Of course any notion of genetic diversity would include consanguinity: by definition, less consanguinity = more genetically diverse. The reporting as well as the study's authors explicitly say "diverse genetic backgrounds," meaning that the study's range far exceeds the effects of inbreeding.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0701133345.htmThose who are born to parents from diverse genetic backgrounds tend to be taller and have sharper thinking skills than others, the major international study has found.
The effect is pretty small though, so maybe who cares??
That's not the definition:
"In clinical genetics, consanguinity is defined as a union between two individuals who are related as second cousins or closer, with the inbreeding coefficient (F) equal or higher than 0.0156.where (F) represents the proportion of genetic loci at which the child of a consanguineous couple might inherit identical gene copies from both parents.[18]It is common to distinguish first-degree cousins, second-degree cousins, and often also third-degree cousins. Since comparatively few people can trace their full family tree for more than four generations, the identity of fourth-degree cousins often cannot be established. Also, at a genetic level, half-fourth cousins typically do not exhibit greater genetic similarity with one another than with any other individual from the same population.[19]
It's a major problem in Arab populations:
Yes.
However, there might be a nationalist reaction to colonization, as in the case of say, Indian nationalism as an reaction to British colonialism. That might've been useful in winning the independence of India, it's not required any more after that.
Well it's more that Germany is colonizing Europe.
What do you guys think of the Dalai Lama for saying this? Is he a Nazi or a Nazi lite for saying this and/or does he have extreme right wing views?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...lim-or-africanDespite his insistence on Europe assisting to rebuild the countries from where the refugees fled, the Dalai Lama also addressed those who might want to remain in Europe. "A limited number is OK. But the whole of Europe [will] eventually become Muslim country — impossible. Or African country, also impossible,” he said.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I'd say that the fear of Europe becoming Muslim is the fever dream of xenophobic individuals. To put that into context, some 70% of Europe identifies as Christian and even they haven't been able to reverse the separation of church and state. If he means that the Muslim population will overtake Europe's White population through breeding, this is also quite ridiculous and flies in the face of the mathematics of demographic change.
But his other argument is something any reasonable person might advocate: that immigrants and refugees should be given access to education in order to return and rebuild their homelands. This is, in fact, the *only* permanent solution to illegal immigration from the third world. It's the right-wing that normally doesn't want to help others or pay for shit; migrant crises are the predictable result of that attitude.
So we're on agreement on his argument of helping third world refugees to rebuild their homelands via education. As for his other argument, I am assuming that as long as we allow mass immigration from Muslims and Africans to occur into Europe at the current rate they are entering with their high birth rates that are above replacement level with current European native birth rates that are below replacement level then I think he makes a strong argument. Sure, current economic immigrants will eventually have lower birth rates that are roughly at the level of birth rates of European natives once they get established into their European country of choice after multiple generations have passed.
However, for that to occur, we'd eventually have to stop mass immigration because the first generation of economic immigrants into Europe will have high birth rates and eventually lower through several generations. So I don't think he's wrong in saying that Muslims and Africans will take over Europe as the majority making European natives a minority because he's probably assuming that mass immigration won't ever stop. Of course, we don't know what is going to happen in the future because if the mass immigration did stop eventually and became controlled immigration or even closed borders then I'd agree with you that their birth rates will eventually lower to the level of native Europeans.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Yes. In fact, this is the discussion we should be having.
I don't think it's a strong case, to be honest. Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, and the Islamic Republic of Iran each have fertility rates of 1.7 children per woman, which is below replacement and comparable with the Netherlands. Turkey's is 2.0, which is lower than France's. Even Syria's is only 2.44 in spite of the recent civil war.As for his other argument, I am assuming that as long as we allow mass immigration from Muslims and Africans to occur into Europe at the current rate they are entering with their high birth rates with current European native birth rates then I think he makes a strong argument. Sure, current economic immigrants will eventually have lower birth rates that are roughly at the level of birth rates of European natives once they get established into their European country of choice after multiple generations have passed.
However, for that to occur, we'd eventually have to stop mass immigration because the first generation of economic immigrants into Europe will have high birth rates and eventually lower through several generations. So I don't think he's wrong in saying that Muslims and Africans will take over Europe as the majority making European natives a minority because he's probably assuming that mass immigration won't ever stop. Of course, we don't know what is going to happen in the future because if the mass immigration did stop eventually and became controlled immigration or even closed borders then I'd agree with you that their birth rates will eventually lower to the level of native Europeans.
If there's something intrinsic about Muslim countries having higher birth rates, I don't see it. It's far more likely that higher birth rates are mostly the result of social breakdown and poor economic conditions.
Cool, yeah I'm all for helping those in 3rd world countries improve their living conditions in their countries.
What do you think of these graphs from this source? Basically, the gist of the graphs show that the only way Muslim/Africans would eventually overtake European natives is dependent on current mass immigration rates. So if mass immigration eventually became controlled immigration or even zero immigration then you're right that the birth rates would eventually lower and reach levels on par with the European population. Or at the very least with lower or no immigration even with above replacement birth rates (2.6 Muslim vs. 1.6 native European), Muslims wouldn't be able to overtake the European population as a majority and eventually their birth rates would lower over time.
Source: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/...im-population/
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I don't see why I should care about what Dalai Lama says, but he likely have those nationalistic views because he wants Tibetan independence from Chinese rule.
So some people are conflating legitimate immigration with invasion, and that's simply disingenuous. Besides what he said was about refugees and not immigrants.
Do you honestly think that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants and beyond feel any different from the natives? Do you really think that the reason why you feel "Canadian" is because of your race? I really don't see why race and ethnicity should matter at all, unless there are certain ideologies that make them keep certain identities, such as religion.
There's simply no good reason to arbitrarily "keep" certain races and ethnicities, unless it was forced or there was an invasion. If the argument is that because different races and ethnicities don't get along and they cause trouble, and homogeneous societies are apparently more peaceful and conflict-free and they always agree on everything, then why even bother with a democratic electoral process at all? Maybe we should just skip with the whole process because people will agree on everything anyway.
But that's not actually what happens, even the most homogeneous societies have conflicts and disagreements, unless they're a highly authoritarian society that forces a certain view on the society from the above, like say North Korea. So the apparent harmony and concord of a homogeneous society has always been authoritarian propaganda, and nothing more.
You're right, 14% isn't catastrophic, but all these projections are considering is Muslims, which are a fraction of the non-native population of Europe, they aren't counting non-natives, which would be much higher than 14% by 2050. For example, it says right now Sweden's Muslim population is 8.1%, but its non-native population is 24.1% or even close to a third when you factor in half Swedes:
So if Sweden's population is going to be 30.6% muslim in 2050, an increase from 8.1% Muslim today then that means it is safe to say that its foreign background population is going to be significantly higher than 30.6%, it will be well over 50% by then at current mass immigration rates. So 14% is a misnomer because it only counts Muslims, not all people of foreign backgrounds that aren't Muslim. This is assuming high immigration rates of course, if immigration is controlled or brought down to zero then the numbers would be more reasonable.As of 2017, Statistics Sweden reported that around 2,439,007 or 24.1% of the inhabitants of Sweden were from a foreign background: that is, each such person either had been born abroad or had been born in Sweden to two parents who themselves had both been born abroad. Also taking into account people with only one parent born abroad, this number increases to almost a third in 2017.
Do you consider the Dalai Lama a Nazi or Nazi lite though?
Also, since it's clear you are not interested in retaining ethnicities worldwide, what would be your ideal kind of Europe a few hundred years from now? As there are two main possible scenarios that will result from this in the long term with current mass immigration trends unless they control or stop immigration. Would it resemble Latin America, mixed race people with the same culture? Or would it resemble South Africa? Majority African/Muslim, minority European?
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
But it's fine if the government espouses a policy that favors certain races, a la Nazism.
See, this is the kind of a double-standard. Why is it fine if the government favors a certain race, but not the other?
If a government sponsors a policy that favors a certain ethnicity over the other, and that is not a reaction to an invasion or colonialism, then yes, it is Nazism. But the Dalai Lama is not a government. I consider Dalai Lama as someone who is reacting to the (harsh) Chinese rule of Tibet.
Why should I care about what happens ethnically to Europe? It's the culture that matters, not what race or ethnicity people are. And cultures don't stay the same, and people will pick the better culture.
Have you ever met Somali immigrants?
I have. When I lived in another city, a good friend of mine was a Somalian refugee and poet who dedicated a great deal of his time to working with a Somalian youth program in that city. The Somalian community was, out of necessity, a real community in a way that most neighborhoods and subdivisions in wealthy countries are not. They were certainly not out raping anyone, especially because their status as refugees was precarious and they could not afford to commit even petty crimes.
It's interesting you ask this cuz I live in the city with the largest concentration of them and I encounter them all the time.
I haven't been posting in this thread cuz I haven't cared that much about this topic but I did go on a pro immigrant march with my friend cuz her bf is Iraqi and we went through a Somali neighborhood and were thanked (BTW my friends bfs uncle worked for a us company during the war and received death threats for that so was escaping to the us and then trump blocked him from coming haha isn't that fucked up? Shouldn't have helped us, I guess. That is 1 thing that makes trump a prick as far as im concerned. If anybody deserves to escape to the us it's someone who put their fucking life on the line for us lol)
Anyway, to be fair, out of the people I know who deal with them in this city most (otherwise liberal leaning!) ones hate them for one reason or another... what I know about is relatively petty compared to rape but pro Islam morality that's inconvenient like if they're cashiers they demand nobody with pork is allowed in their aisle and if they drive an uber they refuse to pick up people who have had alcohol, stuff like that. (Basically gangrape. Jk, but entitlement, sure)
The social worker I know complains that they always lie and cheat to get extra funds and whatnot. So that's something the political ppl mention besides rape and murder.
My small experiences:
*When my son was a baby I had a Somali professional driver take us to the dr who held the carseat over his head and ran and it freaked me out. Also he picked up a Somali chick so I had to move to the front seat so she didn't have to sit there per some kind of rule.
*Obnoxiousness on the city bus like loud teenage boys and fighting women... this could be anyone, but enough Somalis that they were singled out in my head in this regard.
*A super nice guy I went to college with who gave me cologne to celebrate his wedding and when I freaked out about it maybe being a bomb (right after 9-11) he could tell and told me it wasn't just based on my facial expression haha. There were lots of ghetto folks in that program but he was a really straight laced kinda guy and stood out for that.
I’ve met some Somali migrants in Minnesota. They seemed poor but decent.
I travel a lot. I’ve been to every state on the contiguous US, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, England, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Turkey, Zimbabwe, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan. Everyone I met was very decent, but I did come close to being shot and killed by some good ol’ boys in a redneck bar in Montgomery, Alabama.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-10-2019 at 11:22 AM.
One side of my family is Scotch-Irish-English-Welsh and the other side is Austria-Hungary-Czech and they all came to the States for primarily economic reasons (to escape poverty), although I was told that my grandfather came here not only to have a better economic situation, but also to avoid being drafted into his country’s crappy army. When he got to the States, he enlisted and was sent back to Europe to fight, which he expected. Being LIE, he just wanted to fight with better equipment.
People have interesting reactions to the idea of other people moving from one Socio-economic group to another. If they think that the world is a fixed-sum kind of place, then they are threatened by the idea that a new person might take some of what that think of as being rightfully theirs.
If they think that people are productive resources and can expand the collective pie by working hard, then they are more welcoming towards new people, because with additional human resources, everyone will get richer.
I have a brother-in-law who thinks the first way. He doesn’t have any kids, either. They’d have interfered with his collecting of his toys. Weirdly enough, he doesn’t work, either. He lives off of his wife’s income.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-10-2019 at 11:23 AM.
Not a double-standard at all.
Nations exist for the benefit of their native ethnicities, else they are not nations. This remains well-understood in places like China, which aggressively promotes Han-1st policies—e.g. forced Sinicization of Tibet, repression of Uyghurs, etc.
You don't have to like it, but ethnocentrism wins over the longer-term: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Culture is a product of the people living there. Replace the people and the culture will necessarily be different. This is observably true of any neighborhood as it is a country.Why should I care about what happens ethnically to Europe? It's the culture that matters, not what race or ethnicity people are. And cultures don't stay the same, and people will pick the better culture.
Yet statistically we know everyone isn't "decent", and we know exactly where the indecent ones tend to concentrate more and whom this tends to comprise.
shit_that_didn't_happen.txtbut I did come close to being shot and killed by some good ol’ boys in a redneck bar in Montgomery, Alabama.
Suddenly reminded of this:
Are you claiming that culture is ingrained somewhere in the DNA? If that's so, then you'd have a lot of explaining to do.
Culture is the product of things being passed onto the next generation. The evolution of culture happens accidentally and randomly more often than not. It's not unlike the evolution of the DNA.
No, because culture evolves at a much, much faster rate than biology. Culture evolves in a timespan of decades, while it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years for DNA evolution.
Cultural evolution has already eclipsed biological evolution. There is more information in the brain than in the DNA. Food for thought.
Violent inclusivity doesn't make it better.
Besides, ethnics in America now make it clear that they either have no interest in assimilation, or that 'American' must be altered into a devoid abstraction divorced from history in order to accommodate them.
I have no idea what a program of Chinese-style forced Americanization would look like, but I imagine it wouldn't go over well.
Unless I am interpreting the statistics incorrectly. Close to a third of Swedes are currently half Swedish or less or 24.1% of Swedes if you want to only count those that are not Swedish at all. If 8.1% of Swedes are currently Muslim then that means non-Muslim non-native Swedes are 2 to 3 times larger than Muslim native Swedes.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Not anymore.
That's a retcon adaptation borne from the 20th century, contemporaneous with the 1965 Immigration Act. Has little to do with what America's historical character had been 200-300 years prior.I'm not sure what you mean by altering the term "American," but "nation of migrants" is perhaps one of the most relevant descriptors in reference to its historical character.