Genetic Freedom

In other words, a person can look like a “phenotypical” white person, but if it turns out a great grandparent was black, that person who is still “phenotypically” white, is now considered “black”…just like that. If that isn’t an imaginary criterion, I don’t know what is.

I don’t consider that person to be “black.” I don’t know anybody who does, actually. They are some combination “white” and “black” and given the broad nature of those groups, it would be impossible to predict what their genetics would be based on the simple statement that they are black/white. I’m pretty sure even the hardcore racists in the United States are coherent enough to realise that he is 94% white and 6% black (or whatever percents). I do know that they consider the genes to be “unpure” if they have an influx of foreign genetics more recently than several thousand years (or something like that.) I did have a conversation with a guy about that once and explained genetic freedom to him, then explained that genetics always change so it’s not about tracing a persons entire genetic history, it’s about what they are, genetically, right now. I don’t know if he agreed or not…

Relatively speaking they are correct regarding “purity.” But purity is relative always. It’s not an absolute when talking about genetics. Now here is where genetic science would help out to determine what exact phenotypes are what - if a group wanted to take it to that level. It’s not up to you or me it’s up to the group.

Goods would be exchanged freely between all people of any ethnicity. In fact, this is no different than how we do things today. The attempt to suggest Genetic Freedom would cause these economic “problems” is a fairy tale - but it’s certainly a nice debate strategy since most people turn their brains off when they hear the word economics (boring… )

That’s the showstopper…property is a commodity.

[QUOTE=zwaldd]
The shift required for practical Genetic Freedom would involve eliminating the very qualities that give commodities their value…basic elements of existence like limit and proximity. It would be like trying to eliminate ‘width’.

Resources would be as limited as they are today, no difference, and I can think of no example where proximity, as establsihed by Genetic Freedom (the essay) would affect value to any real significant extent. I have a reasonable understanding of economics, but I’m not an expert on the terminology. I’m sure a specific example would clear it up.

[QUOTE=castaway]
Goods would be exchanged freely between all people of any ethnicity. …QUOTE]

Except for Mr. Smith’s house…those Goods can’t be freely exchanged right? And this is just like we do thing today, how?

Yes, but it’s also a very special commodity. It’s one of the most fundamental requirements of existence for us. To treat it the same as other more fluid commodities is simply wrong.

As I’ve stated, I hardly see 100% of the world divided up into little segregated pockets. I don’t believe that would be practical. I see many district based communities existing… how many? Who knows, discuss…

The “world aggregate” of any given ethnicity would still be exchanging land freely among their world group members. It’s not like one little district is alone in the world. They will have plenty of economic exchange of land with likely hundreds of communities around the world - and that is the worst case scenario. So land would still be freely exchanged even upon the Genetic Freedom zones.

As for the rest of the planet, it would be freely exchanged just as it is today. It’s all about balance. Adding one more ingredient of freedom to our planet… lots of opportunity!

**

[QUOTE=holmes]

**

see post 326

Fair enough…I’m still waiting for an answer to post #316

**

[QUOTE=holmes]
I’m just trying to understand. Bear with me.

I can’t sell my home to a member of a different group because the group wants to maintain proximity and I don’t have the right to * make a decision that voids out the thousands of individual decisions that the “group” has made to express their genetic freedom in a local district.***

that is exactly correct.
**Yet I have the right to invite a business, that will have a number of members of different groups visiting every home and every business, every day. Even though I know that I am * making a decision that voids out the thousands of individual decisions that the “group” has made to express their genetic freedom in a local district.

Explain to me the difference.**

The difference is obvious. One is business/trade, visits etc… the other is where people live 24/7. HUGE difference. Is that clear or is there still ambiguity?

It doesn’t matter. People sell property to the highest bidder, not the highest bidder from a particular gene pool.

For now…

progress in education regarding genetics may change that some day. We know where each other stand, precisely. Thanks for the time.

Not to ME. I and the majority of my local district DON’T want any other group coming to my home, to my business EVER. We, THE GROUP don’t want any other group at ANY proximity us. Isn’t that what Genetic Freedom all about, the right of the group to chose whom they are in proximity with in ALL things…or does it only mean whom has a house next to you?

Which is it? Genetic Freedom in ALL things or only Genetic Freedom when it’s convenient?

**

**

Well, you can characterize genetic freedom and develop it however you wish. The essay I’ve written is how I characterize it.

I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again…

It’s about achieving balance between individual freedoms and group freedoms. Absolutist type positions are what get us all into trouble. As part of the essay I clearly state that if a group wishes to gather together and fomet hatred towards others - which could obviously lead to physical conflict - they do not deserve to have their own genetic freedom and will be stopped thusly; in other words their land would go to the highest bidder of whatever gene pool and they would loose their “genetic freedom” status.

Also, these examples you’ve been giving… to the extent that “other ethnicities” would be visiting via business or otherwise, in a given genetic freedom district would simply be the sum of individual decision in a given district. If a district provides itself with this and that business service and there is less “extra ethnical” proximity then that’s that.

Parental rules are still in place as they are today to the age of 18…

Balance of power…

Education in genetics has nothing to do with buying low and selling high.

Which the group can do today, following the Amish model, without later coercing anyone to give up their home for marrying the “wrong sort” of person the way that your brave new world would work.

(You have also clearly given no serious thought to your homelands idea. I have just run a mental checklist of all my friends and co-workers from the last 40 years and I know exactly three couples who grew up as close as fifteen miles apart. People are not going to stick with your little reservations unless you put them out in the middle of the wilderness and put up electronic barriers to keep out TV and the internet.
You are also too late finding any existing group (in the U.S., aside from recent immigrants) that has not already churned up the gene pool, with Italians marrying Poles and Germans marrying Irish and Swedes marrying Chinese. Where are you going to find these “groups”? Are you going to make everyone in the world get a complete gene-typing so that you can match up “compatible” people? And if you say that it is perfectly all right for a Slovenian-Ibo couple to start off in their own new group, who will you compel to give up the 100 square miles of land to let them populate it in peace?
I also find your attitudes rather cruel in regards to adoptions. (Can’t have any of those bad genes polluting the pool.) Anyone who adopted from outside would have to force their child to leave the group that you claim would be so nurturing as soon as the child was old enough to mate.)

All this nonsense for the accident that people can be shown to already be related by genetic analysis.

“Aggregate phenotypes”? Such as? Blonde hair (which is found across a whole spectrum of not currently related humans)? Dark skin (that appears in clearly unrelated groups across several continents)? It was the excessive attention paid to phenotypes that led to the initial claims that humanity had already divided into discreet racial groups that bore no relation to each other–which now look clumsy and silly since we know how interrelated we actually are. You have already admitted that the races are not a good method to divide people, yet you rely on the errors that led to the creation of races to bolster your claim that we ought to divide ourselves up into little pockets of inbreeding. (And what do you do with your “aggregate phenotypes” when someone provides images of people who are distinctly unrelated but who share a close physical resemblance? Their “aggregate phenotypes” may be examples of evolutionary convergence, but they are hardly sterling examples that your little genetics schtick is anything more than coincidence.)

Just as they are among the Amish.

**

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Which the group can do today, following the Amish model, without later coercing anyone to give up their home for marrying the “wrong sort” of person the way that your brave new world would work.**

We’ve been through this. Laws need to be neutral towards genetic freedom… today they oppress it. Since we’ve exchanged this thought several times with no progress. We are done with it. You are on the side of oppression. I am on the side of freedom. You don’t believe that, sure, but in due time.
**(You have also clearly given no serious thought to your homelands idea. I have just run a mental checklist of all my friends and co-workers from the last 40 years and I know exactly three couples who grew up as close as fifteen miles apart. People are not going to stick with your little reservations unless you put them out in the middle of the wilderness and put up electronic barriers to keep out TV and the internet. **

hundreds of “homelands” of the same ethnicity would exist around the world, here and there. You are the one who has not given the thought. Again, we have discussed enough and you will not budge from your one-human-genetic-mass religion. So we are pretty much done. We are rehashing old arguments for which we have already provided our positions.
You are also too late finding any existing group (in the U.S., aside from recent immigrants) that has not already churned up the gene pool, with Italians marrying Poles and Germans marrying Irish and Swedes marrying Chinese. Where are you going to find these “groups”?

Again, this has been addressed you simply miss it so there is no point in us trying to discuss further. The answer is simply what it always was: The groups self define themselves, it’s not up to you or me. All these labels you are searching out to try and find specific groups are irrelevant. The groups self-define and decide who moves in and who doesn’t. Total genetic freedom.
Are you going to make everyone in the world get a complete gene-typing so that you can match up “compatible” people?

I’m not going to “make” anybody do anything. Are you? You keep reverting to a primitive mindset and I can’t change that right now. You are what you are. I’m pretty sure we will make no further progress so I’m done if you are.
And if you say that it is perfectly all right for a Slovenian-Ibo couple to start off in their own new group, who will you compel to give up the 100 square miles of land to let them populate it in peace?

Again, you provide examples which have no basis in reality, rational thought, or anything I’ve said or the essay says. You pull stuff out of your ass. You really do discredit yourself with your inability to progress in a discussion. You discard things that were said before and just proceed off in oddball directions.

I also find your attitudes rather cruel in regards to adoptions. (Can’t have any of those bad genes polluting the pool.) Anyone who adopted from outside would have to force their child to leave the group that you claim would be so nurturing as soon as the child was old enough to mate.

That’s an interesting case scenario, each group will have to make their own rules regarding whether a family can raise a kid outside the ethnicity etc… I would personally say no, they could not. First of all, kids should not be born if the mother has no intention of raising it. So at the core of this problem is a dumbed down society that has irresponsible sex etc…

My thoughts are that communities should focus their efforts on helping people within the community thus creating a strong community - then they can, of course, help others as desired outside the community.
All this nonsense for the accident that people can be shown to already be related by genetic analysis.

The only nonsense here is from your brain. I have very little respect for your intellect. You’ve shown not a glimmer of open mindedness regarding the branching human race. You are completely caught in the one-human-genetic-mass religion and “Jesus Christ” will remain your lord and you will strive to spread your Jesus to the world.
**“Aggregate phenotypes”? Such as? Blonde hair (which is found across a whole spectrum of not currently related humans)? Dark skin (that appears in clearly unrelated groups across several continents)? It was the excessive attention paid to phenotypes that led to the initial claims that humanity had already divided into discreet racial groups that bore no relation to each other–which now look clumsy and silly since we know how interrelated we actually are. You have already admitted that the races are not a good method to divide people, yet you rely on the errors that led to the creation of races to bolster your claim that we ought to divide ourselves up into little pockets of inbreeding. (And what do you do with your “aggregate phenotypes” when someone provides images of people who are distinctly unrelated but who share a close physical resemblance? Their “aggregate phenotypes” may be examples of evolutionary convergence, but they are hardly sterling examples that your little genetics schtick is anything more than coincidence.)

Just as they are among the Amish.**

For intellegent people - your arguments are dead. They do not deserve to be addressed any more. we’re repeating the same things over and over again and you simply cannot accept that the human race may freely branch - it’s against your religion. I won’t be the one to educate you about genetic freedom. It will occur in the future. Some day, you will not have a choice but to accept it. You can try to oppress it all you want but the world community will look at you and say, NO. The human race will branch, freely, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Freedom will prevail.

Ahh! FREEDOM! We’ll just kill any child who has the misfortune to be born to a bad situation.

As to the rest of your dismissals, you have not actually addressed the situation with the Amish, simply called them names and pretended that that was “addressing” the issue.

You can certainly dismiss my other remarks; they were intended for any reader who might have not noticed the gaps in your brave new world, not for you.

I’m sure your lack of respect for my intellect will trouble me forever.
[size=1]::: giggle ::: [size]
Since you are, (as a good prophet for your new religion), in the mode of simply proclaiming “truths” without actual evidence, I agree that there is no point in our continuing the discussion. However, if you post any more nonsense (such as your errors regarding genetic research) I will probably come back to point them out to the readers at home.

Because it is dependent on an economic condition with no known precedence and no known mechanism of implementation, its future occurrence is no less a matter of faith than any religion.

**

**

Economics will adjust to Genetic Freedom. Not the other way around. Your thinking process here is backward - doesn’t surprise me. Hundreds will rise, then thousands, then millions all expressing their desire for genetic freedom and ignorance of the kind displayed upon this thread will be written into the history books.

To a better world.

Since you are, (as a good prophet for your new religion), in the mode of simply proclaiming “truths” without actual evidence

Evidence provided again and again… you ignore it… it’s your religion to ignore it.

To a better world.