That sounds more like a preference than an actual value, within the context of your previous statement. Your original idea inferred that there was some type of explainable or demonstrable broader importance to keeping various races distinct; not just the segregation of races of people in a world that’s getting smaller.
You’re hinting at the intent behind two entirely different ideas, here. The answer to your first question, without going into too much detail, is no. The only relevant reason any distinction exists between the two in the first place, is clearly linked to the difference in environments they inhabit-- they have greater geological challenges than humans, for a host of different reasons. The second question lends to a strawman, and misaligns the natural tendency for any group to adapt and evolve-- no disrespect intended, but its a non-starter.
From the genetic level right on up to an individuals phenotype. The further you mix, the more genetic diversity there is. What you seem to be aiming for, is a quantitative separation of races, as related to their more distinctive physical traits (and possibly culture). This gets back to the original question, which asked why you saw value in this.
Some aspects of it are conscious, while other portions are a matter of social-conditioning and a host of other factors.
However, it’s pretty understandable, that in areas of the US, for example, where people are more likely to come into contact with those of another race, that those races will then mix-- NY and many parts of the Washington DC/VA/MD tri-state area serve as personal examples. To contrast this, areas where little interaction exists between people of different races, tend to harbor more objection towards the idea.
So I’d have to strongly argue that yes, if people were to more regularly interact with those of other races, and didn’t tie their relationships to what a person physically looked like, that your chances of finding a “suitable mate” would largely increase-- because biologically speaking, nothing renders a person of another race “unsuitable”, meaning the only other barrier exist as a mental construct, be it in the form of indoctrination, culture, or otherwise.
See the above. Disparities have and always will exist, in some form. I didn’t say they would go away, but that it would lessen your concerns. My evidence? The amount of interracial couples in this country have only increased, not declined, and its not met with as much social opposition, as it has in previous years (where at one point, blacks/whites couldn’t marry by law). However, it’s a change which will only progress with each generation.
If the culture gets assimilated, it will only exist in another form, as part of that majority culture. Culture changes, grows, and yes, some of it will inevitably be lost-- that’s an intrinsic link to our existence, which is just part of life.
What’s the difference? Or better yet, what’s the *significance *of the difference?
