1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The beginning and end of racism

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ditch, Nov 30, 2002.

  1. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    In a newly released book Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through pour Genes, US science writer Steve Olson has attempted to explain how all the world's genes funnel back to one common African maternal ancestor 200k years ago and one common father 50k years later. This common father's Y genes form the basis of every male alive today.

    No these two are not called adam and Eve. But the two African "originals" are those whose lineage has never faltered according to Olson's research. Everyone on this earth is African if you want to trace back far enough. By knowing this lineage it is possible to find points of mutation where variety from the original commenced. The crunch is that eventually the current genetic differences will be blended and there will be a reversal of the dispersion of the genetic pool that has been occuring since the origin in Africa. The greater the numbers of immigrants, the more homogenised the genetic pool becomes. Isn't that happening already?
     
  2. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Yep it is ditch, and genetically speaking, that's a good thing. The homogenization of the gene pool will tend to strengthen us as a species. Of course there is a downside, as natural blondes will probably cease to exist in another 2 or 3 generations ;)

    By tracing the mutation in the mitochondrial DNA, that genetic material that is passed from mother to daughter, we can do two things...we can determine when the various races developed and we can with some certainty predict the number of generations when total re-homogenization occurs...barring any cultural influences that inhibit this.

    Fascinating topic! I believe that either Discovery or National Geographic ran a series on this a few months back.
     
  3. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Good thing for the human race maybe but I'm sure going to miss those natural blondes though.:(
     
  4. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Great topic.

    The fact is natural blondes will remain in our gene pool. Even if it is a recessive
    gene, it will surface in one in every four births where the gene is included. This
    gives us hope that blondes will survive even though they will probably be more
    coveted in the future.

    We also need to make sure we keep the diversity in the gene pool, which has kept
    the species so robust. Without the ability to survive another plague, we are done
    for as far as being viable for the long term.

    Today, more than ever, with the threat of Biological weapons bringing brought to
    threat against humanity we need this diversity.
     
  5. Paladin

    Paladin Have Gun -- Will Travel

    You and I each have 2 parents, 4 grand-parents, 8 great-grand-parents, 16 great-great... etc.. Roughly every 25 years you go back you double the number of ancestors.

    1K years ago we each had 2^40 ancestors or about 1 trillion. Since this is far more than the number of people that existed 1K years ago it is obvious that there is a considerable amount of interbreeding. Go back 150K years and I cannot see how we could *not* all be decendents of some one person.

    Fascinating that people can make money proving/explaining the obvious.

    Facts, truth, logic, reason -- we are all related.

    As for the end of racism: facts, truth, logic, and reason mean nothing to a bigot. You cannot reason with someone who's viewpoint was not reached by reason. Bigots insist on the right to teach their children bigotry. Racism will be with us for a few generations to come.

    FWIW, I have a book of essays that was printed in 1917. One essay complained about the dilution of Anglo-American society by the influx of southern and eastern Europeans. Different races, same song as today.
     
  6. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Very well said. Hopefully it will diminish with each successive generation, but it will be around for a while.
     
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    What we need to find is the gene for stupid.
     
  8. Paladin

    Paladin Have Gun -- Will Travel

    They have -- it's the "Y" chromosome.

    Seriously, I think it's more environment than genetic. I cannot think of solution that does not stomp all over basic human rights.
     
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Excellent topic and discussion thus far.

    Can anyone here provide me a reason to keep a "race" as one?
     
  10. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    I remember being taught (I'm not a biologist, and can't actually confirm this) that the concept of "race" is not a biological one at all. There is not any such scientifically definable category.
    But maybe this factoid is outdated in the face of more recent genomic research?
     
  11. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    I am wondering how you can justify that statement, Coot? I won't argue that it won't be better for us on a social level, but how will be be stronger biologically? Just from all my reading and TLC watching, I have been under the assumption that genetic diversity is very good for a species. I think it has to do with diseases, but I'm not sure. The more diverse a species is, the less likely it is that a disease or plague will wipe it out completely.

    Of course, with all our medical advancements, this may not be true for humans any longer. But what happened to the whole "diversity is good" argument? So far, diversity has done nothing but create a basis for racism.
     
  12. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    oops...take away the man's kewpie doll. Natural blondes are history within two centuries.
     
  13. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Yikes! Got me there. It seems, as I recall from my college biology oh so many years ago that the more genetically diverse a species is, the stronger and healthier the species.
     
  14. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Coot,

    If it's all the same to you, I'll keep that kewpie doll.

    <small>As quoted from the article you linked to:</small>
    "Genes don't die out unless there is a disadvantage of having that
    gene or by chance. They don't disappear," he told BBC News Online.

    "The only reason blondes would disappear is if having the gene was
    a disadvantage and I do not think that is the case.

    "The frequency of blondes may drop but they won't disappear."

    Damn, genetics!
     
  15. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    I thought natural blonds had been gone for a long time. Haven.t sen one in years...
     
  16. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Ahhh...always the dissenting point of view. ;)
     
  17. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    You or whomever wrote that can call it "mutation". I prefer to call it "evolution". I won't go any further into this because I don't feel like getting into another bout of trying to defend myself as not being a so-called "racist". ;)
     
  18. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    It's my scientific studied opinion that blondes will continue to reproduce as long as we have the four door sedan. :cool:
     
  19. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    "FWIW, I have a book of essays that was printed in 1917. One essay complained about the dilution of Anglo-American society by the influx of southern and eastern Europeans. Different races, same song as today."

    Paladin, What does not change is the initial outburst of rejection to any change in society. What is different now is these Eastern Europeans you refer to are now accepted and have assimilated into society. Hence the ex NY mayor being of Italain extraction by way of example. The same thing happened in my country and any other was on the receiving end of large numbers of migrants. The local populace, in part, objects. Over time after assimilation takes place with the children of the immigrants growing up and being educated with the children of their new country, noone objects as they used to. The same reaction applies to any change that does not have its roots in the psyche of the majority of the population. Thats why referendums fail so often, at least here they do and elswhere I would imagine. If something is perceived as being forced on you, your initial reaction is to object.

    I think too you are being too simplistic with the findings of the author of the book I quoted. If you believe there is one starting point for the entirety of mankind, to have traced it and to be as precise as the author has is no mean feat. If he is correct or not is another matter.
     
  20. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Re: Re: The beginning and end of racism

    You might be right there Haywire but the word I used was plucked from the review of the book. It may be scientifically correct to say mutation but I couldn't back that up right now. To mutate is to change, with mutation being the process of change. Evolution on the other hand is the process of developing from a rudimentary to a complete state. If we are talking about an already developed genetic strain reaching a fork in the road with some going off in different directions then mutation may be correct. If the undeveloped genetic strain reaches the same fork in the road and splits then its an evolutionary development. IMHO.
     

Share This Page