Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?

[Tutkun Arnaut]

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]

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

 

[Sile]

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


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

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]

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

 

[Ygorcs]

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):

 

[MOESAN]

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]

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]

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]

Mixed-man in the far future would, in all likelihood, look something like this:

http://humanphenotypes.net/Malagasid.html

 

[Tomenable]

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]

Everyone would have to be mixed with identical proportions of every admixture. Impossible with 8 billion people.

 

[Epica]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[/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]

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]

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’

 

[Angela]

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]

Will we be to the top left corner?
Hwo know... ?
https://sociable.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/future-artificial-intelligence.jpg