Much like our doggie companions, the original founding population of homo sapiens was pretty small -- this means we aren't going to show a hell of a lot of genetic diversity; we all roughly carry the same genes; in fact, we're even more genetically selected than our canines because we cannot reproduce with our closest wild relatives (dogs can). Up until about 200 years or so ago we (and our dogs) intermixed at a pretty high rate (this has been borne out in genetic mapping) -- isolated populations of humans weren't the rule, and when they have happened there have been repercussions to the offspring (the human population of Pitcairn island is a good example).
What happened with the discovery of genetics is a textbook example of what happens when very bad science and even worse ideology that it spawns from takes hold of what should be rather neutral findings. In short, Margaret Sanger and her "race of human thoroughbreds" was a disasterous concept, even without the ethical/moral/legal judgement it just was scientifically horrible policy -- not only for the groups excluded (the obvious) but also in a very short time for the included (the hidden victims if you will).
In short, while I may like for example Beagles (which like most breeds were very far from being purebred up until very recently on the historical timeline, and since the policy of strict purebreeding came into effect are beginning to show really bad problems due to an ever shrinking gene pool that wasn't huge to begin with) and think they are the cutest things, the world would be a lesser and even more horrible place if the only dogs left alive were Beagles -- who would very quickly reach a genetic dead end and go extinct if that's all there was.
Life in all its variability is a better and more beautiful way to go. And no matter how we might try to argue otherwise...the Beagle and the Husky, while they may look incredibly different, may even have as it were some different cultural proliclivities due to their separate histories (they'll get along fine but may prefer to do some different things) are at the chromosomal level nearly identical(which means the same code of treatment needs to apply -- and that's an area we haven't quite managed with ourselves so we are ahead with our dogs there and not with the most obvious choice, ourselves). And we humans are even moreso (because fortunately ol' Maggie and Co. have not managed to completely triumph over us...yet...goodness knows some do try).
PW
It is a crude analogy, but it does seem to work -- since we are indeed so hung up on races, maybe it would be better if we stepped back and looked at it this way...we might be able to see more clearly (and in a way that may cause more humor and less defensiveness) where we have and are going very wrong. Because I firmly do believe that the human species cannot withstand on a biological level, the concept of "purity" -- no matter what the criterion for said purity would be. It's bad science; it will lead to no good. And this purity nonsense is really, imhao, the most evil and rancorous problem at the root of all the rest, and it is directly tied into race (because that's the easiest way to make surface assumptions concerning purity, always has been).
I'm going to keep up the dog meme:
ReplyDeleteMuch like our doggie companions, the original founding population of homo sapiens was pretty small -- this means we aren't going to show a hell of a lot of genetic diversity; we all roughly carry the same genes; in fact, we're even more genetically selected than our canines because we cannot reproduce with our closest wild relatives (dogs can). Up until about 200 years or so ago we (and our dogs) intermixed at a pretty high rate (this has been borne out in genetic mapping) -- isolated populations of humans weren't the rule, and when they have happened there have been repercussions to the offspring (the human population of Pitcairn island is a good example).
What happened with the discovery of genetics is a textbook example of what happens when very bad science and even worse ideology that it spawns from takes hold of what should be rather neutral findings.
In short, Margaret Sanger and her "race of human thoroughbreds" was a disasterous concept, even without the ethical/moral/legal judgement it just was scientifically horrible policy -- not only for the groups excluded (the obvious) but also in a very short time for the included (the hidden victims if you will).
In short, while I may like for example Beagles (which like most breeds were very far from being purebred up until very recently on the historical timeline, and since the policy of strict purebreeding came into effect are beginning to show really bad problems due to an ever shrinking gene pool that wasn't huge to begin with) and think they are the cutest things, the world would be a lesser and even more horrible place if the only dogs left alive were Beagles -- who would very quickly reach a genetic dead end and go extinct if that's all there was.
Life in all its variability is a better and more beautiful way to go.
And no matter how we might try to argue otherwise...the Beagle and the Husky, while they may look incredibly different, may even have as it were some different cultural proliclivities due to their separate histories (they'll get along fine but may prefer to do some different things) are at the chromosomal level nearly identical(which means the same code of treatment needs to apply -- and that's an area we haven't quite managed with ourselves so we are ahead with our dogs there and not with the most obvious choice, ourselves). And we humans are even moreso (because fortunately ol' Maggie and Co. have not managed to completely triumph over us...yet...goodness knows some do try).
PW
It is a crude analogy, but it does seem to work -- since we are indeed so hung up on races, maybe it would be better if we stepped back and looked at it this way...we might be able to see more clearly (and in a way that may cause more humor and less defensiveness) where we have and are going very wrong. Because I firmly do believe that the human species cannot withstand on a biological level, the concept of "purity" -- no matter what the criterion for said purity would be. It's bad science; it will lead to no good.
And this purity nonsense is really, imhao, the most evil and rancorous problem at the root of all the rest, and it is directly tied into race (because that's the easiest way to make surface assumptions concerning purity, always has been).