How could this possibly be implemented? Honestly there would have to be such a massive stopper put in human ingenuity. How could we let natural selection reclaim us? Stop using tools and medicine? Go back to living in caves? You can reach for the stars by "progressing" with your environment, or you can build a rocket and fly to them. Humans didn't wait for hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection to provide them with a warm fur coat to protect against the cold, they went out and killed a bear and wore its skin.
Natural selection evolved us to the point where it would occur to us to do such things as wear the fur of a bear. Those of us who thought this way survived better than those without initiative. There is an outward force in nature. Consider "adaptive radiation", where many descendant species diverge from the ancestral species. This is a non-random process, driven by natural selection. Geographic separation is not even absolutely necessary for this to occur - hence the predictions that humanity is splitting into different species based on the wealthier people evolving in one direction and the poorer people in another. Even while there are attempts to prevent racial divergence and to blend ethnicities artificially through repressive laws and mass immigration - there can still be huge gulfs developing along other lines. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
That report is garbage. Humanity peaking in 3000 before declining due to use of technology? If we're still around in 1000 years, let alone 100,000 we'll have changed beyond recognition because of technology, not because of natural selection. I see no basis for his predictions whatsoever, why would the upper class, which apparently has greater access to ultimately harmful technology end up taller and smarter? It's ridiculous. The writer is an economist, not a biologist. What repressive laws are in place to force ethnic blending?
I cant help but to notice that there is a lot of confusion with the word race and those who try to deconstruct it for political purposes, the main people who attempt to deconstruct the word race usually follow globalist and Marxist philosophies. Race is just a word, but for centuries is has been used in a biological sense. Race refers to the physical distinctions that exist between human populations based on their phenotypic and genetic characteristics. These physical and genetic characters are great enough to place humans into taxonomic categories based on their variation of femur structure, cranial capacity, skull shape, soft tissue, skin color etc, that latter is just one morphological trait often used to refer to human distinctiveness. It is claimed by many that only skin color alone makes humans distinguishable from one another while ignoring and not taking other traits into consideration in regards to taxonomic accuracy. Forensic scientist, physical anthropologist, geneticist, medical, doctors, and biological scientist of all ilks can identify which subspecies humans belong to. In fact professor George Gill can identify the ancestral background of a human with greater accuracy by observing the skeletal remains of a human rather then their soft tissue and other outside characteristics .the following is a relevant quote. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html There is much more evidence for human diversity that exist between different populations. For scientific integrity and taxonomic accuracy, humans must be placed into biological categories based on their morphological and genetics characters.
That all depends of which genetic evidence one would care to consult, if you are referring to Harvard professor Richard Lewontins estimate of genetic variation that he proposed in 1972, please do so with caution because he has been debunked to the point that his estimate of genetic variation that exist between human populations is known as the Lewontin fallacy. His calculation was that only 15 percent of genetic variation exist between human populations, whereas 85 percent is within populations. Brilliant American evolutionist Vincent Sarich, in his work known as Race: The Reality of Human Differences cites a more accurate measurement of human variation that exist between human populations which comes 32.5 %, rather then 15 percent. The following is somewhat difficult to follow, but read it over and over until you understand it. Page 169 of Race: The Reality of Human Differences In any case, Richard Lewontin used the "Wright's fixation index" or FST to measure human variation, the creator of the FST genetic variation measurement system was a brilliant American geneticist named Sewall Green Wright who was one scientist along with R.A. Fisher and JBS Haldane, that laid the foundations for population genetics. He stated that "if racial differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies." For more info on Sewall Green Wrights opinion on human diversity, read Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, 1978 and you will see that he is in favor of classifying humans into races. If biological scientist of all ilks classify non-human species into subspecies based on certain criteria for genetic variation, then for scientific consistency, they should classify humans into subspecies as well if they share this level of genetic diversity. Vincent Sarich sums up this situation perfectly in this relevant quote. [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861[/ame]
Let's see. Well, in no particular order: there was "bussing"of White's into non-white schools and vice versa. There are laws against speaking negatively about other races, except in the mildest and most inoffensive terms. There is the mass immigration which has never been democratically sanctioned, and always opposed by the majority of the population. There is the way there are certain institutions for the benefit of non-Whites while it is forbidden to have any institutions for the exclusive benefit or representation of Whites (in most countries - and in those where it's not forbidden it is scandalised and people lose their jobs over their pro-White stance). There is this concept that only Whites are racist and that indeed all Whites are racist, even those who think they aren't. There is the media promotion of non-White role models as heroes, while avoiding the promotion of Whites as positive role models unless they are Jewish and/or gay and overtly pro-multicultural. There is the way anything negative, such as crime stats, have to be carefully presented so as not to draw attention to ethnic predispostitions. I am sure there are other examples I have left out that I will kick myself when I think of later.
Where I live you can say whatever you want about other ethnicities. Might not be good for your public reputation, though. I have never heard of white people being legislated into "non-white schools". If the people don't want the immigrants they're not gonna go interbreed with them anyways. As for media representation the fact is that some people need role models more than others. Political correctness is different than law.
Today's news: http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2890947.ece Good example of the way we have other races forced upon us. A comment after the article: Stories of anti-white bias like this crop up on a regular basis.
