# Genetic Freedom **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192 "2004-03-29T23:45:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/101 "2004-03-31T05:29:20Z")
**castaway:** _“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.”_ Actually, I just noticed that this “rule” speaks only of **ethnic** or **phenotypic** diversity, not **genetic** diversity. Even if racial and ethnic groups do end up mixing to the extent that the entire global human population goes uniformly “beige”, as it were, what evidence do we have for thinking that this would reduce the underlying **genetic** diversity of humans? All those different human genes would still remain present in the population, after all, a-mixin’ and a-swappin’ and a-mutatin’ to their hearts’ delight. So even if we think that preserving **genetic** diversity in humans is a worthwhile goal, why should we think that preserving **racial** (phenotypic) diversity is the only or best way to attain it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/102 "2004-03-31T06:12:23Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s expected that you will make that association. Eventually your mind will grow beyond that and realize that Genetic Freedom is quite beyond any of the constrains and restrictions of the past. Another sterling example of rhetoric and persuasion from the **Jack Dean Tyler** school of Truth. ---
**Author:** ![Karmagun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Karmagun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karmagun)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/103 "2004-03-31T13:52:39Z")
> [@castaway](#): > > We all know that Jews own most media outlets in the US and europe. That has been true for about 50 to 100 years. Hi castaway. It seems that this media monopoly thing is quite important to your theory. I feel so brainwashed by 90% of the media. I need your help. Could I please have some data on the above quote? Oh, and say hi to SG when you see ‘her’. Hint: look in a mirror. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/104 "2004-03-31T16:54:24Z")
In Richard Dawkins book, “The Devils Chaplain”, he touches on this topic. In short he says that the great majority of genetic variation is to be found **within** races, not between them. (suggesting a “bottlenecking” in the past hundred thousand years or so). Sorry if this has already been addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/105 "2004-03-31T16:56:23Z")
…page 76 btw. He also discusses another great debate topic, evolution & the 2nd law of thermodynamics. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/106 "2004-03-31T18:37:41Z")
> [@Rooves](#): > > He also discusses another great debate topic, evolution & the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Haven’t we already debunked that a half dozen times? ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/107 "2004-03-31T18:45:27Z")
**Castaway** , as you have stated that your communities would descriminate based on visual cues rather than on actual genetic data, and that you found the idea of descriminating on that data to be “authoritarian”, and it has been shown that visual cues are not a good way to judge underlying genes, where do genetics come into play? It seems more that you wish to form communities of like-looking people to breed more like-looking people, irregardless of the underlying genes. If this is the case, then it is identical in effect to White Nationalism. I would like you to show me how these two “different” philosophies differ in actual effect. Both would set aside certain areas for certain ethnic groups as defined by their own members. Both policies also allow for a “mixing area” or separate group of people who don’t care about racial mixing. Also, based on your proximity rule and my own experience with how many of my friends have found spouses while on vacation, you would have to not only restrict people from living in a certain area, but from ever even visiting that area. If, say, your group made such a wonderful little world for itself that everyone wanted to come visit and vacation there you would get a higher resulting level of racial mixing. Do you propose to cut off ties with the outside world or do you have some other way around this? Now on to the media. You say that “90% of the media” are dominated by the elite and that if you were to do a detailed study in the trends in movies and such over time you would see the effect you are describing. Also you have said that the Jews have controlled the media in this country for the last 50-100 years. When you are pressed for evidence of these claims, however, you say that you cannot get them exactly because the media controls the information and will not let you have it. How then did you come to this conclusion? If there is not evidence for it, what led you to believe this? It is a basic principle of science that the farther out the claim, the stricter the requirement for hard evidence. You make some pretty oddball claims, but you do not give us any evidence such that we may be convinced. Give me proof. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/108 "2004-03-31T20:05:52Z")
by **Zagadka** > [@](#): > > Haven’t we already debunked that a half dozen times? Yes. I just thought I’d add that since it too was in the book I mentioned. But I have to say that the explaination given here by **Sentient meat** (I think it was) was as clear or more clear than in the book. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/109 "2004-03-31T20:20:00Z")
From what understand, this Genetic Freedom doesn’t just apply to race, you could also use it to promote people who can curl their tongues. Just exclude from your group all people who can’t [do this](http://www.jbhs.k12.nf.ca/biology/TONGROLL.HTM). Or you can have a community of only people with unattached [earlobes](http://www.ncrtec.org/tl/camp/gene/ears.htm). So here’s my question. In the community of Tongue Curler City, a young woman wants to run off and marry a man who can’t curl his tongue. Does she have this freedom? If she does so and has a non-tongue-curling baby, then gets divorced, can she move with the child back into her parent’s home in Tongue Curler City? ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/110 "2004-03-31T23:48:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Though I am sure you will keep very different lines with your method, it is happening anyway. Constant genetic drift occurs the workd over, and the larger human populations only make it happen more. Genes will change and people will develop whether or not they are sectioned off into their own homelands. Of course, all that is true. With Genetic Freedom none of this changes… we just talk about it openly and enjoy it. > [@](#): > > Also, there is the problem of the nation. No current nation could exist if town sized (that is what they would have to be as genetic differences would be too great in anything larger) populations do not intermix. It would quickly lead to fractionalization of the country with different sections deciding they no longer have enough in common with the rest of people to remain part of the same Country. There is no problem. The United States could have every ehtnic group in the world living here, paying taxes etc… all under the same roof, but having local communities to express their cultures, their way of living, raise their kids. > [@](#): > > So now you have many small yet close in relative proximity communities that cannot intermix. Who says they can’t intermix? I never did. They would mix as much as naturally occurs heed both individual and group freedoms. There would always been “free range” places on the planet and likely a high percentage. That discussion is to be had continuosly. > [@](#): > > Some will do bettert and become richer while others will not. When you have the posibility of doing well for yourself and advancing enough to be able to improve your environment it imposes a certain passivity. Yeah, that’s sounds accurate… > [@](#): > > When, however, you are disallowed from ever moving into the upper echelons of society you are begging for at the least crime and more likely war. If every ethnic group has their own, “chain of command” the problem you just mentioned would not exist. Each type of human rules themselves, runs their own fundamentals of life. I simply see the human race as being able to branch and exist as more than just “one” type of intelligent genetic life form. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/111 "2004-04-01T00:02:18Z")
[QUOTE] > [@flight](#): > > The contributing cause is that those countries had better economies, better education, and higher qualities of life thant the nations from which the immigrants moved. The one thing you are right about is that if two ethnicities live in close proximity they will inter marry. I’m certainly right about more than just one thing, but I also agree with everything you just said. > [@](#): > > This has happened everywhere from the beginning of time, it doesn’t take the media to do that (look at what happened whenever one country conquered another). So, you understand the “proximity rule” of population trends, as written about in the essay, but you reject the “media rule.” For the record, the proximity rule is enough to justify the right of groups of have local communities. > [@](#): > > The only reason you saw more of it recently is that people have an easier time travelling to these countries than they did before. So yes, paranoia seems very likely. It’s observing media trends with an intelligent, intentional eye. I watch movies and television shows just like you… I pay attention. I’ve been paying attention for a couple of years now. When you analyze media from the perspective of Fabian gradualism, you can see the slow swaging taking place. > [@](#): > > OK, then show me the trends. You have often said that you believe the media is trying to modify society, but you have yet to give any proof. I almost think that you must be joking asking me to provide you with examples of how media modifies society - it just plain does. The real question here is, are the owners of the media modifying it in an intentional, preconceived way. That is the issue at hand. I can assure you this would take several doctoral dissertations to work out, we cannot even begin to uncover that here. We can just pose the question and try to stimulate interest. I believe it would take a team of ten people doing full time research for a year to truly map out the media trends and how they influenced societies changing culture and population trends. > [@](#): > > You need to show that the media is PRECEDING culture as far as these things go. If they are simply reflecting it then you have no point. Sure, that is a very good point and, I am extremely open minded. I am aware of how economic factors and laws work to effect population trends. Imagine a world without MTV… how different would our kids be? The media effects culture by effecting the children. It doesn’t effect you or me (near as much). It’s the childrens minds that are influenced and they make decisions based on it. Emotions are the mechanisms of this control… if it feels good, do it. As I said, we need to study this thoroughly, but I do stand behind my current belief that Media does appear to drive certain aspects of culture - I never said it drives all aspects of culture. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/112 "2004-04-01T00:25:23Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > > > Media, literally, creates what we want… The problem would be solved if we simply had more diversity in the owership of media outlets. Done. > > Well, the first part of that statement, the ‘creates what we want’ part, I wouldn’t call ‘media’ but rather ‘marketing’. One of the first lessons and first year student in business marketing learns is that it’s far easier to _create_ a demand for something than to find an unoccupied niche. That doesn’t just apply to the media but to all forms of persuasive discussion. From fabric softener to policital campaigns…you create a demand for something that didn’t exist before and it leads you to profit. Granted, I agree with you… I would contend that some aspects of media “market” human genetic homogenization. We simply need to study it thoroughly. > [@](#): > > The second part I believe completely. I would cheerfully turn back the last 10 years of media consolidation led by the easing of ownership laws by congress and the FCC. If nothing else we’d get more independent music on free radio (but I’m an XM guy, actually). Fantastic [QUOTE] But I’m still uncertain about what you would do that would gain you something you don’t already have. You say [QUOTE=castaway] Just one way, specifically I think that would do it. There would likely be lots of little laws here and ther that would have to heed this overall amendment. Essentially it would be called the Genetic Freedom amendment (or some other name) and it would state that all members of the human race have a fundamental human right to genetic freedom for both individuals and groups. The human race has a fundamental right to genetically branch and, understanding the controlling factors of population trends - proximity and media - all people have a right to gather together in whatever groups they choose, this gathering may be based on their genetics, they may live in communities and discriminate, on the basis of genetics, when deciding who may live in their community. > [@](#): > > But I’m still not seeing why you can’t already. There is absolutely nothing to prevent this from occuring. I have lived in several towns in my life (small one’s, admittedly) which have been essentially monochromatic. They’ve been all white (or the non-white population has been a handful at most…less than 1%). Could you and your fellow travellers relocate to one of those and feel assured that it would remain so? And even then, if you owned the land you certainly wouldn’t sell it. You could even control the media in such a town. Why shouldn’t we be able to do this legally? That is the whole reason I’m discussing this here. Legally, nobody can do this. In the media, this kind of thing is incorrectly called “racism.” There is real racism, sure, but as I’ve stated in other responses, people who are genuinly “racist” and wish to gather together into their group to build power then do others harm, must be stopped and suppressed. Somehow, we need to discourse and understanding that Genetic Branching of the human race is just a fundamental humar right, and laws should respect it accordingly. I’m discussing it because Genetic Freedom, today, is literally illegal. I’m not sure how you could argue that it is Legal, because discrimination is illegal in housing - thus proximity will blend the genetics - this is just a fundamental law of population trends. I know there are places here and there that are relatively “one ethnic group.” But the trends continue to work against that, and whenever there is just “one ethinc group” people cry out that there isn’t enough diversity there etc… Then what happens? Ethnic diversity diminishes in the name of diversity as the genetics blend into a uniform racial blend. > [@](#): > > So please explain what specific actions you would expect the government to take to establish the right of ‘genetic freedom’. Would land need to be officially set aside? Well, the amendment I mentioned above would do it. It’s all about land, obviously. The conflict in Israel is about what? Land. Where can we exist peacefully to enjoy raising our children? That is a most fundamental question of life. Regarding who sets aside land… local groups decide that, the government does not. There will, obviously, be lots of discussion regarding how much adjacent land area a single group can live in for their Genetic Freedom zone etc… There would absolutely need to be areas where just anybody could live, obviously. Let’s think globally: If I chose to marry a girl from the orient and have children, I may or may not be welcome in a “white” community or a “japanese” community, but I could move to the “Genetically open” areas. There might be many Oriental/white districts here and there I’d have to choose from. I’d say that a large percentage of the planet would have to be “Genetically open.” > [@](#): > > Would there need to be laws designed to prevent inter-racial marriages and reproduction? This is where your media conditioning is kicking in. This is typical racist diatribe. I have suggested no such thing nor would I ever. People that do suggest such things are the kind of people that do NOT DESERVE to have Genetic Freedom in some local area - they must be suppressed. See, individually, we all must be completely free… Genetic Freedom is about balance between individual and group freedom because groups are nothing more than the sum of thousands of individual decisions. If an individual no longer likes their group, they either try to change their group, or leave, it’s up to them. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/113 "2004-04-01T00:30:00Z")
[QUOTE] > [@tomndebb](#): > > This is sheer silliness. > > Any group can branch simply by choosing extreme endogamy. Why do you put the word “extreme” in front of endogamy? typically, in today’s media environment, extreme has negative connotations. You’ve already exposed your bias against a people wanting to continue their genetic lines. It is this bias, against Genetic Freedom, that I’m working to educate. > [@](#): > > As long as they decide that they will only mate with the right sort of people, they are on their way towards developing their own genetic group. You’ll get no argument from me, anybody can do this. You forget about a fundamental law of population trends, the proximity rule. That is why I’m here. > [@](#): > > The whole “genetic freedom” schtick is simply a smokescreen to rationalize the desire to “discriminate in housing.” Let’s discuss the proximity rule… ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/114 "2004-04-01T00:32:43Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@lambchops](#): > > > > **Castaway** , replacing the word “Whites” with “Ziglets” and “Blacks / Asians / Generic Dirty Foriegners” with “Goobers” doesn’t make your theory any less racist. It just makes you sound like a childish fool. > > > > It’s the covering-up of the real motives that bothers me. If you say you don’t want black people in your neighbourhood, I would think you were a racist. If you say you just don’t want any different groups around and this is a natural tendency of humankind, you’d be a dissembling and insidious racist, which is worse. It’s lacking the balls to state your views forthrightly that bugs me. It will continue to bug you until you open your mind and actually understand what I’m talking about here. On the most fundamental philosophical level, I’m talking about intelligent genetic life being able to genetically branch. There is such a thing called the “proximity rule” which requires that we have reasonable laws which allow this Genetic Freedom to exist. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/115 "2004-04-01T00:34:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, as long as the Goobers are allowed to move in without meeting violence, no one hs enforced their will on anyone else. It only becomes a matter of enforcing will if the Ziglets compell the Goobers to move away. No Goober has (in your scenario) forced a Ziglet to _mate_ with a Goober, so the genetic freedom is safe. Listen carefully… it’s the proximity rule that you are forgetting about. Once the Goobers move in, their children will genetically mix with the ziglets children. This then means that the Goobers enforced their genetics upon the Ziglet population and the Ziglets are no longer free to branch as THEY WILL. Thus Genetic Freedom is completely suppressed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/116 "2004-04-01T00:37:02Z")
**castaway** : If you have your own country, you can set it up however you like. In the US the government is mandated by the constitution to treat all people equally. I have no problem with people discriminating in their private lives, but I do not want the government doing it. You simply do not have the right to forbid a person from moving in next door to you. And the overwhelming majority of the people in this country agree with me, not with you. So go ahead an float an amendment and see if you can get it to pass. If not, the only way to accomplish your goal is thru force. And in that case, you’ll lose. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/117 "2004-04-01T00:39:02Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Kimstu](#): > > So your basic point, **castaway** , seems to be that people should be legally allowed to discriminate on racial grounds in housing transactions on the public market. Not precisely as you state it. We need to have reasonable justification for passing such a law. That justification is the proximity rule and Genetic Freedom. It is the fundamental right of the human race to genetically branch in a free and mutually respectful way. > [@](#): > > All the “Genetic Freedom” arguments are pretty much window dressing, not substantially different from the “freedom of association” arguments that earlier segregationists were using back in the 1960’s. I created this particular concept of Genetic Freedom myself. I am very creative. I also created the Genetics Religion. The core of that creation was while I atteneded an organic chemistry class and learned that all genetic life is created by only four molecules, sequenced in different ways. That was quite profound and still is. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/118 "2004-04-01T00:42:31Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Um, good argument. > Then what form of government do you propose? Personally, and I’m certainly willing to discuss this thoroughly, ethnicity specific democracies might be the healthiest kind possible. If they have disagreements within their “one government” they can spawn off into two - I’m not talking about violent disagreements here, but rather just how to tax people, how to do this and that etc… One very healthy aspect of ethnicity specific democracies is that the various ethnic groups in a given government don’t feel like they have to outnumber the others such that they have the majority. Overpopulation is certainly a problem in this world. ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/119 "2004-04-01T00:47:49Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > How do you intend to enforce “world laws?” The same way we do today: sanctions, international treaties, and when necessary, sanctioned military force - like when some country decides to ethnically cleanse. > [@](#): > > _smiles_ Obviously. How do you intend to prevent this? education. > [@](#): > > What if one of those 10,000 imposes themselves on you? What if there is a schism in the group? They are free to try and change the group forever… or the have the option to leave… or the have the option to gather 500 of the members to their side and spawn off their own lovely group to live as they choose. Total freedom! ---
**Author:** ![castaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@castaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/castaway)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192/120 "2004-04-01T00:51:23Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@Zagadka](#): > > > > Why would a world of genetic equals have any use for genetic segregation? > > > > It sounds to me like your whole point is that human settlements should be limited in size and segregated. I don’t see what that has to do with genetics or freedom. You keep improperly using the word “segregation.” It is a governmentally mandated function. Genetic Freedom is not governmentally mandated. Genetics always change… even after one generation of reproduction in this clone world, there would be, suddenly, a hell of a lot of genetic diversity caused by mutation and genetic recombination causing different aggregage phenotypes. So, after that, people could gather as they will. Total freedom for both individuals and groups of individuals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-freedom/237192.md?page=7)