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

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
carte2012-2.jpg


Again, the Western World looks pretty good in this department.
Do you fear the future a little bit less now?
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
"The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute, 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/enviro...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 found this year that over 5 per cent of the population in 79 developing countries would be undernourished.
Aren't they already?
 
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?
 
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
 

This thread has been viewed 284800 times.

Back
Top