Does racial mixing have any bad effects on society?

So more reliance on technology.

I *want* to want open and free mixture of ideas and peoples and cultures.

But I think of a wild open field, and I don't see that. I look at monocultures, and I see the disease and pest increase, the reliance of pesticides, herbicides, and a high-yield crop that is extremely weak.

I look at a healthy wild field and see tones of diversity, but mixed together. Not one plant, or a move toward a single hybrid of everything, but a complete mixture of unique species, all working together and against each other, and creating a strong environment, able to thrive in times of most extremes.

If we could create a world where we could mix freely without losing the variety, we would be the strongest we can be. Just because the Navajo language was considered evil in the 1850's, doesn't mean it wasn't extremely valuable in the 1940's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats why we have the racists and xenophobes, I guess. For balance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That would suck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Love the Skin You're In

Newbie here...

This discussion has been interesting, but seems to taken on an atmosphere that make sme wonder if some people deep down feel insecure or inferior about their own racial ID and for whatever reason feel the need to find fault in other races in order to boost their own self-image (Sounds like my sister-in-law :>P )

On the issue of melanin and skin cancer incidence, I found a couple of studies:

In one study ( Kaiser State Health Facts), they looked at skin cancer rates per 100,000 persons across the US population using race as a variance. In this study, the number of skin cancer rates among "white" people was 460.8 per 100K. "Blacks" were at 471.0 per 100K, showing that blacks actually had a higher incidence of skin cancer. Interestingly, Hispanics had a rate of 354.8 per 100K.

Yet another study I read said that white people have a 10X higher rate of melanoma, but black people had a much higher rate of skin cancer in areas where there is no sun exposure.

So, if black people still get skin cancer, and then get it more often in area of no sun exposure, what does that do to the theory that the higher melanin levels are there to guard against sun exposure?

Like most statistics, there are often hidden variables that are overlooked or not considered due to the possibility of the statistics not proving the theory of the person(s) running the study.

I wonder if the studies considered the factors of of sunbathing and artificial tanning beds by race? Maybe it's just me, but I see far more white people taking part in this activity than black people - I wonder if that is a factor in the higher skin cancer rates in one study?

Remember...for YEARS scientists automatically assumed that wooly mammoth's lived on arctic tundras...until they found one with undigested grass/flowers/pollens in its stomach - the types of which showed that the mammoth's normal environment was much warmer than originally thought.

Maybe different skin colors are less a factor of sun exposure ( or the protection from it) and more as a result of some other factor(s)???

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

Love the skin you're in. I do.:shrug:

 

How would mixing reduce the variability? Unless there would be a sudden selective pressure the genes would remain in the gene pool, allowing new recombinations in the next generation(s).
Dominant alleles might of course give rise to a larger proportion of certain phenotypes, but this can be modulated by certain combinations with recessive alleles, as most phenotypes are not determined by single alleles.

 

I'm confused by the last statement.

Changed direction as a society in what respect during the last 20 yrs?

 

I was talking about both genetics and social memes, but you make a good point.

When it comes to genetics, you (as a single person) can have two versions of a given gene. As populations intermix, and a common middle ground is reached over time, then those versions of a given gene different from that average would simply become less common - not due to negative selective pressure, but simply due to volume pressure.

If 99% of the population has allele X, and 1% has allele Y, then there is a good chance that without any pressure for allele Y individuals to thrive, it might by chance just die out. Maybe a random 5% of the overall population simply doesn't have children, reducing allele X by a percentage point or two, but cuts the frequency of Y in half. Or maybe allele X simply out-produces allele Y.

random example of a particular family tree:

Code:

XX - XX  XX - XX  XX - XX  XX - YY   - p1
   |        |        |        |
  XX   -    XX   -   XX    -  XY     - f1
       |         |         |
      XX    -    XX    -   XY        - f2
            |          |
            XX        XX             - f3

p1 with a single YY person
f1 with one child having a Y allele
f2 with the Y allele surviving in one child
f3 by random chance, no children have allele Y, and it disappears from the family tree.

 

Stuck to their own kind seems like you don't undestand human emotions very much. We are all humans, we aren't different we just look different on the outside but it's the inside that really matters. If you just once close you eyes and talk to others that are ethnatically different that you then you will realize how much the same we humans all are.

 

*************
M*W: That may be the first to come to mind, but in the cosmopolitan city of Houston, TX, I'm seeing more Asian-Hispanic couplings, Black-Hispanic couplings, and Asian-Black couplings. There are Black-White couplings, but there don't seem to be as many as the other couplings. Of course, this is no scientific analysis, just my observation.

When I lived in Germany, however, the trend was White German women-Black American men. I can't say that I don't understand this, because the Black American GIs spent their entire paychecks on the women. Who in their right mind would be biased against that? I know it was the same trend in the UK with White Britons-Black American GIs.

I have a gripe. I don't call myself a Euro-American. Why do Blacks feel the need to call themselves Afro-American. What the hell is wrong with just being an American? (No Canadians need to respond to this).

Why is it so necessary for Blacks to be Afro-American? Can anyone answer that intelligently?

I don't call myself a Italian-American or a Cherokee-American. I was born here. I'm American and only American, even though I have a blend of Heinz 57 other nationalities.

I was raised in the Deep South, and that means racial segregation was branded in my brain. I don't follow that philosophy anymore. In fact, I understand the logic of blending the races. I don't know exactly why that is, but I know it will create a more perfect human. So, we'll all be tan. What's the problem with that? I like that idea, but I still wouldn't want my children to do it. Now, that's prejudicial, I know. It's okay if it's the other guy, but not my kids! I can't help the fact that I'm still a product of my upbringing, but I am also an advocate for the oppressed. I saw first-hand how the Blacks were treated in the South, and for that I am ashamed to come from the South.

If it would create a better world, I am all for racial blending. I think this will happen in lifetimes beyond our call. For now, we all need to realize that we are all the same regardless of skin color.

 

I am a human, which all others on this planet are like me.

 

HAHA! I'm brasilian, my wife is canadian... our son couldn't be healthier. In fact he looks great, he's quite intelligent and he's very happy. I can't see a problem with racial mixing at all. On the contrary!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

River-wind,
what you refer to is commonly termed genetic drift. Rare alleles can be lost by pure chance. This is btw. unrelated to mixing with other alleles. By the very definition there are only few carriers of in a given population (or it is a very small population to begin with) and thus they are more subject to random influence than large populations. Even if one would try to conserve these alleles, if there were only few to begin with (that's the premise after all), random events can eliminate these alleles.

 

Well thats a perfect mix...you've got the laidback attitude blending, whilst the tedium of being Canadian ( re. Fargo etc) is counteracted by the flair of the Brazilian mentality.

Isn't is strange how Muslims and Jamaicans don't intermingle?..we'll have to wait a long time there.

 

Its an interesting question on many levels...recently on my forum it was suggested that Hindu's and Muslims just aren't strong enough to play football.

Oddly enough they said exactly the same about the West Indian population that came across during the 1960's and 70's....before long half the English team were....black.

 

Err...social memes?

What they?

 

Welcome to sciforums

Interesting post, could you let me know details of the study on skin cancer incidence in blacks in areas with less sun exposure?

 

Vitamin D, produced by skin exposed to sunlight, protects against several forms of cancer. Melanin in the surface layers of the skin blocks penetration of sunlight, reducing vitamin D production.

Black people in low-sun environs are normally vitamin D deficient - which causes a variety of problems, including increased incidence of several kinds of cancer.

White people in high-sun environs suffer too much damage from irradiation to be repaired, even with the saturated vitamin D production to counter.

White people are adapted to low sun production of vitamin D. Black people are adapted to high-sun protection from UV damage.