Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

If whites only have kids with boacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

That wasn't really a retort to BoredVirulence, as that would just result in the destruction of a few dozen races to produce 1

[BoredVirulence]

If whites only have kids with boacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

That wasn't really a retort to BoredVirulence, as that would just result in the destruction of a few dozen races to produce 1

In addition to Loud Whisper's fine comment, you're assuming equal proportions. Its never equal proportions. Hence why we use terms such as minority and majority (actually, do we ever talk about the majority? Or do we just universally call them white?).

You're assuming that its the destruction of all that currently exist to create something new. I'm saying that the majority will be slightly modified culturally, but mostly intact where the minorities are gone. "Little Mexico" and "Chinatown" regions exist not because people are racist, but out of cultural pride. Its like saying we assimilate Mexican people, culture and country, into the US and getting US with Taco Bell. Of course it would swing based on population, so we'd all just be Chinese and America would not exist, nor Mexico, Africa, or the various cultures of Europe.

Edit:
While I like my dramatic imagery of exploding people to point out that the conservation of people doesn't make it less of a crime, I think Loud Whisper's comment does a better job of explaining how mixing diversity and assimilation can be a destruction. Worth repeating.

But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

Mix all the colours in paint together and you get a grey, colourless mass.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dissolve crystals in water and you've destroyed the crystals

[SirQuiamus]

But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

If I attach a bomb to a person and it explodes, it probably kills the person. But why? His matter is conserved.

You're suggesting we destroy all peoples of the world except whoever the majority is, but its not a crime because people were conserved. It seems pretty similar to feeding all of the people to a single person and claiming it not a crime because the matter is conserved.

If whites only have kids with blacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

Blend coffee with milk and you'll always get a latte? That's some pre-Mendelian genetics right there: Breeding red and blue flowers does not give you uniformly purple flowers. And breeding purple flowers may occasionally produce blue or red ones.

E: Strange how we're still talking about this when the very first reply to this thread already pointed out that the whole idea of erasing all differences in "race" is practically impossible because genetics. Can someone with actual expertise in the field explain it again, since we just don't seem to get it?

[Bohandas]

But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

If I attach a bomb to a person and it explodes, it probably kills the person. But why? His matter is conserved.

You're suggesting we destroy all peoples of the world except whoever the majority is, but its not a crime because people were conserved. It seems pretty similar to feeding all of the people to a single person and claiming it not a crime because the matter is conserved.

If whites only have kids with blacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

Blend coffee with milk and you'll always get a latte? That's some pre-Mendelian genetics right there: Breeding red and blue flowers does not give you uniformly purple flowers. And breeding purple flowers may occasionally produce blue or red ones.

Exactly, the original traits and genes are still retained in the gene pool after the populations are mixed. They are not destroyed.

[ChairmanPoo]

Hmmm... I've been pondering the issue, and the thing is, with a big enough blender we could homogenize all humans into a fairly consistent paste which would be energy efficient as well. The problem is tricking them to get inside. Does anyone have any ideas?

[Magistrum]

Hmmm... I've been pondering the issue, and the thing is, with a big enough blender we could homogenize all humans into a fairly consistent paste which would be energy efficient as well. The problem is tricking them to get inside. Does anyone have any ideas?

Tell them all there's a big party there.And that all their friends are there. Humans are drive by socialization, they will take it for sure.


Bonus: Tell them there's a orgy there, the ones that don't fall for the first one will fall for this one then, just beware the damn abnormal asexual ones.

[scrdest]

But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

If I attach a bomb to a person and it explodes, it probably kills the person. But why? His matter is conserved.

You're suggesting we destroy all peoples of the world except whoever the majority is, but its not a crime because people were conserved. It seems pretty similar to feeding all of the people to a single person and claiming it not a crime because the matter is conserved.

If whites only have kids with blacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

Blend coffee with milk and you'll always get a latte? That's some pre-Mendelian genetics right there: Breeding red and blue flowers does not give you uniformly purple flowers. And breeding purple flowers may occasionally produce blue or red ones.

E: Strange how we're still talking about this when the very first reply to this thread already pointed out that the whole idea of erasing all differences in "race" is practically impossible because genetics. Can someone with actual expertise in the field explain it again, since we just don't seem to get it?

No, it's not. Your genetics are only Mendelian here . Mendelian inheritance assumes independent inheritance of alleles and discrete traits. Skin pigmentation does not work on Mendelian inheritance; it's polygenic and continuous, and by pure probability, at least two genes involved likely share a chromosome, making their inheritance non-independent.

[Bohandas]

But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

If I attach a bomb to a person and it explodes, it probably kills the person. But why? His matter is conserved.

You're suggesting we destroy all peoples of the world except whoever the majority is, but its not a crime because people were conserved. It seems pretty similar to feeding all of the people to a single person and claiming it not a crime because the matter is conserved.

If whites only have kids with blacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

Blend coffee with milk and you'll always get a latte? That's some pre-Mendelian genetics right there: Breeding red and blue flowers does not give you uniformly purple flowers. And breeding purple flowers may occasionally produce blue or red ones.

Exactly, the original traits and genes are still retained in the gene pool after the populations are mixed. They are not destroyed.

If anything, my proposition would lead to more variation because traits would be able to occur in combinations that are currently unusual due to the traits being associated with different races.

Not generic, eclectic

But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

If I attach a bomb to a person and it explodes, it probably kills the person. But why? His matter is conserved.

You're suggesting we destroy all peoples of the world except whoever the majority is, but its not a crime because people were conserved. It seems pretty similar to feeding all of the people to a single person and claiming it not a crime because the matter is conserved.

If whites only have kids with blacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation

Blend coffee with milk and you'll always get a latte? That's some pre-Mendelian genetics right there: Breeding red and blue flowers does not give you uniformly purple flowers. And breeding purple flowers may occasionally produce blue or red ones.

E: Strange how we're still talking about this when the very first reply to this thread already pointed out that the whole idea of erasing all differences in "race" is practically impossible because genetics. Can someone with actual expertise in the field explain it again, since we just don't seem to get it?

No, it's not. Your genetics are only Mendelian here . Mendelian inheritance assumes independent inheritance of alleles and discrete traits. Skin pigmentation does not work on Mendelian inheritance; it's polygenic and continuous, and by pure probability, at least two genes involved likely share a chromosome, making their inheritance non-independent.

But not entirely linked either due to crossing-over of chromosome segments during meiosis

[Sheb]

Just to go back to the earlier point about blacks being more diverse than all other races combined, it's not due to splitting, it's a fact of evolution. We had quite the genetic bottleneck about 75000 years ago. From there, several groups branched around Africa. One outshoot of one of these groups crossed the Red Sea and gave raise to all the non-African races. So of course, the diversity of everyone found outside Africa will be much lower than the diversity within Africa due to that bottleneck.

It becomes quite visible if you take a mitochondrial tree for exemple. (Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA are easier to use because they're only inherited mother to daughter and father to son, and don't mix like the others).



L0, L1, L2 and L3 are African lineage (or 'Blacks'). All others races fit in that last branch.

[penguinofhonor]

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the mother to both children actually, but I think you're right otherwise.

[micelus]

Now that's a bit silly and on the opposit end of the spectrum of racist.

There are different races and there are differences between races, some big some small, but they do exist, and they aren't all skin deep (by that I don't mean the stereotypical behaviour shit, I'm thinking genetics and physionomy (is that a word?)). But what needs to be remembered is that we're all god damn people and that's all that matters. Every single one of us with a different set of modifiers and stats and what have you, but stripped down to our core we're still the shitty little animal we've always been, no matter how much we pile on to hide that from others and ourselves.

Well, the think is the "race" we thinks off have really little to do with genetics. There is more diversity within the "black" race than between whites, asians and native americans (hardly surprising, since the human species come from Africa). Hispanics are a race in the US, but no in the EU. Etc etc...

No, it has to do with genetics; that's why white couples have white children, black couples have black children, and asian couples have asian children. It's just that culture and ethnicity got all mixed up with it, muddying the waters.

EDIT:
The seeming greater diversity of black people as opposed to white people is likely a result of mere ethnicities being counted as races, as in your example where hispanics are sometimes counted as a separate race from whites, creating the racial equivalent of the vote getting split in an election.

Not taking part in the discussion, but blacks (or Africans at the very least) really are more genetically diverse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288178/ The language might be a bit obtuse but just read through the abstract/discussion/results if you're interested.

[Eagle_eye]

Which makes perfect sense, seeing as people do, you know, come from Africa.

[Bohandas]

Now that's a bit silly and on the opposit end of the spectrum of racist.

There are different races and there are differences between races, some big some small, but they do exist, and they aren't all skin deep (by that I don't mean the stereotypical behaviour shit, I'm thinking genetics and physionomy (is that a word?)). But what needs to be remembered is that we're all god damn people and that's all that matters. Every single one of us with a different set of modifiers and stats and what have you, but stripped down to our core we're still the shitty little animal we've always been, no matter how much we pile on to hide that from others and ourselves.

Well, the think is the "race" we thinks off have really little to do with genetics. There is more diversity within the "black" race than between whites, asians and native americans (hardly surprising, since the human species come from Africa). Hispanics are a race in the US, but no in the EU. Etc etc...

No, it has to do with genetics; that's why white couples have white children, black couples have black children, and asian couples have asian children. It's just that culture and ethnicity got all mixed up with it, muddying the waters.

EDIT:
The seeming greater diversity of black people as opposed to white people is likely a result of mere ethnicities being counted as races, as in your example where hispanics are sometimes counted as a separate race from whites, creating the racial equivalent of the vote getting split in an election.

Not taking part in the discussion, but blacks (or Africans at the very least) really are more genetically diverse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288178/ The language might be a bit obtuse but just read through the abstract/discussion/results if you're interested.

Granted, though you seem to be moving the goalposts

[Loud Whispers]

If anything, my proposition would lead to more variation because traits would be able to occur in combinations that are currently unusual due to the traits being associated with different races.

You know how assimilation takes place within populations? Where someone who is 127 bits Caucasoid and 1 bit Negroid has only Caucasoid features? Same with native Americans and Aborigines, and of course jews - Kaifeng Jews are indistinguishable from Han Chinese because they are genetically closer to them than they are to European Ashenkazi Jews after so many generations of intermarriage. We're back to mixing all the paints together to make one pot of grey. All the components of each individual paint are there, but they're only ever going to be expressed as paint. Just look at the only other thing probably more diverse than having a range of races, but a range of human species - Neanderthals used to be dotted throughout Eurasia, and they intermixed with Homo Sapiens. We can see that East Asians and Europeans that there was significant gene flow going on. But despite the existence of East Asians and Europeans, it is abundantly clear that neither group are Neanderthals. They are very much dead. Some of their genome continues to be carried on through these human races, but they have been destroyed. Just look at hair colour as well, if you were to forcibly mix every race on the planet chances are you'd just end up with one race of everyone with brown curly hair where once there was curly, straight, black, blonde, ginger, brown and white. That is less variation.

[Bohandas]

What about dominant traits from the minority populations?