PDA

View Full Version : Extinction of the white man?



Nonkers
2006-Apr-07, 12:14 PM
Ceteris paribus (which is unlikely!), it is said that by 2050 the whites even in the UK will be a minority. Given the low/zero birth rate of white peoples, is it possible that by 2100 the white race could actually be heading towards global extinction?

alainprice
2006-Apr-07, 12:23 PM
Low birth rates are one thing, extinction is another.

I'm 23 and don't plan on having kids, but I bet I'll have 2-3 jr's running around. So if my wife and I have 2 kids, we are not really making the white population any larger, but at the same time, it's not getting any smaller.

Argos
2006-Apr-07, 12:30 PM
I think the point is that "racial" mergers will contribute to the darkening of mankind. The Man of the future will be light brown. Brazil is a classic example of this trend. The white population is declining steadily (low birth rates combined with racial mergers) along the last 100 years. It will make mankind stronger (and more musical :)).

Fram
2006-Apr-07, 12:54 PM
And if this continues, it is not "the white race that will disappear", it is a unification of skin colours and thus a disappearance of regional varieties. The white variety may be the first to disappear, but eventually they'll all go. But this disappearance of white skin will not happen by 2100, as many kids born today will still be alive then, and many of them will form a family with other white persons. People that can trace their ancestors back to "white" people only (and that is hard to do, as there is no clear distinction, only a gradual one, between the different groups of skin colour) for the first three or four generations (i.e. all 16 greatgreatgrandparents are supposedly white) may become a true minority in every country by 2200.

Skin colour is not an indication of "race" though, just a minor genetic change, and as I said, is gradual.

TriangleMan
2006-Apr-07, 01:15 PM
As far as I'm concerned the sooner skin colour becomes more harmonized the better - mankind's hang-ups about skin colour has led to all sorts of problems throught history.

Swift
2006-Apr-07, 02:53 PM
As far as I'm concerned the sooner skin colour becomes more harmonized the better - mankind's hang-ups about skin colour has led to all sorts of problems throught history.
Very well said, though we seem to have great skill in finding other things to divide us. :shrug:

antoniseb
2006-Apr-07, 03:25 PM
we seem to have great skill in finding other things to divide us.
Sad but true. Not just divide us, but make us angry in our actions of division. As noted above, it is doubtful that one race will be extinct till near the time that we all are (which hopefully will not be for tens of billions of years).

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-07, 11:18 PM
Ceteris paribus (which is unlikely!), it is said that by 2050 the whites even in the UK will be a minority. Given the low/zero birth rate of white peoples, is it possible that by 2100 the white race could actually be heading towards global extinction?Are you sure this is the right forum to ask such a question? :hand:

Here's an answer, anyway: White colour does not go away. (http://backintyme.com/essay041215.htm)

Lord Jubjub
2006-Apr-08, 12:33 AM
What constitutes the "white" race?

Manchurian Taikonaut
2006-Apr-08, 01:12 AM
Given the low/zero birth rate of white peoples, is it possible that by 2100 the white race could actually be heading towards global extinction?

Don't worry about it, the idea of race is nonsense & your chums in the UK are not really an English-race they are likley to already be a mix-mash of Germanics, Spanish, Vikings, Celts, French, Scots, Romans, Normans or whatever people long before your so-called 'immigrants' arrived.
If you're concerned about 'the tone' of your friends in the UK just wait for your next IceAge in the next few thousand years I'm sure the human race won't be as tanned-looking then

Argos
2006-Apr-08, 01:06 PM
Lord jubjub wrote: "What constitutes the "white" race?"

Itīs funny... I know blonde people who descend from (colored) africans. The concept of race is really nonsense.

Nonkers
2006-Apr-08, 01:17 PM
Given increased miscegenation and entropy, will eventually mankind become of indistinct race and gender ie something akin to Michael Jackson?

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-08, 01:20 PM
:lol:

I guess men better start dating other men, and women better start dating other women, if we want to prevent that.

Wolverine
2006-Apr-08, 04:15 PM
The Questions & Answers section of the forum hosts inquiries about astronomy and space.

Moved to BABBling.

Note added: In my original post I'd mistaken Nonkers for a previously banned poster, and suspended their account. Account reinstated with apologies.

Kaptain K
2006-Apr-08, 05:29 PM
There is only only one race, the human race. Skin color, hair color, eye color, etc, etc. are minor variations on the same theme. Hate and distrust of others who look "different" from us is an unfortunate fact of life that, with any luck, we will eventually outgrow.

Roy Batty
2006-Apr-08, 05:48 PM
There is only only one race, the human race. Skin color, hair color, eye color, etc, etc. are minor variations on the same theme. Hate and distrust of others who look "different" from us is an unfortunate fact of life that, with any luck, we will eventually outgrow.
Hear Hear!:clap:

(Now, what about those replicants... ;))

space cadet
2006-Apr-08, 06:29 PM
I don't have anything against interacial marriages--my best friend is half japanese and married to a red-head guy--but even so, I think the physical traits of various races and cultures are part of what make people the human race interesting. It sometimes saddens me to think of everyone as having the same color of skin and hair, even if it does solve some of the aforementioned problems.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-08, 06:33 PM
I don't think a little more intermarriage would make much of a change to the human race. We already are thoroughly "intermixed", after all.

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-08, 08:13 PM
I don't think a little more intermarriage would make much of a change to the human race. We already are thoroughly "intermixed", after all.Unless, the change was improvement :)

The cablinasian (http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970430.html) and subsequent controversy

tofu
2006-Apr-08, 08:32 PM
I think the physical traits of various races and cultures are part of what make people the human race interesting.

Well, I don't think that the genes for blue eyes (to use an example) are just going to disappear, but they wont all be concentrated in the same place.

Hey here's an interesting question: Which traits, physical or otherwise, do you think that we are selecting for? You can answer the question for the human race as a whole or based on your particular country or area.

Note that I'm not asking, "what traits make a person successful" because the answer to that might be something like education or hard work or whatever. I'm asking what traits are being passed on to the next generation. I have noticed, and this is at least partially selection bias, that the most attractive women do not have the most children.

Nonkers
2006-Apr-08, 10:35 PM
How is the origin of the Caucasoid, Negroid, Melanesian, Indian, Amerindian, Australoid, Polynesian, Mestizo, and Mongoloid branches of mankind explained according to evolution and when did they diverge?

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-08, 10:53 PM
How is the origin of the Caucasoid, Negroid, Melanesian, Indian, Amerindian, Australoid, Polynesian, Mestizo, and Mongoloid branches of mankind explained according to evolution and when did they diverge?They never did. Those categories are biologically meaningless. See this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38722).

Nonkers
2006-Apr-08, 11:22 PM
So granted the 6'6" tall blonde white Scandinavian and 3' tall black Pygmie are one race and genetically identical. Why did the differences emerge and when?

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Apr-08, 11:30 PM
Why Is This Whole Thread, Reminding me of a Line from Bulworth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118798/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9YnVsd2 9ydGh8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09 MQ__;fc=1;ft=21;fm=1):


All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep [BEEP] everybody 'til they're all the same color.

Sound About Fair, to Everyone?

:clap:

Extravoice
2006-Apr-09, 12:35 AM
Why Is This Whole Thread, Reminding me of a Line from Bulworth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118798/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9YnVsd2 9ydGh8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09 MQ__;fc=1;ft=21;fm=1):



Sound About Fair, to Everyone?

:clap:

No thanks, I'll stick with the same woman I've been with for the last 24 years. But you can go right ahead. :)

Nonkers
2006-Apr-09, 01:28 AM
The evil Nazi "scientists" had plans to breed some kind of ubermensch through lebensborn and eugenics.

If they had won the war and had proceeded unfettered with their breeding and experiments for centuries, could they actually have "succeeded" in producing a "superior" human in any area?

Or is there no room left in the current human genetic code for any worthwhile "improvements"?

jkmccrann
2006-Apr-09, 02:44 AM
As far as I'm concerned the sooner skin colour becomes more harmonized the better - mankind's hang-ups about skin colour has led to all sorts of problems throught history.

This may happen to a degree, but it will never occur everywhere. Survival of the fittest and evolution testify to this. People of dark skin living in arctic climates for instance can get ill simply because of the melanin in their skin.

The other thing is, how do you define `white people' anyway. Caucasians are generally white, indeed, but then - so are the majority of Japanese, so if you're talking about `white people' you'd have to include more than just the Caucasians.

jkmccrann
2006-Apr-09, 02:58 AM
They never did. Those categories are biologically meaningless. See this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38722).

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Sure, people from any given race may be 99.9% the same, but there are differences, and they are not biologically meaningless.

Can you explain to me for instance why some races have genetic dispositions to certain illnesses? Or for instance, why some drugs will have a greater effect on one race than another?

Is that sort of thing biologically meaningless?

If I were a minority group being prescribed a drug for instance. I would like to know of this sort of divergence.

What if there was a study done that indicated that in general this drug had adverse effects on 1% of the population at large, but when that study was narrowed to my particular minority - perhaps I was a Polynesian for instance - what if the studies indicated that the drug had adverse effects on 15% of Polynesians - but given that there are hardly any Polynesians where I live - perhaps Iceland - there had hardly been any weight given to its effects on Polynesians.

I would sure like to know about this divergence because it would effect my willingness to take such a drug.

True, there are many many factors that come into play to explain things like this, I'm not denying that, but you can't deny that different races are effected in different ways.

The obvious one yes, but if we're all biologically exactly the same - which I infer from you saying that differences between races are biologically meaningless. Why is it that people who live in tropical climates, and who have darker skin, do not suffer as much from certain types of skin cancer - melanomas for instance, as white/light skinned people who live in these areas.

If differences in races are completely biologically meaningless, as you assert, how on Earth can you explain this?

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Apr-09, 07:03 AM
The evil Nazi "scientists" had plans to breed some kind of ubermensch through lebensborn and eugenics.

If they had won the war and had proceeded unfettered with their breeding and experiments for centuries, could they actually have "succeeded" in producing a "superior" human in any area?

Or is there no room left in the current human genetic code for any worthwhile "improvements"?
Bigger, Stronger, Faster, Possibly ...

Unfortunately This Would ONLY Be Useful In The Industrial Context ...

Given a Real Famine or Plague, Human Diversity Provides a Superiority of its Own!

:think:

Nonkers
2006-Apr-09, 09:55 AM
The Nazis seemed to want to create a "perfect" human using the same technique some use to breed specialised dogs or horses. But there is a nasty catch; many of the "perfect" thoroughbred horses and dogs are horribly inbred and have far too many genetic defects. Mongrel dogs are ironically the most healthy, even though they are frowned upon by most dog breeders. And same goes for horses from a normal, mixed gene stock too. Presumably the Germans were aware of this. If Becker had married Graff instead of Ermakova, would they have increased the chances of producing another tennis wunderkind?

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-09, 12:15 PM
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this.See the discussion in the link I posted. Here's the gist of it:
- Biologically, skin tone is only skindeep. It's not related to any other 'racial' genetic characteristic.
- Race is not defined by a small set of objective physical characteristics, anyway. It's a socially constructed notion.

jkmccrann
2006-Apr-09, 01:56 PM
See the discussion in the link I posted. Here's the gist of it:
- Biologically, skin tone is only skindeep. It's not related to any other 'racial' genetic characteristic.
- Race is not defined by a small set of objective physical characteristics, anyway. It's a socially constructed notion.

Yes, after I posted, I did read most of that discussion. Thanks, was very enlightening and informative.

And I would agree there is a large social element when it comes to determining how to define such a thing as a race - undeniable - but I would argue that within those socially constructed notions of race there is undeniably within this race or that - genetic dispositions to certain illnesses, certain diseases, certain conditions - whatever. I"m talking at a statistical level here.

Within Asians/Mongoloids for instance there is the gene relating to going red when imbibing alcohol.

(Asians Discussing the 'Asian Flush' (http://www.echeng.com/asianblush/viewtopic.php?pid=449))

It's true, not every Asian is effected by this, and so you can't say that to define an Asian one must be flushed after a few classes of alcohol - but its well known that of the people that this occurs in, you'll find close to 100% of them would be racially classified as Asians.

So while its true, its a fallacy to say to be a Negroid one must possess this gene, or that gene, or to be a Caucasian, one must have this particular gene, defining race is, in my view, a mix of genetic factors defined by statistical trends intermixed with cultural conceptions.

There's no doubt, to a certain extent, one can define which `race' they wish to belong to - by who they identify with and perhaps who they choose to emulate, if indeed anyone, but the mix of genetic factors (of which skin colour is decidedly one), statistical trends and cultural fashions of the time all have a part to play in defining race. All of them.

In my view, it depends where you're coming from, and to some extent, what agenda you may be promoting, in evaluating all of these factors to determine how you're going to define race. No doubt, no one is without bias. Its a tough question really, but in my view to completely deny that there are genetic dispositions in certain races (as we would generally understand that term to be used) to certain ailments/conditions/whatever is to deny statistical reality to an absurd degree.

Roy Batty
2006-Apr-09, 02:03 PM
Its a tough question really, but in my view to completely deny that there are genetic dispositions in certain races (as we would generally understand that term to be used) to certain ailments/conditions/whatever is to deny statistical reality to an absurd degree.
Of course. Another example would be Sickle Cell Anemia.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-09, 02:20 PM
It's true, not every Asian is effected by this, and so you can't say that to define an Asian one must be flushed after a few classes of alcohol - but its well known that of the people that this occurs in, you'll find close to 100% of them would be racially classified as Asians.

So while its true, its a fallacy to say to be a Negroid one must possess this gene, or that gene, or to be a Caucasian, one must have this particular gene, defining race is, in my view, a mix of genetic factors defined by statistical trends intermixed with cultural conceptions.That's why it's more accurate, from a biological point of view, to say that those statistical predispositions correlate with geography (or ancestry) than to say that they are associated with race.


Of course. Another example would be Sickle Cell Anemia.Did you read the other thread? Sickle cell anemia was one of the examples analysed in it. :)

Roy Batty
2006-Apr-09, 02:43 PM
No sorry, I didn't:o But I was just responding to the fact that we still need to differentiate medically to certain conditions. I guess i'll leave the question of race out of it.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-09, 03:01 PM
You can just read this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=696718&postcount=82), if you don't want to wade through the whole thread.

Roy Batty
2006-Apr-09, 03:19 PM
Oh consider it waded already :)

Taks
2006-Apr-09, 05:20 PM
The other thing is, how do you define `white people' anyway. Caucasians are generally white, indeed, but then - so are the majority of Japanese, so if you're talking about `white people' you'd have to include more than just the Caucasians.
they (the japanese) were actually considered mongoloid - not down's syndrome mongoloid, but mongolian. there's a wiki on it.

taks

Maksutov
2006-Apr-09, 05:46 PM
Well, according to the title of this thread, at least the white woman will have nothing to worry about. Which means, most importantly, there will still be an answer to Cleavon Little's question as posed in Blazing Saddles. http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Argos
2006-Apr-10, 03:38 PM
space cadet wrote: It sometimes saddens me to think of everyone as having the same color of skin and hair, even if it does solve some of the aforementioned problems.

The different traits will remain in the human genetic repertoire forever. Though mankind is destined to become predominantly darker, I donīt think there will be a standardized human phenotype. Blue eyes, blonde hair, white skin, will keep popping up every now and then.

Taks
2006-Apr-10, 03:48 PM
yeah, that's the problem with using the birth/death rates to determine whether a trait dies out. the counting method (poisson process) works well for determining survivability of the species as a whole (well, if constrained and lots of assumptions are made), but not for characteristic deaths such as purported for this subject. since the species as a whole now has a birth rate larger than its death rate, the genes that determine skin color will never go away and will, eventually, present themselves in a birth.

taks

Monique
2006-Apr-10, 03:52 PM
I do not worry about such distinctions. My mother is Spanish, my father is French. My American friend love a Persian. If love, caring more important. :)

farmerjumperdon
2006-Apr-10, 04:15 PM
On the subject of race, however one wants to define it or define it away, we probably all started out looking the same, we diverged, we are now assimilating, and could easily repeat the cycle. However, anyone who thinks the whitest of skin or the blackest of skin will be gone in anything less than many, many generations has not been paying attention to human behavior. I give it several centuries at minimum.

As far as reasons to fight - even less likely that will ever go away. It's born out of the survival and thrival instincts. (Yeah, I just made up thrival). Because there are fixed resources, and because resources are perceived to have value, and because no group ever appears to be happy with just survival but instead aims at ever increasing levels of luxury and comfort (thrival); there will forever be fighting over what is to be had.

Just look around. Rich countries are at war over oil while poor countries can't even manage to get food on everybody's plate. Their thirst for cheap oil far outweighs the superficial outrage with the world's worst atrocities. It appears the consumers of the world will always prefer a lot of luxury with a little war on the side over global peace and having to settle for a bit less. History shows that to be true no matter who is in power. I don't care if it is Bush and his cronies or the people of Darfur. If the Darfur clans were to somehow come out of this, and their culture rise in prominence to where they somehow ascended to the throne of world power, they would run the same game on people that world powers have been running for millenia.

My official opinion is that the human psyche is not yet suffuiciently evolved to truly embrace global peace and all that such would entail. We still have way too much of the wild beast in us.

Hard to argue with the reality of history, which includes today.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2006-Apr-10, 04:36 PM
I do not worry about such distinctions. My mother is Spanish, my father is French. My American friend love a Persian. If love, caring more important.
I actually think people (of opposite gender) from different races would like each other more. In my (international) high school most couples are of different races... aussie/banglash...malaysian/japanese...korean/chinese... or in my case i am middle eastern and my gf is japanese...

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Apr-10, 06:17 PM
I actually think people (of opposite gender) from different races would like each other more. In my (international) high school most couples are of different races... aussie/banglash...malaysian/japanese...korean/chinese... or in my case i am middle eastern and my gf is japanese...
Eh ...

Just Goes to Show ...

In Matters of The HEART, Some Things Just Don't Matter!

jkmccrann
2006-Apr-10, 07:01 PM
they (the japanese) were actually considered mongoloid - not down's syndrome mongoloid, but mongolian. there's a wiki on it.

taks

Yep, understand that Taks, Mongoloids, Negroids, Caucasians etc. etc.

The point I was making is that the OP was headed,



'Extinction of the white man?'


A lower case use of `white' man would surely indicate anyone with light/white skin, would it not?

Also, if the thread-starter was referring to those commonly referred to as Caucasians, that would be a different question than asking about the `Extinction of the white man?' People with light/white skin have that because of the lack of melanin in their skin because of the weakness of sunlight where they live.

I was merely making the point, and I'll make it again here, that although all Caucasians are generally white, all whites are not necessarily Causcasian - Japanese, Manchurians, Koreans etc. - they can all have very light/pale skin - even though they are from the Mongoloid branch.

So I guess the implied question I was directing back at Nonkers is (and if you read this Nonkers can you clarify) - are you speculating about humanity in general and totality having a darker skin tone? Or are you musing about the prospects for those known as Caucasians?

Taks
2006-Apr-11, 04:02 AM
A lower case use of `white' man would surely indicate anyone with light/white skin, would it not? yeah, i suppose so... after i posted i also noted that you mentioned the mongoloid "race" earlier anyway, so it became an obviously moot distinction.


I was merely making the point, and I'll make it again here, that although all Caucasians are generally white, all whites are not necessarily Causcasian - Japanese, Manchurians, Koreans etc. - they can all have very light/pale skin - even though they are from the Mongoloid branch.true, which is the distinction i originally did not notice you had made.

taks

Jim
2006-Apr-11, 04:34 PM
The Daily Show did a segment on the White Minority that is worth watching. Basically, it says that the terms white, black, brown, etc are outdated; we should use much subtler designations.

Besides, in a few hundred years, we'll all be one color anyway... Soft Pumpkin.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml
Page down to the video link.

Oh, Racist Like Me is fun, too.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Apr-11, 05:59 PM
Anybody ever see the comedy special, I think dome by Martin Mull, The History of White People in America?

Hilarious. Each family member had their own personal gallon-size jar of Mayonaise in the fridge - with their name on it.

Maksutov
2006-Apr-11, 06:06 PM
The Daily Show did a segment on the White Minority that is worth watching. Basically, it says that the terms white, black, brown, etc are outdated; we should use much subtler designations.

Besides, in a few hundred years, we'll all be one color anyway... Soft Pumpkin.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml
Page down to the video link.

Oh, Racist Like Me is fun, too.Thanks for the link. Hilarious!

As usual, Jay Ward had a pithy comment on this subject:


George: Look! White man set up camp in jungle!
Ape Named Ape: [deep sigh] Well, there goes the neighborhood!
-from George of the JunglePlus in a few hundred years, if that prediction is correct, we'll finally know what Schulz was getting at. (http://www.petcaretips.net/charlie_brown_great_pumpkin.html)

Nonkers
2006-Apr-28, 09:31 AM
Russia is an example of a country emptying out of humanity http://www.rense.com/general45/russia.htm

What is the future of countries with ageing populations, negative birth rates and no immigration? Do they ultimately disappear? Are they taken over peacefully? Invaded? Amalgamate with other countries?

With contraception, marriage in disfavour and no desire or incentive to reproduce at all, could some countries disappear from the map this century?

Meanwhile, it looks like the Latinos in the US have reached a critical mass and are looking for confrontation
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/27/060428003322.epcumvdx.html

How will the declining white authorities and population respond, if at all, short term and long term?

Nicolas
2006-Apr-28, 12:47 PM
There is only only one race, the human race. Skin color, hair color, eye color, etc, etc. are minor variations on the same theme.

What is the correct word for those variations then?

I mean, you've got many "types" of cats. They differ in fur colour and some minor geometrical (facial, body) differences. For humans, there are also this kind of differences (those few who claim there aren't should open their eyes and look at the wonderful differences in people around them :D). I don't know whether it's the same "mechanism" that generates these "types" of cats and different humans.

But anyway, what's the correct (I don't mean politically correct but biologically correct) word for the differences between humans? And is there only one class of differences or are there more levels?

I mean there's a clear difference between (roughly said) a European, African or Asian human. But there also are subtle differences that allow us to often identify even tiny differences such as Belgians from Dutch people (at least I often can because I'm very familiar with them).

In short, some biological terms and info on the differences between humans please :).

Jim
2006-Apr-28, 03:00 PM
Hmmm. I guess we could use the same reference as we do for cats (or dogs). Same race (species), different breeds.

Of course, the vast majority of us would then belong to that widely encompassing breed known as "Heinz 57," so we're back where we started.

five_distinct
2006-Apr-28, 03:07 PM
Why has almost every non-White immigrant group in U.S. history—Irish, Jews, even Chinese in Jim Crow Mississippi—been embraced by America’s ever-expanding blanket of Whiteness ...

Whoa....Irish people aren't white? Wait til I tell my black friends!

Argos
2006-Apr-28, 03:09 PM
Hmmm. I guess we could use the same reference as we do for cats (or dogs). Same race (species), different breeds.

Of course, the vast majority of us would then belong to that widely encompassing breed known as "Heinz 57," so we're back where we started.

Thatīs great. Iīd be a Brazilian White Retriever.

Argos
2006-Apr-28, 03:16 PM
Whoa....Irish people aren't white? Wait til I tell my black friends!

Most Jews and Chinese are white too.

Swift
2006-Apr-28, 04:05 PM
Hmmm. I guess we could use the same reference as we do for cats (or dogs). Same race (species), different breeds.

Of course, the vast majority of us would then belong to that widely encompassing breed known as "Heinz 57," so we're back where we started.
In birding, different "varieties" within a species are often called races. They are often distinguished by differences in coloring. I have also seen the term "phase" as in "grey phase" and "red phase" screech owls.

I personally have no problem with the term "race" for humans. I suspect it may be broader than just black and white and yellow. I think the term "ethnic group" also covers some of this too. I just don't think we should get so worked up about the differences, such as worrying about "whites" disappearing. I don't worry that the world is running out of blue-eyed people, or short people, or people with size 10 feet either. Maybe we should focus on how we are the same, not how we are different.

I suspect the use of the term "breed" would be taken as insulting by people, because of the connection to animals and animal husbandry.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-28, 05:28 PM
There is only only one race, the human race. Skin color, hair color, eye color, etc, etc. are minor variations on the same theme.What is the correct word for those variations then?
For colour you have:

- fair, dark, light-skinned, tanned, etc.

For hair you have:

- blonde, brunette, redhead, dark-haired, blue haired, etc.

For eyes, you have:

- blue-eyed, green-eyed, brown-eyed, etc.


I mean, you've got many "types" of cats. They differ in fur colour and some minor geometrical (facial, body) differences. For humans, there are also this kind of differences (those few who claim there aren't should open their eyes and look at the wonderful differences in people around them :D). I don't know whether it's the same "mechanism" that generates these "types" of cats and different humans.When you talk about "types of cats", my guess is you're thinking of the fancy pampered ones, with a pedigree -- and a lot of artificial selection in their family tree. Try finding "types" in mutt cats.


Hmmm. I guess we could use the same reference as we do for cats (or dogs). Same race (species), different breeds.No, you can't (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=642795#post642795).

Nicolas
2006-Apr-28, 06:31 PM
Disinfo Agent: the names for hair colour etc was not really what I was asking :).

I mean, Biology has lots of names for variation (not for what is the variation, but the type of variation), like race, breed, family... (I don't know all the Engllish terms). These often have a strict definition (like members of the same biological family should be able to get fertile baby animals (word :D) .

Is there any biological mechanism for the general differences between the human "races" (I don't mean just eye colour, but the African, Chinese, etc stereotype) that would qualify it for a biological name? I know that there are little "pure breed" humans or cats, but that's not the point here.

I'm just curious because I would like to know if there is a biological definition and term for the differences between human stereotypes, or biology just defines humans as a whole as the smallest division of subspecies. Which I would find strange, considering the enormous divisions we see in animal classification. But maybe those differences have a different biological mechanism, I don't know.

With the political correctness overflow, it is no longer clear to me whether there simply is no biological term for subdividing humans, or PC demands not to do so.

For the record: I'm not racist at all. I study abroad, and I live in an extremely mixed environment, where all races (or whatever is the correct term) and religions are found. Right now, I'm working in a subgroup of 5 people in which we have 2 different races and 3 different religions. Just to give you an idea of the mixing overhere :). If there is a term for the stereotypical differences (I'm not talking about culture and religiion but biology now), I would like to know it so I use the scientifically correct term - or no term should science make no difference. It's not handy when discussing human differences with people and having to put an "?" each time one uses the term "races" :).

Baut is slow, the link you gave is still loading...

Nicolas
2006-Apr-28, 06:37 PM
What I understand from your link:

As there is no genetical mechanism that divides humans into categories known as races, there is no biological classification for them.

Each difference (hair colour, skin colour) is called a phenotype in biology, but human differences can only be seen in separate phenotypes, not as group properties. That's why "different human races" cannot be biologically defined.

What we tend to call "races" is no biologically defined group for humans, but sets of stereotypes with common phenotype groups. So it's more like a statistical phenotype division.

I think that it's best for us (I mean me and my friends in the real world :)) to continue using the word "races" when we discuss the subject. Now we know on what that division is based, we know that we aren't strictly biological races, but "statistical phenotype classifications". It may be obvious that it is handy to have that term in mind, but use the word "races" for practical considerations :D.

Thanks for the info.

Doodler
2006-Apr-28, 06:46 PM
Of course. Another example would be Sickle Cell Anemia.

Regrettably, that attitude that some diseases statistically affect one race more often than another is currently killing my mother by inches. She has Stage IV sarcoids because five years of misdiagnosis dismissed this disease as a candidate because sarcoids is a disease statistically more likely to affect blacks, and she's white. In fact, an oncologist said it flat out, that had she been black, she would have been tested for this disease from the outset.

One could call it the fault of the bean counting mentality that disseminates treatment based on statistical models, but the fact remains, even in the modern medical community, treatment of illness is far from colorblind.

Swift
2006-Apr-28, 07:27 PM
<snip>I mean, Biology has lots of names for variation (not for what is the variation, but the type of variation), like race, breed, family... (I don't know all the Engllish terms). These often have a strict definition (like members of the same biological family should be able to get fertile baby animals (word :D) .

I am not a biologist, so I might be wrong, but I don't think that there is a strict definition for those in non-human species. As I mentioned above, birders do talk about phases or races within a bird species, but even these change over time. For example, Baltimore orioles (http://www.enature.com/fieldguides/detail.asp?source=&parkid=&searchText=oriole&allSpecies=y&shapeID=0&lshapeID=0&curAbbr=&lastView=default&lastGroup=1&lastRegion=&lastFilter=4&lastShapeName=&trackType=&curRegionID=&size=&habitat=&fruit=&color=&sortBy=family&curFamilyID=&regionSelect=All+regions&regionZIP=&curGroupID=1&lgfromWhere=&curPageNum=8) and Bullock's Oriole were considered two species and are now considered one, with two color varieties. And even at a given point in time, the terms do not seem to be used consistently. There are bird species that show lots of variations and in those, sometimes the variations are grouped, and sometimes they are not.

I think beskeptical's point from the linked posting was that if you want to group populations by a particular genetic trait, like blood-type, you can.
But the concept of "race", as some specific combination of external physical characteristics, such as skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc. has really no biological signifigance.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-28, 08:08 PM
Swift said it before me. I'm not a biologist either, but here's what I've gathered:

- "Race" and "breed" are not really used a lot by biologists, nowadays. They are more like folk terms, or terms used by animal breeders.
- Even standard biological terms like "family", "class", or "phylum" are far from being 100% consensual. There's been a lot of discussion and reclassification in taxonomy in recent years as new data appeared, particularly from DNA analyses.
- But it gets worse yet: the very concept of "species", the basis of all other categories, is fuzzy (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=672545&highlight=fuzzy#post672545).


With the political correctness overflow, it is no longer clear to me whether there simply is no biological term for subdividing humans, or PC demands not to do so.

For the record: I'm not racist at all. I study abroad, and I live in an extremely mixed environment, where all races (or whatever is the correct term) and religions are found. Right now, I'm working in a subgroup of 5 people in which we have 2 different races and 3 different religions. Just to give you an idea of the mixing overhere :). If there is a term for the stereotypical differences (I'm not talking about culture and religiion but biology now), I would like to know it so I use the scientifically correct term - or no term should science make no difference. It's not handy when discussing human differences with people and having to put an "?" each time one uses the term "races" :).No problem, Nicholas. I've been on that side of the fence, too. Now that I've passed to the Dark Side, I can never resist trying to make some converts. ;)

You can use the word "race". It's what everyone calls it (although many argue that "ethnicity" is a more useful term). Just know that that it refers to something which has no biological leg to stand on.


What I understand from your link:

As there is no genetical mechanism that divides humans into categories known as races, there is no biological classification for them.

Each difference (hair colour, skin colour) is called a phenotype in biology, but human differences can only be seen in separate phenotypes, not as group properties. That's why "different human races" cannot be biologically defined.

What we tend to call "races" is no biologically defined group for humans, but sets of stereotypes with common phenotype groups. So it's more like a statistical phenotype division.

I think that it's best for us (I mean me and my friends in the real world :)) to continue using the word "races" when we discuss the subject. Now we know on what that division is based, we know that we aren't strictly biological races, but "statistical phenotype classifications". It may be obvious that it is handy to have that term in mind, but use the word "races" for practical considerations :D.

Thanks for the info.That's it.
Just one note: races aren't even arbitrary divisions made according to arbitrarily chosen criteria, because when you examine how people classify others by race you see that there's a lot of unconscious subjectivity in it, not to mention variation between different cultures and different times.

Swift
2006-Apr-28, 09:28 PM
<snip>
That's it.
Just one note: races aren't even arbitrary divisions made according to arbitrarily chosen criteria, because when you examine how people classify others by race you see that there's a lot of unconscious subjectivity in it, not to mention variation between different cultures and different times.
I think if you examined the world at this moment in time, you would find that different cultures define it differently. For example, most Americans would classify people from Africa or of African-decent with dark skin, etc. as "Black". Yet, as I understand it, most people in Africa, or even just sub-Saharan Africa, that would be called "black", do not see themselves as one race, but divide themselves along other lines, such as tribes or religions.

Similarly, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. do not seem themselves as a single race of "Yellow".

I would be curious to hear some thoughts about this from our members not from the US or Western Europe.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Apr-28, 09:48 PM
I don't think they are completely oblivious to how they would be perceived in the West, except perhaps in very isolated areas. Traditionally, most people in the world have not divided themselves according to what we call races, but ideas do get around.

Argos
2006-Apr-29, 02:18 PM
I would be curious to hear some thoughts about this from our members not from the US or Western Europe.

Here it goes (on a related subject). South Americans (Brazilians in particular) donīt understand the expression "latino" in a racial context. The whites down here call themselves simply "white", and regard themselves as caucasians. Some (like me) even consider the word 'latino' offensive. We usually think of ourselves as Latins and identify ourselves with southern Europe and France. Latino is a very broad and unclear definition, made to put all non-USīers Americans in the same sack.

antoniseb
2006-Apr-29, 02:45 PM
Latino is a very broad and unclear definition, made to put all non-USīers Americans in the same sack.

On the positive front, globalization is happening at such a rate that the companies I've been working for lately have engineers, managers, and technical sales people from all over the world (well, not so much from sub-saharan Africa), and this racial differentiation is pretty much a thing of the past. Everyone garners respect.