do not be impressed by Hollywood's epic movies and super drama ;). Consider this:-

"The genocidal view was generated, like the Celtic myth, by historians and archaeologists over the last 200 years. With the swing in academic fashion against “migrationism” (seeing the spread of cultural influence as dependent on significant migrations) over the past couple of decades, archaeologists are now downplaying this story, although it remains a strong underlying perspective in history books.
Some geneticists still cling to the genocide story. Research by several genetics teams associated with University College London has concentrated in recent years on proving the wipeout view on the basis of similarities of male Y chromosome gene group frequency between Frisia/north Germany and England. One of the London groups attracted press attention in July by claiming that the close similarities were the result of genocide followed by a social-sexual apartheid that enhanced Anglo-Saxon reproductive success over Celtic.
The problem is that the English resemble in this way all the other countries of northwest Europe as well as the Frisians and Germans. Using the same method (principal components analysis, see note below), I have found greater similarities of this kind between the southern English and Belgians than the supposedly Anglo-Saxon homelands at the base of the Danish peninsula. These different regions could not all have been waiting their turn to commit genocide on the former Celtic population of England. The most likely reason for the genetic similarities between these neighbouring countries and England is that they all had similar prehistoric settlement histories."

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry

Kardu
24-04-15, 16:01
No need to fish for herring :)

I was always clear of what I was saying and meaning. I even stated that I am a nativist.

If one cares for his group's identity how can he support race-mixing?

Changes do happen but it does not mean that we should welcome it and sit iddle until it alters our way of life.

Kardu
24-04-15, 16:06
Do not be impressed by Hollywood's epic movies and super drama ;). Consider this:-

"The genocidal view was generated, like the Celtic myth, by historians and archaeologists over the last 200 years. With the swing in academic fashion against “migrationism” (seeing the spread of cultural influence as dependent on significant migrations) over the past couple of decades, archaeologists are now downplaying this story, although it remains a strong underlying perspective in history books.
Some geneticists still cling to the genocide story. Research by several genetics teams associated with University College London has concentrated in recent years on proving the wipeout view on the basis of similarities of male Y chromosome gene group frequency between Frisia/north Germany and England. One of the London groups attracted press attention in July by claiming that the close similarities were the result of genocide followed by a social-sexual apartheid that enhanced Anglo-Saxon reproductive success over Celtic.
The problem is that the English resemble in this way all the other countries of northwest Europe as well as the Frisians and Germans. Using the same method (principal components analysis, see note below), I have found greater similarities of this kind between the southern English and Belgians than the supposedly Anglo-Saxon homelands at the base of the Danish peninsula. These different regions could not all have been waiting their turn to commit genocide on the former Celtic population of England. The most likely reason for the genetic similarities between these neighbouring countries and England is that they all had similar prehistoric settlement histories."

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry


Did Celts and Germanics belong to different races?

On the other hand there is Amerindian blood apparently among modern Icelanders, but that's because their ancestors were kidnapping women from Vinland and bringing them to Iceland (not very peacefully)

Maleth
24-04-15, 16:19
Did Celts and Germanics belong to different races?

On the other hand there is Amerindian blood apparently among modern Icelanders, but that's because their ancestors were kidnapping women from Vinland and bringing them to Iceland (not very peacefully)

Not all men are raging savages needing to procreate by raping women violently. Humans are genetically designed (thanks to Oxytocin) to bond and care for their offspring. There are exceptions of course.

Kardu
24-04-15, 16:37
Not all men are raging savages needing to procreate by raping women violently. Humans are genetically designed (thanks to Oxytocin) to bond and care for their offspring. There are exceptions of course.

All I am asking is to show me a single real historic fact of groups of different race mixing with each other peacefully, not as a result of conquest and coercion.

LeBrok
24-04-15, 16:41
Whole system is directed against group identities (although some groups are in better position than others).

I am not gonna drop this either: I am for diversity and multiculturalism. Why do you want to melt everyone in one gray mass? ;)
We are still waiting for example of the one (out of zillion) mixed marriage program. Otherwise you look ignorant and a liar. Either you don't understand the world, the concepts, programs, etc, or you are lying with premeditation.


I am for diversity and multiculturalism. Why do you want to melt everyone in one gray mass?
Cite me where I said that I want that. Every time I say it is happening, a description of ongoing phenomena. However this distinction is not registering with you. One describes my feelings, the other real and existing social trend.
Do you finally get it, or you still think it is one and the same thing?

LeBrok
24-04-15, 17:13
Well, have we finally gotten to the crux of the issue? Have I been wasting my time arguing with someone who has been disingenuous all along? It's not all about a concern for "Georgian" separatism, but rather for "white" separatism? After all, I have been at pains to assure you that you could indeed maintain your "Georgian" identity in this kind of world if you worked at it.

If "ethnic" mixing is not your problem, and your bete noire is that you don't want "SSA" people, or people with large amounts of black ancestry like the North Africans, or perhaps even Middle Easterners to immigrate to Europe because you don't want them intermarrying with white Europeans, and you also want to prohibit that in the U.S, then have the courage to say so and don't try to fly under a false flag.

He is fast to exclude others, but doesn't like to be excluded himself. You would think people would learn compassion and empathy by own example.


http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Aberdeen http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=453603#post453603)
That's true - I think the average white person looking at a typical Georgian would classify them as being of mixed race. But hopefully Georgians would not be treated differently because of that.




Idiotic remark. Have you even seen a Georgian in your life?


You said Georgians look like mixed race people, so I am asking: show us the photos of real Georgians and tell us exactly which races were mixed to give their appearanece. You don't understand this simple question or are you playing dumb?


Because you are t r o l l i n g!

What albino? what a hell are you talking about? I say every group should preserve their identity, be it European, African or Asian. So stop demagogy now.
I am inclined to believe that you are not Polish, but Russian t r o l l, one of those from hundreds on service of kremlin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-*****-army/375932/


It's not opinion but t r o l l i n g

Where did I say anything about the pigmentation of Georgians in the matters discussed in this thread? Or a race for you is only about the skin color? That primitive Nordicisism can't be taken seriously, that's why i suspect you are t r o l l i n g intentionally



We can say that Kardu is very touchy if it comes to "browning" Georgians. His IP address says Barcelona, so perhaps he got infected with this kind of issues there?

Kardu
24-04-15, 17:16
We are still waiting for example of the one (out of zillion) mixed marriage program. Otherwise you look ignorant and a liar. Either you don't understand the world, the concepts, programs, etc, or you are lying with premeditation.


Cite me where I said that I want that. Every time I say it is happening, a description of ongoing phenomena. However this distinction is not registering with you. One describes my feelings, the other real and existing social trend.
Do you finally get it, or you still think it is one and the same thing?

Do you deny that affirmative action etc. facilitates race-mixing? Shunning dissident voices from the masmedia isn't considered a pressure?

it's a justified assumption that a person who describes himself as a citizen of the world would be pro race-mxing, but ok, for the arguments sake, are you or are you not?

Kardu
24-04-15, 17:25
He is fast to exclude others, but doesn't like to be excluded himself. You would think people would learn compassion and empathy by own example.



We can say that Kardu is very touchy if it comes to "browning" Georgians. His IP address says Barcelona, so perhaps he got infected with this kind of issues there?

Georgians could have been purple, black or yellow for all I care, I'd still champion the identity cause :) Your silly attempts of ad hominem attacks just make me lough

LeBrok
24-04-15, 17:34
Do you have a single concrete example of peaceful race-mixing on large scale anywhere in the world?

Do you really think that our ancestors interbred with the neanderthals peacefully?
Oh, you demand a single concrete example?!!! Where is the one I'm asking for zillion of times already?!
On issue of mixing we supplied many statistical evidence. On other hand we have only your suppositions. I'm losing patience with you, your arrogance, lying, racism and lack of consequence in discussion.

LeBrok
24-04-15, 17:47
Do you deny that affirmative action etc. facilitates race-mixing? Shunning dissident voices from the masmedia isn't considered a pressure? I'm sick and tired finding your posts and reminding you what you said. You were accusing western governments for running government programs deliberately made to make races mixed. Now you are talking about TV programs only!!! Have it your way and present a TV program which ridicules people marring same race or ethnic group, or only emphasizes mixed marriages. Just present your one real evidence.


it's a justified assumption that a person who describes himself as a citizen of the world would be pro race-mxing, but ok, for the arguments sake, are you or are you not? It is not my fault that you can't wrap your head around this issue. For the zillion times, I'm for freedom of people choices, I don't give a squat who they choose to marry. If they choose to mix, it is only their choice to make. I'm a citizen of the world, it means I feel fine with any culture around me, therefore there is no need to have only one. How hard is to understand?!!!
Try to remember this next time.

Angela
24-04-15, 17:57
I am starting to seriously doubt that Kardu is a Georgian, but whether he is or not his opinions are neither fact based nor logical. You can't reason with people who operate out of emotion or some sort of indoctrination and can't even define their terms. So, I leave you to it, LeBrok...you have far more patience than I have...

Kardu
24-04-15, 18:07
Oh, you demand a single concrete example?!!! Where is the one I'm asking for zillion of times already?!On issue of mixing we supplied many statistical evidence. On other hand we have only your suppositions. I'm losing patience with you, your arrogance, lying, racism and lack of consequence in discussion.oh, racism is it? Typical totalitarian liberal trick to silence an opponent

Kardu
24-04-15, 18:18
I'm sick and tired finding your posts and reminding you what you said. You were accusing western governments for running government programs deliberately made to make races mixed. Now you are talking about TV programs only!!! Have it your way and present a TV program which ridicules people marring same race or ethnic group, or only emphasizes mixed marriages. Just present your one real evidence.

It is not my fault that you can't wrap your head around this issue. For the zillion times, I'm for freedom of people choices, I don't give a squat who they choose to marry. If they choose to mix, it is only their choice to make. I'm a citizen of the world, it means I feel fine with any culture around me, therefore there is no need to have only one. How hard is to understand?!!!
Try to remember this next time.

Ok, you don't care, understood.

You are also neutral to the people who oppose such mixing?

sparkey
24-04-15, 19:24
If one cares for his group's identity how can he support race-mixing?

As much as it seems that nobody is about to come to agreement with Kardu in this thread, and he isn't being swayed either, I think that both sides can have a productive discussion by seriously addressing this question. It really gets to the heart of Kardu's concerns I think. A desire for cultural persistence is an important part of human nature. And race-mixing seems to threaten it--or does it? To what degree is genetics tied to a group identity? Can outsiders be absorbed into the group? How many of the world's cultures would persist if all races started mixing together everywhere? Would there be Georgian speakers, dedicated to the Georgian culture of old, among the new monorace?

Kardu
24-04-15, 21:42
As much as it seems that nobody is about to come to agreement with Kardu in this thread, and he isn't being swayed either, I think that both sides can have a productive discussion by seriously addressing this question. It really gets to the heart of Kardu's concerns I think. A desire for cultural persistence is an important part of human nature. And race-mixing seems to threaten it--or does it? To what degree is genetics tied to a group identity? Can outsiders be absorbed into the group? How many of the world's cultures would persist if all races started mixing together everywhere? Would there be Georgian speakers, dedicated to the Georgian culture of old, among the new monorace?

Excellent questions.

Templar
24-04-15, 22:05
Mixing also splits loyalties. Hypothetically, if Vietnam and China went to war but you were half Chinese and half Vietnamese, which side would you go fight for? Also both sides wouldn't trust you and likely wouldn't accept you, since they would be fighting against the very people that you partially belong to.

Another issue with mixing are the negative health defects and likely dysgenic impact on IQ (IQ is overwhelmingly due to genetics and not environment like "some" want you to think).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_o f_IQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

LeBrok
25-04-15, 03:52
Ok, you don't care, understood. I don't have my hopes to high.


You are also neutral to the people who oppose such mixing? No, because it infringes on freedom of choice of individuals. Being intolerant is not OK. The bottom line is that people should be fee to choose. I'm talking about freedom for the whole society, not only for the chosen ones, for the elite, for the monarch or dictator.

I know you are going to say that I limit your choice to be intolerant, to be a dictator. And that's the bottom line with freedom for the society in general. Any time freedom of individuals or a group forces others into submission, to be dominated, to be used, to be forced, to be secluded, it is not the freedom I'm talking about. It is not the freedom to be cherished, uphold, the ubiquitous freedom. It is not freedom for society in general.

For me it is easily understandable, for you to ask the question above, must be one and the same, or a thin line, which escapes your comprehension.

Anyway, where is the one example we are waiting for, so you don't look like a liar. We gave you scientific-statistical figures that mixing trend exists and speeds up. Where is your real world proof to give reality to your suppositions, opinions, or should we say, fantasy?

Be a man of your words!

LeBrok
25-04-15, 04:06
Mixing also splits loyalties. Hypothetically, if Vietnam and China went to war but you were half Chinese and half Vietnamese, which side would you go fight for? Also both sides wouldn't trust you and likely wouldn't accept you, since they would be fighting against the very people that you partially belong to.



It surely mixing complicates many things. I'm sure not many killed their enemy with pleasure in US domestic war or in Yugoslavia. On other hand, mixing often closes cultural divides, and brings people together.


Another issue with mixing are the negative health defects and likely dysgenic impact on IQ (IQ is overwhelmingly due to genetics and not environment like "some" want you to think).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_o f_IQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study


Yes, two people of very different phenotype and long genetic distances, might have kids with very uncommon disorders. English very crooked teeth might be an example of such instance, when Germanic big jaw people mixed with Celtic small jaw folks. I'm not sure exactly, who with whom, but it points to some huge mismatch.
I know something about this because I come from a family where tall people love the short ones, and vice versa, or blond love brunets, small nose and big nose, as the opposite attracts, though still same ethnicity.
On other hand there are many geniuses and famous people coming from families with ethnic and racial combinations.

That's probably good subject for a new thread, the consequences of ethnic and racial mixing.

LeBrok
25-04-15, 04:14
As much as it seems that nobody is about to come to agreement with Kardu in this thread, and he isn't being swayed either, I think that both sides can have a productive discussion by seriously addressing this question. It really gets to the heart of Kardu's concerns I think. A desire for cultural persistence is an important part of human nature. And race-mixing seems to threaten it--or does it? To what degree is genetics tied to a group identity? Can outsiders be absorbed into the group? How many of the world's cultures would persist if all races started mixing together everywhere? Probably the best example is Latin America. Many cultured perished, creating new identity of Iberian/Catholic, Amerindian/White/Black, technically modern/industrial/educated/ with some local flavor, US influence, Chinese goods, African rhythm, and who knows what.

Maleth
25-04-15, 08:30
Mixing also splits loyalties. Hypothetically, if Vietnam and China went to war but you were half Chinese and half Vietnamese, which side would you go fight for? Also both sides wouldn't trust you and likely wouldn't accept you, since they would be fighting against the very people that you partially belong to.

I understand your point and its relevant in some situations. However this is not the total situation of the globe. The vast majority of countries/clans/tribes/regions are not at war 24/7, in the meantime irrelevant to all the negative events going on at present many countries have good neighborly relations and lots of unannounced exchanges are going on. People of the 'new world' have new loyalties to their mother countries even if they are stock of People from all around the globe.


Another issue with mixing are the negative health defects and likely dysgenic impact on IQ (IQ is overwhelmingly due to genetics and not environment like "some" want you to think).

the brain is like a muscle, the more stimulated and exercised the better it performs irrelevant to race. In regards to IQ you might find this helpful, you have to copy and paste it in your search bar.

"Myth: IQ depends fully on the genes of a person and is hereditary.
This is also a popular myth. People have this misconception that IQ is solely the product of good genes. A child born out of parents having low IQ will also have low IQ. Besides, they also believe that this IQ will never change.

Reality
We all know that IQ comes from a combination of both genetics and environment. Experts believe that the genes affect our IQ by 40 to 80 percent and the remaining comes from external environment. Now, just think what will happen if a person is kept in isolation from all external stimuli? What will be the proportion of their intelligence coming from the environment? Obviously zero! Isn't? Hence, the more stimuli a person gets from the world, the more is their intelligence based on the environment. It is, thus, proved that IQ is not fully depended on the genes and it does change based on the environment. Besides, studies have also found significant increase in IQ from one generation to the other. It increases 21 points on an average in 30 years."

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-myths.php

Kardu
25-04-15, 10:27
I don't have my hopes to high.

No, because it infringes on freedom of choice of individuals. Being intolerant is not OK. The bottom line is that people should be fee to choose. I'm talking about freedom for the whole society, not only for the chosen ones, for the elite, for the monarch or dictator.

I know you are going to say that I limit your choice to be intolerant, to be a dictator. And that's the bottom line with freedom for the society in general. Any time freedom of individuals or a group forces others into submission, to be dominated, to be used, to be forced, to be secluded, it is not the freedom I'm talking about. It is not the freedom to be cherished, uphold, the ubiquitous freedom. It is not freedom for society in general.

For me it is easily understandable, for you to ask the question above, must be one and the same, or a thin line, which escapes your comprehension.

Anyway, where is the one example we are waiting for, so you don't look like a liar. We gave you scientific-statistical figures that mixing trend exists and speeds up. Where is your real world proof to give reality to your suppositions, opinions, or should we say, fantasy?

Be a man of your words!

As usual you see what you want to see. I told you: Afirmative Action long time ago.

And who says that everyone should accept the negative liberty you describe?

What do liberals know about being a man...

Templar
25-04-15, 12:19
the brain is like a muscle, the more stimulated and exercised the better it performs irrelevant to race. In regards to IQ you might find this helpful, you have to copy and paste it in your search bar.

"Myth: IQ depends fully on the genes of a person and is hereditary.
This is also a popular myth. People have this misconception that IQ is solely the product of good genes. A child born out of parents having low IQ will also have low IQ. Besides, they also believe that this IQ will never change.

Reality
We all know that IQ comes from a combination of both genetics and environment. Experts believe that the genes affect our IQ by 40 to 80 percent and the remaining comes from external environment. Now, just think what will happen if a person is kept in isolation from all external stimuli? What will be the proportion of their intelligence coming from the environment? Obviously zero! Isn't? Hence, the more stimuli a person gets from the world, the more is their intelligence based on the environment. It is, thus, proved that IQ is not fully depended on the genes and it does change based on the environment. Besides, studies have also found significant increase in IQ from one generation to the other. It increases 21 points on an average in 30 years."

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-myths.php

I never said that IQ was ONLY genetic, I said that it is MOSTLY genetic. And studies of adoptions across racial lines prove that raising the average Black kid in an upper class White household only increases his IQ by a few meager points. IQ is overwhelmingly genetic and unlike what you claimed about it increasing, it is actually decreasing in many Western countries due to immigration of low IQ immigrants.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html

http://www.amren.com/news/2014/08/iq-scores-are-decreasing-and-some-experts-argue-its-because-humans-have-reached-their-intellectual-peak/

https://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/800px-iq_by_country-by-current-resident-majority.png

Look at this IQ map, a high standard of living doesn't cause high IQ, it is the other way around: a high IQ causes a high standard of living. There are only a few exceptions like countries who were recently communist (or still are communist) like Russia, Ukraine, Mongolial, China, etc. Even though their standard of living is relatively low compared to Western countries, their IQ is about the same or higher. And lets look at the oil rich countries of the Gulf. Their IQ is in the 80s, but their standard of living is very high because of their massive fossil fuel resources.

http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_5352_2b025445022b980af8d55ad7448cc810

hope
25-04-15, 12:27
What do liberals know about being a man...
Only that a man should have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice etc...in short the freedom to individual right and choice, be it for man or woman. If you had not these rights Kardu, would you not feel you were unable to function as a free man?



And who says that everyone should accept the negative liberty you describe?
What is negative about these things?
Also, why do feel that mixing of ethnicity should threaten you or your culture? If you and the next generation carry on using your language, carry on observing your customs, they are not lost. If, on the other hand, the future generation decide to let go of these things, they do so by choice. Would you take away the freedom of choice for the next generation? The liberal man would not.

Maleth
25-04-15, 13:14
IQ is overwhelmingly genetic and unlike what you claimed about it increasing

I am not claiming it, its been observed in serious studies. And to a certain point its also obvious as that what evolution is all about. Its all an evolutionary process and nothing stays still but just a product of our environment a result of thousands of years in existence like all living species - even genes are receiving millions of messages and instructions from the environment and change by time according to need in the name of survival. Even genes evolve by time and also do their instructions. If it wasnt so we would not have evolved as species.

7207


Look at this IQ map, a high standard of living doesn't cause high IQ, it is the other way around: a high IQ causes a high standard of living. There are only a few exceptions like countries who were recently communist (or still are communist) like Russia, Ukraine, Mongolial, China, etc. Even though their standard of living is relatively low compared to Western countries, their IQ is about the same or higher. And lets look at the oil rich countries of the Gulf. Their IQ is in the 80s, but their standard of living is very high because of their massive fossil fuel resources.

The locals in Gulf countries are perfect recipe ta acquire low IQ according to this men made calculator. Lots of money and others working for it. (very little stimuli, little anxiety with health related issues including health comfort and meals, no need to think too much of how to improve your life as cash is no problem if the need arises) It could very much the cause of Western drop in IQ too for the same reasons for having much more people reaching this category. Live all your life by the pool relaxed, fat bank account, all services around you and your IQ would be bound to be eroded easily and not really bodered to the contents in any IQ test ;)

Kardu
25-04-15, 15:27
Only that a man should have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice etc...in short the freedom to individual right and choice, be it for man or woman. If you had not these rights Kardu, would you not feel you were unable to function as a free man?What is negative about these things? Also, why do feel that mixing of ethnicity should threaten you or your culture? If you and the next generation carry on using your language, carry on observing your customs, they are not lost. If, on the other hand, the future generation decide to let go of these things, they do so by choice. Would you take away the freedom of choice for the next generation? The liberal man would not.I guess Lebrok can answer for himself.Negative Liberty is a concept.All rights are conventional and not given by some higher universal authority.Again we are talking about race-mixng here not ethnic mixing. The latter is less dangerous for a particular group identity.We and future generations alike have not only so called rights and freedoms but also duties and obligations.

hope
25-04-15, 15:51
I guess Lebrok can answer for himself.Negative Liberty is a concept.All rights are conventional and not given by some higher universal authority.Again we are talking about race-mixng here not ethnic mixing. The latter is less dangerous for a particular group identity.We and future generations alike have not only so called rights and freedoms but also duties and obligations.
I am convinced LeBrok can answer for himself..however this being a discussion thread I was unaware one must take a ticket and wait in line to take part. The point you made may have been to another but the point was general.
So, future generations may have freedom so long as it does not interfere with their expected duties..in other words to my question..yes, you would deny future generations the freedom of choice.
I don`t know how you define race but I was under the impression we were one race...human.

Kardu
25-04-15, 16:15
I am convinced LeBrok can answer for himself..however this being a discussion thread I was unaware one must take a ticket and wait in line to take part. The point you made may have been to another but the point was general.
So, future generations may have freedom so long as it does not interfere with their expected duties..in other words to my question..yes, you would deny future generations the freedom of choice.
I don`t know how you define race but I was under the impression we were one race...human.

That question you should direct to LeBrok who has started this thread about race-mixng. If we were just one race no mixing would be possible would it?

If you call it freedom to fullfill whatever whim comes to your mind, yes I deny that kind "freedom" from myself and from the members of my group, present and future.

Templar
25-04-15, 16:19
I am not claiming it, its been observed in serious studies. And to a certain point its also obvious as that what evolution is all about. Its all an evolutionary process and nothing stays still but just a product of our environment a result of thousands of years in existence like all living species - even genes are receiving millions of messages and instructions from the environment and change by time according to need in the name of survival. Even genes evolve by time and also do their instructions. If it wasnt so we would not have evolved as species.


We are no longer evolving in the traditional sense, modern breeding is largely dysgenic. In the past the weak, dumb, physically deformed etc would have died off, today most of them survive to breed. And to make things worse, higher IQ people tend to have smaller and smaller families, while lower IQ ones continue to have large ones. Our only hope to solve this impending disaster is genetic engineering.

hope
25-04-15, 16:28
That question you should direct to LeBrok who has started this thread about race-mixng. If we were just one race no mixing would be possible would it?

If you call it freedom to fullfill whatever whim comes to your mind, yes I deny that kind "freedom" from myself and from the members of my group, present and future.
But I`m asking you. You are the one who said a single race was impossible...

A whim..? You see the right to freedom of expression, freedom of individual choice, the right to do so without pressure, as "quaint"?

Kardu
25-04-15, 16:40
But I`m asking you. You are the one who said a single race was impossible...

A whim..? You see the right to freedom of expression, freedom of individual choice, the right to do so without pressure, as "quaint"?

No, you are the one who said that we are already one human race.

As I've already said before those rights are arbitrary and conventional

Angela
25-04-15, 16:49
As usual you see what you want to see. I told you: Afirmative Action long time ago.

And who says that everyone should accept the negative liberty you describe?

What do liberals know about being a man...

Perhaps you're not actually acquainted with the nature of affirmative action legislation? Simply, it is predicated on the fact that blacks (and other minorities) in this country were systematically denied access to quality education and good jobs for hundreds of years. In 1965, President Johnson signed an order requiring the government to take "affirmative action" to make sure that hiring decisions were made without regard to race, religion or national origin. It was sometimes interpreted to give preference to certain minorities in hiring and also in admissions to universities.

I'm one of the people who actually thinks that we've come along far enough that it's no longer necessary. However, I see nothing untoward about considering the socio-economic situation of applicants as one factor in the admissions process, or in hiring of local police, for example.

If I were on those admissions committees, and was presented with two equally qualified applicants, one of whom had overcome a great deal of adversity to achieve his or her competence, regardless of race, I would definitely favor that applicant over the child of affluent "helicopter" parents who provided every kind of advantage.

In terms of police departments, I think it is to the benefit of society as a whole to have a police department that contains minority members, particularly in situations where the police must interact with people living in primarily minority, disadvantaged, high crime areas.

This has absolutely nothing to do with encouraging intermarriage between the races.

It is a totally illogical claim. So, you are back to square one. You claimed there are a "zillion" laws promoting racial intermarriage, and you have yet to provide proof of even one.

What you are against is any law which negates prior segregation laws, because you are afraid that if people of different races come into contact with one another in any kind of equal way in their day to day lives, some of them will inevitably fall in love and get married. You know what, you're right. That's exactly what starts to happen. All of this talk about it only happening as a result of force or war is obfuscation. If you weren't afraid that it can happen naturally you wouldn't be pointing to things like the desegregation laws or affirmative action as fostering it.

The fact is that you want to deny people the freedom to choose to marry people of another race. That would require some sort of coercion, either by law, force, or indoctrination. You say you are not in favor of the first two. If we take you at your word, that leaves you with indoctrination. Have at it as far as I'm concerned. You are always and everywhere free to try to indoctrinate your own children. In the U.S. you are even free to stand on a street corner and spout your ideas or give speeches about it or otherwise try to disseminate your ideas. This is a free country. In fact, if, in doing that, you are attacked physically, the law will protect you. This is the price of a free society. However, one act of physical force of any kind and you'll wind up in jail.

Let's see how your ideas fare.

Kardu
25-04-15, 17:20
Perhaps you're not actually acquainted with the nature of affirmative action legislation? Simply, it is predicated on the fact that blacks (and other minorities) in this country were systematically denied access to quality education and good jobs for hundreds of years. In 1965, President Johnson signed an order requiring the government to take "affirmative action" to make sure that hiring decisions were made without regard to race, religion or national origin. It was sometimes interpreted to give preference to certain minorities in hiring and also in admissions to universities. I'm one of the people who actually thinks that we've come along far enough that it's no longer necessary. However, I see nothing untoward about considering the socio-economic situation of applicants as one factor in the admissions process, or in hiring of local police, for example.If I were on those admissions committees, and was presented with two equally qualified applicants, one of whom had overcome a great deal of adversity to achieve his or her competence, regardless of race, I would definitely favor that applicant over the child of affluent "helicopter" parents who provided every kind of advantage.In terms of police departments, I think it is to the benefit of society as a whole to have a police department that contains minority members, particularly in situations where the police must interact with people living in primarily minority, disadvantaged, high crime areas. This has absolutely nothing to do with encouraging intermarriage between the races. It is a totally illogical claim. So, you are back to square one. You claimed there are a "zillion" laws promoting racial intermarriage, and you have yet to provide proof of even one.What you are against is any law which negates prior segregation laws, because you are afraid that if people of different races come into contact with one another in any kind of equal way in their day to day lives, some of them will inevitably fall in love and get married. You know what, you're right. That's exactly what starts to happen. All of this talk about it only happening as a result of force or war is obfuscation. If you weren't afraid that it can happen naturally you wouldn't be pointing to things like the desegregation laws or affirmative action as fostering it.The fact is that you want to deny people the freedom to choose to marry people of another race. That would require some sort of coercion, either by law, force, or indoctrination. You say you are not in favor of the first two. If we take you at your word, that leaves you with indoctrination. Have at it as far as I'm concerned. You are always and everywhere free to try to indoctrinate your own children. In the U.S. you are even free to stand on a street corner and spout your ideas or give speeches about it or otherwise try to disseminate your ideas. This is a free country. In fact, if, in doing that, you are attacked physically, the law will protect you. This is the price of a free society. However, one act of physical force of any kind and you'll wind up in jail. Let's see how your ideas fare.So we finally agree at least partially :) And if you bother to scroll up you will see that I did clarify what I meant saying 'facilitate' not force. And if it is such a free country why they make it so difficult to held conferences like AmRen etc.?

LeBrok
25-04-15, 17:45
I guess Lebrok can answer for himself.Negative Liberty is a concept.All rights are conventional and not given by some higher universal authority.Again we are talking about race-mixng here not ethnic mixing. The latter is less dangerous for a particular group identity.We and future generations alike have not only so called rights and freedoms but also duties and obligations. Duties and obligation to preserve the race? Is it from Mein Kampf?

Angela
25-04-15, 18:09
So we finally agree at least partially :) And if you bother to scroll up you will see that I did clarify what I meant saying 'facilitate' not force. And if it is such a free country why they make it so difficult to held conferences like AmRen etc.?

The only thing about which we agree is that, with certain exceptions, the U.S. permits people to spout even idiotic, a scientific, insane, and morally reprehensible ideas.

The exceptions are that any hint of physical coercion will land you in jail.

I'm glad that you have unmasked yourself. AmRen is a white supremacist, i.e. racist association. Probably one of those groups that attempts to influence young, impressionable, often mentally unstable young men with their pernicious doctrines, frequently through the internet.

Now that it's clear what positions you actually hold, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Kardu
25-04-15, 18:10
Duties and obligation to preserve the race? Is it from Mein Kampf?

Yeah, yeah, keep piling up false accusations and insinuations. Your cheap totalitarian liberal tricks won't intimidate me.

Kardu
25-04-15, 18:12
The only thing about which we agree is that, with certain exceptions, the U.S. permits people to spout even idiotic, a scientific, insane, and morally reprehensible ideas.

The exceptions are that any hint of physical coercion will land you in jail.

I'm glad that you have unmasked yourself. AmRen is a white supremacist, i.e. racist association. Probably one of those groups that attempts to influence young, impressionable, often mentally unstable young men with their pernicious doctrines, frequently through the internet.

Now that it's clear what positions you actually hold, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Lol, congratulations with 'unmasking'. AmRen was an example, and they are in no way supremacist.

Templar
25-04-15, 18:25
The only thing about which we agree is that, with certain exceptions, the U.S. permits people to spout even idiotic, a scientific, insane, and morally reprehensible ideas.

The exceptions are that any hint of physical coercion will land you in jail.

I'm glad that you have unmasked yourself. AmRen is a white supremacist, i.e. racist association. Probably one of those groups that attempts to influence young, impressionable, often mentally unstable young men with their pernicious doctrines, frequently through the internet.

Now that it's clear what positions you actually hold, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

AmRen is racialist, not racist. They believe that on average, there are considerable differences between different breeds of humans. They actually put East Asians as smarter than Whites, and therefore are in no way "white supremacists".

hope
25-04-15, 18:44
As I've already said before those rights are arbitrary and conventional
Conventional..based on what is normally done or believed?
So if someone wishes to step outside the conventional, that which is normally done and wishes the freedom to do differently, you will likely deny them this "whim". This is not freedom Kardu, it is an illusion.
A liberal man seeks to have freedom for each individual, to make their own choices..what you speak of is, the freedom to do so..as long as it that which is normally done...it would seem.

Kardu
25-04-15, 19:01
Conventional..based on what is normally done or believed?
So if someone wishes to step outside the conventional, that which is normally done and wishes the freedom to do differently, you will likely deny them this "whim". This is not freedom Kardu, it is an illusion.
A liberal man seeks to have freedom for each individual, to make their own choices..what you speak of is, the freedom to do so..as long as it that which is normally done...it would seem.

What I meant is that those rights are made up, they are not some kind eternal universal truth everyone is morally or otherwise obliged to submit to

Maleth
25-04-15, 19:13
We are no longer evolving in the traditional sense, modern breeding is largely dysgenic. In the past the weak, dumb, physically deformed etc would have died off, today most of them survive to breed. And to make things worse, higher IQ people tend to have smaller and smaller families, while lower IQ ones continue to have large ones. Our only hope to solve this impending disaster is genetic engineering.

What makes you think so? Do you really think we have reached some sort of dead end in evolution? excluding genetic engineering our genes are already working on new realities the human species has not encountered before such as obesity and lack of exercise due to the use of so much machinery visa vi manual work which was the norm even up to a few decades ago. Our systems are going to see a new form of resistance to disease brought by a new way of life not know before. Our body shapes will change too. Just how we genetically became programmed to tolerate Lactose similar how to how bacteria becomes resistant (continuously) to pencilin. We work on the same principals of survival. But genetic engineering can (probably) give instant results

LeBrok
25-04-15, 19:17
What I meant is that those rights are made up, they are not some kind eternal universal truth everyone is morally or otherwise obliged to submit to
You mean things made up by people are wrong and invalid?
Your job is made up, Georgia is made up, language is made up, your mind is also made up by human made up ideas.
So the human rights are made up and it gives dictator Kardu a reason to take them away, for the good of his race.

LeBrok
25-04-15, 19:23
What makes you think so? Do you really think we have reached some sort of dead end in evolution? excluding genetic engineering our genes are already working on new realities the human species has not encountered before such as obesity and lack of exercise due to the use of so much machinery visa vi manual work which was the norm even up to a few decades ago. Our systems are going to see a new form of resistance to disease brought by a new way of life not know before. Our body shapes will change too. Just how we genetically became programmed to tolerate Lactose similar how to how bacteria becomes resistant (continuously) to pencilin. We work on the same principals of survival. But genetic engineering can (probably) give instant results
Yes, and amount of offspring counts too. Contraceptives as technology have profound effect on gene pool.
I have to mention, so Kardu is not confused again, I'm not for or against, just an observation.

Maleth
25-04-15, 20:02
Yes, and amount of offspring counts too. Contraceptives as technology have profound effect on gene pool.
I have to mention, so Kardu is not confused again, I'm not for or against, just an observation.

Nothing wrong if you were for or against. The joy of debating :grin:.

LeBrok
25-04-15, 20:47
Nothing wrong if you were for or against. The joy of debating :grin:.
Sure, as there is nothing wrong to be impartial to the issue. The problem is that some people can't believe it and give me a hidden agenda, lol.
I'm also impartial to haplogroups and consider all equally valid. There were some individuals here who proclaimed that I, being R1b, have an agenda against folks hg I, for some sort of European supremacy.
I'm impartial to gay marriage. It is not my decision to tell gays if they want equal rights in any family union. Though I'm against people who don't let them have a free choice.

Kardu
25-04-15, 20:50
You mean things made up by people are wrong and invalid?
Your job is made up, Georgia is made up, language is made up, your mind is also made up by human made up ideas.
So the human rights are made up and it gives dictator Kardu a reason to take them away, for the good of his race.

You are right to some degree :) nevertheless my position is in accordance with the law of nature and evolution, unlike the utopia you and some others try to promote

hope
25-04-15, 20:50
What I meant is that those rights are made up, they are not some kind eternal universal truth everyone is morally or otherwise obliged to submit to
What a defeatist attitude...don`t you think we are all of us, morally obliged to seek that we ourselves and others should have freedom of speech and freedom of expression etc. without fear of persecution or harm? Or would wishing for such be an abuse to your rights...if they were real and not made up?

Angela
25-04-15, 20:59
Just so we're all clear about the nature of the American Renaissance group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissance_%28magazine%29

They've been so successful at their "persuasion" that 2-3 hundred people wanted to attend the conference. That is out of a population of about 320 million.

American youth are more likely to be converted by ISIS.

Maleth
25-04-15, 21:10
Sure, as there is nothing wrong to be impartial to the issue. The problem is that some people can't believe it and give me a hidden agenda, lol.
I'm also impartial to haplogroups and consider all equally valid. There were some individuals here who proclaimed that I, being R1b, have an agenda against folks hg I, for some sort of European supremacy.
I'm impartial to gay marriage. It is not my decision to tell gays if they want equal rights in any family union. Though I'm against people who don't let them have a free choice.

oops...you never came across to me that you ever had an agenda of any sort except bringing facts and decent arguments to express your opinion to what you believe in. I have no problem with people bringing up solid arguments with facts reason and logic and always can learn a thing or two. I had very strong opinions on many subjects in my much earlier days (and many do at that particular point in their life) but experience through time can soften and sometimes change your view on the world as a whole.

Maleth
25-04-15, 21:18
You are right to some degree :) nevertheless my position is in accordance with the law of nature and evolution, unlike the utopia you and some others try to promote

law of nature says you should have a baby every time (heteros) have sex. It also states that if your arteries are clogged with fat and cholesterol you should have a heart attack and die. Law of nature states that we should all die when we have an appendix attack. It also states we should die in masses when there are virus outbreaks such as Ebola and the black death. All scientist and doctors are traitors because they go against the law of Nature. Don't you think? Or is that a different kind of Law for nature?

LeBrok
25-04-15, 21:24
You are right to some degree :) nevertheless my position is in accordance with the law of nature and evolution, unlike the utopia you and some others try to promote
Exactly what it is. In a free country, where dictator Kardu doesn't "facilitate" his racial purity vision, people of all races live, work, mix and intermarry by their own free will. Scientific research statistics provided upthreader. It is in accordance with evolution, because they have offspring it let's evolution to work who will survive who will not. This is also in accordance with the law of nature. People fall in love, people have sex, people have families, life goes on.

Perhaps you can enlighten us which law of nature is broken in interracial families? We are all the same specie, right?

Even your example of, mixing by rape in ancient times, is in accordance with nature. Many species in nature have sex by rape, including lions, some dolphins and some primates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion

Not only you couldn't deliver even one example to support you thinking, you don't have nature and evolution behind your racial protectionism either. Kardu stop digging. We can barely see top of your head now.

LeBrok
25-04-15, 21:34
law of nature says you should have a baby every time (heteros) have sex. It also states that if your arteries are clogged with fat and cholesterol you should have a heart attack and die. Law of nature states that we should all die when we have an appendix attack. It also states we should die in masses when there are virus outbreaks such as Ebola and the black death. All scientist and doctors are traitors because they go against the law of Nature. Don't you think? Or is that a different kind of Law for nature?

Good point. What we represent today as a civilization is often achieved by standing up to nature, changing nature, improving nature. Not mentioning made up concept like justice, education, economy, technology, etc.

Maleth
25-04-15, 21:41
Take this delcious lovely Georgian recipie Kardu. Do you know it?

http://georgianrecipes.net/2015/03/25/lobio-with-marinated-peppers/

Bell peppers originate in Mexico
Tomatoes originated in Mexico
Kidney beans originate in Peru
Garlic is south west asia

Does it mean that Georgians are traitors for eating it? What is culture how did it happen? Is there no influence from any other regions say in architecture, folk dance, music and so on? Do you really believe that Georgian culture never changed in the last 1000 years? Do you think that now it has reached some kind of peak for it to be photo shot and freeze in time? Do you think that people have hate for most particular customs and traditions (unless they involve animal or human suffering). One of the highlights of most people when travelling is they want to experience and explore local cultures. Its one of the highlights of any tourism strategy. Why are historic centres so well cared for and respected? but it dosent stop the rest of the country/ies living to 2015 standards with all the comforts it provides

LeBrok
25-04-15, 21:50
oops...you never came across to me that you ever had an agenda of any sort except bringing facts and decent arguments to express your opinion to what you believe in. I have no problem with people bringing up solid arguments with facts reason and logic and always can learn a thing or two. I had very strong opinions on many subjects in my much earlier days (and many do at that particular point in their life) but experience through time can soften and sometimes change your view on the world as a whole.
At least I'm understood by some people. :)


I had very strong opinions on many subjects in my much earlier days (and many do at that particular point in their life) but experience through time can soften and sometimes change your view on the world as a whole Seems that the more I know the more understanding and tolerant I become, or maybe it is just getting older natural process. Except for intolerant people. This is were I draw the line.
Since my youth I changed my view on many things. Most of my views from the past, had roots in schools, parents and peers. Since than I had time to rethink many concepts. Whatever was only taught on faith and customs, and didn't find confirmation in reality and science, was dropped.

Maleth
25-04-15, 21:59
Good point. What we represent today as a civilization is often achieved by standing up to nature, changing nature, improving nature. Not mentioning made up concept like justice, education, economy, technology, etc.

And how recent human 'success' (as we are not careful we can also eradicate ourselves too). Past migrations according to excavations and remains have always encountered great many difficulties bottle necks and near extinction scenarios. Its only in last few hundreds of years that humans have got some real grip and can 'support' some real population rise.

LeBrok
25-04-15, 22:00
Take this delcious lovely Georgian recipie Kardu. Do you know it?

http://georgianrecipes.net/2015/03/25/lobio-with-marinated-peppers/

Bell peppers originate in Mexico
Tomatoes originated in Mexico
Kidney beans originate in Peru
Garlic is south west asia

Does it mean that Georgians are traitors for eating it? What is culture how did it happen? Is there no influence from any other regions say in architecture, folk dance, music and so on? Do you really believe that Georgian culture never changed in the last 1000 years? Do you think that now it has reached some kind of peak for it to be photo shot and freeze in time? Do you think that people have hate for most particular customs and traditions (unless they involve animal or human suffering). One of the highlights of most people when travelling is they want to experience and explore local cultures. Its one of the highlights of any tourism strategy. Why are historic centres so well cared for and respected? but it dosent stop the rest of the country/ies living to 2015 standards with all the comforts it provides
Another excellent point. I wonder if Kardu walk in Barcelona around in traditional Georgian clothing? Or even when he goes back in Gearogia, he makes butter the traditional way whipping the cream, or he travels in traditional Georgian way of 19th century on horseback or donkey, if he plows the field or makes pottery, or digs water-well with a shovel, the way his ancestors did? Is he listening to traditional songs or modern music? I'm sure he watches TV and uses cellphone and many other things their traditional ancestors never did.
I have a feeling that from all the Georgian culture, that he is so proud of, what he wants to preserve is language and white skin.

LeBrok
25-04-15, 22:12
And how recent human 'success' (as we are not careful we can also eradicate ourselves too). Past migrations according to excavations and remains have always encountered great many difficulties bottle necks and near extinction scenarios. Its only in last few hundreds of years that humans have got some real grip and can 'support' some real population rise.
Yep, by trial and error mostly. But nobody can deny that we didn't try. :)

I think that around 17th century we crossed some sort of threshold. It was a first time in our history that in spite of little ice age population in Europe was growing, and civilization getting more robust, education becoming common, and technology constantly progressing. Though actually we should have collapsed in another dark age instead, as it happened in Europe so many times. Most likely colonialism and sea transportation helped a lot too.
Right now we should be in even better position to withstand many big disasters. Either next Ice Age or Global Warming or Ebola pandemic. The last one is a great example how organized and technicaly advanced we got and stopped this terrible disease rather quickly. Contrary to Hollywood alarmist prediction in disaster movie Outbreak.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114069/

Templar
25-04-15, 22:56
What makes you think so? Do you really think we have reached some sort of dead end in evolution? excluding genetic engineering our genes are already working on new realities the human species has not encountered before such as obesity and lack of exercise due to the use of so much machinery visa vi manual work which was the norm even up to a few decades ago. Our systems are going to see a new form of resistance to disease brought by a new way of life not know before. Our body shapes will change too. Just how we genetically became programmed to tolerate Lactose similar how to how bacteria becomes resistant (continuously) to pencilin. We work on the same principals of survival. But genetic engineering can (probably) give instant results

The difference about modern times and the rest of human history, is the extremely low death rate of modern humans. There is no space for natural selection to select "fit" individuals because almost everyone makes it to the age to breed and raise children.

LeBrok
26-04-15, 02:21
The difference about modern times and the rest of human history, is the extremely low death rate of modern humans. There is no space for natural selection to select "fit" individuals because almost everyone makes it to the age to breed and raise children.
That's true, but there is also a function of fertility. Healthy with more kids will transfer more of their genetic material to future generations than healthy with few kids. The way farmers out-bred hunter gatherers.
We have interesting times now, and even more in the future, where kids are made only by choice, due to ubiquity of birth control methods. Even in poor Bangladesh fertility rate is plummeting now.
There might be the case that kids loving family will always have more kids by choice, than ordinary people do. If kids loving and wanting is a genetic trait, this trait will be given to new generation, and the world might be full of big family loving people. If it happens we'll see fertility rate rising again and world will get more crowded than now. Natural selection still lives, though in changed ways.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. lol

Kardu
26-04-15, 12:30
What a defeatist attitude...don`t you think we are all of us, morally obliged to seek that we ourselves and others should have freedom of speech and freedom of expression etc. without fear of persecution or harm? Or would wishing for such be an abuse to your rights...if they were real and not made up?

What moral?

Kardu
26-04-15, 12:36
law of nature says you should have a baby every time (heteros) have sex. It also states that if your arteries are clogged with fat and cholesterol you should have a heart attack and die. Law of nature states that we should all die when we have an appendix attack. It also states we should die in masses when there are virus outbreaks such as Ebola and the black death. All scientist and doctors are traitors because they go against the law of Nature. Don't you think? Or is that a different kind of Law for nature?

Where does law of nature say that? :) As long as it serves the group survival, it's all good

Kardu
26-04-15, 12:39
Take this delcious lovely Georgian recipie Kardu. Do you know it?

http://georgianrecipes.net/2015/03/25/lobio-with-marinated-peppers/

Bell peppers originate in Mexico
Tomatoes originated in Mexico
Kidney beans originate in Peru
Garlic is south west asia

Does it mean that Georgians are traitors for eating it? What is culture how did it happen? Is there no influence from any other regions say in architecture, folk dance, music and so on? Do you really believe that Georgian culture never changed in the last 1000 years? Do you think that now it has reached some kind of peak for it to be photo shot and freeze in time? Do you think that people have hate for most particular customs and traditions (unless they involve animal or human suffering). One of the highlights of most people when travelling is they want to experience and explore local cultures. Its one of the highlights of any tourism strategy. Why are historic centres so well cared for and respected? but it dosent stop the rest of the country/ies living to 2015 standards with all the comforts it provides

What exploring other cultures has to do with the topic of this thread?

Kardu
26-04-15, 12:45
Another excellent point. I wonder if Kardu walk in Barcelona around in traditional Georgian clothing? Or even when he goes back in Gearogia, he makes butter the traditional way whipping the cream, or he travels in traditional Georgian way of 19th century on horseback or donkey, if he plows the field or makes pottery, or digs water-well with a shovel, the way his ancestors did? Is he listening to traditional songs or modern music? I'm sure he watches TV and uses cellphone and many other things their traditional ancestors never did.
I have a feeling that from all the Georgian culture, that he is so proud of, what he wants to preserve is language and white skin.

This is simply silly. One can embrace technological progress and keep the milennial identity.

'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire'

hope
26-04-15, 13:29
What moral?
Then I may just as easily ask you in return to which moral you refer when you said we are not morally obliged to submit to the freedoms I was speaking of.
For now, lets go with the idea of moral in context of right and wrong, good and bad.
You asked what liberals knew about being a man. I answered [and had a rebuff from you for doing so] that liberal thought was of freedom for the individual, freedom of choice, speech etc....are these good or bad? To me these are good things and I believe many would also feel these to be good. If you were forbidden these things, would you think this right or wrong?
Many a man has taken these things to be right and spoken up, often in the face of danger, to have such rights..so to ask what they would know about being a man is not so good a question, in my opinion.
Also to the point I made regarding us all being one race..you knew exactly what I meant, I believe, even though my wording was in error. However you chose to run with that, which is a pity because it was a genuine question. I was asking why you believe [ even though we are all human and capable of interbreeding] one race is impossible...but no matter, I am not so interested now.

Kardu
26-04-15, 13:50
Then I may just as easily ask you in return to which moral you refer when you said we are not morally obliged to submit to the freedoms I was speaking of.
For now, lets go with the idea of moral in context of right and wrong, good and bad.
You asked what liberals knew about being a man. I answered [and had a rebuff from you for doing so] that liberal thought was of freedom for the individual, freedom of choice, speech etc....are these good or bad? To me these are good things and I believe many would also feel these to be good. If you were forbidden these things, would you think this right or wrong?
Many a man has taken these things to be right and spoken up, often in the face of danger, to have such rights..so to ask what they would know about being a man is not so good a question, in my opinion.
Also to the point I made regarding us all being one race..you knew exactly what I meant, I believe, even though my wording was in error. However you chose to run with that, which is a pity because it was a genuine question. I was asking why you believe [ even though we are all human and capable of interbreeding] one race is impossible...but no matter, I am not so interested now.

Because I had an impression that you refer to some kind of universal moral, obligatory to everyone.

I've never said that one race is impossible.

In nature various subspecies of animals almost never occupy the same territory (and when they do one of them usually loses out and is vanquished.) What do you and other adepts of enlightened totalitarianism can say about it?

hope
26-04-15, 16:39
In nature various subspecies of animals almost never occupy the same territory (and when they do one of them usually loses out and is vanquished.) What do you and other adepts of enlightened totalitarianism can say about it?
I say, let us not look to animals to see how we, as humans, should behave.
I see my ideas are now totalitarian rather than utopian, Kardu.
If we read the same meaning of the word totalitarian, then I do not class myself as such.
You do not answer if you think freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and choice etc were good?



I've never said that one race is impossible.
My mistake, sorry.
However you did say a mixed population wont happen not in 1000 or 100000 years. Why do you think so?

Kardu
26-04-15, 18:14
I say, let us not look to animals to see how we, as humans, should behave.
I see my ideas are now totalitarian rather than utopian, Kardu.
If we read the same meaning of the word totalitarian, then I do not class myself as such.
You do not answer if you think freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and choice etc were good?



My mistake, sorry.
However you did say a mixed population wont happen not in 1000 or 100000 years. Why do you think so?

Why not? are not we part of animal kingdom, do laws evolution not apply to us?

Utopia and totalitarianism do not exclude each other do they? E.g. Communism was (is) an utopian ideal which totalitarian soviet regime tried to implement.

As I've said freedom of xyz is arbitrary and relative concept, just like good and bad. They belong to the system of values which you adhere to. To me on the other hand crucial values are duty, fidelity, sacrifice, overcoming yourself etc.

One mixed population on the earth won't happen because majority of the world's population doesn't show inclination towards it. And to judge the tendency by few megapolicies where liberal indoctrination is high, is foolish.
World's resources are getting scarcer, do you exclude continuous military conflicts over them in the near future? What perspective does it pose for the global melting pot?

LeBrok
26-04-15, 19:30
One mixed population on the earth won't happen because majority of the world's population doesn't show inclination towards it. And to judge the tendency by few megapolicies where liberal indoctrination is high, is foolish.
Totally wrong conclusion. You can only judge intermarriages by communities where races meet. Like mega-cities, and countries like Canada, US, Brazil, Russia or Mexico, and many others. You can't understand how it works from Japan example, where people of only one race live. On contrary to your observation, people mixed, mix, and will mix genetically in every racially rich place. This process is slower or faster but ever existing in every mixed population, and that's undeniable fact. Even the slowest mixing process will lead to fully mixed society, giving long enough time.

Your approach is like judging people appetite (feelings) towards industrialization and technology pointing to poor versus rich countries. You would conclude that people in Peru, Zambia or any other poor country, are poor because they hate technology and technological progress. Or people in modern Chinese cities got indoctrinated in technology by totalitarian regime of China, but people in poor rural China live beautiful simple life in old true culture and tradition.

Your method and conclusion are complete nonsense, they only point to your true feelings and agenda.



World's resources are getting scarcer, do you exclude continuous military conflicts over them in the near future? What perspective does it pose for the global melting pot? Your parochial fears are coming out again.
Here is how it really works. Technology creates ever more resources than we can consume. In neolithic we only used wood, stone, clay, water and copper. By iron age we started using iron, coal, cement (sand and processed lime), which gave us huge quantities of building material and metal. Fast forward to today, and now we use almost all earth's elements to build and construct. Technology is giving us many new sources of energy, some directly from sun rays. If we ever run out of coal or uranium, will have solar panels. If we run out of oil, we can grow new oil in the fields, or we switch to hydrogen. We can make our own sandstone blocks and glass out of ubiquitous sand. If we run out something on earth, with future technology, we can get it from the Moon or asteroids. Just few examples how technology saves humankind.

Kardu
26-04-15, 20:46
Totally wrong conclusion. You can only judge intermarriages by communities where races meet. Like mega-cities, and countries like Canada, US, Brazil, Russia or Mexico, and many others. You can't understand how it works from Japan example, where people of only one race live. On contrary to your observation, people mixed, mix, and will mix genetically in every racially rich place. This process is slower or faster but ever existing in every mixed population, and that's undeniable fact. Even the slowest mixing process will lead to fully mixed society, giving long enough time.

Your approach is like judging people appetite (feelings) towards industrialization and technology pointing to poor versus rich countries. You would conclude that people in Peru, Zambia or any other poor country, are poor because they hate technology and technological progress. Or people in modern Chinese cities got indoctrinated in technology by totalitarian regime of China, but people in poor rural China live beautiful simple life in old true culture and tradition.

Your method and conclusion are complete nonsense, they only point to your true feelings and agenda.


Your parochial fears are coming out again.
Here is how it really works. Technology creates ever more resources than we can consume. In neolithic we only used wood, stone, clay, water and copper. By iron age we started using iron, coal, cement (sand and processed lime), which gave us huge quantities of building material and metal. Fast forward to today, and now we use almost all earth's elements to build and construct. Technology is giving us many new sources of energy, some directly from sun rays. If we ever run out of coal or uranium, will have solar panels. If we run out of oil, we can grow new oil in the fields, or we switch to hydrogen. We can make our own sandstone blocks and glass out of ubiquitous sand. If we run out something on earth, with future technology, we can get it from the Moon or asteroids. Just few examples how technology saves humankind.

You intentionally misinterpret my words.

Technology will create drinking water as well? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

Kardu
26-04-15, 21:07
Free world we live in http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-in-britain/

Some of you might recognize yourselves...

LeBrok
26-04-15, 22:10
You intentionally misinterpret my words.

Technology will create drinking water as well? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war
Don't you know, it already does. It could be produced by desalination of ocean water by evaporation or reversed osmosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis

Actually your article is a good indication, how without technology people run out off important natural resource, which leads to misery and war. If you prefer, the natural way of things.

On other hand, technologically advanced countries can create green oasis even in the desert. The best example is California, where 40 million people live in a desert in good standard of living. They use, dams, man made lakes, irrigation, water pipelines, and desalination plants. Other great examples are Israel, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, of how to make fresh water in a desert.
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near

I hope, it eases your fear of the future of humankind.

LeBrok
26-04-15, 22:25
Free world we live in http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-in-britain/

Some of you might recognize yourselves...

Who said that Western World is without it's own issues. It is only expected. Wherever more than one person lives we can expect conflicts of goals, opinions or views. To have better understanding, than judging reality from anecdotal evidence, we can look at statistics.

Here is a global freedom atlas:
http://freedom.indiemaps.com/

Or stats from "Reporters Without Boarders":
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html
http://en.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/carte2012-2.jpg

Again, the Western World looks pretty good in this department.
Do you fear the future a little bit less now?

hope
26-04-15, 22:47
Free world we live in http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-in-britain/

Some of you might recognize yourselves...
I think this shows freedom of individual nicely..thankyou. Here we see people being entitled to physically look how they wish, or those who wish to practice a religion of their choice being able to do so and those who seek to ridicule or humiliate because of this are not encouraged to do so. We further can see, as you note, freedom of press and yes, freedom of speech exercised here via the press reporting their feelings on the matter.
Enough with your nonsense.

Kardu
27-04-15, 02:04
I think this shows freedom of individual nicely..thankyou. Here we see people being entitled to physically look how they wish, or those who wish to practice a religion of their choice being able to do so and those who seek to ridicule or humiliate because of this are not encouraged to do so. We further can see, as you note, freedom of press and yes, freedom of speech exercised here via the press reporting their feelings on the matter.
Enough with your nonsense.

So you did recognize yourself as a sjw I see :)

Maleth
27-04-15, 08:25
Where does law of nature say that? :) As long as it serves the group survival, it's all good

Thanks to human innovations and interventions with practices being taken up by people across the globe irrelevant to which 'race' has come up with the idea and practice initially.

Maleth
27-04-15, 08:28
What exploring other cultures has to do with the topic of this thread?

One intertwined with the other

Kardu
27-04-15, 10:54
Thanks to human innovations and interventions with practices being taken up by people across the globe irrelevant to which 'race' has come up with the idea and practice initially.

Sure, and again, as long as it serves group survival it's all good :)

Kardu
27-04-15, 10:56
One intertwined with the other

Ok, whatever. I started to know other cultures since the age of 3 fyi.

hope
27-04-15, 22:38
So you did recognize yourself as a sjw I see :)
No, but I did recognize freedom of individual being exercised...:)
You are very good at trying to tag labels..perhaps you do so in an attempt to make your own views appear more credible...
You are also something of a hypocrite, trying to pick holes in things which you have plainly said you would deny yourself and this generation and future generations...regardless if they wanted it. In fact if they wanted something which did not fit what you think is good for the group, then they would be "out". And what type of thing might that be...oh yes, things which threatened the group identity.... a little glimpse of an example to this might be viewed in post 359, perhaps.
I wonder if Georgia knows you have made yourself custodian of it`s rights or as you say "whims". Did they elect you, Kardu...or is it a role you play out for yourself, I wonder? Your views are nothing more than dictatorship in the guise of group protection. Take care it is not you the group decide to put out, dictators are not always appreciated.
By the way, save yourself from a one line reply...I attempted to open conversation and have had none from you..therefore I consider it closed and respond no more.

Kardu
27-04-15, 23:03
No, but I did recognize freedom of individual being exercised...:)
You are very good at trying to tag labels..perhaps you do so in an attempt to make your own views appear more credible...
You are also something of a hypocrite, trying to pick holes in things which you have plainly said you would deny yourself and this generation and future generations...regardless if they wanted it. In fact if they wanted something which did not fit what you think is good for the group, then they would be "out". And what type of thing might that be...oh yes, things which threatened the group identity.... a little glimpse of an example to this might be viewed in post 359, perhaps.
I wonder if Georgia knows you have made yourself custodian of it`s rights or as you say "whims". Did they elect you, Kardu...or is it a role you play out for yourself, I wonder? Your views are nothing more than dictatorship in the guise of group protection. Take care it is not you the group decide to put out, dictators are not always appreciated.
By the way, save yourself from a one line reply...I attempted to open conversation and have had none from you..therefore I consider it closed and respond no more.
The course of history is mostly directed by small activist groups. You as a leftist should know it more than others :) Dictatorship, extended state power and totalitarianism is also on your side of political spectrum. I personally despise masters and sheep alike.

Fire Haired14
28-04-15, 00:57
I think this shows freedom of individual nicely..thankyou. Here we see people being entitled to physically look how they wish, or those who wish to practice a religion of their choice being able to do so and those who seek to ridicule or humiliate because of this are not encouraged to do so. We further can see, as you note, freedom of press and yes, freedom of speech exercised here via the press reporting their feelings on the matter.
Enough with your nonsense.

I don't think the press should express an opinion. It's very easy for them to present the world in the way they want viewers to see it, which is scary. No one questions the way we give the news, which I think is wrong. We need to lessen the chances for biased to occur.

LeBrok
28-04-15, 06:16
I don't think the press should express an opinion. It's very easy for them to present the world in the way they want viewers to see it, I'm not sure what problem you see in it. You present and share your opinion on World Wide Net every day. Generally people listen to opinions which they agree with anyway. If they find something they don't agree they change the channel. It is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to change someone's view.


No one questions the way we give the news, which I think is wrong. We need to lessen the chances for biased to occur. They present it this way because most people like it this way. Having said that, personally I'm not happy with it.

hope
28-04-15, 14:21
I don't think the press should express an opinion. It's very easy for them to present the world in the way they want viewers to see it, which is scary. No one questions the way we give the news, which I think is wrong. We need to lessen the chances for biased to occur.
I think in general FH, the national news is reported in an impartial way and that all sides of any issue are covered and reported.
I do think we can question how the news is given. In the U.K. there are independent bodies set up that deal with complaints regarding such.
Freedom of the media is freedom of communication, something which I think is very important..consider, in some places there is censorship of press and there have been in other places, journalists who have been threatened and more sadly killed for trying to report on certain issues. I believe in a free press.. but I also believe that with this, comes responsibility.

There are some who argue that at certain times the press may have tried to sway opinion. However, I don`t think this is as effective to-day as perhaps it may have been in the past...we have multiple ways to get our news, multiple opinions, reports etc that we can access. It is much easier to-day to get information and with this we are more able to take all things into consideration, thereby making better informed decisions.

Kardu
23-06-15, 15:35
"The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute (http://ww2.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/global_sustainability_institute.html), does not account for society reacting to escalating crises by changing global behaviour and policies.However the model does show that our current way of life appears to be unsustainable and could have dramatic worldwide consequences."


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-foreign-officefunded-study-10336406.html

LeBrok
23-06-15, 16:04
"The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute (http://ww2.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/global_sustainability_institute.html), does not account for society reacting to escalating crises by changing global behaviour and policies.However the model does show that our current way of life appears to be unsustainable and could have dramatic worldwide consequences."


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-foreign-officefunded-study-10336406.html
This model sucks. How can you assume that production methods, technology, food prices or business involvement in food production will be unchanged. Garbage in garbage out.
If not new technologies, we would have run out of cheap oil and gas some time ago. But we didn't.
If not new technologies, there wouldn't be enough food for all people already. New fertilizers, better irrigation, stronger and faster growing strands of wheat, better pest control, harvesting equipment, etc, etc.
With new technologies, like building water desalination plants by Sahara desert, and irrigation system we can change all Sahara into food producing region. Few crops a year.



The FAO (http://www.fao.org/) found this year that over 5 per cent of the population in 79 developing countries would be undernourished. Aren't they already?

Vallicanus
23-06-15, 18:16
This model sucks. How can you assume that production methods, technology, food prices or business involvement in food production will be unchanged. Garbage in garbage out.
If not new technologies, we would have run out of cheap oil and gas some time ago. But we didn't.
If not new technologies, there wouldn't be enough food for all people already. New fertilizers, better irrigation, stronger and faster growing strands of wheat, better pest control, harvesting equipment, etc, etc.
With new technologies, like building water desalination plants by Sahara desert, and irrigation system we can change all Sahara into food producing region. Few crops a year.


Aren't they already?

Back in the real world, Subsaharan Africa will remain a sink of poverty till the problem of high population growth is tackled seriously.

Which organisation is going to supervise and organise the transformation of the Sahara?

Kardu
23-06-15, 18:42
New fertilizers, better irrigation, stronger and faster growing strands of wheat, better pest control, harvesting equipment, etc, etc.
With new technologies, like building water desalination plants by Sahara desert, and irrigation system we can change all Sahara into food producing region. Few crops a year.



Blessed are the believers

LeBrok
23-06-15, 18:44
Back in the real world, Subsaharan Africa will remain a sink of poverty till the problem of high population growth is tackled seriously.And it is also problem of slow economic growth. Look at Germany, they have same population numbers as Egypt, but nobody lives in poverty.


Which organisation is going to supervise and organise the transformation of the Sahara? I don't know, it didn't happen yet. It might be dealt like in oil case. Government sells/leases land to privet companies which grow food. This create need for fresh water, giving other companies incentive to build water desalination plants, and to sell water to agriculture businesses.
Some of this model already exists in California. California is mostly a desert, but it is number one in food production in US. All grown with irrigated water from rivers and lakes. If we switch water supply from river to desalinated sea water, we can introduce this model to Sahara or any desert place which doesn't have rivers and lakes.
http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/7/3/2652041-13412915288844154-QIA.png


http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/7/3/2652041-13412915498115826-QIA.png
http://seekingalpha.com/article/700111-energy-recovery-a-long-story

They coming in fast these days, and it is just the beginning. Expect totally green sahara in 100 years.

Angela
23-06-15, 19:23
This model sucks. How can you assume that production methods, technology, food prices or business involvement in food production will be unchanged. Garbage in garbage out.
If not new technologies, we would have run out of cheap oil and gas some time ago. But we didn't.
If not new technologies, there wouldn't be enough food for all people already. New fertilizers, better irrigation, stronger and faster growing strands of wheat, better pest control, harvesting equipment, etc, etc.
With new technologies, like building water desalination plants by Sahara desert, and irrigation system we can change all Sahara into food producing region. Few crops a year.




Someone has to pay for all this, however. Just as one example, the current technology for getting the saline out of ocean water isn't cost effective. That's what all those petro dollars should be going for, not mansions for fat princes, or high end cars for everybody in certain principalities.

Vallicanus
23-06-15, 20:13
And it is also problem of slow economic growth. Look at Germany, they have same population numbers as Egypt, but nobody lives in poverty.

I don't know, it didn't happen yet. It might be dealt like in oil case. Government sells/leases land to privet companies which grow food. This create need for fresh water, giving other companies incentive to build water desalination plants, and to sell water to agriculture businesses.
Some of this model already exists in California. California is mostly a desert, but it is number one in food production in US. All grown with irrigated water from rivers and lakes. If we switch water supply from river to desalinated sea water, we can introduce this model to Sahara or any desert place which doesn't have rivers and lakes.
http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/7/3/2652041-13412915288844154-QIA.png


http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/7/3/2652041-13412915498115826-QIA.png
http://seekingalpha.com/article/700111-energy-recovery-a-long-story

They coming in fast these days, and it is just the beginning. Expect totally green sahara in 100 years.

You are seriously comparing a stable US state like California with basket cases like Mali or Chad in the Sahara?

Who will rule your mythical "Green Sahara", the Chinese or Gulf Arabs?

LeBrok
24-06-15, 01:45
You are seriously comparing a stable US state like California with basket cases like Mali or Chad in the Sahara?

Who will rule your mythical "Green Sahara", the Chinese or Gulf Arabs?
Why not Chinese? They've already invested hundreds of billions in many enterprises in Africa. They can grow a lot of rice there for billions of hungry Asians and Egyptians.

Every new technology is fairly expensive, cars used to be only for rich, computers were owned only by governments, roads used to be muddy and made of compacted ground, etc. Desalination plants already exists, they only will get cheaper in the future with improved technology.

Vallicanus
24-06-15, 09:21
Why not Chinese? They've already invested hundreds of billions in many enterprises in Africa. They can grow a lot of rice there for billions of hungry Asians and Egyptians.

Every new technology is fairly expensive, cars used to be only for rich, computers were owned only by governments, roads used to be muddy and made of compacted ground, etc. Desalination plants already exists, they only will get cheaper in the future with improved technology.



My point is that the greening of the Sahara will be in non-African hands.

SS African poverty will continue because population growth is outstripping economic growth.

LeBrok
23-07-15, 04:06
My point is that the greening of the Sahara will be in non-African hands. So what, it will create jobs and food for locals anyway. I'm sure most soft-drinks (one example) in your country are in multinational corporations hands. It doesn't stop you to enjoy products or work for them and make money.


SS African poverty will continue because population growth is outstripping economic growth. Even SS poverty is not that bad it used to be decades ago. There is slow but steady progress.
And fertility rates are falling in many SS countries since 80s.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=population+growth+by+country&hl=en-CA&biw=1745&bih=868&site=webhp&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAGoVChMIvYb5_pPwxgIVhho-Ch1wxA0D&dpr=1.1#hl=en-CA&q=nigeria+fertility+rate&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgw0HjxKHfq6-gWlyepmWXnaylX5OfnJiSWZ-nn5xCZAuLslMTsyJL0pNBwpZpaUWlWTmZJZUxhcllqSuynKQ_D JpHsehicenTl5nUDr15rx1AAmq5i9ZAAAA

Vallicanus
23-07-15, 11:22
You are too optimistic.

Tomenable
24-08-15, 04:27
You are too optimistic.

He isn't too optimistic, IMO it's realistic what LeBrok says.

LeBrok
08-12-15, 04:55
Actually you made an excellent point about body and face features and sizes. This is if I understood you right.
Some parts of our bodies don't "average" well, and in mixed societies we can observe a plethora of different facial features. Small nose, big nose, big lips, long face, round head, etc, etc. Except for a skin colour, skin colour tends to average more often than not. In this case we might end up with brownish society of a variety of facial features.
My point stands that it all will resemble one race more than anything. People will be so mixed, even though sporting litany of various features, that all old race types stop existing never the less.

ludvighoel
19-12-15, 20:48
I think so!

ludvighoel
19-12-15, 20:49
How optimistic? With the migration we see globally -this have to be the future

Ike
19-12-15, 21:20
Hopefully not.

amenhotep
13-04-17, 18:57
it will not happen, when there will be symptoms of decline of some race there will be outcry and that race will do things to stay on float

LeBrok
15-04-17, 04:45
it will not happen, when there will be symptoms of decline of some race there will be outcry and that race will do things to stay on floatYou mean that interracial marriages will be forbidden?

stevenarmstrong
15-04-17, 09:52
I'm the first person in my family since the reformation to have conjugal relations with a Roman Catholic. Baby steps. ;)

Bergin
16-04-17, 15:13
It is a strange question: will we all mix into a single standard?
We started like that in the beginning of the human species, and later we got more variety to better survive into different environments.

It is true that a good amount of population is today fully urbanized in almost a single metropolitan environment - so there there is not much need for variety, and maybe it will mix to the full extension.
I still don't believe that that will be the future scenario: lactose intolerance is still around even millennia after the genes appeared. There is no reason to presuppose that such changes (as the tolerance to lactose) will never happen again.

My personal bet is that the next source for a major change (as lactose tolerance was), will be the large use of antibiotics we have today.

LeBrok
16-04-17, 17:18
It is a strange question: will we all mix into a single standard?
We started like that in the beginning of the human species, and later we got more variety to better survive into different environments.

It is true that a good amount of population is today fully urbanized in almost a single metropolitan environment - so there there is not much need for variety, and maybe it will mix to the full extension.
I still don't believe that that will be the future scenario: lactose intolerance is still around even millennia after the genes appeared. There is no reason to presuppose that such changes (as the tolerance to lactose) will never happen again.

My personal bet is that the next source for a major change (as lactose tolerance was), will be the large use of antibiotics we have today.I don't think there is a need for a single mixed "race". Unless, one can argue that when people are one race, the racism will stop, and it is a good thing for humankind.
Following the trend of interracial marriages being more popular, people traveling, migrating and mixing more and more, one can come to the conclusion that, given enough time, all people will eventually be of mixed race. Just from statistical point of view predicting the future.

Bergin
16-04-17, 19:06
I don't think there is a need for a single mixed "race". Unless, one can argue that when people are one race, the racism will stop, and it is a good thing for humankind.
Following the trend of interracial marriages being more popular, people traveling, migrating and mixing more and more, one can come to the conclusion that, given enough time, all people will eventually be of mixed race. Just from statistical point of view predicting the future.

Hi LeBrok,

In a 100% urban scenario, I agree with you completely. In big cities, from Europe and America, is already happening and it will increase. I think Asia and Africa are not following the same tendency. So I see it as a local effect and is logical to suppose that it will spread. But nature does like variety, so I don't know how natural it is.
Still,

LeBrok
16-04-17, 21:04
Hi LeBrok,

In a 100% urban scenario, I agree with you completely. In big cities, from Europe and America, is already happening and it will increase. I think Asia and Africa are not following the same tendency. So I see it as a local effect and is logical to suppose that it will spread. Yes, I think it will happen locally first.


But nature does like variety, so I don't know how natural it is.
Still,Right. However in the future, who will need natural selection when we have genetic manipulation, or even "designer" babies?

We have few more questions to answer about humankind future, here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/forums/243-Futurism

Blanco
18-04-17, 12:21
Yes, I think it will happen locally first.

Right. However in the future, who will need natural selection when we have genetic manipulation, or even "designer" babies?

We have few more questions to answer about humankind future, here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/forums/243-Futurism

In other words Brave New World.

Ailchu
21-09-17, 18:21
if there won't be any natural selection and natural borders in the future then it is only logical that humans will merge into one race. mixing is currently happening way too fast and there is no way that a new ethnicity could form.

LeBrok
21-09-17, 20:48
if there won't be any natural selection and natural borders in the future then it is only logical that humans will merge into one race. mixing is currently happening way too fast and there is no way that a new ethnicity could form.There still is natural selection, like kids loving people will always have more kids - others won't have any, but this is equal for all the races, so moot point.

Johane Derite
21-09-17, 20:58
if there won't be any natural selection and natural borders in the future then it is only logical that humans will merge into one race

Even with no borders there will never be a "single one race."

Even if a global state, something like the UN with absolute sovereignty, intentionally wanted to create "one single race" through eugenic programs they wouldn't be able to.

Think about dog breeds. You cannot create one single Dog Breed by intermixing them all. The order you breed all the breeds, the sex of the respective breeds, produce
different results.

It's a categorically flawed idea based on a very Aristotelian idea of general and particular that does not correlate to how an individual reproduces.

If ever there is one standardized mulatto race produced, it would then have to be sustained by military force otherwise asymmetrical
developments in clusters would begin straight away.

LeBrok
21-09-17, 21:17
If ever there is one standardized mulatto race produced, it would then have to be sustained by military force otherwise asymmetrical
developments in clusters would begin straight away.What?!!! If one is right the other must be wrong. Believe it or not, Albanians are a construct of at least 3 different races of the past, mesolithic and neolithic. I dare you to find one unmixed Albanian. Can't find? This is how it is going to be with the whole world in distant future.

Johane Derite
21-09-17, 21:44
What?!!! If one is right the other must be wrong. Believe it or not, Albanians are a construct of at least 3 different races of the past, mesolithic and neolithic. I dare you to find one unmixed Albanian. Can't find? This is how it is going to be with the whole world in distant future.

Firstly i don't think Albanians are "unmixed."
I don't even understand what this means empirically/biologically and I don't understand where you got the impression that I was saying that.


Also Mesolithic/neolithic and the other 3rd race you didn't mention weren't pure unmixed races anyway.

What I was saying was that its an empirically and biologically incoherent idea that you can just mix individuals from all of the worlds ethnicities to create a single race.
The concept is flawed. There are thousands of factors.

By this: "If ever there is one standardized mulatto race produced,"

I meant that even in the impossible scenario that some government literally populates the world with 1 male and 1 female clone a billion times over (so that everyone is the
same genetically, same race), it will nonetheless require military repression and banning of voluntary reproduction otherwise clusters would develop assymnetrically in different
regions thus one "race" or "ethnicity" not being possible. The point of this comment was to say that even if it was possible it would need eternal maintanence otherwise assymetrical
mutation events in different individuals would undermine the "one race" over time anyway.

Just now we have a thread about how "fathers pass on 4 times as much genetic mutation as mothers."
This means that if you wanted to create a "new race or ethnicity" lets say randomly Albanians + Japanese. If you had two sample populations to experiment with of 10,000
participants each (5,000 Alb men and women and 5,000 Jap men and women) you would produce in my opinion 2 very different ethnicities in the
Alb Men Jap Women group compared to the Jap Men Alb Women group.

My point is genes are chaotic and dynamic and there will never reach a point of stasis where suddenly we are one race.

Odysseus
22-09-17, 01:18
Firstly i don't think Albanians are "unmixed."
I don't even understand what this means empirically/biologically and I don't understand where you got the impression that I was saying that.


Also Mesolithic/neolithic and the other 3rd race you didn't mention weren't pure unmixed races anyway.

What I was saying was that its an empirically and biologically incoherent idea that you can just mix individuals from all of the worlds ethnicities to create a single race.
The concept is flawed. There are thousands of factors.

By this: "If ever there is one standardized mulatto race produced,"

I meant that even in the impossible scenario that some government literally populates the world with 1 male and 1 female clone a billion times over (so that everyone is the
same genetically, same race), it will nonetheless require military repression and banning of voluntary reproduction otherwise clusters would develop assymnetrically in different
regions thus one "race" or "ethnicity" not being possible. The point of this comment was to say that even if it was possible it would need eternal maintanence otherwise assymetrical
mutation events in different individuals would undermine the "one race" over time anyway.

Just now we have a thread about how "fathers pass on 4 times as much genetic mutation as mothers."
This means that if you wanted to create a "new race or ethnicity" lets say randomly Albanians + Japanese. If you had two sample populations to experiment with of 10,000
participants each (5,000 Alb men and women and 5,000 Jap men and women) you would produce in my opinion 2 very different ethnicities in the
Alb Men Jap Women group compared to the Jap Men Alb Women group.

My point is genes are chaotic and dynamic and there will never reach a point of stasis where suddenly we are one race.
Unless there is some catastrophic event which causes everyone to migrate to a single location .

I'm not trying to sound like an ass but if millions of European women migrated to Africa, natural selection would be in their favour , there are only 2 barriers between ethnic groups that keeps them from mixing and that is the language & cultural barrier.

During the 19 century Latin America made plans to reduce (ethnically cleanse) the African/negro population through​ inter-mixing, the politicians of Latin America advised the United States to do the same but instead the US freed their slaves.

From what I can remember the Latin American politicians saw their plans as being successful saying that the US will regret their actions or something like that.

LeBrok
22-09-17, 02:11
Firstly i don't think Albanians are "unmixed."
I don't even understand what this means empirically/biologically and I don't understand where you got the impression that I was saying that.


Also Mesolithic/neolithic and the other 3rd race you didn't mention weren't pure unmixed races anyway.


There you go. You can't recognize separate races Albanians are made of, and just after few thousand years. They are well mixed in then. This is what will happen to the whole world given few thousand years.

Jovialis
22-09-17, 02:34
Forget races ​(sub-species) we're already a mixed-species. A composite of hominids. Homo sapiens mixed with Neanderthal, and/or denosivan, and/or Homo Erectus, and probably few others depending on where the person is from.

But I think that even if the scenario happened where all sub-species of humanity mixed, evolution would once again separate them into something new. It will happen once we start to colonize other planets; adapting to new environments. One thing that would make us radically different would be adapting to different gravity, lengths of days/nights/seasons/years. What would these new environments do to the food we raise and consume? In the past that has shaped our physiology. How would plants and animals also raised in these alien planets affect our bodies? What kind of new pathogens would emerge, and how would our bodies adapt to that? I think it is fascinating to contemplate these different situations.

Johane Derite
22-09-17, 02:46
There you go. You can't recognize separate races Albanians are made of, and just after few thousand years. They are well mixed in then. This is what will happen to the whole world given few thousand years.


Except I recognise many different phenotypical tendencies or clusters in the albanian population. They are not one homogenous phenotype.
No terminology or serious research has been done in this regard but there are within the albanian population severy different "races"
that it is very easy to recognize. ( dinaric,med etc etc)

I never said albanians are one homogenous race. They are united by a shared history and language yet its very apparent that there exist all sorts of tendencies there.
The height difference between north and south alone is super apparent.

https://imgur.com/LlwSOwFhttps://i.imgur.com/LlwSOwF.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/8YFOX79.jpg

Why would it happen in a few thousand years? You think once (if we survive) we colonize other planets this wont lead to even more isolated ethnicities being created? Why has the internet produced a thousand new genres of music and niche interests rather than one blended mono genre. The blended mono genre is artificially produced through big labels and to survive it
has to update itself by parasitising the authenticity of the niches that form autonomously. So it will be with the multiplicity of difference when it comes to genes. Its way to chaotic to stabilize.
New ethnicities will be created, old ones will possibly even be conserved or even resurrected with genetically engineered embryos etc

I have read no actual argument as to how it would happen on a planetary scale. Without intentional engineering i am 100% skeptic

LeBrok
22-09-17, 03:45
Except I recognise many different phenotypical tendencies or clusters in the albanian population. They are not one homogenous phenotype.
No terminology or serious research has been done in this regard but there are within the albanian population severy different "races"
that it is very easy to recognize. ( dinaric,med etc etc)phenotypes can persist after mixing, no problem with that. Notice that there is mixture of variety of phenotypes through Albania, but you don't have three distinct groups you can recognize, EEF, WHG and EHG.


I never said albanians are one homogenous race. They are united by a shared history and language yet its very apparent that there exist all sorts of tendencies there.
The height difference between north and south alone is super apparent. Yes, I can see genetic differences between Gheg and Tosk. It might have happen when part of Albanians got mixed with some newcomers, or other group close by got Albanised. Regardless, both are mixed of 3 ancestral main groups (plus extras) just in a bit different proportions. Same race anyway. Some differences could have also arisen in bottlenecking and separation in mountains.

Point is that world is now better connected, people travel around the world, mingle extensively, and it is just the beginning of connected global village. There is no secluded place on earth anymore for people to evolve into a different yet race. Well, unless we keep Amazon Tribes in strikt reserves forever, and some religious sects choose to do so too.



https://imgur.com/LlwSOwF

Dibran
22-09-17, 19:59
More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

Please post pictures of how you think well mixed individual of the world will look like.


I think its possible. Ever wonder what the end result would be in the future? Assuming we become one big race, couldn't it possibly hit a stalemate?

What I mean is, the less genetically diverse a people the more likely they are susceptible to dying out.

Wouldn't it eventually come to a point that theres relatively no diversification of genes, making us weaker evolutionarily speaking? That is assuming we become one culture as well.

LeBrok
23-09-17, 05:31
I think its possible. Ever wonder what the end result would be in the future? Assuming we become one big race, couldn't it possibly hit a stalemate?

What I mean is, the less genetically diverse a people the more likely they are susceptible to dying out.

Wouldn't it eventually come to a point that theres relatively no diversification of genes, making us weaker evolutionarily speaking? That is assuming we become one culture as well.Actually, all the genes of today's people (or almost all) will continue live throughout humankind, but mixed and scrambled in many of future people. For example, even though there is only 2% of Neandertal genes in each of us, there are not exactly the same in each of us. When we collect them from all people we can get about 50% of Neanderthal genome. So there will be one race, but very diverse phenotypicaly race.
On other hand, perhaps before people mix into one race, we'll get into designer babies stage of evolution, and kids will look how parents desire. Then every generation might have a distinct look, like clothes in fashion. Though I'm sure under strict government regulations to keep wacky ideas in check. So no matter what phenotypes will be chosen by parents, all will be beautiful, healthy, strong, smart, creative, social, optimistic and maybe even kind. ;)

Ailchu
03-01-18, 21:03
Firstly i don't think Albanians are "unmixed."
I don't even understand what this means empirically/biologically and I don't understand where you got the impression that I was saying that.


Also Mesolithic/neolithic and the other 3rd race you didn't mention weren't pure unmixed races anyway.

What I was saying was that its an empirically and biologically incoherent idea that you can just mix individuals from all of the worlds ethnicities to create a single race.
The concept is flawed. There are thousands of factors.

By this: "If ever there is one standardized mulatto race produced,"

I meant that even in the impossible scenario that some government literally populates the world with 1 male and 1 female clone a billion times over (so that everyone is the
same genetically, same race), it will nonetheless require military repression and banning of voluntary reproduction otherwise clusters would develop assymnetrically in different
regions thus one "race" or "ethnicity" not being possible. The point of this comment was to say that even if it was possible it would need eternal maintanence otherwise assymetrical
mutation events in different individuals would undermine the "one race" over time anyway.

Just now we have a thread about how "fathers pass on 4 times as much genetic mutation as mothers."
This means that if you wanted to create a "new race or ethnicity" lets say randomly Albanians + Japanese. If you had two sample populations to experiment with of 10,000
participants each (5,000 Alb men and women and 5,000 Jap men and women) you would produce in my opinion 2 very different ethnicities in the
Alb Men Jap Women group compared to the Jap Men Alb Women group.

My point is genes are chaotic and dynamic and there will never reach a point of stasis where suddenly we are one race.

but simple mutations do not produce "race". its mutation, selection and drift that leads to seperation. selection is turned off and so is drift because of migration. the only thing that still happens is mutation. but this is completey irrelevant.
it would have to be a mutation that changes the phenotype. then this would have to be selected or it will just be there without any effect or significance. and modern migration would bring this new phenotype to a new region really quickly anyway.
sure there will always be little differences in the genome. but they will all be in complete disordered. and they happen too slow and migration and the lack of selection make it impossible that in a certain region you will accumulate mutations in certain loci that change the phenotype of a population in one part of the world while they are absent in other regions of the world.

Skrzymir
05-07-18, 14:30
Unless there is some catastrophic event which causes everyone to migrate to a single location .

I'm not trying to sound like an ass but if millions of European women migrated to Africa, natural selection would be in their favour , there are only 2 barriers between ethnic groups that keeps them from mixing and that is the language & cultural barrier.

During the 19 century Latin America made plans to reduce (ethnically cleanse) the African/negro population through​ inter-mixing, the politicians of Latin America advised the United States to do the same but instead the US freed their slaves.

From what I can remember the Latin American politicians saw their plans as being successful saying that the US will regret their actions or something like that.

What a blind way of reasoning. There is no "cultural barrier", there is a spiritual one. People build culture. And they do so while teaching their children the "correct" way to speak. The "better" language takes over very fast, already in the first generation. Culture is not essentially needed -- except for what is required to sustain an environment for the Spirit to grow. So when you have a culture that doesn't cultivate the Spirit, it doesn't matter whether everyone looks and speaks exactly the same -- they will not truly be One People, their ruined, sabotaged culture would act one in the act of separating people. This doesn't really matter, and they still could mix. If they did, they could adopted the right spiritual values, and in my humble opinion, those that I uphold to dictate that you should avoid mixing with other races whenever possible, unless "special" circumstances occur -- those circumstances depend utterly on what the Three Zoryas' will is.

Skrzymir
05-07-18, 14:33
I apologize for poor typography and/or sentencing (tautology). First post, and I thought edits surely would be possible on this forum. Alas, they're disabled (at least for me).

ToBeOrNotToBe
06-07-18, 03:48
If our breeding entropy is high enough to overcome genetic drift and whatever natural selection processes remain, then yes. If not, no.

Imo - people are working to make it happen, you do have to question the motives behind policies regarding immigration to the West over the past three decades in particular. And, to be honest, the idea is a noble one - all of humanity united, with no nations, races or classes. It would be a paradise.

I for one welcome the New World Order with open arms.

Ailchu
07-07-18, 19:54
"all of humanity united, with no nations, races or classes"
population differentiation probably won't excist anymore but i wouldn't be so sure about nations and classes. and while there will be no differences between populations, people still won't be equal. we already have these differences between population and also inside these groups. i feel like eugenics are on the rise again we just don't realize that yet. it already starts with pre natal diagnosis and it ends with designer babies. every honest scientist will tell you that this is going to happen as soon as its possible. and i actually have nothing to say against it. but anyway genetically humans will never be equal.

Adtaylor
14-07-18, 04:54
More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.
Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?
Please post pictures of how you think well mixed individual of the world will look like.
Does this site espouse this outcome of Europeans, or is the question posed for a spicey forum debate? If I registered with this site to learn of European heritage, traditions and genetics, did I come to the wrong site when its Mods and Admins are "Citizens of the World" living in Canada, USA and Brazil, not Europe? This site markets itself as a European travel and heritage site but spends a lot of time per forum posts on population genetics and banning members for being too nationalistic. Travel for leisure generally derives from desire for diversity of national customs, architecture, cuisine, etc., not for one-world, one-race homogeneity. Genetics can significantly influence a nation's sense or heritage, i.e. Cheddar Man controversy, so clarity of underlying mission or goal would be appreciated.

Salento
14-07-18, 05:54
Does this site espouse this outcome of Europeans, or is the question posed for a spicey forum debate? If I registered with this site to learn of European heritage, traditions and genetics, did I come to the wrong site when its Mods and Admins are "Citizens of the World" living in Canada, USA and Brazil, not Europe? This site markets itself as a European travel and heritage site but spends a lot of time per forum posts on population genetics and banning members for being too nationalistic. Travel for leisure generally derives from desire for diversity of national customs, architecture, cuisine, etc., not for one-world, one-race homogeneity. Genetics can significantly influence a nation's sense or heritage, i.e. Cheddar Man controversy, so clarity of underlying mission or goal would be appreciated.

There are an interesting variety of Topics and Threads.
Posters have opinions, just like you and I.
Mods come from everywhere, Europe too.
Have fun. :)

Expredel
14-07-18, 19:15
Does this site espouse this outcome of Europeans, or is the question posed for a spicey forum debate? If I registered with this site to learn of European heritage, traditions and genetics, did I come to the wrong site when its Mods and Admins are "Citizens of the World" living in Canada, USA and Brazil, not Europe? This site markets itself as a European travel and heritage site but spends a lot of time per forum posts on population genetics and banning members for being too nationalistic.
Every semi-successful forum gets infiltrated with varying degrees of success.

Tutkun Arnaut
14-07-18, 20:45
[QUOTE=LeBrok;402966]More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

Please post pictures of how you think well mixed individual of the world will look like.[/QUOT

I don't think humanity will ever voluntary mix!
But the future babies will be made in laboratory. I mean there will be genetic interference in future babies. What will that produce? who knows!

Gabriele Pashaj
14-07-18, 20:49
[QUOTE=LeBrok;402966]More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

Please post pictures of how you think well mixed individual of the world will look like.[/QUOT

I don't think humanity will ever voluntary mix!
But the future babies will be made in laboratory. I mean there will be genetic interference in future babies. What will that produce? who knows!

I think that’s a creepy idea to make babies out of a lab ....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Sile
14-07-18, 21:33
[QUOTE=Tutkun Arnaut;548974]
I think that’s a creepy idea to make babies out of a lab ....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

yes ...into east-asian ethnicity
with atheism as its faith
and fish, chicken and pork eating societies ..........other animals ( beef, lamb and others )will not have have land to survive

Gabriele Pashaj
14-07-18, 21:36
[QUOTE=Gabriele Pashaj;548975]

yes ...into east-asian ethnicity
with atheism as its faith
and fish, chicken and pork eating societies ..........other animals ( beef, lamb and others )will not have have land to survive

I need to build a time machine in order to get to the past ... our future is very bad ’ :( :(


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Ygorcs
25-07-18, 17:55
I think it's really unlikely, though some degree of homogeneization is bound to happen much like it also seems to have happened in the Neolithic era with the expansion of farmers and pastoralists.

Even if an ultra-globalized world happens, the particular mix of each region of the world will not be exactly the same, the ethnic/genetic makeup of the immigrants will not be evenly distributed (e.g. in western USA and Canada Asians are obviously going to be more numerous, on average, than Africans or Middle Easterners; in Western Europe it'll be the exact opposite). Besides, regions the labor market and living standards of which will not be attractive enough will probably remain more isolated. Besides, the "substrate" of each region will be very different and, absent any genocide or massive demographic catastrophe, will still be a relevant part of the genetic makeup of the populations in each region (i.e. probably European admixture will still be much more prevalent in Europe and North America than in Africa or East Asia).

I don't think we'll see the creation of one race, but quite probably more homogeneous population structures. Someone years ago said that the future of the world population is already visible in Brazil: a huge diverse of "old" phenotypes and genetic structures amidst an increasingly larger number of mixed people, themselves carrying a huge diversity of phenotypes according to the specific composition of their mixed ancestry (and even according to sheer "genetic lottery": there are people who are mostly African and still look pretty Caucasoid, and people who are mostly European and yet look pretty Negroid). I think, though, the American soprano Nicole Cabell is a good example of that "hyper-mixed" status, with European, African and Korean ancestry (and she also could easily pass as a Brazilian parda): https://www.eupedia.com/forum/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBxMSEhUTEhIVFRUXFRcWFhUVFRUVFRUSFRUWFhUVFR UYHSggGBolHRUWITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0O GxAQGi0fHyUrLS0rLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS 0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLf/AABEIAOEA4QMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAAABwEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAUHBgj/xABBEAABAwEEBwYDBgUEAQUAAAABAAIRAwQSITEFBkFRYXGRBx MigaGxMlLBQnLR4fDxFCMzYoKSsrPCJBVDc4Si/8QAGAEAAwEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwT/xAAhEQEBAAIDAQEAAwEBAAAAAAAAAQIRAyExQVESIjJxYf/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A01wRtRtEoELrc5DglMbCMNRXoQRboiYRO MwnXAQm3YJQ6VXGAhE8yQCkA 6dazGSjwEuAyTN3FP1iB5pESiCia1EVTaa1ps1k/q1Wz8o8Tv9IxWe6d7VKjiW2WldHz1ASeYaPqq89GttVr1msF57 g0b3EAdSqevrno9mdrozu7xs 6wTSWka9pderVXVMdpy4BuxRhZd GKW1TB6Ddr7YjEVpG8eLL7sqYdbbGYi0MBIBAcbpIORAdBK84s ptByjmnpvHGDsx/FE0P4vTTLayrHdva4b2kFOFi8zWatUpGaT30zsLXEY xXc6s9ptamQy2jvaZgd80Q9myXN 2OUHmjwri14JYUexWynWYKlJ7XtOTmmQVKaipIJRBspUJxoRsG wIzUiQAkuySTjCm9n4ca6M0isNqOriiOJARDppGE6QkEKtp0EI IIIBoiMEEuszam5SnZjJSXj1SolOvbgjwCMXRKYCWRsSGpwqEl O0cc0ipgjYNqL4CLXVDbznEBrRJJMAAZklZNrf2hVKpNKxy1mR qZOdswGwevJWPalrHB/hmnc58HM7GnhtWXVKhiAi3S8cfpq0VxelzrztpJnHijZ4spPIF dHqZqh/FO7ypNwcPiP4LUrBqrRpgAUx0WF5NVvOPcYvZ9H1HZMd0VlZdC PIv1BgAd8zswW0t0NTGTR0Ue16FY4RB8iUry1U42A22i5jjgVG ZW3rUtYdVQJInnmPNZ7pPRJZOEEZpzMrho1SfOA6FAOnyzH4qF TJaYOHt SlFt7L4gtsctsrHRama0VNH1gR4qDyO9p7p/9xnEeq32yV21GNewhzXAFpGRBxBXl k/eOY/Wxax2R6d8Jsj3fDLqU7G7WeWxP1GU tPaEifdGShUb6pIPOKbcYTjnYBMAJSHaUE4AE1BTlLinRAqFJh G/NHOxIEIJcIJ7GjdR EJq6jCBJQRVMwUqocc02QiCNDYORNCJGFRDfjiqvWLSgs1nqVT 9lpgbzsCtCs57XLfdpsp7yXHiGj8S1Hw5N1lGlLe573PeZc4lx x3pegbIa1UU9rj0G09FWkzLjs913HZdo XPqu 6Pc/RYZZWTbpxm7pqmr j20qbWtEAABXbGpmxUxCmsCwjemy1Ie1SYRPAVaLattFmDhBC4 bWPV4AOLRs9pWiPCgW2mCCl4bz5pKy3XHAqLQdu2LuNcNHAFxG Bn0wXC1mFpwzHrvW P6wy6p vTgz oVlq/pI2evTq/K4T904FQ7J/MZy/aElrsbv6/WS3n6zr0ro6qKjGuBkEAqdUGC4Xsu0qalmDCZNMlh5DFvoR0Xb kqMp2z8FthICMowEyFURtQciAQDrG4pLhilNKVUU/T G0aJBAM02yniBKbY6AinCUUQKohMuT5fITNwqp/6VEClpEJadIRyWM9rdcvtJaPsMaPNxJ/BbMXQsD1vtPe2irU YmOsN9AjXSsPXJVWbBkBJ57VrvZlYLtlpu YXv9RkekLJKzMDGZgdSAtm0XoZ1OmzuK7mua0CHeJhgR8OzyXP yT46eP8AXe2ZuClNauT0VpmoHd3WZcdscMWu5H6LpqVWQs/GqUKaJ9JQLfpAUmF5kgbBmSqajpi11j/LpCk356kkxwaqnabte1Wwq unKejajhLrQS/7ou9PzUKs6ow3arc8ntxaee5KxWNcVrxQjxb/ANQsy0k2SYzz81uWm7C2rSc1wzGHArENPWc03uadhw5K8MutI5 MfpvQ1YXjyx5/oKU zF1aRlAPRVOiibx5H9eq6FlTBjpzaW Zy9iujj7mqwy6dd2Y265anUtlQSPvMn6ErYGFYHoe09xbKFTYK jQeTjdd7reaGSrKM8jkJSIJSzqRIoSkRQAlKSQltCKcEjTt1BT tWkEBHe2InP2FI91ekjTj5wRMchXdgl9BJRhFTCMpkrtYLRcoV HZYRPA5nosK0zF528YdIkLZ9c6kWczkSJ5DEzwwWJaUqSXO3k pn6K54vFUNpyWNIkudHXAepWk6tWO21alW9XLG0gS1jRJeRMBu I3ZlcfqrYu9ttFuxvjP Iket1bFZdDscbxkO3jDJYZ5SZOjDG3FzmrOn3WkilUF6oGy5zW vAYZiHFwwOPnjuXfaEaSwg7CR0UUWKlTEhoJzmMZzlWeiWxTnf JWWWrWk3IYteC5vSOl7QGVH0GC7TaS57i1rRAyvO2 WG0hdg5kgztCrf/TnXSxr4aQQWkNc0tIggghPDU9LLdnTOLBr/AGou8dJz2hoc7uzTqgNJiS6nljsPpmu6sGlBXaCAcRMEIrJqnR pAim0MmL12fFGUyraz2QNyHnAlPKyjGaRK9DBYz2laOuvDgMwt ytDVnfaHZQ6nxlZzqrs3GSaFbDjPD3/IKWa/8ot2tcCOv5pdpsRouLTmM/cKtdUzHkfLJbzLUc9i6728xp4T5yvQurtbvLPTdMktbJ4wvOuj XzTHAkHkt11HtH/isk4NbGJ2A4emK2veO2Wbp4SkxZbSKjbzTI/BSAoqBIgEoowEgQWwnWkAITgm9iPT8LvoJMI0tDdQtqEIFG7Ja JBpR1DMJIS2ooAiEEuo2cU0Eodcl2m2gNskE4ucGtG0k5 krGra6brduZ88vSFonbJXjuGk4eJxHQA qzBryQ95zJPkMgEb NMZ06js0g2tx292el9v4LZ7OMFhmoto7u2NBwDwWDnF4f7VuFl qYLm5f9Ozi1cAtmwDarJgutA3KHZBfqfd9yrC1sOAG1Zi/hdMiElzVHLizPLen2VJV7GhpD3QluUO01UWqmKNbay4jXKoLon eul0hVWc9oNt GnPxYng3apx7qs9Y4uWttQ1C oftHDlOHoqGrgTK6KozBoiNpHWB5R6qmt9HHDn6/muvkx1I4cad0RXzbux h9FpmrtarbGU7LQqXKcNNoqN IBogsZxMNx2LLadgJg7MuuS1/sraG0g1sAhxB43t527FWG9aqc/1pOjLIylTbTYLrGiAPqScyVJCQ05JwKazGElyMonDakDk4JDij DoCbRIdpUoJMoJ6TtHARJQRBUCQlpJRhALLsISGtRoykGZ9sdh LhQdBuS5r3DG7kW9cfRZzadHBtO8HZODANhAAJPqF6F0lRD4Y4 AgmTO2MQOsdFiGspFOs iBF17j64dcEanta4X45ttZ1NzajT4mOvjm3HH9bVuOgNLNr0Kd Vpwe0HkdoPEHBYTbT4XdOv7Ls yHSw8dkqHe l/3b1g ZWPNG/Flq6ak4vBv0zjkRsI4qR3VWsR3l9gjDu33ZPMY Sp36RdRdccMMw7HLyyVrY9NAifCYMfEY4ELGYumY5WbixoWF2A c9xaPmIc48yAME/aKceJqiDTVOMfOCCotTWCkTDS5x3Brj7DBOxOspe4sH2gQq20V iTgpbWA4701UaJUVcqnteAJKyTStr/ibU532QbreTcXH9b1oev8ApPuaBa0 N/hHCcysvsIi87YBdH1PXBdHBh3thz5/Ei9eOW32CgmkDP64frzUlpwZ19T vJQ21YdwOPJdOd25sTlnaQ1w3HI8CII3LuuzW3RUfTmC4S0H5m wR uC42mROOEiOoyKsdWK5p2mm6cL2XORKUGU6ehabgReGRAI80oK s0ZX8IaDgMp3GCBKsqeKizTL0sCUsjBIGCNxSpwkpCMlBNNHCC CCAjBAIBHCoEwjCACdDEWglrZTjklpiU2XiC5xAABJJwAA2kqa cN2 nIEZjFYRr3axU0g9zcojndbErUtL6yOdSebMwubBAqu8LDEyWz i4cQFiVpDjVqOeZOOPmcvVF/GmE q61mWOO8hMaPrvpVG1KRh7SCDx3HgcjzU tZiWGOfSE3QIAxHVK47q9th0Vpnv6VKu0ThD27R8zeYIK6CkbN Uhzmgnbl6rNOzHSbXVqtHJpAqMHEeF//VarQ0NRdiQfIx7LnvV07eLl1j2iWk0Yu0qLS47SBGzGIxU2wWa BiB5AD2UqnYWM EQnYAStozz/AJGqhUWvVDQSdiTpHSLKYJJAAzWc6ya3mreZSm6B4nfQb1Mm7p G9Taj140r3tVxBm74Rz/U9VTDw0mt bE8hBKjVBfeB5n2Ui1nGNgEeWZ/Bd2E1HLld0V7BsbWv6 I/VRG4g7xj/iUunWO3c4jzwKYa7EunCII/thK0old9LRvAjHbzTlitN17TJz8/JQnACYJj8lGdUww2FTctVUnT0FqbpRtRgY53jEbvE3Y4cNhGyQ uwDclhnZzbTWIpl0VKeLHTjDhA8x6rZtEaRLxdeIeMDuOyQqyu 4ws1VjCSnHhNFTCoEIIpSkyBBEggGIRhCUYTAwEtgRORs2pU4a IMqr084RSY74X1PEPmDWlwB8w3orQuhVOsNPwNf8AI4O8p8Xoq kJWaxNiz1XO2U3RsA3ADgsTZ4nk7yPU/mtd7QbTdsjwNo67fwWPWSrBJP2fp yMvZGvH4crE3COJ6T yiOgtuu8OGDo9CpdR8tJHH1KiVqJJw3SUUzdgtL7PWbUpnxMII 3EbWngRIWvav8AaBZ6rQHVAx21jzBB4TgeYWOFhEfqFDrU/ZYZY7a45aekhrHSIwqNPIg yrdJa1CIpgk79iyHUCoW1Xt5GOoWoUbCHRguXLcunThZZtSV7P VtLpeTd3bOip9ZqDaLRTaMzJWk0bDAyWca0sLqzvvEDiAI9wtO H1PJdzTm7FTxLju9Ei1fv55 ymObDHbzgOmPuobiIlx2QBvP0zzXb5HIiVjA5gqK2scxmMvzTt pdLo5Jmytx5T1yCyt7UsGj XPlHPH8eqrqpIBVhQtLQCCcdkbSk0abCfGMDEeZx9gnZsb06Ls 1fdqAj4i9o/1Fogf6Stt0UySXdOeM/Tosi1FsrG1S6fhF4Dyz5/itd0Q7wAhayax0xz9XdGpIKVcUenKlEZKL0n005GEHINQQ0aF5 BIIzUoIISqBbQkOMJTnQmylDEEmtTDgQcjgUsBB SomV9o9pu0mUicb5afutgg YDeqzNrvC7iD6n813PazaAbUxvyUpdxJJj091wtJ2fl JU5X zfCf1SwIZ1S6tVt2GiTtJ2mMgNybrnwNb5nzxTlNsRvJ9IVz8K matLwyfIcYEnlioFanifvAdFavEmdk 37qvdjdG0uJ9QErDSNWKhbah/deHnmPYrZ9EV70cljmjKJ/iKRbmKrel7H0K15lnNOo3cVyc2Oq34r1p0WCzPWezkPc6MA9xP Jzg4HrIWiU3E4Kv01ocVMRnEZYEY4H9bVnhdVdY7pKrdIAyxI5 FVb34x0PFdRrVq5UpC81pIBM7YBXJtY4fZJHLLkV0/z2xuJLh1HqEiuYAP6neplGzl2LZI5EQlWnRzrhwVJRLE1jsz5K fWc2LvQ8VEsdEHAiHDbknazg3B4DvQ9U5dQfV3qvarlSDOIjPM HD8Fsmgbc1zLgOROHnPssCsdqDXAicCCFp gdMtqXSxwD8oO0cQFphdzTLkjTadomApl7Bc5YLeHZscHbonFW lltxebtwiMySMDuw2oyx7Z7WDQgQiyRhQBIII0AwgSlQgW4I2N GyUaBRqgACbrnBOqHbneGBmQfbNEDBNfLV3lttDgcLwaOTAB9C qGiMuKv8AtCpBlqIGAMbsYxB6ELn6BjHz/BZXrJ04/wCU17JI6dFIoMkt3XZ9Y/BJo0pph3GPY/X0Uig4Bp3gkdRl1C6MYio9jYCHjddPkcD9FT2p38wcCPeVbWV8 F/8Ac0DzBH5qltRN88Cs870cddq9Yg uycpaeZLhHstWtDgagj7IxPErMtUgTUvDPCOn5laLZKZ2rn5bv JthOlpZ6rRtU1pEZqDSszSMUo2YSGsBLjkJ6ngFEiqi6WptLTI B4b1yNTUOu837K0gHYZDeIDt3DFd5RYxp8LRVf87v6Y 637XM9FKe57vjcTw2DkMggmT1NT9I2c3xZzIM Ah/PDco7K1So 7VaWPyI7trHci0gStbNnneOWB6hQ9IaPNQeMNqjdVaH9H/ABN8irmUGqy62aBJxF6Tvb7QqXSGhKhBwJHCcOq1g6AY7Cm59F 2ym53eU3fce4SORPmqy2aDqtP9W7GYAAPnjgnbRNVjVWi4GDm3 DyUzRtZ4cLok7AJkq31k0SadcRiXA9VW2YhrmOAyMeYV4b9Z5O s0bra k0tqEtkYF7XPG4 IYjoclouo naVopkUy2WHGJ8U/bgwceO5ZdYKbbTWFSsP/Ha8XmXiPEcC88JiVrWruhrPZ5NGk1hO1ozGyVv3XPlqOmaZQTN Nyeas9aTRIJSCAQUJSEAlo9iegEoBGq2RKiVGyTyHRSnJp GKcDEe1yxhlppuH22knhBHRcWwYTvP7Bd72xPvWqlTGYZjzccB 6Lj9H2QueWv8DmSSHYTuABWeU3m3wv8AVLstW60tO0dCdvqmQ4 tDuOPlP7p8CTPEn2ATVXN3AAeq2oiHSfLxu/OSkUqV5z3HiR6wEq5BG/8AFE596pdbva3nisv qaJqPYf5d8jFx9Ni7mlSwCpNA2fu6TG7gF0NmErmt3W8modbQM JNXwNDB8dT4v7aU4N/yIk8AN6mPcGtJOQE9FH0XRL3Go7M48hsHTBCVhYrLAUruE7SYn Q1Gi2r30E0aatHNUeqxGj2q61EHMIovi474vsO3/2OPsVJeFFrt27VUorNO0yhdYyoMC10E8HD8YWf6NqDEOyz95W1 a8aPFos7iB8bSHRsqNg uB6rCalJ9KoWuwIJnParxy1U5Tbq9EVQwAjxXTDm/M12HSJWkaq6Zyoi8 7Nx2 nxJ2jLbksesVYggwbpMEjD1Xfan2wGpSYM2OJnfTcMQf/AMldGF2w5MdNVpnBSGpikE8FOVZSFoJCCnZ6EgERRhUQ4RSg5A BKHRFNVE7CQ4pwmL9rVieLW2piBAun5SIAPXFU1s0i2q3vHNit MPcMjgGtDRuAAPOVonaY6n3H8za8Bp2iAXGOkeayGq AB5n6It01wm4sqTgSIyAA888Uy74j59Ak6LJPiOQk/mmA 84xxk8Aj XS9HWUyTIEwPUkwE5qpo8utLZzm eEZepUyzubTo3jtLjPLAAevVWXZ5Zi57qp 06Byb crLOrxjRbFRgAK6stOFDszFY0lg1ordTmk/8AxHV4HtKn6Ppi6FW6WqXaTR8z7x 63AepPRTtF1cAqQtGtS7qJhSk0mnhMVFJc1MVQlVK so9RS6zVBqlKKMU6d4OpH7eLeD25dRI81jPaXo3uq7KoECoCD9 5uPWCei2NzoMjMGRzC5Hta0ffspqNHwltUcATDx5S5XE1mGjah eQ2d8RnO7irXRFqfZ7Q10ExhhncIOMbeSp9W6oFdhdiA7H6fRd xo6yCrbrLdYRH8x8/KwT7lbY bZZX41ux1w5ocDIcAQRkQRIKltKqdB2fu6QZ8rntH3Q9130hWj VdjnOoIkFIJSWlLhJCYAo5RhHCVEJITVQJ1M1nxiqgZl2rWZzq tlDnXaLnFrjGDXGMTsy3rizYaRc7O4C5wM492yQCea1jWm0irR ez HfUkR4hdbO SsVq0qrLwJusdUuEeeROcQpy922w8Od2RSgZvBP DfxIjyUKng0tBxODnbp2BXekvgqkNu3WNY0AzgGz1MyuZspJIA 3hTl0udul05RhtNgjJrGAZR9o8TxXbam2IMY0AYALmqFDvHCod ggdP3Xd6v0oYFlnWuMX9nCmsCj0GKbZIDrzsmgvPJon3hZnVdp 8S66PsADzH5l3RO6KrJqq0lpLs3EuPmm7CYKBp1VB2CfBUGyPU xpVRFKITFVqkJt4QFfWCrbSres1VlrYlFRXlRtO2YVrHVpnY1z f8ajSPceqfnNPWcSHM Zjh5gXh6hVBXnqwUCLtQZHbucMwtj1NsDGNFZpLn1A0lztgH2R wWP0Knd1KzD8PevEboeQCtS7NbWH0ywnFpkcQfz9104ac/JK0Gg3D164qSAmqaeCqsSpQRQiSBaQiQSBYRoIJUEhNvQQTCs0 p8B8vdYrpX t/9wewQQTy8Xgat2Vo 8f MrnNHfE3yQQWeXrXF3Ggf6TeS73Q3whBBc Td0FJPH lW 6P9wQQSIxaPoolL4kEEfDX1iVixBBOJpRSXIIJki1lXWpBBEOK gfEU/YP6jeZ9iggnPTvjA7T/AF6//wA1T/kcu87Lfj/xd7tQQXRxsOT/ADWrU08EEFVc5aCCCk3/2Q==
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/photo-of-nicole-cabell-posed-portrait-of-opera-singer-nicole-cabell-picture-id86102218?s=612x612
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/8aa5bd59286db2f30f3deb52034c9b29?width=1024

MOESAN
25-07-18, 23:02
IMO
global autosome genome will become more and more even at the collective level, but phenotypical features based on smallest numbers of genes will still produce variated individuals, maybe more variated than in today numerous pops. And even at global level of autosomes, I doubt every part of the world will show exactly the same means of mixtures, Ygorcs, I believe, said this too.
In answer to Lebrok, no what ever the new sources of energy, NOT ALL THE INDIVIDUALS will have the same MEANS and REASONS to travel only to mate. And ghettos of diverse pops will survive a long time; I fear a lot of people will travel ONE TIME to escape bad fate and poverty, after that they will stay sticked in new ghettos. I doubt human beings are going to help each other in as a general rule, helas. collective migrations have very often an egoistic individualistic motive; gregarius is not collective in fact. And progress is very badly shared as a whole and will be yet.
so, result? A groups of heterogenous populations echanging genes in an anarchic way at the mergins, not a NEW HUMAN TYPe; The only way to unify this monstruous heap of individuals would be big plagues selecting some kinds of genes, and it is not sure it would work at the phenotypical level. ATW the "white" aspect will loose imput.
just an opinion.

Fein
18-08-18, 09:30
Actually, all the genes of today's people (or almost all) will continue live throughout humankind, but mixed and scrambled in many of future people. For example, even though there is only 2% of Neandertal genes in each of us, there are not exactly the same in each of us. When we collect them from all people we can get about 50% of Neanderthal genome. So there will be one race, but very diverse phenotypicaly race.
On other hand, perhaps before people mix into one race, we'll get into designer babies stage of evolution, and kids will look how parents desire. Then every generation might have a distinct look, like clothes in fashion. Though I'm sure under strict government regulations to keep wacky ideas in check. So no matter what phenotypes will be chosen by parents, all will be beautiful, healthy, strong, smart, creative, social, optimistic and maybe even kind. ;)

Talking about designer babies. So a black couple can have a blonde and blue eyed child?
I do not think this might have a future. I think most of the people want their kids to have their genetics. To say and feel "THESE ARE MY CHILDREN". About the designer babies ... they are just strange babies which have nothing to do with their parents.
Am I right or I got something wrong?

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-09-18, 23:39
Talking about designer babies. So a black couple can have a blonde and blue eyed child?
I do not think this might have a future. I think most of the people want their kids to have their genetics. To say and feel "THESE ARE MY CHILDREN". About the designer babies ... they are just strange babies which have nothing to do with their parents.
Am I right or I got something wrong?

It's such a shame, because we could easily have a near-perfect society with designer babies, but our Western sensibilities shy away from anything to do with the dirty word "eugenics". I AT LEAST hope that eugenics is used positively to prevent suffering from genetic diseases and other genetic vulnerabilities, but I'm sceptical that anything more than genetic tests for these defects during pregnancy will become mainstream or even legal.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-09-18, 23:44
Mixed-man in the far future would, in all likelihood, look something like this:

http://humanphenotypes.net/Malagasid.html

Tomenable
03-09-18, 03:24
Nope, they will not create one race because even within racially mixed populations there is variation. Look at Latin America, they still divide themselves into racial groups based mostly on physical appearance, but it correlates to some extent with different admixture proportions.

Brancos/Pardos/Pretos/Amarelos etc. in Brazil, in other countries different names, Castizos/Mestizos/Zambos/Triracials/Quadracials etc. African-Americans tend to divide themselves into dark-skinned ones and lighter-skinned or depigmented ones, as Indians (South Asians) often do. In the USA and Canada white-passing Native Americans are treated differently, suspiciously, as less native than full-blooded ones.

Stabilized mixes - such as the Malagasy or Polynesians - do not become "race-free", but instead give rise to new races.

Another reason why mixing will not eliminate races, is because socially constructed races exist and will continue to exist independently of real genetic differences. In Bolivia you have racism against Quechua-speaking peasants by Spanish-speaking urban-dwelling Indio-Mestizos - who are only slightly less Amerindian in terms of admixture proportions than these Quechuas, but suffer from conquistador superiority complex.

The only condition under which all humans will likely start really identifying as one race, is if we encounter a hostile, intelligent alien species. In such case differences between human populations will pale in comarison to intra-species differences between us and these aliens.

Tomenable
03-09-18, 04:01
Everyone would have to be mixed with identical proportions of every admixture. Impossible with 8 billion people.

Epica
22-10-18, 11:32
More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

Only to western society. If you visit the mid-east, arabic, african, and/or east asia interracial marriages are not considered anywhere near as acceptable as they are in the west. In fact, in some areas, even marrying below your social status can get people killed.



Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

Regardless of western-sphere leftist propaganda - such leftists, unfortunately, have often never lived in different areas (visiting for a holiday doesn't count), have never truly experienced drastically different cultures from their own, nor bothered educating themselves on the ideology of other societies and thus remain clueless - portraying mixed relations in celebs, television, etc. a mixed "single race" will likely never happen.

Wanderer
23-10-18, 05:32
Nope, they will not create one race because even within racially mixed populations there is variation. Look at Latin America, they still divide themselves into racial groups based mostly on physical appearance, but it correlates to some extent with different admixture proportions.

Brancos/Pardos/Pretos/Amarelos etc. in Brazil, in other countries different names, Castizos/Mestizos/Zambos/Triracials/Quadracials etc. African-Americans tend to divide themselves into dark-skinned ones and lighter-skinned or depigmented ones, as Indians (South Asians) often do. In the USA and Canada white-passing Native Americans are treated differently, suspiciously, as less native than full-blooded ones.

Stabilized mixes - such as the Malagasy or Polynesians - do not become "race-free", but instead give rise to new races.

Another reason why mixing will not eliminate races, is because socially constructed races exist and will continue to exist independently of real genetic differences. In Bolivia you have racism against Quechua-speaking peasants by Spanish-speaking urban-dwelling Indio-Mestizos - who are only slightly less Amerindian in terms of admixture proportions than these Quechuas, but suffer from conquistador superiority complex.

The only condition under which all humans will likely start really identifying as one race, is if we encounter a hostile, intelligent alien species. In such case differences between human populations will pale in comarison to intra-species differences between us and these aliens.

Agreed.
Seems rational to me

firetown
25-10-18, 10:38
I have thought about these things in terms of gene preservation; in particular the preservation of the rh negative blood factor. Cavalli-Sforza has once famously stated that when a gene frequency goes below 50%, it is headed for extinction. There are parts of the world where the D negative gene frequency exceeds 50% such as Basque country, parts of Scotland and Ireland, even parts of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Chile (areas with high Basque ancestry) as well as the Sinai Peninsula just to name a few. The question now is how you define a population.
Around 6% of the world is rh negative.
http://rhesusnegative.net/themission/bloodtypefrequencies/
So if you view the world as one population, then that would mean rh negative blood would go extinct at one point (according to the C-S hypothesis).
If you allow certain groups to control their borders and keep their societies as is more or less, then we continue having isolated populations. If Basque country was to allow Millions of refugees to come in and integrate, then the rh negative blood factor would also become extinct among them.
What we forget in these types of scenarios, people have choices. Who we are attracted to and choose to have children with. It has been often stated, that couples tend to have a high frequency of similarities genetically, so maybe there is something to being drawn to something that feels familiar in others (despite the "opposites attract" theory).
I see the majority of the world population become more and more similar. But I also believe that certain groups like the Basques will likely continue exercising an isolation mindset, at least to some extent. Even smaller groups like the Walsers in Switzerland also continue to sport high rh negative frequencies due to a similar way of life. As do the Bedouins in Sinai.
On a global scale, rh negative frequencies are bound to go way down with an overall decrease in numbers in many high-rh-negative populations and most of the populations bound to explode having low frequencies.
Several studies have indicated higher sex drive in rh negative women (as in women with red hair), so these types of tendencies could also be significant in terms of gene preservation. So overall, I do not see the entire world becoming one population. Possibly for the most part number wise with the exception of regional isolations of certain populations.
Cavalli-Sforza's theory has holes in it. Aside from the Udmurts (where data doesn't appear to be consistent), Scotland seems to have the highest red hair gene frequency with around 0.4 which would make it bound for extinction. It would be interesting to know what the frequencies had been around 1,000 years ago and if this has changed. The Mathieson studies may indicate a drop in rh negative frequencies, but that data is also quite questionable.
Jews are not extinct and will probably preserve their identity. As will likely most Berber tribes. So just looking at numbers and disregarding choices and genetic predispositions such as sex drive and dating culture isn't wise. It may wind up applying to something like 80% of the world population over time (the question is how much time). But as people will become more and more the same, it will probably become something unique to be of a certain ancestral tribe willing to protect their culture. And with that we will likely see a continuum if not an intensification as a reaction to how the world will change in terms of rejecting what some will consider an intrusion into their history, heritage and culture.

LeBrok
27-10-18, 20:40
Talking about designer babies. So a black couple can have a blonde and blue eyed child?
I do not think this might have a future. I think most of the people want their kids to have their genetics. To say and feel "THESE ARE MY CHILDREN". About the designer babies ... they are just strange babies which have nothing to do with their parents.
Am I right or I got something wrong?
I believe parents will use most of their DNA with some modifications, to make a baby. All heritable diseases will be deleted from designer baby DNA. Some improvements will be added to insure kids will have good memory, logical thinking, good physical abilities, longevity, optimistic personality, superior health and beauty. Things most people dream of now, everybody will have in the future.

LeBrok
27-10-18, 21:02
[/COLOR]Only to western society. If you visit the mid-east, arabic, african, and/or east asia interracial marriages are not considered anywhere near as acceptable as they are in the west. In fact, in some areas, even marrying below your social status can get people killed. It was exactly the same in Europe before 20th and 21st century. Europe could change, so can the whole world. Just a matter of time.




Regardless of western-sphere leftist propaganda - such leftists, unfortunately, have often never lived in different areas (visiting for a holiday doesn't count), have never truly experienced drastically different cultures from their own, nor bothered educating themselves on the ideology of other societies and thus remain clueless - portraying mixed relations in celebs, television, etc. a mixed "single race" will likely never happen. [/COLOR] Ah, here you are. The scared of the world, other cultures and other races conservative. Understandable why you don't want this to happen.
Look into the history of GB and you will discover that GB is already a mix of ancient culture and races. Pagan Celts and Vikings, christian Anglo-Saxons, the Normans and Romans, and culture of ancient Greek in a mix. When we go back even farther, we find every europane to be a mixture of Middle Eastern Farmer, European Hunter Gatherer, and Steppe Invaders. Don't forget that all of us have some Neanderthals in us too. We are all mixed of ancient different cultural and genetic groups. What I'm writing about here is nothing unusual for humankind.
If it happened many times in the past when societies where stricter about mixing, surly it will happen in the future when people have more and more personal freedoms. Give it 1000 years, give it 10k. Blink of an eye in history of Homo Sapiens.

LeBrok
27-10-18, 21:33
I have thought about these things in terms of gene preservation; in particular the preservation of the rh negative blood factor. Cavalli-Sforza has once famously stated that when a gene frequency goes below 50%, it is headed for extinction. There are parts of the world where the D negative gene frequency exceeds 50% such as Basque country, parts of Scotland and Ireland, even parts of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Chile (areas with high Basque ancestry) as well as the Sinai Peninsula just to name a few. The question now is how you define a population.
Around 6% of the world is rh negative. Easily fixable in "designer babies".

http://rhesusnegative.net/themission/bloodtypefrequencies/
So if you view the world as one population, then that would mean rh negative blood would go extinct at one point (according to the C-S hypothesis).
If you allow certain groups to control their borders and keep their societies as is more or less, then we continue having isolated populations. If Basque country was to allow Millions of refugees to come in and integrate, then the rh negative blood factor would also become extinct among them.
What we forget in these types of scenarios, people have choices. Who we are attracted to and choose to have children with. It has been often stated, that couples tend to have a high frequency of similarities genetically, so maybe there is something to being drawn to something that feels familiar in others (despite the "opposites attract" theory).
I see the majority of the world population become more and more similar. But I also believe that certain groups like the Basques will likely continue exercising an isolation mindset, at least to some extent. Even smaller groups like the Walsers in Switzerland also continue to sport high rh negative frequencies due to a similar way of life. As do the Bedouins in Sinai.
On a global scale, rh negative frequencies are bound to go way down with an overall decrease in numbers in many high-rh-negative populations and most of the populations bound to explode having low frequencies.
Several studies have indicated higher sex drive in rh negative women (as in women with red hair), so these types of tendencies could also be significant in terms of gene preservation. So overall, I do not see the entire world becoming one population. Possibly for the most part number wise with the exception of regional isolations of certain populations.
Cavalli-Sforza's theory has holes in it. Aside from the Udmurts (where data doesn't appear to be consistent), Scotland seems to have the highest red hair gene frequency with around 0.4 which would make it bound for extinction. It would be interesting to know what the frequencies had been around 1,000 years ago and if this has changed. The Mathieson studies may indicate a drop in rh negative frequencies, but that data is also quite questionable. Don't you forget that Basques and others are already a mixture of groups of different genetics and cultures. Are you saying that Basque parents are so controlling that they won't their kids to marry non-basque? Even if only 1 percent a decade is new blood, in 1000 years you will have totally in-mixed population.


Jews are not extinct and will probably preserve their identity. What an excellent example of mixing. Do you know that Ashkenazi are more European than Middle Eastern in genetics? Yes, because of mixing!
They are 55 percent South European, 30 percent Middle Eastern, 15 East European and 10 West European. Wow!

Guys open your eyes and start looking beyond your agenda and feelings. Take clues from the past and look at present trends and examples. Go where evidence leads you, and don't cherry pick just to feel good. In many case it is way different how the world is than how you want it to be.

To be well understood, I don't care if there is one race or many in the future. But judging by our past, seeing today's trends, examples and changes, this is where the world is heading.

LABERIA
27-10-18, 22:10
I believe parents will use most of their DNA with some modifications, to make a baby. All heritable diseases will be deleted from designer baby DNA. Some improvements will be added to insure kids will have good memory, logical thinking, good physical abilities, longevity, optimistic personality, superior health and beauty. Things most people dream of now, everybody will have in the future.
Ok, but there is also the other side of the coin:
Stephen Hawking feared genetic engineering would create ‘superhumans’ (https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/14/stephen-hawking-feared-genetic-engineering-would-create-superhumans-8036193/)

Angela
27-10-18, 22:21
There's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Of course all parents would opt to remove genes for diseases if they could afford it. What if your family carries Huntington's, or genes for breast cancer, or propensity for autism, or schizophrenia? It's starting to happen already with the "simpler"disorders. Likewise, if you ask couples if they would like their children to be more "beautiful", whatever that means to them, more intelligent, more athletic, of course they're going to say yes.

People want their children to be happy. They think that healthy (physically and mentally), beautiful, athletic, intelligent people have an easier time in life. This is a no brainer.

The most important thing, it seems to me, is to make sure all parents have access. What kind of world such "super-people" create I don't know, but no one's going to stop it. The rich will do it whether it's illegal or not, so it's only fair to make it available for everyone. It will be a less diverse world, that's for sure.

I wonder what people will do when it comes to things like homosexuality, where a sort of political judgment is also in play.

gidai
28-10-18, 00:53
Will we be to the top left corner?
Hwo know... ?:confused2:
https://sociable.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/future-artificial-intelligence.jpg

Salento
28-10-18, 02:25
Nature is unpredictable.
Human Population is so large that DNA mutations, Haplogroups included, are probably happenning in the fastest ratio ever.
With over 7.6 Billion people, what would have taken a 1000 years for a gene mutation, now the same mutation can take place in 1 year.
New “Races” might come to be, over and over.

A surprising real White Squirrel.
http://i.imgur.com/TKxV6Y7.jpg

firetown
29-10-18, 03:37
Don't you forget that Basques and others are already a mixture of groups of different genetics and cultures.

Is there a single member on this forum who isn't aware of this?


Are you saying that Basque parents are so controlling that they won't their kids to marry non-basque?

No. I am saying there is a level of isolation which has contributed to their percentage of rh negatives remaining the highest on earth. Among other things.



Even if only 1 percent a decade is new blood, in 1000 years you will have totally in-mixed population.

Sure. But certain factors remain unique. Unique enough to be considered unique. This is still a genetics forum, right? In terms of examining distinctions? If you don't mind that is. If you don't consider it worth concluding that anything anyone here might say should be determined racist and therefore attacked under any circumstances.



What an excellent example of mixing. Do you know that Ashkenazi are more European than Middle Eastern in genetics? Yes, because of mixing!
They are 55 percent South European, 30 percent Middle Eastern, 15 East European and 10 West European. Wow!

Thanks, Mr. Advisor. Yes, most of my family is Jewish and Wow! is correct. I am guessed usually as being Eastern European. But again, if it doesn't offend you, I still am interested in all of my different ancestries and where I got what I got if you will. Which does include the Ashkenazi line of mine that does shine a light on questions I have had my whole life.


Guys open your eyes and start looking beyond your agenda and feelings.


Remembering some of your other posts not hesitant taking other people's rights away based on your own feelings, such assumptions would surprise me generally on a genetics forum, but in your case they don't.

I don't see any agenda in this thread other than whatever it is you are expressing here with your non-answer.
Numerous times have I expressed that the reason I have joined here to begin with was to find out other potential common denominators of those with rare blood types. That's it. One-trick pony. Ignorance may lead to label this as an agenda.




Take clues from the past and look at present trends and examples.


Which past exactly? Don't push past on past.


Go where evidence leads you, and don't cherry pick just to feel good.

Yawn. Again: The more you say doesn't make the "more" more significant. Because none of it is.


In many case it is way different how the world is than how you want it to be.

You should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you state knowing what exactly I want?



To be well understood, I don't care if there is one race or many in the future.

Remember that this is a genetics forum. So before you label anything a "race", maybe you should identify what exactly you mean by that. Anybody "white" being the same?


But judging by our past,

1) Don't judge. Know.
2) Who exactly is "our"?



seeing today's trends, examples and changes, this is where the world is heading.


Isn't that what this thread is about? Debating where the world is heading? I guess you have already determined that answer. So enlighten us. But don't do it through assumptions. Don't label as generic as "race". Tell us something we don't know. You surely haven't done so yet.

LeBrok
29-10-18, 05:51
Ok, but there is also the other side of the coin:
Stephen Hawking feared genetic engineering would create ‘superhumans’ (https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/14/stephen-hawking-feared-genetic-engineering-would-create-superhumans-8036193/) Sure, nobody knows how it will play out. If we can't pull it off using our logic, there is always natural selection to fall back on. ;)

LeBrok
29-10-18, 06:03
Is there a single member on this forum who isn't aware of this?


No. I am saying there is a level of isolation which has contributed to their percentage of rh negatives remaining the highest on earth. Among other things.



Sure. But certain factors remain unique. Unique enough to be considered unique. This is still a genetics forum, right? In terms of examining distinctions? If you don't mind that is. If you don't consider it worth concluding that anything anyone here might say should be determined racist and therefore attacked under any circumstances.




Thanks, Mr. Advisor. Yes, most of my family is Jewish and Wow! is correct. I am guessed usually as being Eastern European. But again, if it doesn't offend you, I still am interested in all of my different ancestries and where I got what I got if you will. Which does include the Ashkenazi line of mine that does shine a light on questions I have had my whole life.



Remembering some of your other posts not hesitant taking other people's rights away based on your own feelings, such assumptions would surprise me generally on a genetics forum, but in your case they don't.

I don't see any agenda in this thread other than whatever it is you are expressing here with your non-answer.
Numerous times have I expressed that the reason I have joined here to begin with was to find out other potential common denominators of those with rare blood types. That's it. One-trick pony. Ignorance may lead to label this as an agenda.





Which past exactly? Don't push past on past.


Yawn. Again: The more you say doesn't make the "more" more significant. Because none of it is.


You should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you state knowing what exactly I want?



Remember that this is a genetics forum. So before you label anything a "race", maybe you should identify what exactly you mean by that. Anybody "white" being the same?


1) Don't judge. Know.
2) Who exactly is "our"?




Isn't that what this thread is about? Debating where the world is heading? I guess you have already determined that answer. So enlighten us. But don't do it through assumptions. Don't label as generic as "race". Tell us something we don't know. You surely haven't done so yet. Now, when we know that you know, put the clues together and you shall see too.

LeBrok
29-10-18, 06:17
I wonder what people will do when it comes to things like homosexuality, where a sort of political judgment is also in play.My guess would be that parents, for simplicity of one's life and and avoidance of certain social problems, would choose for a child to be heterosexual. Even some of gay parents would choose this. Even if most homosexual parents would choose to make homosexual children, the pool would dwindle with generations and probably disappear completely.
We have to keep in mind that sexuality won't be needed when we have designer babies. Sex will exist only for pleasure. In many cases it already is. In this case homo or hetero will be equally valid or invalid for future generations. Both can disappear, but humankind will still exist. For better or worse, who knows, it is a possibility.

Ukko
30-10-18, 01:08
My guess would be that parents, for simplicity of one's life and and avoidance of certain social problems, would choose for a child to be heterosexual. Even some of gay parents would choose this. Even if most homosexual parents would choose to make homosexual children, the pool would dwindle with generations and probably disappear completely.
We have to keep in mind that sexuality won't be needed when we have designer babies. Sex will exist only for pleasure. In many cases it already is. In this case homo or hetero will be equally valid or invalid for future generations. Both can disappear, but humankind will still exist. For better or worse, who knows, it is a possibility.

And some of us will turn tribal and isolate ourselves from sick ****ers like you.

You are from the same vein as the nazis and bolseviks.

LeBrok
30-10-18, 16:01
And some of us will turn tribal and isolate ourselves from sick ****ers like you.

You are from the same vein as the nazis and bolseviks.
Coming from an idiot it is a complement.

Tutkun Arnaut
30-10-18, 17:02
[QUOTE=LeBrok;556774]Sure, nobody knows how it will play out. If we can't pull it off using our logic, there is always natural selection to fall back on. ;)[/QUOTE


Imagine the world 10 000 years from now. All genome functions will be known. Computers will be millions of times more powerful.

Tutkun Arnaut
30-10-18, 17:06
My firm believe is that 10 000 years from now there will be no races. Not because they will naturally mix, that is impossible. But the new born will be lab created. Who will want a black baby, when in lab could be created one with pink eyes, blue hair, smart as a hell?

Angela
30-10-18, 18:56
My firm believe is that 10 000 years from now there will be no races. Not because they will naturally mix, that is impossible. But the new born will be lab created. Who will want a black baby, when in lab could be created one with pink eyes, blue hair, smart as a hell?

What odd tastes you have. I absolutely wouldn't want a pink eyed blue haired baby.

Ideally, if I could just ask the scientists to root around in my genome, I'd like to have a girl who looks like my mother, and a boy who looks like my father. That's just because I miss them so much, though. In fact, I'd break all my principles and ask for clones of them.

What's wrong with black babies for that matter, or black adults in terms of looks?

I've never dated outside my "race", and my tastes are very specific, but what's wrong with the way Denzel Washington looks?
http://cdn.skim.gs/images/in8cvtrbqm08yi6nhwtg/denzel-washington-1980

He's very good looking, imo.

Or, goodness me, Shemar Moore.
https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/shemar-moore.jpg

firetown
30-10-18, 20:53
Edited. Sorry for the outburst.

Tutkun Arnaut
30-10-18, 21:43
What odd tastes you have. I absolutely wouldn't want a pink eyed blue haired baby.

Ideally, if I could just ask the scientists to root around in my genome, I'd like to have a girl who looks like my mother, and a boy who looks like my father. That's just because I miss them so much, though. In fact, I'd break all my principles and ask for clones of them.

What's wrong with black babies for that matter, or black adults in terms of looks?

I've never dated outside my "race", and my tastes are very specific, but what's wrong with the way Denzel Washington looks?
http://cdn.skim.gs/images/in8cvtrbqm08yi6nhwtg/denzel-washington-1980

He's very good looking, imo.

Or, goodness me, Shemar Moore.
https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/shemar-moore.jpg
we are talking about 10 000 years in the future. At that time people like you and me would be antic. Like a folk costume! A folk costume was a thing to admire at its time, but now no one looks at them.
As for Danzel people would think of him what we think about Neanderthal. Race has no future. An English scientist predicted 3000 years for people to mix naturally. I dont think naturally such a thing will happen, But lab created people are possible even today, let alone in the future! Would you not like a baby with superior intelligence, so your baby will fully support himself/herself? Blue eyes are in style now, but other kind of eyes are also possible.

Angela
30-10-18, 21:59
we are talking about 10 000 years in the future. At that time people like you and me would be antic. Like a folk costume! A folk costume was a thing to admire at its time, but now no one looks at them.
As for Danzel people would think of him what we think about Neanderthal. Race has no future. An English scientist predicted 3000 years for people to mix naturally. I dont think naturally such a thing will happen, But lab created people are possible even today, let alone in the future! Would you not like a baby with superior intelligence, so your baby will fully support himself/herself? Blue eyes are in style now, but other kind of eyes are also possible.

There we agree, as I said upthread.

firetown
30-10-18, 22:23
For the most part, I agree. But still: Populations like the Basques have existed as such for 10k years. It will require major political decisions in order to ensure that changes occur on a global scale. And the Basques are not the only example here.


we are talking about 10 000 years in the future. At that time people like you and me would be antic. Like a folk costume! A folk costume was a thing to admire at its time, but now no one looks at them.
As for Danzel people would think of him what we think about Neanderthal. Race has no future. An English scientist predicted 3000 years for people to mix naturally. I dont think naturally such a thing will happen, But lab created people are possible even today, let alone in the future! Would you not like a baby with superior intelligence, so your baby will fully support himself/herself? Blue eyes are in style now, but other kind of eyes are also possible.

gidai
30-10-18, 22:51
https://youtu.be/OabIckj_cZY?t=20

firetown
30-10-18, 23:12
https://youtu.be/OabIckj_cZY?t=20
You cannot determine this.

firetown
31-10-18, 00:22
You cannot determine this.
Unless you believe that this is the type of male females love to mate with in the future.

davef
31-10-18, 01:50
https://youtu.be/OabIckj_cZY?t=20
that guy looks like some obscure mutant from x-men

Angela
31-10-18, 02:21
No one knows what people will look like 10,000 years from now, much less 100,000 years from now. It's all guesswork.

I think some things are sort of hard wired, though. Unless they tear up the genome, I've a feeling these will always be considered beautiful.:)

The fertility goddess "Ishtar" of Babylon known by many names in many places (this piece is 4,000 years old):
https://i.imgur.com/TdCNLR8.png

The Bronze Warriors of Riace (Italy), maybe 2500 years old?
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/4d/e8/01/4de8018f4c023351378f6c06c67ed9f6.jpg


https://jabajabba.com/jabajabba/ishtar-babylon/

firetown
31-10-18, 02:51
It strikes me as strange that even in man-made art the ones in charge of the manufacturing didn't demand having their genitals magnified.