Thoughts on the mixed race, globalised world of the future

[pbrower2a]

(06-11-2020, 02:54 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(06-09-2020, 02:59 PM)Isoko Wrote: If we were to follow this version to the fullest, I think overall we would end up in the India scenario. There would be a lighter brown elite at the top and a darker brown proletariat at the bottom, fighting for whatever meager resources are available. How would it be an improvement on what we have now? Would it merely be a repeat of the past?

The alleged difference between races is about 15 IQ points, assuming that IQ is as important as you think. Actually there are two problems with your mindset. First, I think emotional intelligence is a more important predictor of success. Also, I don't think the differences in abilities between races are genetic. In 700 AD, a Brown Maya or Black Nubian was a more civilized person than an Eastern European white tribesman, and probably had higher IQ and EQ. The differences are more likely related to nutrition and socialization one receives as a child. But let's stick to your assumptions for the sake of the discussion.

Figuring that  (in the 1980's) that the average "black" American had about 30% African ancestry (which has been reduced considerably due to children of mixed race involving a black parent and a non-black parent that the typical mixed-race  person  is now 35% of non-African origin and is thus 65% non-black)... if the difference is genetic -- if the non-black parent is 'average' in intelligence... has an IQ 7.5 points lower than for white people... if the racial and ethnic connection is valid. 

At what point is African ancestry  so diluted that it becomes invisible and irrelevant?  

Quote:Biotechnological enhancement of human beings is coming, and those enhanced people (let's call them galactic humans) can have an average of 200 or more IQ points and appropriately higher EQ. This will make the racial differences irrelevant. So it's more probably that there will be an enhanced elite at the top and basic human proletarians at the bottom. But this won't last forever too. First, the galactic humans will figure out how to relegate the proletariat's work to machines. Second, the enhancements will become ever more accessible and the proletarians will remake themselves or their children into galactic humans too. Some fundamentalist groups of basic humans will survive but they won't be important in overall scheme of things, like the remaining hunter-gatherer groups aren't important today.

Doubtful. The average human IQ is where it is because of evolutionary reality. It could be that too big a brain would make childbirth far too dangerous to a woman. It could also be that functioning societies depend upon hierarchy between the smart and the stupid. Every society needs its laborers -- the hewers of wood and the carriers of water in antiquarian terms. Although people with high IQ's might be consummately valuable as the physicians, attorneys, theologians, top-level teachers, accountants, engineers, generals, admirals, administrators, and creative people... such people can be about 2.5% of the population because with a 15-point standard deviation for intelligence, that is about how many people have IQ above 130. In all societies these people are paid well. 

In modern societies, fitting people with IQ significantly above 100 into slots as toilers and servants creates troubles. One needs be at a certain level of stupidity to like a job as a cleaner or a lumberjack.  Ideally there are enough jobs as technicians, salesmen, teachers, nurses, cops, and skilled laborers to sop up such people. If not -- then there is bureaucracy. Look at it this way: bureaucracy is a way of rewarding people of slightly-above-average ability so that people in a capitalist order do not come up with Marxist critiques of capitalism and that their counterparts in socialist regimes do not come up with bourgeois critiques of the regime. People in those bureaucracies pretend to work but really create nothing other than paperwork, but still live satisfying lives.   

Quote:

Quote:To be honest, this belief actually frightens me to think people actually believe this would make the world a better place. I will share you my ideal world and it is one that is common in the Russian Federation. It is designed on centre right thinking but I think it is a better ideal then the one I have just discussed.

A world of borders with different people and ethnic groups that learn to cooperate with each other. Imagine it like a street and we have different houses in the street. Do we all live in the same house? No. But we all live on the same street and look out for one another. Every house is different too and has its own unique vibrancy and taste.

It is called internationalism and is actually promoted by the "cultural diversity" Leftists. But it's not something that will continue. People are travelling more and there are more mixed couples, which means more children of mixed ancestry. Also, people are more influenced by the global media and less by their families. Thus weaker cultures are already assimilated by stronger ones, until eventually there is one global culture. It can be stopped only by totalitarian coercion. Compare North Korea and South Korea. North Koreans retained more of their traditional culture, only because their government banned them from knowing the wider world.

Cultural diversity at least makes life more interesting. So it is with a bonsai tree if you are a German-American or Bach if you are a Japanese-American.  But let us remember that the 'global media' offer much content designed to numb and pacify morons and near-morons. Do you really think that the pop music our our time is better than that of the Big Band era, let alone the popular music of about 230 years ago in Vienna? Haydn and Mozart wrote highly-accessible music then treated much like the Big Band music of 80 years ago was treated 80 years ago. Maybe I could be very happy going on a road trip with a dog and a complete set of Haydn symphonies. I was thinking of Haydn string quartets, but dogs generally hate pure string music. 

Quote:

Quote:You know, the Russian Federation is a nation of many different tribes and nations. Yet they do not mix together en masse but they live together peacefully as neighbours. As a result, a lot of traditions and identities are passed down through the generations and continue to do so. 

Do you know about the Chechen wars? The Chechens did not want to be a part of Russia, of course they were subdued but they will rebel again because they see Russia as an oppressor. So your claim that "different tribes and nations live together peacefully" is simply Putinist propaganda.

America has its many groups of sundry origin, but unlike the case in Russia, they are scattered about. For example, Italian-Americans are common in all urban areas, but there is no part of America in which "Italian" culture overpowers all else.  In Russia are large areas in which one non-Russian group predominates.  

Quote:What is better I ask you all? A world government where everybody looks the same, acts the same, wears the same clothes? Where there is no Japan? No Russia? No Angola? Wouldn't that be a boring world to live in? 

Quote:More diversity comes from differences between individual personalities and subcultures than from preservation of traditional heritage. We can use some of traditional heritage in a playful way, not being enslaved by it. Noone stops you from building a Victorian style house, or wearing a toga. And transhumanism will create more diversity of body types than there are today. Maybe there will be people with purple skin, or with cat ears. I wouldn't want such a child, but anime fans might.

Actually it's traditional societies that can be described as "everybody looks the same, acts the same, wears the same clothes".

[/quote]

Individuality or identity? I will take individuality any time. Wearing a toga while living in a Victorian house is eccentric. Cat ears or purple skin? That would be cruel.