Does racial mixing have any bad effects on society?

yup. That's another point. In the time when different types get to mix, it's better. The period during which the different types come to be is not so cool, but creates potential. I guess I'm lucky there's enough different "races" at this point, for me to, umm... exploit it.

As an equivalent... we're eating what's been grown. Yet some people feel the fruit is unedible (yeah, right).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alas and Alack !!!
Undone by the "Phiendish Phrenologist" !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Racial blending certainly is more widely accepted (less biased against) these days. I am curious what generates the sexual attraction between different ethnicities (since we shouldn't call them 'races')? It's like the old saying, "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

What comes first, the racial mixing or the sexual attraction? It's the same as asking, "what comes first, the gender mixing or the sexual attraction?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the "old days", the majority also thought the World was flat......:shrug:

 

For black women racial mixing is having a bad effect on black womens society.

For some reason black men are more likely to date outside there own race, leaving many black women single.

I'll let Oprah explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvQel-sIKwM&mode=related&search=

 

LOL.

Phrenology is more than just observing skull shape. Fact is just fact.

You lot are as bad as the Christians.

 

Yeah...

You gotta feel the bumps.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What's that "insignificant peninsula" West of Asia ?

Any impenetrable walls between the two ?

How 'bout this:
Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
from:
Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Whatever, baby...

 

Being a smartarse doesn't change the fact that based on what you said you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

While some black men date outside their race, the majority certainly do not. Remember, "dating" implies consent by both parties.

Also consider that the issue concerning the marriage rate of Negro women is independent of the dating practices. What is the crux of the matter is that for whatever reasons, a large percentage of Negro dating does not lead to marriage.

 

Neither does "Negros" having children,

because

Nearly 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

http://racerelations.about.com/od/parentingrace/a/outofwedlock.htm

Mod note: You have received an infraction for this post. Please do not troll in this forum

 

If diversity is our strength,

racial mixing would have to be our weakness.

 

As I said in the other thread:

The catch-22 of that is that in order to take advantage of racial diversity to "strengthen" the human race, the different races would have to interbreed - thusly moving us towards homogeny.

If you are talking about "strengthening" the human race, diversity is not how it would be done.

When people refer to diversity being our strength, they are referring to "pure breeds" having negative traits (i.e. susceptibility to certain diseases) being common among the breed - just like dogs.

If we were all mutts, the strongest traits could be selected for from a larger pool, and the weakest traits would be bred out.

 

Hm, very good point. So it'll just be a less interesting world with less colors, that's the only downside. We'd have to pick the people we pick on based on less important things, such as the wrong color T-shirt. This way, the picked on people would have no group to support them.

Still, there might be some new weaknesses due to "weirdness of sexual attraction", some people might spread their genes everywhere, there'd be new susceptibility to new threats. Right? Everything renews. Hopefully, as an extra effect there'll also be different "types" of people who can interbreed in the future to get rid of the new weaknesses, then.

Hm. I wonder if that's understandable.

 

IMO, the main danger to racial intermixing is that certain subgroups will, for cultural and social reasons, vehemently oppose it; and that these groups will be, by the intertwined definitions of economic, personal, and national success these days, in the vast minority.

Given enough time, without the reintroduction of the geological barriers which allowed ‘races’ to originate, the intermixing of cultures and individuals with differing genetic backgrounds will result in a single homogenized group of humans with a largely unified culture.

This unified culture and genetic pool will retain some local variation, just as any large population exhibits, but the subgroups who have chosen to avoid intermixing will have become greatly isolated in their genetics and social order. Isolationist attitudes in general tend to lead toward extreme xenophobia on both sides, which will most likely end in either the deification or the demonization of the isolationist groups in the eyes of the majority, and in both cases, in the eventual genocide of those groups (most likely triggered by a violent or oppressive action against the homogenized majority by the isolationist minority).

The genocide may be active (murder) or passive (lack of aid during famine), but with such a large population disparity, it would seem inevitable. To see similar situations, look at any greatly disproportionate power structure involving two distinct cultural groups and enough time.

In this case, the danger lies not in the intermixing of people from different groups, but in the opposition to that intermixing. Those who do will be cut off, and will eventually die.

Then again, maybe an illness will emerge that targets a particular gene that has become common in the vast majority of mixed humanity, and one of the isolationist groups will find themselves perfectly immune to the plague. Then ignorance and fear will win the day, and the world will be over-run by different sort of monoculture, just as susceptible to a single malady as the original homogeny were.

Or vise-versa.



As far as I’m concerned, any time you only have one way of doing things, be it in terms of culture or genetics or something else, you run the risk of a single external change bringing the whole system down in one swing - no matter who is running the machine at the time. This requires not only that diversity be preserved, but that all people be exposed to that diversity. Both elimination and compartmentalization of diversity, through mixing or through isolationism, creates monocultures. And monocultures are more susceptible to attacks at a single point of common weakness.

Variety is a back-up system.

 

I don't think it would have any major bad effects. It would create more diversity in the genepool and the disadvantages of one race could be diminished like for example people with light colored skin(white people) tend to have very little immunity to the sun's rays and have a higher chance of skin cancer, but if they were to have a child with a person of darker skin, the chances of skin cancer goes down a little for the child.

 

Better golf players. Maybe someone who can tame the African elephant. Edible curried watermelon.

 

Yes. It causes threads like this one.

 

But people with dark skin have a problem with vitamin production in areas of higher latitude, where there is less sunlight.

How would the creation of a "middle-range" skin-color individual actually help in this case? The world is not uniform - certain environments favor certain physical features - that's why there are physical differences between human at all. none are innately good or bad - they are just more or less useful in the current situation.

How does reducing diversity by bringing everyone together into a single melting pot "create more diversity in the gene pool"? Certainly in the short-term, it increase the overall pool from which mates can be selected - increasing the genetic diversity of that mating pool. but only because that mating has not yet occurred. No increase in human genetic diversity is being created - only a larger net is being cast for mating partners, across historically critical geographic and cultural divides.

But once those people have mated, and their children's children's children's children are looking for mates, how diverse is that pool going to be? As you say the "disadvantageous" traits should be weeded out over time - what do we do when the earth's environment changes, and one of those disadvantageous traits would suddenly be useful? They're now gone - weeded out.

For example, if in 300 years, the sun's output drops off significantly for some reason - having lighter skin would be of a distinct advantage at that point. From a genetic and ecological standpoint, it does not appear to be an advantageous route.

 

For one thing it would reduce the incidence of white skinned people dying of skin cancer. Vitamins can always be taken orally and most white people don't have sufficienct UVB exposure anyways to produce sufficient amounts.