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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Or you can have a community of only people with unattached earlobes.
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?
Of course, all that is true. With Genetic Freedom none of this changes… we just talk about it openly and enjoy it.
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.
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.
Yeah, that’s sounds accurate…
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.
I’m certainly right about more than just one thing, but I also agree with everything you just said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Granted, I agree with you… I would contend that some aspects of media “market” human genetic homogenization. We simply need to study it thoroughly.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The same way we do today: sanctions, international treaties, and when necessary, sanctioned military force - like when some country decides to ethnically cleanse.
education.
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!
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.