Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Science => Topic started by: dariorpl on November 21, 2016, 01:20:16 am
-
Despite decades of brainwashing by TV, hollywood, media, commercial ads, think tanks, schools and government agencies, this study finds that people's natural reactions towards interracial couples haven't fundamentally changed, they just pretend to have the politically correct views of the day.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html#jCp)
And for some history of how people used to think of this a few decades ago, and openly talked about it, here's a 3 minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpfcq4pV5U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpfcq4pV5U)
-
The above topic really has hardly any link to anything palaeolithic or raw, imo, and ought to be dropped for a number of reasons. Besides, it is merely rehashing, in a different way, the rather overly-obvious point that the age-old cliche that opposites attract is complete, utter nonsense.
-
Paleo tribes would by definition only mate within their own race. Race mixing has a lot to do with health. If you mix a polar bear and a gray bear, you get a bear offspring, but that bear is less healthy than both of its' parents.
-
The above topic really has hardly any link to anything palaeolithic or raw, imo, and ought to be dropped for a number of reasons. Besides, it is merely rehashing, in a different way, the rather overly-obvious point that the age-old cliche that opposites attract is complete, utter nonsense.
Trump won.
No more P..C.
Lets keep this topic.
Im mixed race of plenty and i am interested.
-
Im mixed race of plenty and i am interested.
The problem is that everybody is afraid of being insulting towards mixed race people, because they didn't choose to be mixed race and if you say that race mixing is bad then you're also saying something about their parents, and making it harder for them to respect and honor them.
I have no interest in being insulting, nor in preventing someone from respecting their parents. I'm just interested in talking about the biological and cultural implications of race mixing, and to have an honest discussion about whether it's something we should be encouraging or discouraging. Nobody is perfect, so if someone feels insulted when that's clearly not my intention then I think it's their problem rather than mine. And for that I have great respect for people who are mixed race or are in a committed interracial relationship and are honestly interested in this topic without feeling like they or their family line is being attacked.
Finally, we all have some degree of race mixing. It's just a matter of how much, and how far back into the past you have to go to find it.
-
Besides, it is merely rehashing, in a different way, the rather overly-obvious point that the age-old cliche that opposites attract is complete, utter nonsense.
I wouldn't say that. I mean, I would describe myself as pretty active, health-conscious, untidy and slightly effeminate. The last girl I was into was lazy (but surprisingly fit), pasta addict, obsessive about hygiene and boyish in her manners. I'd say we complemented each other quite well ;)
-
I don't know Dariopl, two of my best friends were mixed race, one half Afro-American half Danish, the other half English half Malay, and the fact their parents were different race never really shocked me. I was young back when I became friends with the first one, and I didn't even think about the fact his father was black and his mother white. Didn't seem that odd to me (or odd at all).
However, four years ago one of my white best friends got with a Sierra Leone girl friend of ours. His sister and mother were indeed hostile toward them, but it might've been more because of her possessive and self-centered attitude than just race and skin color.
Anyways, this so called disgust people are supposed to feel towards interracial couples, why does the concerned couple not feel it towards their companion?
IMO interracial couple will become more and more common with advanced globalization and acceptance of such behavior.
-
I wouldn't say that. I mean, I would describe myself as pretty active, health-conscious, untidy and slightly effeminate. The last girl I was into was lazy (but surprisingly fit), pasta addict, obsessive about hygiene and boyish in her manners. I'd say we complemented each other quite well ;)
I am not suggesting that opposites never attract, merely that they very rarely do. Even when they do, and the couple truly love each other, one often finds that they have endless rows with each other, let alone with the in-laws and friends, even if they do m ake up with each other afterwards. The best chance of relationship success, scientifically, is supposed to be 80% similiarity/20% difference. At any rate, I have known some loving couples who were completely ill-matched and virtually complete opposites to each other.- they usually ended up ruining their childrens' lives etc. etc. even if their own relationship does not suffer overall. Sometimes I favour the arranged-marriage notions of Hindus(and indeed of my European aristocratic ancestors) as such parents always ensure people marry within the same class/caste etc. so that chances of conflict are much rarer than otherwise.
-
I don't know Dariopl, two of my best friends were mixed race, one half Afro-American half Danish, the other half English half Malay, and the fact their parents were different race never really shocked me. I was young back when I became friends with the first one, and I didn't even think about the fact his father was black and his mother white. Didn't seem that odd to me (or odd at all).
However, four years ago one of my white best friends got with a Sierra Leone girl friend of ours. His sister and mother were indeed hostile toward them, but it might've been more because of her possessive and self-centered attitude than just race and skin color.
Anyways, this so called disgust people are supposed to feel towards interracial couples, why does the concerned couple not feel it towards their companion?
IMO interracial couple will become more and more common with advanced globalization and acceptance of such behavior.
Several obvious points here to debunk the above suggestions. Things like racial preference are already, more or less, created in babies without interference from parents or siblings or whatever, as scientific studies have already shown that babies have innate racial preferences without being trained as such in any way:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/)
Anyways, this so called disgust people are supposed to feel towards interracial couples, why does the concerned couple not feel it towards their companion?
The answer is that they likely actually do, the point being that this is all on a subconscious level. Also, people have other reasons for going in for mixed-race marriages that supersede instincts.For example, I had a relative by marriage who married a young Vietnamese woman late in life. He was hopeless in business and was too old for a young white woman, but he made a deal with his Vietnamese wife that she would get a British passport as a result of the marriage and the ownership of his British house after his death. In return, his marriage to a Vietnamese allowed him to set up a business in Vietnam as the law in Vietnam then only allowed foreigners to do so if they had a Vietnamese business partner owning the other half of the business. Then there are all those older white men who go to Thailand to those marriage-bureaus because they can't find what they want at home - inevitably, such bureaus contain mostly prostitutes and the like as very few classy, high-grade Thai women would dream of marrying a white foreigner, let alone a middle-aged one.
Globalisation seems to be becoming kaput these days. What I find fascinating is that the pro-mixed-race marriage propaganda is huge in Europe and the West in general, but mixed-marriages are much rarer than one would expect despite that. I did wonder once about why it is so often that one frequently sees placards in Austria featuring a mulatto woman with a white man, or a mulatto kid, when such are very rare sights in real Austrian life. According to some vague report I read once, the companies know that such sights will shock people, and thereby indirectly get their product noticed, and the latter is what they are trying to achieve.
-
IMO interracial couple will become more and more common with advanced globalization and acceptance of such behavior.
I agree, and that's why it's important to talk about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. We've been hearing for decades that it's the best thing since sliced bread. But is it really?
I always find it bizarre when people say they want diversity, and then they call for race mixing. See, the only way to have racial diversity is if people of different races stay separate. If they mix, then you no longer have different races, therefore you no longer have diversity. Or rather, the diversity is reduced.
We wouldn't call for all polar bears to mate with brown bears because that would eliminate both species, and just create a generic bear that is not as well adapted to either environment, and that is less healthy overall. We wouldn't call for all wolves to mate with dogs. Even local racial differences, such as the different shapes of the shells of giant turtles in the different galapagos islands, which are evolved to fit the vegetation local to each island, are very valuable to us, and we wouldn't call for all giant turtles to mate with giant turtles from other islands. But somehow, when someone calls for humans of different races to mate with each other and do away with racial uniqueness, that is praised and elevated as the new goal of mankind and the future of our species that everyone looks forward to. Even though we know from biology that when you mix different races, the resulting offspring is less healthy on average, because those genes haven't combined with each other for thousands of generations, or sometimes never. Genes evolve to work best with other genes in the same genepool.
-
We wouldn't call for all polar bears to mate with brown bears because that would eliminate both species
I meant to say it would eliminate both races. They're the same species, like wolves and dogs are.
-
Will tell you about our Philippine experience.
We are a melting pot of races.
And we are being blended over the centuries to the point of losing the original pure races.
Aetas, Igorots, Ilocanos, Kapampangans, Malays, Visayans, Tagalogs, Bicolanos, Ilongot, Mountain province natives, Tausugs, Dumagats, Spanish, Chinese, Caucasians, and whatever else came our way, etc, etc,
We are blendered to the point we don't know or don't care or just theorize.
You will see traits just suddenly pop out with the next generation and ask where that look came from... la dee da... old ancestors looked somewhat like that... skipped 2 generations.
I do know wherever there is proximity or bordering with other races, is that there is mutual curiosity... sexual curiosity... for example last weekend I had my usual mountain weekend and the care taker was a civilized mixed race Visayan Filipino and we were talking about chicks... and the kids we have with them... like what most Filipino men talk about... and he talked about his sexual experiences with the dumagats in the mountains... That they were short, dark, smooth clean skin and kinky hair, their women, even if married had a sexual curiosity and wanted to fuck "civilized Filipinos" real bad. The other lot owner a few kilometers down the road in fact had 2 bastard kids with 2 separate dumagat women. That both men individually told me that the dumagat women were very clean, they liked having sex daily, they had immense muscle control with their vaginas, and had their own herbs to give to their men so they can keep getting it up. The interest from both races was mutual.
Dumagat women enjoy the fucking style of civilized Filipino men because we tend to romance more, to have foreplay, whereas dumagat men are known to just insert their penis, pump a few times and they are done.
And what of the mixed offspring of civilized filipino mixed race men + dumagat women? It's all good. Seems Filipinos are not disgusted by the half breeds. They like seeing new features. Actually just the fact that the different races are attracted to one another, means there are hardly any complaints from anyone.
I myself am a mix I trace from various races and the race I did not have was ilocano, of which my wife is a half breed ilocano who I pursued.
I'm guessing it is a cultural thing. Seems in our experience here in our islands, we seem to not be disgusted with the offsprings of different races... but as for COUPLING... the COUPLING I observe is NOT DISPLAYED. It's hidden from public spectacles... the children are obvious. We are a mostly promiscuous lot here.
As for Filipinos coupling with Whites... too common. Nobody cares.
Filipinos with Chinese types... even more common than whites... too many Chinese types are Filipinos... the only issue is cultural if the Chinese Family insists that the Filipino wife is treated as a second class gender.
Filipinos with Indians... you must be able to tolerate the way indians smell. Rare.
Filipinos with Arabs... you must be able to tolerate the way Arabs smell. Even rarer.
Filipinos with Blacks / Negros... could be as rare as with Arabs.
I personally do not detect disgust towards interracial couples.
We have a saying for women that:
"While you're age is still within the calendar month (30), you will still be able to find a Filipino man to marry you, beyond the calendar month (30), there are still FOREIGNERS who will wife you."
Most of us Filipino men don't understand why Foreigners will want women over 30. But hey, it's all good, we want the young ones, you want the old ones. And we do seem to notice FOREIGNERS, especially WHITE MEN are attracted to our EXOTIC women (women we find ugly). So in a way, it is a win win thing.
-
I meant to say it would eliminate both races. They're the same species, like wolves and dogs are.
Polar bears and brown bears are different subspecies to each other.
-
Polar bears and brown bears are different subspecies to each other.
In biology, subspecies and races are synonyms. Hindus and Arabs are two different subspecies of human.
-
gs, when you're in a situation where there are few if any distinguishable races, it's easy to just give up and keep mixing.
As for the promiscuity and adultery, well as you know I see that as a sign of uncivilized behavior that is detrimental to a prosperous society in the modern world.
The way to increase prosperity is to have strong family units and private property. That way, each family maximizes how much they produce, so that they can give their kids the best chance at a successful life. When a father doesn't know if a kid is his or not, because his wife may have slept around with other men, then he's less interested in working hard to give his kids the best life possible, since he's not really sure they are his kids after all. Instead, he'll spend his energies on himself, trying to conquer other women, the best strategy under such a situation becomes "spray and pray" rather than "plan and commit".
This is partly what's been plaguing the western world more and more over the past few decades, because with the rise of the welfare state, most women are no longer interested in staying committed to a man, since they can get resources from other men by force through the State. That in turn signals to most men that what used to be the best strategy, to find a good woman to marry and form a family, and stay loyal to her, may no longer be the best reproductive strategy. And this is how most of the western world is becoming less civilized and less prosperous. I don't know the history of the Philippines, whether the cultural norms you describe are something new, or whether it's always been that way. But the fact that you describe a situation of rampant promiscuity and adultery, and the fact that the Philippines is a very poor country, may not be entirely unrelated to each other.
-
To expand on what I said regarding mixing in a situation where there are few distinguishable races, I think it's important to recognize that even in a "melting pot" situation, you can consider that a new race is being formed, let's call this the filipino race. Which came about through all of this mixing you mention. It's still possible to put a stop to further mixing and to maintain a filipino gene pool that, through the ages upon ages, remains more or less constant. Then, natural selection would begin to work on it in such a way that the filipino race would have it's uniqueness and advantages over other races, in such a way that it's more beneficial for people living in the Philippines. However, this process could take thousands of generations, just like it took thousands of generations to create the races of people in most of the rest of the world. Still, the present is as good a time as any to decide to embark in this experiment.
Even if you do decide that it's best for filipinos to continue to mix with whatever comes their way, and that this is part of your culture, that still doesn't mean that it would be a good idea for every other country or race to do the same. There are clear advantages to races staying separate, whereas the benefits from race mixing are very rare and dubious, while there are health detriments as well.
-
Species and subspecies are definitely not the same at all. They are quite distinct. Naturally, some subspecies are merely geographically separate, but there are many subspecies of animals with entirely different dna so as to be almost a different species. Naturally, human classifications are quite artificial in this regard..
-
Species and subspecies are definitely not the same at all. They are quite distinct. Naturally, some subspecies are merely geographically separate, but there are many subspecies of animals with entirely different dna so as to be almost a different species. Naturally, human classifications are quite artificial in this regard..
I guess you meant races and subspecies are not the same. But they are really. Sometimes the term subspecies is used to refer to races that are further apart genetically, with the term race being used to refer to subspecies that are more closely related. But really, like I said, for all intents and purposes, these two are synonyms. Even though there's a lot more difference between a western and eastern european than there is between an australian aborigin to an american indian, these are all called races normally. But they could just as well be called subspecies.
-
Strictly speaking, the different races should be called different "subspecies", while "races" should be used to determine ethnic differences between different ethnic groups within the same subspecies. For example, red-haired people are quite different ethnically from blond people, and Australian Aborigines/Melanesians with the blondish hair trait are ethnically different from other Aborigines/Melanesians without that characteristic.
-
Even though there's a lot more difference between a western and eastern european than there is between an australian aborigin to an american indian,
I meant to say the opposite, that there's a lot LESS difference
-
(...)
As for the promiscuity and adultery, well as you know I see that as a sign of uncivilized behavior that is detrimental to a prosperous society in the modern world.
The way to increase prosperity is to have strong family units and private property. That way, each family maximizes how much they produce, so that they can give their kids the best chance at a successful life. When a father doesn't know if a kid is his or not, because his wife may have slept around with other men, then he's less interested in working hard to give his kids the best life possible, since he's not really sure they are his kids after all. Instead, he'll spend his energies on himself, trying to conquer other women, the best strategy under such a situation becomes "spray and pray" rather than "plan and commit".
This is partly what's been plaguing the western world more and more over the past few decades, because with the rise of the welfare state, most women are no longer interested in staying committed to a man, since they can get resources from other men by force through the State. That in turn signals to most men that what used to be the best strategy, to find a good woman to marry and form a family, and stay loyal to her, may no longer be the best reproductive strategy. And this is how most of the western world is becoming less civilized and less prosperous. I don't know the history of the Philippines, whether the cultural norms you describe are something new, or whether it's always been that way. But the fact that you describe a situation of rampant promiscuity and adultery, and the fact that the Philippines is a very poor country, may not be entirely unrelated to each other.
That's well written (you're a excellent and prolific writer!) but here you're saying that the neolithic, civilized and modern way of life with private property is the supreme way and that the tribal paleolithic way of life was bad! You should read the bestseller "Sex at Dawn", which one of our members (called "Aura") provided us a in free pdf. I still have it and can e-mail it by MP if requested.
https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062207944/sex-at-dawn (https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062207944/sex-at-dawn)
Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. Mainstream science—as well as religious and cultural institutions—has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.
How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethå. While debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, they offer a bold alternative explanation in this provocative and brilliant book.
Ryan and Jethå's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.
With intelligence, humor, and wonder, Ryan and Jethå show how our promiscuous past haunts our struggles over monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. They explore why long-term fidelity can be so difficult for so many; why sexual passion tends to fade even as love deepens; why many middle-aged men risk everything for transient affairs with younger women; why homosexuality persists in the face of standard evolutionary logic; and what the human body reveals about the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality.
In the tradition of the best historical and scientific writing, Sex at Dawn unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.
“Sex At Dawn has helped me understand myself and the world so much more clearly.” — Ilana Glazer, co-creator of Broad City
“Sex At Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948.” — Dan Savage
“Funny, witty, and light ... Sex at Dawn is a scandal in the best sense, one that will have you reading the best parts aloud and reassessing your ideas about humanity’s basic urges well after the book is done.” — Newsweek
“Sex At Dawn challenges conventional wisdom about sex in a big way... This is a provocative, entertaining, and pioneering book. I learned a lot from it and recommend it highly.” — Andrew Weil, M.D., author of Healthy Aging
“Sex At Dawn is a provocative and engaging synthesis... that has the added benefit of being a joy to read.... A book sure to generate discussion, and one likely to produce more than a few difficult conversations with family marriage counselors.” — Eric Michael Johnson, Seed Magazine
“You clearly have an exciting book on your hands, whether people agree with it or not: these are issues that will need debating over and over before we will arrive at a resolution.” — Frans de Waal, author of The Age of Empathy
“A wonderfully provocative and well-written book which completely re-evaluates human sexual behaviour and gets to the root of many of our social and psychological ills.” — Steve Taylor, author of The Fall and Waking From Sleep
“One of the most original books I’ve read in years, Sex at Dawn manages to be both enormously erudite and wildly entertaining—even, frequently, hilarious. . . . A must-read for anyone interested in where our sexual impulses come from.” — Tony Perrottet, author of Napoleon's Privates
“This paradigm-shifting book is a thoroughly original discussion of the origins and nature of human sexuality... These authors have a gift for making complex material reader-friendly, filling each chapter with humor and passion as well as dozens of revolutionary insights.” — Stanley Krippner, Ph.D.
“Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha have written the essential corrective to the evolutionary psychology literature...” — Stanton Peele, Ph.D.
-
That's well written (you're a excellent and prolific writer!)
Thank you
You should read the bestseller "Sex at Dawn"
I'll definitely consider it. I've heard lots about this book over the years, and I will probably read it one day. I just have so much other stuff to read right now. I can't say when I will find the time to read it.
but here you're saying that the neolithic, civilized and modern way of life with private property is the supreme way and that the tribal paleolithic way of life was bad!
It's the best today. Back then, it wasn't. And so I fully agree that the neolithic, civilized, private property, family oriented and monogamous way of life is NOT natural. That is, it's not the way of life that we evolved in. But it is ideal for the economic situation we've been in for the past 10k or so years, since the development of farming/herding. I fully agree that our instincts will often tell us to revert to our natural ways, the ways our ancestors evolved in. And those are tribal communism with an emphasis on public property rather than private, duty rather than freedom, gossip rather than privacy, promiscuity and polygamy rather than monogamy, tribal communal raising of kids rather than families doing it. I can go into more detail about why those things are ideal today if you're interested.
Our ancestors evolved in this way because that was ideal for the economic situation they were in for most of our evolution. When you can only extract from the land those resources which it naturally produces, and you can't increase their production in any significant way, then the situation is such that it's best to form groups (tribes) that share responsibilities and resources, while they keep others away. In this economic situation, the ideal becomes Marx's motto: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Within reason, of course. Unproductive or non-cooperative members would simply be killed, for the good of the tribe. Likewise, neighboring tribes would be seen as mortal enemies, for any extraction of resources by them meant less resources available for you and your tribe.
And this sets the stage for much of the horrors of tribal life. Or, what we today think of as horrors, but back then, they were everyday life and a good thing. Cannibalism, rape, torture, mutilation, murder and war were all a part of everyday life, and highly valued among tribe members, especially the leaders and the wise ones. And these horrors were in a majority of cases aimed towards children, and for good reasons too.
PC anthropologists have spread this false notion of the "noble savage". In truth, there was no such thing. And we don't even need much research to know this. Simple economic, biological and psychological/sociological theory is enough to figure out that all of these horrors were not just happening, but that they must have been happening, because the socioeconomic situation was such that all these things which today would be "bads", were "goods" back then, when properly applied. I can go into more detail about why those things were ideal back then if you're interested.
The problem with the neolithic era, is that we threw the baby out with the bathwater, sort of speak. We realized how our lives could be made much better by the transition to farming and herding rather than hunting and gathering, private property rather than public property, freedom rather than duty, peace and trade and care rather than war and torture, monogamy and lifelong marriage and family unions rather than polygamy and promiscuity and tribal unions, and privacy rather than gossip. We, particularly in western cultures, called this being purified from our brutish and savage ways of the past, the original sin. The baby that we threw out with the bathwater is the old savage diet of raw, unprocessed foods, in particular meats (and by meats I mean all edible parts of the animals, including the blood, fat, marrow, connective tissue and organs). We were convinced by a notion (possibly put forth by the elite ruling class wanting to make everybody else weak and dependent), that just as our souls had to be purified by repenting and avoiding sins, so our meats had to be purified by fire before they were safe to eat. But fire doesn't purify, it only destroys. And so we were convinced that our new lives that were mostly free of sin had to also be free of the gory raw meats that the savages used to eat. But our biology hasn't changed. What made them biologically healthy are the same things that make us biologically healhy. And what made them biologically unhealthy, also makes us biologically unhealthy. This is the pinnacle of the paleo diet. We want to eat like paleolithic hunter-gatherers, because that's the diet our bodies evolved eating. We don't want to live with their cultures and societies, because, while that was the lifestyle our bodies evolved to want and excel at, it's also a lifestyle that is no longer ideal, in fact it's the strict opposite of ideal. And because we're the smartest animal on the planet, we realized how we could change our ways to improve our lives. We made mistakes along the way, and the transition is not full yet. Indeed, there are plenty periods (like the present) where the society has a throwback to our more savage ways of the past, which our genes thirst for. But like the christians say, our body yearns for sin, and we must learn to deal with it, and continously say no. That is, if we want to reach heaven, which is a state of total bliss and harmony. The allegory is more than just supernatural. If and when humanity learns to let go of our savage ways, and learns to finally and completely accept the ideal form of social interaction for the new post-agricultural era that we've been in over the past 10k years or so, we'll be in heaven.
-
To expand on what I said regarding mixing in a situation where there are few distinguishable races, I think it's important to recognize that even in a "melting pot" situation, you can consider that a new race is being formed, let's call this the filipino race. Which came about through all of this mixing you mention. It's still possible to put a stop to further mixing and to maintain a filipino gene pool that, through the ages upon ages, remains more or less constant. Then, natural selection would begin to work on it in such a way that the filipino race would have it's uniqueness and advantages over other races, in such a way that it's more beneficial for people living in the Philippines. However, this process could take thousands of generations, just like it took thousands of generations to create the races of people in most of the rest of the world. Still, the present is as good a time as any to decide to embark in this experiment.
Even if you do decide that it's best for filipinos to continue to mix with whatever comes their way, and that this is part of your culture, that still doesn't mean that it would be a good idea for every other country or race to do the same. There are clear advantages to races staying separate, whereas the benefits from race mixing are very rare and dubious, while there are health detriments as well.
Oh i like that you have this idealism on how things may progress, evolve.
Personally, im just an observer and just 1 person with a very short lifespan. Im no social engineer and would not even have the means to influence the future Filipino race.
The only influence i have is with my own descendants and whatever chicks i come across with and desire my genes to reproduce with.
-
Oh i like that you have this idealism on how things may progress, evolve.
Another way would be to do a sort of "race cleansing" by simply having each mixed race person choose whichever race they think they have the most genes of, or even just one of the many that they think they have a bunch of genes of, and have children with someone of that race. Then, suggest to their children to also only mate with someone of that race, and so on, until that one race becomes the prevalent one in the genetic makeup of that person's offspring. Obviously, the "pure race" mate here would be sacrificing their own offspring's genetic welfare for the good of their partners', and as such, the mixed race partner would have to bring something else to the table to make that worth it for their mate. But people do all sort of nice things for each other, so as long as it's understood and admitted as such, it would be one way to do it.
If you were focused purely on the genetic makeup, and not interested in social dynamics, then in the case of a very promiscuous society, this would work best with the pure race mates being the males, and impregnating the mixed race women. But like I said, promiscuity is a bad, so even if you could gain genetically by doing this, I think the costs would far outweigh the benefits. Not to mention the fact that promiscuous societies can't be expected to mantain standards or sexual plans like this. Unless welfare is given to the women in case they comply. For instance, if the govt is already going to give welfare to sluts for having kids (which is a very bad thing as I explained), then it would be less bad if they gave that only to the mixed race sluts that had babies by some pure race male of whichever the race of choice is for the country, region, or for that particular individual woman.
I think a more realistic solution is simply to have mixed race people mate with other mixed race individuals, in a way that approximates their genetic makeup. So a 50% chinese, 25% hindu, 25% white might choose as a mate someone who's 40% chinese, 10% hindu, 30% white and 20% arab, or whatever. It would be very hard to find exact genetic makeups for a partner, and over time it might be that "mixed race" becomes simply regarded as a new race, and all mixed race individuals mix with all the other mixed race individuals, in a sort of melting pot situation like what you described. While that would be worse genetically, it's only realistic to expect that to happen. That said, for those who are still pure race, or mostly pure race (say 75-80% and above), it would make more sense to stay within that race only, branching only for local sub-races, such as british mixing with italians, or koreans mixing with japanese, etc.
-
We have zero welfare in the Philippines. What we have are extended families.
-
All this will be changed provided that laws allow libertarian eugenics and genetic modification to be practised in quantity. I have seen various online websites, such as one by a half-Filipinno/Half-White-American, bemoaning their mixed status. These could sort their descendants out via such practises....
-
There are also other consequences of interracial relationships:-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2705594 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2705594)
http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647 (http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647)
-
I'll definitely consider it. I've heard lots about this book over the years, and I will probably read it one day. I just have so much other stuff to read right now. I can't say when I will find the time to read it.
I wonder what other stuff could be more important and interesting to read! I found it to be one of the two or three most interesting book I’ve ever read.
Unproductive or non-cooperative members would simply be killed, for the good of the tribe. Likewise, neighboring tribes would be seen as mortal enemies, for any extraction of resources by them meant less resources available for you and your tribe.
And this sets the stage for much of the horrors of tribal life. Or, what we today think of as horrors, but back then, they were everyday life and a good thing. Cannibalism, rape, torture, mutilation, murder and war were all a part of everyday life, and highly valued among tribe members, especially the leaders and the wise ones. And these horrors were in a majority of cases aimed towards children, and for good reasons too.
I’m afraid you’re completely mistaken, believing in 19th century style textbooks written in a way to show that our current, modern situation is much better and comfortable. Even today’s remaining hunthers-gathererers who cook some of their food aren’t that aggressive and enjoy a life much better than ours.
Even Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Human_way_of_life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Human_way_of_life) shows a much more balanced view and describe a most often peaceful paleolithic way of life.
It’s been shown here several times with plenty of references that wheat, dairy and to a lesser extend cooked food in general, disturbs human and animal behavior and leads to schizophrenia. Wars and crimes are a result of these food induced aggressive behavior, as is the private property concept born along with and because of agriculture, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” as Jared Diamond wrote.
http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html (http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html)
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race (http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race)
-
While Jared Diamond may once in a great while get things right, he is wrong on almost everything else. Like Stephen Jay Gould, he is not a genuine scientist but a pseud Marxist philosopher who invented the notion that Europeans supposedly had a huge advantage in resources and climate over other ethnic groups. The slight problem with this nonsense is that there are and always have been much bigger resources in non-European areas, and other non-European areas had better climates etc.
-
I don't know about Jared Diamond other writings, but in the outstanding one I linked he's spot on and in complete agreement with our stance.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3967502/Opposites-DON-T-attract-People-hardwired-fall-love-partners-similar-level-intelligence.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3967502/Opposites-DON-T-attract-People-hardwired-fall-love-partners-similar-level-intelligence.html)
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3967502/Opposites-DON-T-attract-People-hardwired-fall-love-partners-similar-level-intelligence.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3967502/Opposites-DON-T-attract-People-hardwired-fall-love-partners-similar-level-intelligence.html)
This concept of "falling in love" is a kind of cult promotion by the movie industries.
People reproduce with other people who are also willing and DESIRE by instinct to reproduce.
Somehow, perceived intelligence and "education" works more to KILL the desire and instinct to reproduce.
There is "coupling" and then there is actual reproducing and raising the children.
The future racial make up of the society is in the hands of people who actually reproduce.
-
I’m afraid you’re completely mistaken, believing in 19th century style textbooks written in a way to show that our current, modern situation is much better and comfortable. Even today’s remaining hunthers-gathererers who cook some of their food aren’t that aggressive and enjoy a life much better than ours.
Even Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Human_way_of_life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Human_way_of_life) shows a much more balanced view and describe a most often peaceful paleolithic way of life.
Like I said, plenty of mainstream archeologists foster the myth of the noble savage, whereby any social behavior that H-G tribes engaged or engage in is inherently good. They either ignore or fail to report the horrors of uncivilized life, often because they believe it's not up to us civilized people to judge the savages for their ways, because morality is seen as relativistic and what we see as bads in our culture aren't necessarily bad in theirs. Part of what drives this bias is an embellishment of their field of work. Clearly they can derive much more funds and interest in their research if they depict the primitive life as some sort of paradise. Look up psychohistory and their stuff on early infanticidal childrearing cultures for an opposite view.
But like I said, research like this is not even needed. I can show you why primitive tribes must've been brutal by just using economic and sociological/psychological theory. Like I explained, resource availability in a H-G environment is mostly fixed and can't be increased, resources can only be extracted. As such tribes must form to defend a territory and keep competing tribes at bay.
Within the tribe, individuals must be forced to sacrifice their own genetic welfare for the good of the tribe. But because all lifeforms are genetically selfish, this must be beaten into them. That is, if a tribe member acts in a selfish way, whether extracting resources from the land without sharing, not extracting enough resources and simply leeching off of the rest of the tribe, or giving their resources only to their own offspring, they face punishment by the rest of the tribe, including the very real possibility of death. Another act of selfishness would be if a tribe member refuses to allow their own offspring or sibling to be killed when the tribe deems their presence unnecessary or harmful for the tribe. Since human breeding produces far more babies than the amount of naturally available resources can sustain, rampant infanticide and the murder of toddlers and young children are used for three reasons: 1) to keep the population in check, 2) to select for future tribe members that will fill the roles most needed by the tribe at the moment, and 3) as a threat to induce compliance and self sacrifice for the good of the tribe
As it regards other neighboring tribes, like I mentioned, they must be regarded as mortal enemies, since they're extracting resources from the same overlapping pool, and thus any resources they extract necessarily means your tribe must reduce it's population by killing more of their members. Furthermore, both tribes know that as soon as the other is able to, they will wage war and attack them, attempting to either kill all of them, or in the case that there is enough land available, they'll kill all the men, and come back repeatedly to rape all the women, thus spreading their genes onto the other tribes' genes, facilitating the making of babies at a faster pace than their own tribe alone could produce. This creates a necessity to have most men in the tribe have a psychological need for war, to become bloodthirsty warriors who revel in the killing of enemy tribe members, and to enjoy raping enemy tribe women as the spoils of war. But war has risks, and except in extreme cases, it isn't genetically worth it for an individual man to go to war like this, so again, their psyche should be shaped by the tribe in such a way that it becomes twisted and they can only find peace of mind in engaging in these acts. The way you do that is to constantly torture and rape or sexually assault boys since they're born, and to further teach them to rape little girls in their own tribe as they begin to grow up. Also, the constant threat of murder if they don't comply with the tribe's wishes helps here, and the watching of their own siblings and other tribe members being mutilated, murdered and eaten in front of their eyes. According to psychohistory researchers, this is most likely what creates the schizophrenic mindset, with most schizophrenics today reporting to hear voices, and the voices telling them that they're going to murder them, the typical paranoid schizophrenic being in constant fear of being murdered, by their caretakers at first, and by larger institutions as they grow up. Similarly, girls must also be constantly tortured and raped since they're born, and watch all the horrors in the same ways, both to instill compliance, and to teach them how to engage in childrearing as they grow up, so that they too need to find peace in torturing, mutilating and sexually assaulting babies and young children, in particular the little boys. Also, to accept that being raped is a part of life and that they should not put up too much of a fight and just let it happen, which will increase stability within the tribe, and also possibly save their lives and ensure some genetic reproduction in the event that their tribe is conquered by an opposite tribe. Girls are encouraged to let the tribe abuse them in whatever ways they see fit, and in turn discharge that abuse into the little kids in the tribe, to ease their suffering.
Let me just give you one example of such a thing:
"Consider a typical infanticidal, incestuous culture, the Bimin-Kuskusmin of New Guinea. As is so often true in pre-literate cultures, the mothers have long post-partum taboos against sex with their husbands, sleep naked against their children until they are about four years old, have orgasms while nursing them and regularly masturbate them. One three-year-old boy describes how whenever his mother was sad or angry she masturbated him so roughly that it hurt him, and he struggled to get away, complaining of a pain in his penis. “It hurts inside,² he told the ethnologist. “It goes Œkoong, koong, koong’ inside. I think it bleeds in there I don’t like to touch it anymore. It hurts when I pee…² Sometimes, after his mother hurt him while masturbating him, he wounds himself in the thigh and abdomen with a sharp stick and draws blood, looking at his penis and saying, “Now it hurts here, outside, not in penis. Look, blood. Feels good…² Although he is only three years old, he understands quite well that he is being used as a poison container by his mother to relieve her depression. He says, “Mother twist penis, tight…Hurt inside…Mother angry, hurt Buuktiin’s penis. Mother sad, hurt Buuktiin’s penis…Mother not like Buuktiin’s penis, want to cut off…” " -“On Writing Childhood History.” The Journal of Psychohistory 16 (1988): 135-171.
Notice that none of these 2 main necessities apply under an agricultural setting, where each individual can increase the production within their own private piece of land without negatively affecting anyone else's (in fact increasing others' wellbeing through trade); peaceful cooperation and trade (relying instead only on defensive violence, but not offensive), private property, a private polycentric legal order, lovemaking based on seduction instead of rape, marriage and family unions instead of polygamy and tribal unions, and a childrearing mode where the child is helped to reach all of their potential, allowing them to retain their individuality and fulfill as much of their own goals as possible, not for the tribe's sake but for their own sake, all become much preferable in order to maximize production and standards of living. The problem is that it takes many, many generations to shift from one mode to the other, apparently opposite one. And there is reason to believe that until very recently, nobody had even figured out what the optimal social organization was for the agricultural setting, or to the extent that somebody did figure all of these things out, their ideas did not become known. That said, we can see a clear transition through the millenia in favor of these more civilized ways and away from the barbarism of our ancestors. But like I said, there are periods where we turn back and let our genes and instinct guide us, and that's where we go wrong.
-
You are describing a land of scarciity. There were also lands of plenty.
-
You are describing a land of scarciity. There were also lands of plenty.
They are very rare. On average, the habitable H-G land produces only enough resources to sustain 1 human per square mile of land.
Even if there was such a thing as a land of relative plenty, it would simply mean that tribes would reproduce more (by engaging in less infanticide), grow their numbers, and then go to war. The dynamics would be the same.
So far, the only land of plenty that we've discovered is the ocean, and even there we've running into problems lately, and will likely increasingly run into problems in the future, because as it regards the ocean, we're all basically in the same situation as H-G tribes would've been regarding land, since we can't privatize and farm the ocean and increase production. Although some advances are being made in that front.