I guess it’s safe to assume you think genetics has no impact on life outcomes and/or there aren’t significant genetic differences between geographically (by ancestor) populations?
> What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth.
Their genetics dictate how they live their life. Environment can have an affect, but genes dictate how you react to your environment (unless you believe in God etc).
> I would simply point to American history as an example of how the empire you seem to laud was built by mixing peoples relentlessly.
Compared to the last 50 years or so these immigrants were all very similar both in history and genetics. And even then it’s been a rough ride! I agree immigrants can be great as long as they are carefully selected for.
> I find it fascinating you think culture doesn’t change with time, but with the mixing of different people into a culture only.
Cultures absolutely change over time but the rate of change is much slower than if you introduce a new people from vastly different cultures. It’s the shearing force applied by the differences that’s the issue. If it’s too powerful something has to give.
No, I don’t believe in racial superiority. I also don’t believe genetics plays a great role in overall outcomes in life, otherwise known as eugenics. I think that in a population genetic attributes are fairly regular with small specific variances that aren’t enough to make one fitter in any dimension. On an individual level genetics can contribute towards specific traits, including to some degree intelligence and anxiety of mental illness. However the magic of the plasticity of the human brain is that it can, with effort, overcome virtually any impediment. I’d also point out that the more homogeneous the genetic population the worse overall outcomes tend to be. “Hybrid vigor” is a real thing and only comes from broad mixing of the genetic pools. So, yes, I think science is total against the idea of racial superiority not just out of its repugnant but just false and furthermore given the homogeneity issue impossible.
I never claimed one race was superior to the other - just different (and these differences make cultural cohesion difficult).
> However the magic of the plasticity of the human brain is that it can, with effort, overcome virtually any impediment
That’s quite the claim depending on how you define impediment, but as is this statement is too vague to argue with.
> I’d also point out that the more homogeneous the genetic population the worse overall outcomes tend to be.
Again this is a very vague statement where the degree of variation matters. Hybrid vigor is poorly understood and when the differences are too great result in genetically worse offspring on some axis (mules are a perfect example of this).
> So, yes, I think science is total against the idea of racial superiority not just out of its repugnant but just false and furthermore given the homogeneity issue impossible.
I’ve made no claims of superiority and you’re taking a holier than though stance against the straw man you made up. Please leave the emotional appeals out.
I didn’t say you did. I said I didn’t, and it was led to by this:
> I guess it’s safe to assume you think genetics has no impact on life outcomes and/or there aren’t significant genetic differences between geographically (by ancestor) populations?
This idea that genetics impacts life out comes at a population level is racial superiority, assuming you give some outcome as being qualitatively better. I don’t know how you can cut it any differently.
I definitely don’t think that genetics has any influence though on cultural adaptation. That’s entirely environmental. See adopted children from international cultures raised in a foreign culture from birth. They culturally identical while racially different.
On plasticity, I mean even granting some genetic difference that impacts some degree of adaption to some cultural normal, the brains ability to adapt even given such major structural issues like brain damage make small things like cultural adaption simple. In fact I expect given how much migration happened throughout history it’s an evolutionary necessity to be able to adapt culturally.
> What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth.
Their genetics dictate how they live their life. Environment can have an affect, but genes dictate how you react to your environment (unless you believe in God etc).
> I would simply point to American history as an example of how the empire you seem to laud was built by mixing peoples relentlessly.
Compared to the last 50 years or so these immigrants were all very similar both in history and genetics. And even then it’s been a rough ride! I agree immigrants can be great as long as they are carefully selected for.
> I find it fascinating you think culture doesn’t change with time, but with the mixing of different people into a culture only.
Cultures absolutely change over time but the rate of change is much slower than if you introduce a new people from vastly different cultures. It’s the shearing force applied by the differences that’s the issue. If it’s too powerful something has to give.