What ecology can tell us about racial cohabitation

It's government enforced integration that's the artificial construct.

 

Horse hockey. De jura segregation is artificial. Government cannot force a white man to find a black woman sexually attractive.

 

Your argument is ludicrous.

1) White men sometimes find black women sexually attractive.
2) Segregation is unnatural.

According to your logic the fact that Japanese engaged in rape during their wars in China mean that they want to open their border to the Chinese. It is absurd.

 

Rape as a military tactic re-enforces the reality that a people have been conquered and subjugated.

 

But sadly and more relevantly it also invalidates your claim that sexual attraction between groups proves that segregation is unnatural.

 

Does the phrase "cherry picked data" mean anything to you? What's more I don't find any of them particularly attractive.

 

See you urologist.

 

No. It just proves that you are clueless as to the roots of racism and ethnocentrism.

And I still maintain that it is unnatural for any heterosexual man not to find this lady attractive.

 

"U r ignorant" is a weak counter argument. The fact is that any number of ethnic groups continue to practice separation, while clearly engaging in sexual activity from time to time with members of other groups. It is clearly possible to support segregation and national borders despite being occasionally attracted to foreign women.The one, really, has nothing to do with the other. It was an incredibly poor argument. Why not just admit that?

And yes, OK, she is rather attractive.

EDIT: Oh I just zoomed in. No thanks.

 

The direction in which human evolution has moved is toward the building of larger social units, rather than smaller more parochial bands. Where diverse peoples meet in peace at a common border, the more interaction there is between them, the more both groups will prosper and flourish. This is a part of why the peoples of the Fertile Crescent developed so quickly, and why civilization was, temporarily expunged from India following the Aryan invasions.

I do not see that you have made a strong argument for your position. You appear to be too much a victim of your social conditioning. It seems to have over-ridden your biological programming.

 

Well obviously where you set the condition of meeting "in peace". Sadly, in reality, that's not what you get is it? Islam, for example, has bloody borders, from Sudan to Thailand to the formerly Greek Constantinople. Where is the "diversity" in Saudi Arabia, or China? The fact is your "diversity" is only happening in countries with a European population, and it is being forced on a mostly unwilling population. Interaction doesn't necessarily involve population replacement.

This is nothing more than empty abuse that I could equally apply you.

 

SA is not diverse a bit. It is under autocratic rule. China in its early, formative years, was widely diverse. The different dialects are the result of the inclusion of a wide variety of ethnicities

Actually, Mali, whether under Fula, Mandinka or Songhai rule, included a wide range of ethnicities and languages. The first Songhai ruler, though a Muslim, insisted on tolerance of all religions as long as they did not try to violently suppress Islam.

At the heigt of the empire's existance, learning was more wide-spread and in-depth than was the norm for Europe at the time.

 

You're not facing the facts. Of course other countries like China have multiple ethnicities. So does Europe. But no other nations except nations with predominantly European populations are being subjected to rapid, multi-racial (not multi ethnic), population replacement. And you know as well as I do that any other nation would be strongly opposed to such a thing, and in fact are.

 

Goby fish and pistol shrimp. Two completely different species cohabiting the same burrow, sharing food and playing off each others strengths. I keep a saltwater tank, so this easily came to mind.

Their was a pretty drastic bottleneck a short while ago that almost brought our species to the brink. We are so close in almost all regards that the differences make no difference. This is just racism thinly veiled.

But, by your logic, minorities out breed whites, so evolution favors them. This scares you to no end. It makes me laugh.

 

As long as you have grandchildren, regardless the color of their skins, your family is not extinct.

Deal with reality.

 

Oh I do deal with reality. And the reality is that people care about more for their children than whether they simply exist or not. And in many cases that will be not if huge numbers of immigrants suck up all of the taxpayer provided services, reducing quality of life to the point where people cannot, and don't even want to, have children. Why don't you deal with reality?

 

The immigrants usually move to other countries to look for job opportunities. Once sufficiently acculturated, they are usually quite productive.

Intermarriage usually speeds up that acculturation process.

 

Of course they do. And every job taken represents a job taken from a current inhabitant. A livelihood destroyed. This is why every nation except those with European populations have extremely strict limits on immigration. Most recent studies suggest significant negative effects on native born employment due to immigration, which on the face of it is obvious. Was the government lying to you? Surprising? Additionally there are negative effects on the economy. In a country like the UK a minimum wage job does not pay for free health care and school for your 10 children. I think the last UK study calculated an annual drain on the economy of 30 billion a year. And this is not including social costs like increased crime.

 

Immigration is a net gain to the UK. You thought wrongly.

 

A gain for who? And how? How was this calculated?

 

Decline of available native-born labor threatened future productivity.

 

Can you show me how that was calculated?