Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps, those who oppose diversity did not do their research of the importance of genetic diversity. Humans who breed within the same gene pool create genetic mutations, which can cause defects in human populations. Cross breeding is necessary from a biological view point. Do research. There are numerous studies on why race preservation is unhealthy and a threat to the human race.
Perhaps, those who oppose diversity did not do their research of the importance of genetic diversity. Humans who breed within the same gene pool create genetic mutations, which can cause defects in human populations. Cross breeding is necessary from a biological view point. Do research. There are numerous studies on why race preservation is unhealthy and a threat to the human race.
So do you think Asians are doing themselves a disservice in for the most part choosing other Asians as mates?
That's just absurd. Widespread interracial breeding did not exist on the scale that it is today in any other time period. Until the 20th century every race pretty much married and bred within their own racial group. We aren't suffering any genetic consequences of it. My half brother is mixed race. I am white. He is significantly less healthy than I. lol.
How is it necessary?
Years and years ago... whites where in Europe. Blacks in Africa. Asians in ..Asia..middle eastern people in.. the middle east... and then the Natives in North America..
Didn't they all do just fine before we all started to merge together?
I'm not against it at all, but I don't see how it's "necessary"????
So what happens when we're all mixed into the same race?
American liberals/leftists will be happy because we'll all look like mexicans or somesuch nonsense. I've heard this one race breeding program advanced by american liberals/leftists for quite some time now. While "technically" correct I'm uncomfortable with the idea of creating a new super-race. What is it with socialists anyway?
American liberals/leftists will be happy because we'll all look like mexicans or somesuch nonsense. I've heard this one race breeding program advanced by american liberals/leftists for quite some time now. While "technically" correct I'm uncomfortable with the idea of creating a new super-race. What is it with socialists anyway?
But my point is that the OP pointed out that intra-racial breeding leads to genetic mutation. So either way we're screwed, since if we all mix into the same race we'll be back where we started.
How is it necessary?
Years and years ago... whites where in Europe. Blacks in Africa. Asians in ..Asia..middle eastern people in.. the middle east... and then the Natives in North America..
Didn't they all do just fine before we all started to merge together?
I'm not against it at all, but I don't see how it's "necessary"????
Maybe you should stick to topics about libertarian political theory because this discussion might be a bit over your head... but if you are willing to open you mind... perhaps...
Asia, Africa, and Europe had a bit more genetic and ethic diversity than you seem to assume. Genetics notwithstanding I also find it fascinating how white Americans are so quick to describe Europe as being one big happy white family when the history of Europe is replete with wars based upon ethnic, dare I say it, diversity.
Anyway, as the OP is trying to make plain genetic isolation reduces genetic diversity, lack of genetic diversity in time leads to speciation. In short without the continued genetic diversity one "race" of humans stands the risk of extinction or even more interestingly, evolving into a separate species all together.
Your example of happy yellow people in Asia, whites in Europe and Blacks in Africa only describes about a few seconds in the timeline of human existence. A happy existence, while illusionary and ahistorical to begin with, the evidence is clear that the farther away a human population is from its African origins the smaller the level of genetic diversity. The smaller the genetic diversity the higher the possibility of the development of mongenic diseases.
That's just absurd. Widespread interracial breeding did not exist on the scale that it is today in any other time period.
Considering that most humans didn't diverge geographically and becoming what you referred to as races until the last 40,000 of our estimated 200,000 years on the planet such an argument is patently absurd.
But my point is that the OP pointed out that intra-racial breeding leads to genetic mutation. So either way we're screwed, since if we all mix into the same race we'll be back where we started.
Where did the OP point that out?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
