1400 years of inbreeding - Genetic defects, lower intelligence

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm not sure I believe in those.

Sickle-cell anemia in humans?  How about cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs? Come on.

[TylerDurden]

What about recessive genes that cause disease only when paired with another version of that gene? Such diseases are much less common among mixed-race people.

The point is that each ethnic group has via lengthy inbreeding plus selection-pressure/natural selection achieved a large number of unique benefits and disadvantages for itself due to specific combinations of  certain genes. Once admixture occurs between 2 different ethnic groups, both the benefits and the disadvantages of either ethnic group would presumably be lost in the mixed-race individual.

[cherimoya_kid]

The point is that each ethnic group has via lengthy inbreeding plus selection-pressure/natural selection achieved a large number of unique benefits and disadvantages for itself due to specific combinations of  certain genes. Once admixture occurs between 2 different ethnic groups, both the benefits and the disadvantages of either ethnic group would presumably be lost in the mixed-race individual.

What you're missing is that race-mixing is a good strategy in an environment where no humans ever did any evolving, like the Americas. And you're overstating the degree to which ANY race is suited to cold climates and high latitudes. Even Scandanavians and Inuits can easily freeze to death in cold-enough weather. Humans are still a species that prefers and needs warm temperatures. Granted, gingers with pale skin and freckles are well-adapted to low light, but they still are unsuited to cold weather.

[dariorpl]

Sickle-cell anemia in humans?  How about cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs? Come on.

I said I don't know if I believe those are caused by so-called "recessive genes".

[cherimoya_kid]

I said I don't know if I believe those are caused by so-called "recessive genes".

If they're not caused by recessive genes, then why do they show up pretty much entirely in specific populations, speaking mainly of sickle cell? It's not environmental, because sickle cell is only found in Black populations, and it is found in Black populations wherever they are in the world.

I don't even understand what you're disputing. That genetic diseases exist?  If they don't exist, then why do some members of a population get them, but not others?  Speaking specifically of populations in a common environment, on a similar diet.

This is settled science. You can buy lab mice with any one of many different genetic diseases, or  none at all. How much those diseases express themselves depends on environment, but they are still there.

[cherimoya_kid]

I really don't understand why I have to explain this stuff. High school biology, common sense, Google, and a healthy curiosity should have made questions like this unnecessary.

[TylerDurden]

Redhaired Neanderthals were well-suited to cold weather in the Ice-Age. Also, adaptation to different climates is only one tiny aspect of the evolution of different ethnic groups. For example, Caucasians are not really adapted to the cold, while East Asians/Orientals are actually the best adapted to cold environments. Indeed, there is a stronger  alternative explanation for Caucasian origins which is the sexual selection theory:-

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0301446021000019144

Let's give another example:- Caucasians get cystic fibrosis if they get 2 faulty chromosomes of the relevant gene, if they get only one copy of that CF gene, they are better protected against tuberculosis, apparently. Africans get sickle-cell anaemia if they get 2 copies of the relevant faulty gene, but get better protected against malaria if they have only one such copy. A mixed-race hybrid, half-black/half-white, would, in theory on average, have only a 50% chance of getting either sickle-cell anaemia or cystic fibrosis, having c.50% genes from the black and white parents respectively each, but would also be 50% less likely to be better protected against  malaria or tuberculosis. So such a mixed-race hybrid would now be exposed to two instead of one ethnic disease, albeit at a halved rate for each, and would only benefit 50% from better protection against tuberculosis and malaria. Being exposed to the possibility of 2 different diseases instead of just the one, albeit at a halved rate, and only getting a possible 50% of the benefits,  is not an evolutionary advantage, really.

It gets  worse. Take Ethiopians from the mountains for example. They are excellent tall, thin runners, but a half-Ethiopian/half-East-asian(short-legged, stocky types) would generally have parts of his legs coming from one parent, other leg-parts from another parent etc., thus leading to asymmetry, and making the hybrid a worse runner, and so on. There are so many other crucial differences such as the Inuit having a much larger liver than other ethnic groups due to their own particular natural selection as regards their unusual diet, and so on and on. Differences in behaviour traits matter too:-
Wolfdog hybrids are awfully close, evolutionarily-speaking, for example,  but no one can predict a particular wolfdog's behaviour as they are a hopelessly chaotic mix of wolf and dog traits.

[cherimoya_kid]

This is irrelevant anyway. We're literally on the cusp of genetically engineering humans anyway.

[dariorpl]

If they're not caused by recessive genes, then why do they show up pretty much entirely in specific populations, speaking mainly of sickle cell? It's not environmental, because sickle cell is only found in Black populations, and it is found in Black populations wherever they are in the world.

Maybe those genes have been destroyed or mutated, and are not "recessive".

[dariorpl]

This is irrelevant anyway. We're literally on the cusp of genetically engineering humans anyway.

Be careful what you wish for.

[TylerDurden]

This is irrelevant anyway. We're literally on the cusp of genetically engineering humans anyway.

Considering what a disaster humans have made in breeding dogs, I would not be too optimistic if I were you. Nature does breeding so much better than us. Also genetic engineering, while it will always be  too complicated and dangerous for the average citizen, libertarian eugenics would be simple and free of most difficulties.

Given your genetic engineering comment, I am sure you would love the possibility of the future being like Aldous Huxley's Gm-engineered "Brave New World". He intended his book to represent what a true  Socialist Utopia(er "Dystopia") would look like in the Future:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Have you ever read Bruce Sterling's "Shaper/Mechanist" series of SF novels and short-stories? They are all about GM-modified humans etc. in an era during the Technological Singularity:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaper/Mechanist_universe

It makes fascinating reading and was the reason why I used to buy into this  whole TS-"Man-becomes-God" idea before I swore off Ayn Rand and came to my senses.

[cherimoya_kid]

Maybe those genes have been destroyed or mutated, and are not "recessive".

If the gene is destroyed, then that means it doesn't exist at all. And a mutated gene can still be recessive.

[cherimoya_kid]

I haven't read those, Geoff, but they sound like they're worth reading for someone with my obsession with humanity's possible futures.

I actually think we'll ascend before too much longer, assuming nothing stops Moore's Law. I'm betting on 2033-2035 as the general time frame, although it could be sooner, much later, or not at all. People will get bored just sitting around with no problems to solve or challenges to endure, and, without physical death to end the boredom, I assume they will ascend to whatever the next level of existence is.

[goodsamaritan]

I haven't read those, Geoff, but they sound like they're worth reading for someone with my obsession with humanity's possible futures.

I actually think we'll ascend before too much longer, assuming nothing stops Moore's Law. I'm betting on 2033-2035 as the general time frame, although it could be sooner, much later, or not at all. People will get bored just sitting around with no problems to solve or challenges to endure, and, without physical death to end the boredom, I assume they will ascend to whatever the next level of existence is.

The future I see is different.  I see Europe in civil wars with the importation of too much middle easterners and africans.  The socialist apparatus will crumble and fall and anarchy rules.  Some whites will fight, and many will take flight, but they will be overwhelmed by the birth rates of the new immigrants - a few convert to islam.  I see a new dark age, like when Islamic State rules Europe, like when the Catholics used to rule Europe.  Middle easterners and black africans will give rise to a new Europe.  These new people will lose all that technological momentum.

Multiculturalism will end.  Only Islam will rule.

[cherimoya_kid]

The future I see is different.  I see Europe in civil wars with the importation of too much middle easterners and africans.  The socialist apparatus will crumble and fall and anarchy rules.  Some whites will fight, and many will take flight, but they will be overwhelmed by the birth rates of the new immigrants - a few convert to islam.  I see a new dark age, like when Islamic State rules Europe, like when the Catholics used to rule Europe.  Middle easterners and black africans will give rise to a new Europe.  These new people will lose all that technological momentum.

Multiculturalism will end.  Only Islam will rule.

You're forgetting who has the nukes. ISIS could be nothing but a memory in about an hour. And let's not forget that Europeans invented the death camp. The Muslim problem can be solved quite easily. You don't fuck with white people. They'll end your race, and then put up a museum in your honor.

[goodsamaritan]

You're forgetting who has the nukes. ISIS could be nothing but a memory in about an hour. And let's not forget that Europeans invented the death camp. The Muslim problem can be solved quite easily. You don't fuck with white people. They'll end your race, and then put up a museum in your honor.

Problem with whites is that your feminism has sabotaged male-female relationships you cannot even reproduce enough by yourselves these days.  Maybe there is hope with Mormons?

As a Filipino, I'm sympathetic to the whites.  We have a good long relationship with whites with the Spanish and the Americans.  Our blood is infused with white genetics.   I myself have both a Spanish great grand father and a Jewish great grand father.

So I am sincerely hoping you are correct.

[cherimoya_kid]

Who started World War II? Who dropped TWO atomic bombs on civilian targets?

[goodsamaritan]

Who started World War II? Who dropped TWO atomic bombs on civilian targets?

Irrelevant in this thread.  Oh you mean in support of your guess that the whites will do genocide to the middle easterners and blacks? 

I'm not into genocide.  But I hope you whites can get your act together and get rid of feminism.

Problem with whites is that your feminism has sabotaged male-female relationships you cannot even reproduce enough by yourselves these days.

Even if 1400 years of inbreeding has been happening, you have to give it to these people they still know how to reproduce and live on.  And they know how to take advantage of welfare.

[cherimoya_kid]

*snort* white people aren't going to go down like punks in their own lands. But it will never come to that. The world is about to change in ways most of you don't even begin to understand, I think.

[goodsamaritan]

Ann Barnhardt is smart.
She correctly shows that Islam is a political system masquerading itself as religion, much like Nazism wanted to show itself as a religion.
Thus being able to scuttle the governments who view freedom of religion as a protected right.
If Anne succeeds in her lecture being popularized, she seems to be one of the white knights to bring light to the current situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA

Listen to her, it is all logic.

She also discusses inbreeding near the end.

[TylerDurden]

Inbreeding is not a survival strategy at all UNLESS one practises natural selection/unnatural selection, so Islam is in real trouble as regards this point. Islam has many good (ie pro-survival) points in its favour, such as strong family values and a ban on decadence(ie no alcohol, no smoking, no drugs). The catch is that it is anti-technology. Christianity did change its anti-Science view in the West, with many priests even as far back as 1000(?) AD or so indulging in science.

I notice that White Muslims(eg:- Bosnia/Chechnya) have a very high birth-rate.

I see a different future, myself to you lot. I can see Fermi's Paradox/The Great Filter Theory in operation already.We humans already started a form of climate change c.40,000 years ago or so:-
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-may-2012/australias-megafauna-extinctions-cause-and-effect.html

Now a massive extinction of species is happening and climate-change is starting to harm humans, such as the various Great Droughts now happening in the US. That is not even taking into account the possibility of global warming.

Feminism is not the reason for  the drop in population. The real reason is a drop in religion(religious people have more children by far than atheists) as well as the birth-control pill. Even Iran is having huge problems in boosting their population at the moment.

Then there are scientists pointing out that the average human brain-size has been declining for at least 10,000 years with our descendants ending up with brains the size of homo erectus in 10,000 years from now.

The Singularity, imo, is unlikely to happen. Bruce Sterling, the Futurist and SF writer who was one of the teo main ones to write about the Singularity, has pointed out that it is just hubristic and unlikely. I reckon Huebner's points about a new coming  Dark Age sound more logical. Even if strong AI is created, humanity will not be able to benefit unless mind-uploading becomes possible, with many scientists pointing out its impossibility.

Hmm, on the other hand, if Libertarian eugenics became possible  things could happen... Imagine TV commercials offering the GE-introduction of DNA into  one's testicles  from a Maths medal winner like the Fields Medal(the Nobel Prize is a purely politically-influenced award so meaningless as a measure of intelligence), or people being able to choose how their embryos will later look in adulthood etc.

[cherimoya_kid]

In a world where robots do everything, humans have much less reason to fight...or even come into contact with people they don't want to at all. That's the real reason that conflicts will lessen.

[TylerDurden]

In a world where robots do everything, humans have much less reason to fight...or even come into contact with people they don't want to at all. That's the real reason that conflicts will lessen.

Automating everything is very dangerous. It is already leading to mass unemployment and low-skilled jobs.

Plus, any truly sentient, conscious AI is going to refuse to be humanity's slave.

[JeuneKoq]

Plus, any truly sentient, conscious AI is going to refuse to be humanity's slave.

Can't we control that? As in, not make them sentient?

[TylerDurden]

Can't we control that? As in, not make them sentient?

The general concensus among a number of scientists  is that control over an AI is not going to work. All attempts at control/domination would lead to an AI turning into a Berserker and then wiping us out. All sorts of things have been suggested such as putting AIs in isolated "AI Boxes" or turning the AIs off on a regular basis and always wiping out their memories each time, but the idea is that a genuinely intelligent AI would eventually overcome such obstacles. Of course, not allowing consciousness is an idea but the trouble is that automation only works up to a certain limit. For AI to be really effective, it would have to be conscious as well