Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Genetic Freedom - Revised Philosophical Concept

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 09:53 AM
Original message
Genetic Freedom - Revised Philosophical Concept
Edited on Mon Sep-01-03 10:05 AM by kengineer
It's still not worded perfectly... but it's way better than before. All responses will now occur here. If anybody notices any specific errors in genetic logic feel free to specifically point them out.

For the record, I am very, very much a progressive type person politically. All progressives need not be precise clones of each other... I do like to discuss complicated issues logically.

The philosophical concept of Genetic Freedom in its most fundamental form is discussing a basic concept of existence for human Genetic life. The essence of that discussion is freedom for both individuals and groups of individuals. Since all of life upon planet earth is genetics, group freedom based on genetics is fundamental. So the fundamental philosophical question discussed here is: "Can we achieve world peace, while at the same time allowing ethnic groups to have local group freedom based on genetics?" Given the sensitivity and complexity of these arguments, it is best to reserve judgment until the entire brief essay is read.

The word race has a dictionary definition of "A group of persons related by common descent, blood, or heredity." It seems that the word race is perfectly suited for discussing unique human populations but, it has been decided that, even though some human groups are reproductively removed from one another 30,000 years or more, that is still not far enough in evolutionary terms to consider those unique populations a race. Scientists prefer to use the term "ethnic group" and "ethnicity" for the genetically unique human populations rather than race. Therefore, as it turns out, race as it is used today, as in the "white race," is a social construct.

The different ethnic groups, compared with one another, have genotypic variation caused by mutation, and cultural & environmental selection processes. This variation is only on the order of .1% plus or minus of the total genome (but that data is still being collected so the exact percentage is not known and will vary depending on which ethnic group is being compared to which). Additionally, how we define difference is not yet totally clear. For example: If we look at two genetic life forms and they have precisely the same genes, we could say that they have identical genotypes. However, what if those genes are sequenced slightly differently in one life form as compared to the other? Are their genotypes identical then? Bottom line: for a variety of reasons, Phenotypes in the various ethnic groups are unique to those ethnic groups.

The ethnic groups we are talking about are populations of humans who have, for the most part, bred within their group over many centuries, millennia, or longer. New ethnic groups can crop up if people so gather and reproduce. An ethnic group is still an ethnic group regardless if they have accepted some admixture from other ethnicities along the way. An ethnic groups population specific allele pairs (genetics) have a high probability of producing particular phenotypic characteristics within the new babies of that population. Put a simpler way, the combined genetic morphology of a mother and a father have a high probability of producing a baby that generally looks like a combination of the two parents (this general statement would apply for any mating human couple). Here is a good example to define the term ethnic group: If a group of people, with 100% Japanese heritage, divided into two groups and experienced isolated reproduction and unique cultural development from one another for a period of 3000 years, the resulting two communities would be two different ethnicities by how this document is using that term. While it is unknown to what extent these two groups would look different from one another it is certainly possible that 3000 years might produce some population specific mutations and phenotypes along with separate cultural population trends which would select for unique looks. ETHNIC DIVERSITY is defined as a great many of these various ethnic groups existing upon the planet. The phrase "one human ethnicity" or "one uniform human ethnicity" is used in this document to indicate a human population condition of significantly less ethnic diversity.

Next, let's talk a little about population trends. Over the past approximately 100,000 years, the human species has branched off into a variety of different genetic morphologies which are termed ethnic groups. This population diversity was created primarily do to relatively isolated reproduction within different populations upon different lands of planet Earth, coupled with cultural population influences and recombination and admixtures with adjacent populations and migratory peoples over the millennia etc... The probability of a Japanese male mating with a Japanese female is much higher if that Japanese male is in a community that is 98% Japanese, than if that community is only 5% Japanese. This suggests that if these Japanese cannot have their own "district based community" (to be further defined later), statistics will eventually lead to their particular phenotypic morphology ceasing to exist, in favor of a somewhat "uniform ethnic blend" which will result over the course of centuries as the different ethnic groups within the community combine their genetics. Expanding this argument out suggests that the current laws of non-discrimination in housing which were founded for noble reasons and, on the face of it, seem to be promoting diversity, peace and happiness upon the planet, may actually, in the end, encourage ethnic diversity to diminish. Of course, during the transition period, ethnic diversity mildly increases as unique new human morphologies are created by all the ethnicities mixing with one another. Then after reaching the top of the ethnic diversity graph, a sharp decline occurs as phenotypic diversity diminishes in favor of a single uniform looking ethnic group. There are many cities and populations where this trend can be seen (Brazil has good examples). Eventually the ethnic diversity meter may approach the flat line at one for any given country or "land area" that has laws and media which encourage such a trend. While it is unlikely and nearly impossible for this ethnic diversity graph to actually reach one given the size of the Earth and it's human population, to what extent it approaches one, only time will tell. We can certainly study trends today as they are occurring and look back through history to examine the trends.

Today we can certainly see that people of a single ethnic group often gather together in neighborhoods. This happens naturally by individual selection processes. The concept of Genetic Freedom for groups suggests that people within a neighborhood could say to someone who wishes to enter their neighborhood, "Feel free to copy us, but the choice of whether you live here, is always up to us." This way, the definition of culture and ethnicity within that district remains intact regardless of economic forces which may encourage an aggregate collection of ethnicities. Again, all choice lies with the sum total of the individual decisions within this defined ethnic district. This is the essence of group freedom mentioned in the first paragraph of this essay. The United States, itself, decides who gets to live within the United States. So that large group makes decisions of that kind. Should the United States discriminate on the basis of genetics or ethnicity. No, absolutely not because the land area is too large. Should a local district based community be able to discriminate in such a way? That is the question posed by this essay.

There is, of course, an additional factor which can either increase or decrease the probability of members of the same ethnic group selecting one another as mates. Media and educational influences have a huge impact. If the media and educational environment frowns on the concept of "maintaining and enhancing the genetic lines of your ethnic group" and most people are so educated, then the probability is increased for them to select partners outside their existing ethnic groups.

Within any ethnic group, deleterious mutations as well as exceptionally positive mutations can result. Both types of mutation occur over time. Additionally, ethnicity specific aggregate or single phenotypes may produce either deleterious or positive results, although in this case it is likely that mainly the positive results will be selected over time. So both ethnicity specific mutations and ethnicity specific phenotypic probability are part of what make two ethnic groups different from one another genetically. From an educational standpoint, all individuals should be aware if they have a recessive allele (gene) that could lead to a deleterious condition in a child. With this knowledge we can all make more appropriate reproductive decisions. For example: A person gets a genetic test and discovers they have the gene for diabetes (or any other genetic disorder). This person has not developed diabetes themselves, but if they mate with a person who also has this gene, there is a good probability of having a child who will have diabetes. With this knowledge this person can then make an intelligent reproductive decision.

Alleles can become extinguished at the level of grandchild. For example: A girl with a double pair of "light blue eye" alleles mates with a guy who has no "light blue eye" genes. Their kids will have one allele of "light blue eyes" and one allele with "other eye color." If that child then mates with a person who has no "light blue eye" genes, their is a 50% chance that their children will not have any "light blue eye" genes, at all. This is how quickly alleles can become extinguished. The good news is that deleterious genes can be extinguished the same way. Another way to eliminate deleterious genes is to not have children if you have the bad gene. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the technology to repair these genes... but we're working on it.

Here is a most important point: As an example, let's say there are three phenotypic alleles unique to an ethnic group which, when combined, give them a specific trait that no other ethnic group has. Most members of this ethnic group have all three double alleles at the same time and have the trait. If all members of this ethnic group mate with another ethnic group that has none of those alleles, what then is the probability of seeing all three of those phenotypes together at the same time within a child of the future? Close to zero... but not zero. The more ethno-specific phenotypes we add to this scenario, the more this probability approaches zero. In the real world with hundreds of ethno-specific aggregate phenotypes and mutations the probability of producing a human with the original phenotypes, under this scenario is virtually zero. Thusly, the aggregate phenotypes of that original ethnic group have gone extinct.

The "district based communities" (let's say 10 square miles) discussed in this essay are not isolated from the rest of the world and nor are they set up by the government. We shall define it as a completely voluntary thing that the ethnic groups, themselves, decide upon by discussing it with the government and then, eventually, agreeing to the area of land (zone). All decisions regarding the land after that are determined by the ethnic group and not the government - with the exception of usual governmental functions like road building, conservation etc... The ethnic group can, at any time, terminate their group and return the land to a state of "open range" so to speak. It is expected that these communities would be part of a much larger collective of communities, of a similar ethnic group, over the entire world. Individual freedoms would be completely unaffected and remain precisely as they are today in the United States. An individual who was marrying outside their ethnic group would freely bring whoever they want over to their house in their ethnic community. When she marries she may, or may not be able to live in her original community depending on what the community, itself, allows. This is the balance between group freedom and individual freedom. As individuals learn about their own genetics, genes, and alleles, they can make intelligent reproductive decisions of whatever kind they choose, be it within their general ethnic group or outside of it. There would still be intermingling between the ethnic groups with Genetic Freedom for groups implemented. In addition, Human genetic population diversity (ethnic diversity) and cultural diversity would all be maintained.

With that background behind us, the following argument proceeds:

Should we allow the human race to continue to exist as multiple ethnic groups and allow it to freely continue to branch in that way, with all the groups coexisting productively and peacefully upon this planet with their beautiful lands and cultures that we can all take wonderful and enriching vacations to, OR should we continue enforcing the current policy of one uniform ethnic group only? The one uniform ethnic group only policy is enforced by both media/educational influences AND not allowing ethnic groups to legally form district based communities, which then decreases the probability that members of the ethnic group will mate with each other. For clarification, if they cannot discriminate in housing for these district based communities, then they cannot legally have district based communities. Over time this will blend the genetics of the various ethnic groups into a more uniform looking single ethnic group and many of the ethnicity specific aggregate phenotypes will go extinct.

What is the benefit of the entire human race being just one uniform ethnic group? Peace may be a primary goal. The prevention of racial (ethnic) hatred is often mentioned. Can people be educated with a peaceful philosophy that allows more than one ethnic group to coexist upon our planet, productively and peacefully with one another, while at the same time allowing those ethnic groups to happily and legally have district based communities? So that becomes the argument: Do you believe that human peace can be achieved along with ethnic diversity using a more advanced educational philosophy, or do you believe that human peace can only be maintained by enforcing a one-ethnic-group-only policy, at gunpoint? The phrase at gunpoint is accurate because laws are enforced at gunpoint and we currently prevent any given ethnic group from legally establishing their own local communities or districts because we call that racism (ethnocentrism) and discrimination.

Groups are a collection of individuals who are freely gathering into the group. Genetics have been voided as criteria for group freedom in local communities. So that particular freedom, not one individual has. While people can buy large lots of private property and, very roughly, accomplish this type of community today, they cannot do so openly and happily, which is contrary to the pursuit of happiness fundamental to the United States. Which brings us back to this: Do you believe that human peace can be achieved along with ethnic diversity using a more advanced educational philosophy, or do you believe that human peace can only be maintained by enforcing a one ethnic group only policy, at gunpoint? After hearing this argument, many people simply concede that they support one ethnic group only, and that's that. This means, specifically, that these individuals support ending ethnic diversity upon our planet.

Due to today's social/political environment many people don't like talking about these topics. The many meme associations we have regarding racism (etc..) within our minds likely prevents many from discussing it calmly. Eventually, as enlightenment prevails, people will talk about it more. When we think of an ethnic group having the right to prevent other ethnic groups from moving into their "neighborhood," perhaps we need not feel animosity towards them. Perhaps, in a more enlightened world, this is just something that everybody mutually understands and respects and it is simply part of human life and genetic population diversity (ethnic diversity). Without this freedom, no matter where we travel on this planet in the future, the people will all look generally the same. Some people may want that world. What about the ones who don't?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. An interesting topic
One could argue that maintaining ethnic diversity perpetuates certain genetic mutations that are injurious to health-Teret's Syndrome and sickle cell anemia spring to mind. But then there's no insurance that a blending of all ethnicities won't produce mutations that are injurious as well, though I believe with a larger population, the chance of such mutations being passed on becomes less (my science background is weak; excuse me for any faux pas).

I think the important thing here is a balance between individual freedom and the right for seperate cultures to exist. If a woman with European heritage wishes to marry a man with Jewish-Native American heritage, she should be able to (and in this country it happens all the time). But I would like to think that the cultural differences of these ethnic groups is celebrated instead of homoginized into some bland corporate-sponsored sort of life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I was clear on all that... it's discussed further down in the essay
all points you just mentioned were brought up, generally, in the essay further down...

thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibLabUK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Hmm
"One could argue that maintaining ethnic diversity perpetuates certain genetic mutations that are injurious to health-Teret's Syndrome and sickle cell anemia spring to mind."

The Sickle-cell trait is beneficial to the individual and the group as it confers resistance to malaria. However, if both parents pass the trait on, then the child will suffer from Sickle-cell anaemia, a crippling condition where red blood cells are mishapen and clog the small vessels causing excruciating pain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. Very interesting
When will we have a world where people can discuss Genetics without "insane" mob behavior as has shown it ugly face on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibLabUK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Ummm
I corrected a mistake in the preceeding post. I didn't make any attempt at a discussion of your original post.

Your post disgusts me, as a person with a mixed cultural background you offend me.

I in no way wish to discuss genetics with you, your original post has nothing to do with genetics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #26
35. You're not discussing genetics, so don't try and pull that one...
You are discussing cultural diversity, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with genetics.

The only "ugly face" shown on this thread wears a mask of "science" and is displayed in your original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. I bet you're caucasian...
No society or group within a society should be allowed to discriminate based upon race, or ethnicity or any of the other scientific bullshit you can try and come up with to justify apartheid.

If I want to live in a neighbourhood, I don't give a fuck whether it is mostly Chinese, mostly European, or mostly Native American, the only thing that should matter is whether I want to live there or not, and whether I can afford to buy or rent a house there.

This is not to say that my neighbours are forced to be less Chinese, European or Native American this merely means that what they are, has no bearing on what I should be.

As for mating, there are no, nor should there be any restrictions on who I can mate with, nor should the be any on anyone else. If some Europeans only want to mate with Europeans, then that is their choice, but they sure as hell can't tell other Europeans that they can't mate outside their race.

Although it is couched in scientific terms, all you are suggesting is the old "seperate but equal" and "race purity" lines. You may not think it, but these are typically racist viewpoints, both of which should be abandoned completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Indeed
"Although it is couched in scientific terms, all you are suggesting is the old "seperate but equal" and "race purity" lines. You may not think it, but these are typically racist viewpoints, both of which should be abandoned completely."

Eugenics for the new millennium... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I now know what it's like to receive hate mail
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. They are disputing your logic, friend.
I see no hate there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. There was no point disputed...
No points were disputed that I saw... did you see some?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Your entire argument was disputed. You remind me of
a tombstoned disruptor, always wanting to debate "logically" but when the flaws in his logic were pointed out, he said that the opposing argument was "illogical."

Logic applies on both sides, friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Show me the dispute
Again, I see not specific dispute in the logic... just vast generalizations... and a very clear "emotional tone"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. You want a specific point? Then try this one:
Over the past approximately 100,000 years, the human species has branched off into a variety of different genetic morphologies which are termed ethnic groups

Bullshit. Ethnicity is much more than just genetics. Ethnicity could mean members of all races who are Christian, or members of all races who are American.

What you are refering to a racial types, not ethnic groups. African Americans share a similar ethnicity to Caucasian Americans, and in fact are more similar in every way (except race) to Caucasian Americans than to Native Africans.

Thus the fundamental basis of your "philosphy" is flawed. There is no such thing as a racial culture and thus there is no need to protect it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #30
48. Good point
I wrote: Over the past approximately 100,000 years, the human species has branched off into a variety of different genetic morphologies which are termed ethnic groups

You wrote: Ethnicity is much more than just genetics. Ethnicity could mean members of all races who are Christian, or members of all races who are American.

Me: There are multiple meanings to the term ethnic group, of course. I will reword that a bit to try and clear that up.


You: What you are refering to a racial types, not ethnic groups.

Me: negative... latest science says Race does not exist by definition... only ethnic groups exist.


You: African Americans share a similar ethnicity to Caucasian Americans, and in fact are more similar in every way (except race) to Caucasian Americans than to Native Africans.

Me: Yes, perhaps some African tribes (perhaps all?) are closer to "whites" than to Native Americans? I haven't studied that specifically but I'll take your word for it for now...


You: Thus the fundamental basis of your "philosphy" is flawed. There is no such thing as a racial culture and thus there is no need to protect it.

Me: The first paragraph is the basis of the philosophy... not what you just said. It's based on Genetics and culture is often part of that, but not always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Agreed. There was no hate expressed in that
response. Why is it that we can't be honest and just say, you know, it's frightening to realize that since whites are in much fewer numbers on the planet, white skin color could conceivably disappear if we all interbreed with each other? There's nothing wrong with expressing that fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. You think that's hate mail?
You should see what I REALLY wanted to post! Let's just say I doubt it would have passed the mod's scrutiny.

Your "philosphy" is faulty, and does not stand up to scrutiny. You seem to think culture is based on genetics, and that preventing intermingling will somehow preserve different racial cultures, even though there is NO SUCH THING. Cultural diversty is maintained by tolerance, NOT intolerance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. A whole lot of words and mumbo/jumbo to justify segregation.
I don't mind if the fear of white genetic annihilation on the planet causes people to consider isolating themselves in order to preserve their skin color. What I object to is suppressing other people in order to do so.

If preserving your color is important to you, then by all means, breed with only people of your color, there is no law against that.
And I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Your concept that one race is being forced on people is flawed. Giving people a choice, is not forcing them to commit to one "human race", or I guess as some people refer to it, making "mud people."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. If you can get your head out of the "racist gutter" we can talk
otherwise, have a nice day

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. Why does it make you angry to have an honest conversation about it?
You seem to feel as though somebody is forcing something down your throat. "Racist gutter"? What does that mean. At no time have I called you racist. Hell, I even appreciate that the fear you express is not "racist". It's quite natural.

I continue to maintain, that what's important is how you react to the fear.

Now let's have a really good conversation by asking what you propose we should do about the fact that some people want to preserve their skin color. How will we accomodate this desire to preserve skin color? For example, one way is to enact a law that prohibits breeding between different colors. Well, we know this solution won't work. Been tried before.

Now, I'm not being facetious here. I'm trying to engage you in a dialogue on what YOU brought up. Let's assume there's real value to preserving a skin color as you imply. What do you propose as an acceptable accomodation with this desire?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
46. Good response, but incorrect on assumptions
Edited on Mon Sep-01-03 11:23 AM by kengineer
You wrote: You seem to feel as though somebody is forcing something down your throat. "Racist gutter"? What does that mean.

Me: Racist gutter means people instantly attacking something using "white racism" as the the justification.


You: At no time have I called you racist.

Me: Well, that's good. Have you seen some other posts here?


You: Hell, I even appreciate that the fear you express is not "racist". It's quite natural.

Me: This assumes I fear something... The essay stands on it's own merrits and wasn't created out of fear, it was created out of philosophzing on Genetic life upon our planet. It's hard to get past the "racist gutter." But I do understand your point regarding "fear" and it certainly is a valid one that is part of the discussion. Specifically, I'd say a lot of people here have shown fear, specifically of "white" people on this thread. Am I wrong there? I think it is that fear which prevents people from talking about this ethnic freedom I like to talk about.


You: I continue to maintain, that what's important is how you react to the fear.

Me: Certainly


You: Now let's have a really good conversation by asking what you propose we should do about the fact that some people want to preserve their skin color.

Me: Well, this is a good point. But as you know, skin color is just one of many ethnic specific aggregate phenotypes. But let's pretend it is only skin color... So people like how they "look" and want to raise their children in the ethnic based community both to enjoy their culture and to increase the probability that their children will continue those genetics (phenotypes). Skin color can certainly influence a culture, specifically when creating decorative costumes which blend well with the color of the ethnic group. I have no problem with groups having that kind of freedom... so the issue as per the essay really becomes, do you think we can achieve a peaceful world AND allow this type of freedom...


You: How will we accomodate this desire to preserve skin color? For example, one way is to enact a law that prohibits breeding between different colors. Well, we know this solution won't work. Been tried before.

Me: Right, I certainly don't support such a dictatorial law.


You: Now, I'm not being facetious here. I'm trying to engage you in a dialogue on what YOU brought up. Let's assume there's real value to preserving a skin color as you imply. What do you propose as an acceptable accomodation with this desire?

Me: I've already proposed that... but I don't think there needs to be a "value" other than a group of people who want it... it simply makes them feel good... happiness... But it just depends on how you define value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. You won't get anywhere until you become honest with yourself.
Why do you continue to attempt to maintain the pretense that you are not talking about skin color? Hell, nobody sees or gives a shit about all of the other damn minute differences that you can't see anyway, in different "races" of people. Give up the pretense and then you might make some progress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
21. You know what is funny to me?
The fact that so many caucasians seem to prefer brown skin? Why else would they spend so much time out on the beach or in tanning salons?

Have you ever noticed that a good tan, is considered a sign of health and beauty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Because you can have it both ways
with a tan. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. Imposed segregation disguised as a concern for diversity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Define imposed segregation
I don't believe I suggested that but I'm willing to discuss precisely what "imposed segregation means"

I would think that involves the governmental body imposing it...

I definately did not suggest that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
11. Again, no matter how you dress up this, it's still racism and fear of the
Edited on Mon Sep-01-03 10:28 AM by kayell
"other" You have an obvious talent for language, or at least for mining a thesaurus, but your ideas are still as foul as they were in the last thread, as foul as those of any white supremecist with less talent for presenting his ideas in "scientific language".

You wrote "Should we allow the human race to continue to exist as multiple ethnic groups and allow it to freely continue to branch in that way, with all the groups coexisting productively and peacefully upon this planet with their beautiful lands and cultures that we can all take wonderful and enriching vacations to, OR should we continue enforcing the current policy of one uniform ethnic group only?"

And what exactly would your solution to this horrific problem of intra-racial breeding be? Miscegenation laws have been tried in this country and surprise they dont work.

You wrote "There is, of course, an additional factor which can either increase or decrease the probability of members of the same ethnic group selecting one another as mates. Media and educational influences have a huge impact. If the media and educational environment frowns on the concept of "maintaining and enhancing the genetic lines of your ethnic group" and most people are so educated, then the probability is increased for them to select partners outside their existing ethnic groups. "

And your solution to this "problem" would be? Maybe some media and education influences to keep the "white race" pure?

I don't really give a shit how fancy your language is, it is clear on a reasonably close reading that you are as racist as any Nazi eugenicist, as bigoted as any white supremicist, as hateful as the Klan. You can dress this crap up as "philosophy", but it's still crap, and it still stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. If you can get your head out of the "racist gutter"
we can talk

It's clear by many of your comments that you commented before comprehending. It's also clear that you didn't read through all the specific points I brought up about the issue.

Ken
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I read it thoroughly
it's crap, it's racist crap, and again a dressed up, literate racist is still a racist. You have accumulated virtually all if not all of your posts on this and the virtually identical earlier baiting thread. Your ideas are obviously racist, and I have alerted the moderators so they can deal with you as they wish per DU rules. I sincerely hope that it will be with extreme prejudice.

Incidentally, I chose to alert before seeing your reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
34. Let's not be so hard on the fellow. I really think he is honestly
trying to solve a problem (fear of white genetic annihilation) by being intellectual and scientific about it. He's afraid of white people becoming extinct like the Dodo bird. Some people hate it that sperm cells are more dangerous weapons than guns, bullets and bombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. It's good to stir up the genepool, it weeds out inbred fascists, racists
and other purists hell bent on defining moral superiority according to narowness of dna pedigree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Well said
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
23. PRECISELY ONE PERSON HAS UNDERSTOOD THE ESSAY
and that's it.

This is an example of "mob behavior." Which does not have it's basis in intelligence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Yawn
Plenty of people understand your crackpot eugenics theory...treepig and sufimarmot on the other thread seemed to understand it quite well, and debunked it thoroughly.

Get over yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Astarho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. Your argument is flawed
Genetic diversity increases throughout time. Humans in sub-Saharan Africa have a greater genetic diversity than all other humans combined. Just like a troop of chimps has greater genetic diversity than all humans on the planet. As for phenotype variations, about 20% of African American's genes are "white", but many do not appear so, which means everyone looking the same is doubtful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Slight misunderstanding... perhaps this will clear it up
Edited on Mon Sep-01-03 10:49 AM by kengineer
You said: Genetic diversity increases throughout time

ME: Yes, I know. I was referring to "Population diversity..." or "Ethnic diversity"... groups of of humans that are distinct from one another due to both mutation and aggregate phenotypic probability. That is measurable as a type of diversity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. You Know What. You're going to have to keep "revising" and
changing words and, manipulating terms, i.e. "race", "ethnic group", "ethnic district", "phenotypes" etc., all because you won't simply admit that you are talking about preserving white skin color. What is so wrong with admiting that. It doesn't mean that one is a racist because one is concerned about this issue.

I sincerely believe you have put a lot of sincere effort in your work, but until you come to terms with what you really need to express, you will be constantly revising and clarifying, etc.

You are afraid you will look like a racist if you admit what you are really getting at, but the truth is, you are looking like a racist because you are trying to hide behind fancy words and concepts.

And if it makes you feel any better, I don't believe you are really racist. My bet is that you are young and really trying to come up with something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. A high percentage of white southerners have genes from
Africans also. In the past, African Americans who were born light enough to pass, would often do so, for the economic and social benefits to them and their children. (there are heartbreaking cases of families abandoning a member who would pull down the future chances of the rest by a revealing dark skin). Passing "blacks" (a truly meaningless word, but by the standards of the day, any African blood made you black) married with "whites" (another meaningless word, since we all originate from Africa). Lots of escaped slaves also bred with native americans such as the cherokees. How many southerners are extremely proud of their indian blood? So after a few generations you can find plenty of African genes running around loose in "white" southerners. And plenty of you yankees too, hah.

Even those of us unaware of it are thoroughly blended, and have been for millenia. It's human, it's normal, and it makes the world a more interesting place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
27. If it were simply an "either/or" argument, you would have a good point.
Ethnic "districts" do exist, of course, many right here in the US. But as you move higher in the economic scale, those "districts" diminish. Following your argument, I believe, people would not be "allowed" to move to better neighborhoods (read: white) as they move up the economic scale. Thus, society becomes not only separate, but decidedly unequal.

Dangerous precedent which has already been discarded in the US, at least legally. I live in a very mixed neighborhood and am married to a man of another race; and, not surprisingly, we have a child who looks neither Caucasian or Asian Indian. Our decision to be together was our choice, despite strong objection from his family's side, less from mine.

Next "logical" step in the argument: Where does my child go to live?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kengineer Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. Good response
Can you see the danger of people reacting in "mob fashion" as they did here (not you) so quickly? That's dangerous...


You said: Ethnic "districts" do exist, of course, many right here in the US.

Me: yes, in a natural way, they already exist.


You: But as you move higher in the economic scale, those "districts" diminish.

Me: true


You: Following your argument, I believe, people would not be "allowed" to move to better neighborhoods (read: white) as they move up the economic scale. Thus, society becomes not only separate, but decidedly unequal.

Me: interesting point. This assumes that all better neighborhoods are "white" AND assumes that all these neighborhoods have chosen to create their "declared" district based community. I would doubt that either of these conditions would exist in any given city.


You: Next "logical" step in the argument: Where does my (ethnically mixed) child go to live?

Me: I don't envision this world being quite so polarized. I see the various communities existing... I see "free range" communities existing of all economic scales... I see many of the ethnically specific communities often accepting other ethnicities into their communities as they choose.

Again, the philosophical concept is allowing groups of individuals to collectively gather and have freedom based on genetics... where they drift and flow with that freedom is up to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. "Doubt"
I would have thought that only someone residing on another planet could be unaware of the existence of rich, white-only enclaves throughout most of the US. Laws being what they are, it's impossible for residents to prevent nonwhites from buying houses there, but they can typically do quite well at making their new neighbors feel unwelcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. So true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Let me expand that a little bit.
Its a lot more than sopping up the choice living spots in America. Go anywhere in the whole-wide world and you will find caucasians enjoying the choicest spots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. They probably would be consigned to some "half-breed"
world, with my grandchild, Tiger Woods, OJs poor kids, my Korean-Kansan cousins and all the other "misfits".

My grandchild is the most beautiful child in the world (of course ;-) ). Her father was half Irish-American, half African American. Her mother is irish, german, french, scots, english and cherokee (and that's just what we know about). The result is a golden skinned child with extremely dark blue eyes, and a mass of very curly auburn hair that bleaches to white blonde in the sun. She's got the height and leaness of her father, she's bright and creative like her mother. I can look in her face and see my grandmothers smile. Her eyes are identical to one of my cousins, who looks like our french ancestors. She is everyone who came before her, and her unique self, and so I'm sure is your child.

The author of all the bs above is depriving himself of the richness of humanity by wanting the human race to stay unchangeable. A losing cause, since we have always been changing, and always will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemExpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. I also find many mixed race people extremely beautiful
:hi:
Your granddaughter sounds exquisite!

DemEx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. Beautiful, kayell, beautiful!
My son is just gorgeous (I'm completely subjective, of course). Golden skin, choclate brown hair, dark brown eyes with thick, long eyelashes (an Asian Indian characteristic). He isn't "cute," he really is beautiful. I was so flattered once when I was walking down the mall with a friend's child (a beautiful girl who resembles your granddaughter in many ways) and my son and a complete stranger stopped me and said, "those are the most beautiful children." I of course didn't take credit for Mercedes, but was proud to take credit for Vikas!

It seems most of the couples we know are mixed race and have the absolutely most beautiful children.

And Brazilians are the most beautiful people; lots of mixing there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemExpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
38. It is just way too impractical, if nothing else.....
I can only imagine the situations that would arise when others would want to move into such a community, or if someone fell in love with a person outside the group - could they live in that 'pure' community?

It sounds like a nightmare to me, to be honest, not an enlightened world in my sense of the word....

I'm not so worried about people's freedom to live in a world where skin colors are kept separate and people look 'different'.....

I could also care less if a homogenized human race is not what some people want. There are so many other things to really care about.....

None of us get the world we would like or prefer in countless aspects, so why worry about this one?

DemEx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treepig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. hey sounds like a ST:TNG episode . . .
Picard's efforts to save a genetically engineered society from a natural disaster threaten to destroy it.

The U.S.S. Enterprise moves in to help after detecting a stellar core fragment heading straight for a human colony on what was thought to be a deserted planet. Picard contacts the colony's leader, Aaron Conor, with an offer to evacuate his people. But Conor refuses, telling Picard that evacuation would destroy his genetically engineered society. Instead, he insists on working to find an alternate solution, and reluctantly permits the transport of Riker, Geordi and Troi, the first visitors the colony has ever had, to help. Conor assigns Hannah Bates, a scientist from the colony, to work with Geordi. Riker beams back aboard the Enterprise along with Geordi and Hannah, who leaves the colony for the first time to work to save her home.

Back on board the Enterprise, Hannah is clearly fascinated by the ship's advanced technology. Meanwhile, Troi soothes a testy Picard, stressing the importance of working to preserve the colony's way of life despite the captain's disapproval of genetic engineering. Later, Hannah and Geordi discover that the technology of his VISOR can aid in steering the fragment away from the planet.

Troi returns to the colony and succumbs to her romantic feelings for Conor. The next morning, she sadly bids him goodbye, realizing that her DNA makeup would forever alter the colony's genetic balance. As she prepares to leave, Hannah and Geordi beam back to the planet with the announcement that they must transport fifty people to the planet in order to install the equipment necessary to deflect the approaching fragment. Knowing it is the only way to save his people besides evacuating them, Conor agrees.

With seconds to spare, Hannah and Geordi successfully alter the fragment's course and save the colony. But Hannah is hardly overjoyed by the news. Having encountered and worked with technology superior to her own, she decides she wants to leave the colony. In order to accomplish this, she stages a breach in the biosphere that would cause a necessary evacuation of her people.

Luckily, Geordi realizes what Hannah is doing and is able to avert the impending disaster. When Hannah explains her actions, Conor realizes he can no longer restrain her, and grants Hannah and all others who wish to leave the colony permission to do so. Twenty-three colonists, including Hannah, leave the colony, creating an irreparable balance in the society, and forcing Picard to wonder whether the Starship's "help" was ultimately as damaging as a hit from the stellar fragment would have been.

http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin5/TNG113.htm

p.s. there's absolutely no point trying to have a rational discussion with the author of this thread - i myself(and others) spent a good deal of effort trying to educate him as to what the difference between an allele and trait was, and why terms like "phenotypic alleles" are oxymoronic, and so on, only to have all the mis-information repeated here - it's better to leave well enough alone (and yes, i realize the irony of saying this, and at the same time kicking the thread back up to the top)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
49. It's an interesting question...
...and I think kengineer has done well to put it across in as non-racist as way as possible. Hands up who thinks bio-diversity is a good thing? Who thinks we should be protecting different species of lemur, rather than just one? Why have different species of tree when just pine trees will do for atmospere processing and wood?
It would be shame if we lost the diversity of our own species due to either a)dominance by one group, or b) interbreeding that levels the gene pool to ankle depth. I don't think this would be a bad thing in terms of the physical characteristics - they are the traits that give racists a handle - but either of these scenarios would result in a uniform world: one or two religions, one or two languages, one race - in a few tens of millenia. We'd be at peace with each other, but also very bored. At the moment, I'm trying to learn Manx, and in a 'one world' scenario I suspect I'd be doing it alone...
But, how likely are these scenarios? We do tend to congregate in groups: Most western cities have a "Chinatown", and I assume Beijing has a "honkytown" although I'v not seen it: so the question would be, do these communities breed "internally" faster than they do "externally"? I suspect that it's a borderline case, and certainly have no figures to help me out. As to the possibility of one group ousting the others by force of numbers, well, that's evolution at work: Go argue with Darwin.
Funnily enough, I'm in favour of keeping a few golden lemurs in a zoo to ensure they never leave the planet: I'm not in favour of keeping a few Basques in a zoo for the same reason. Go figure. I tell you what, Kengineer: You've given me something to think about over a beer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
50. I wonder whether you have had any children yet.
When you have suffered a miscarriage or birth of a defective child, and God forbid that you will, you will learn that skin color is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Okay!! You will look around at all the healthy people in the world and wonder how you could have taken so much for granted.

Please reflect on this awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosophy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
51. This is still flawed due to your lack of understanding of genetics
I already demonstrated yesterday how your central justification of this - that segregation is necessary to maintain diversity - is false because your example of the way that alleles can be "extinguished" is extremely improbable in populations that are large enough where inbreeding is not a factor.

Now I see your next to last concluding sentence here: Without this freedom, no matter where we travel on this planet in the future, the people will all look generally the same.

Again, this is completely false. Hybridization cannot produce uniform "blending" throughout entire populations in the absence of natural selection. This is because of something that you would be aware of if you had bothered to learn anything about genetics before imagining yourself to be an expert, known as Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/...

Consider our example from yesterday of the two equal populations of people, one being homozygous for the dominant brown eye trait, the other being homozygous for the recessive blue eye trait. Because there is no known evolutionary advantage to having either brown or blue eyes, the resulting interbred population will be at Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. It will not result in a population that looks "generally the same". Instead the population will always and for every succeeding generation contain approximately 75% brown eyed people and 25% blue eyed people. The blue eye trait will never be "extingished" from the hybrid population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC