With a dying white race, why are we not encouraging more white births?

I was going to ignore OP, and attempt to pretend that his/her views are an extremely fringe minority. Of course, with #WISIS Donald Trump still leading the GOP polls, it's probably unwise to pretend the racist, white supremacist views of GIA are nearly non-existent. I'll respond in more detail to her/his post, but I couldn't help respond to this piece of drivel quoted above.To argue that the white part of the "human race" is responsible for the best social systems we have devised is absolute nonsense.The Euro-centric assumptions of this statement aside, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the concentration of melanin in certain human groups is any way responsible for the "best social systems." Correlation is not causation, and this is flawed biological determinism of the worst kind. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Your whole argument rests on the notion that there are concrete subspecies within Homo sapiens which can be phenotypically identified based on melanin concentration. Hence, throughout your argument, we see statements like "a dying white race," "dark races are reproducing a lot more than the whites," "this is not doing the white race any good at all."This is further seen in your links to YouTube videos with such ludicrous titles as "Tribute to the White Race" (that is as preposterous as, say, putting together propaganda entitled "Tribute to People with Blood Type A," or "Tribute to People with Mustaches" -- which, while cute in an odd sort of way, is quite idiosyncratic).Yet the notion that well-defined biological subspecies of Homo Sapiens exist and can be identified based on melanin concentration is quite antiquated and certainly something most evolutionary biologists would summarily dismiss.Let me explain.(1) The human species contains a multitude of variations, some homologous and others analogous. Yet merely because variability exists does not mean that we should invoke the idea of "race." There are better, more effective, more rigorous ways to shed light on the nature of human differences (e.g., molecular phylogenies based on SNPs, allele frequencies, etc.) than the very narrow, arbitrary concept of "race."(2) You have not given us any reason to believe that there exists a "white" subspecies, a "black" subspecies, a "brown" subspecies, and so on. What we do know is this: human variability generally maps nicely to geography; this, in turn, means that there is a continuum of variable characters among the human species; and a continuum of variable characters means that different subspecies could be (arbitrarily) contrived, based on, e.g., body size, disease susceptibilities, finger lengths, molecular phylogenetics based on SNPs, molecular phylogenetics based on gene frequencies, phylogenies created from a diverse array of morphological characters (e.g., brain size, which has no correlation with melanin concentration), and so on. So why have you chosen skin color to be the determining factor in what defines a human subspecies? This is quite curious on your part -- though is probably due to a lingering monogenic racism which posits that "whiteness" is somehow (magically, I suppose) superior. Because whiteness isn't any better than blackness or browness. "Muslim" is not a biological classification; it's a religion. This is quite a rookie mistake, and kind of throws away the validity of your whole argument. Sure, because much of the GOP consists of "white" people with just a high school education or less; these are the kind of people who gravitate to the fascist mythology upon which #WISIS's campaign rests. Nonsense. No one has a duty to any arbitrarily chosen biological character that is supposed to define some kind of subspecies. Yes, those with unearned privilege often do feel threatened when the idea of true egalitarianism emerges. Ignorant people do tend to do that, yes. Unless, of course, we deconstruct the social construction of race. That won't happen, of course, as long as we have people like you who are in love with magical melanin concentrations that are somehow better than those with different melanin concentrations. See above. Because biologically "whiteness" is irrelevant. You just seem to have a weird fetish with melanin concentration, which is really only important -- I suppose -- to dermatology and related disciplines (I am well-aware of the importance skin color has in social relations, but the entire argument of GIA assumes that melanin concentration is actually a viable biological classification scheme). See above.

(1) "Whiteness" is not a causative agent behind the nature of social and political systems. That Western whites produced certain social and political systems is merely a contingency of history. The "whiteness" of the people is a meaningless correlation.(2) Sociopolitical systems do not evolve in a vacuum. Study transculturation. I.e., so-called Western institutions have a diverse and varied pedigree. Science, for example, owes much of its structure to Arabia. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Uh, okay. This is irrelevant, but okay. "That sounds so stupid" is not an argument. You haven't addressed my actual arguments. Admin has already pointed out that you're wrong about this. Anyone who's taken pretty basic biology courses would know you're wrong about this.Oh, and it's not just like I think you're wrong about this, or you're kinda wrong about this. You're absolutely, categorically wrong when you say whites have the most variety in DNA. Read up on the following papers, then come back and admit that you've erred:Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians, 2002.Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for modern humans, 1996.Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans, 2000.A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, 2001.The Distribution of Human Genetic Diversity: A Comparison of Mitochondrial, Autosomal, and Y-Chromosome Data, 2000.DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome, 1999.Contrasting Evolutionary Histories of Two Introns of the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Gene, Dmd, in Humans, 2000.Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa, 2005. See above. A large body of molecular phylogenetic, bioinformatic, and other empirical evidence refutes your notion that whites have the most genetic variation. Whiteness still isn't a causative agent behind democracy. It's a contingency of history. You're making a rudimentary statistical mistake (correlation = causation) that a simple course in statistics should ameliorate.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Disease cures don't happen in a vacuum. They are not singular moments attributable to one individual, laboratory, or group of people. Please provide empirical evidence that whites will be responsible for more cures of diseases than other sub-groups within the human race. If you don't have that empirical evidence, then you're just making stuff up as you go along.

Wow. Just wow. Citing an irrelevant, poorly-made YouTube video as evidence to back up your deeply flawed assertion regarding genetic diversity. When was the last time you studied genetics or picked up a book on genomics? It's so hard to debate anything with you because your replies are so short and are not tangible, logical arguments. This is what you were replying to: You didn't respond to any of those points. You just made an assertion and also failed to respond to the extensive literature I posted which shows your claim that "whites" have more genetic diversity than any other race is a lie. Do you even know what you are talking about or are you picking up bits and pieces off the web that you think make sense and simply regurgitating it here? If you don't have knowledge about a subject, please take the time to actually learn about it before wasting the time of people who actually know, for example, about the nature and distribution of genetic diversity. You know...people who've actually published in the scientific literature and have done real research.No, "Neanderthal admixture is present in the DNA of modern Eurasians and Oceanians, and nearly absent in sub-Saharan African populations" has nothing to do with whites having more genetic diversity. That's not even a paper. It's a quote in an article written by an unknown author.Arguing that because Eurasians and Oceanians (which, by the way, is a very broad group of people who include more than just whites) have traces of a Neanderthal gene flow has nothing do with the extent of genetic diversity in human populations. That's quite ridiculous -- tantamount to arguing that because one human population has a specific gene duplication, it therefore has the most genetic diversity. Of course, anyone familiar with genomics and biology would know that this is absurd -- but I suspect that the preposterous-ness of your argument escapes you.Anyway, you're still wrong about genetic diversity in whites. To repeat what you failed to respond to:You're absolutely, categorically wrong when you say whites have the most variety in DNA. Read up on the following papers, then come back and admit that you've erred.Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians, 2002.Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for modern humans, 1996.Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans, 2000.A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, 2001.The Distribution of Human Genetic Diversity: A Comparison of Mitochondrial, Autosomal, and Y-Chromosome Data, 2000.DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome, 1999.Contrasting Evolutionary Histories of Two Introns of the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Gene, Dmd, in Humans, 2000.Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa, 2005.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

The melanin concentration of a human population has nothing to do with causing certain historical, sociopolitical institutions. It's a meaningless correlation and a contingency of history. So no "loyalty" is owed to certain melanin concentrations. Unless, of course, one has an odd fetish with these melanin concentrations.