Skin and body types

Surely different skin tone/body types can be easily explained -

Human bodies have, through time, evolved to suit the food and environment which they are born into.

Surely this means that having multiple body colours/types is appropriate and preferential to everyone being the same colour/body type. The bodies are being specialised to their environments, why try to make everyone the same by mixing all the races together?

Why are liberals trying to force that to happen? Trying to create a hellish utopian ideal, one big homogenous mass of people - Even though mankind has naturally divided itself into tribes throughout history, even going so far as to develop different religions and scientific progressions.

Is it any wonder that "racists" try to keep different peoples divided? And I'm not just talking blacks and Whites - the Chinese vs Japanese, the Germans vs the Slavs and Jews, the indians infighting over cast, hell even the Irish vs the English contained sentiments about Celtic vs Anglo blood...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Veeky Forums is not a politics board.
Go back to /pol/.

>Why are liberals trying to force that to happen?
Quit bigot, go fuck a brown person or I will kill you.

if that was true you could answer the question.

Why are we fighting against the natural course of natural history?

Because, as far as I can tell, its to fulfill some sort of idealistic philosophy - a childish utopia where everyone is treated the same, looks the same, and speaks the same language. No doubt they must all have the same religious beliefs too then?

Perhaps we should restart the Eugenics programs to help them.

No, i want to get to the bottom of this, because it seems counterproductive to humanity.

>fighting against the natural course of natural history
>idealistic philosophy
>religious beliefs
>eugenics
>counterporductive to humanity
Wow a lot of big words but where is the science & math in any of that?
Veeky Forums is not a politics board, go back to /pol/

Science is a subset of philosophy which is a subset of politics

>natural course
>natural history

Diagnose: I think that the poster is... Incredibly stupid. The stupidity is so severe that the poster can't tell the difference between nature and cultural/social constructs.

If you replaced "liberals" with "some people" the question remains the same...

Please explain to me how skin pigmentation and body shape are the result of social constructs.

My swastika version of OP's pic is much better.

Looks more like a swirlie.

"If we mix maybe we would be more "healthy"". I don't have the source for an human investigation and i know that an analogy is no good way to argue in the science, but i know that the pure races of dog, the pedigree, can be cute, but also weak. The purebred dog may inheridate damaging genes, because the race is not "mixed": the genetic alterations, the genes of the diseases perpetuate and intesificate in a particular race. We already are very mixed, but if a particular group of humans is isolated, their genes will become deteriorated althougth this may take time. Your argument is "that caracteristics are better for the respective enviroment" but we also already manage the enviroment very well and the races much less restricted to their native habitat.

>humans are natural creatures
>all of what humans create is a result of nature
>including social constructs
Explain to me how a human, something of nature, does something that is considered to be "unnatural" when beavers can build dams or birds can hollow out a small portion of a tree for a home and it be considered "natural"?
If you believe that what humans create is anything but natural, then you must also agree that any other creature's effects on Earth must be unnatural as well.

>liberals are trying to forcibly mix everyone together
false, fake strawman

No but they are silent about uncontrolled immigration. They don't exactly promote 'race mixing' but they do seem to expect large numbers of different races to live alongside each other, in perfect harmony, without any ethnic tensions whatsoever.

>they do seem to expect large numbers of different races to live alongside each other, in perfect harmony, without any ethnic tensions whatsoever.
And they do get along as long as there's no white oppressor thrown in the mix

true, however, what we have historically experienced is a very small number of outsider genetics mixing into localised pools to keep them "fresh" and unincestuous.

Today there is a political ideal in which all peoples should mix together, breed together. That there is nothing wrong with blending all the races into one, and we are seeing increased migrations of people into other tribal pools doing exactly that. The ratio of local to new characteristics is being altered at a much faster pace.

pale skin is the best in modern society due to vitamin D absorption.

also it's not shit colored

Hmm no that is not true. All races oppress people within their own race and between races. Just because we have transcended war (somewhat) doesn't mean most peoples don't want to stick to their own.

and then they all have kids and you end up with nigerian people living and eating in a northern european climate, fucking up all the ratios...

Most individuals don't care about other individuals skin colour. That is indivduals however. The masses however, even groups of 10-15 see other groups of similar size or larger, as 'other' even if the only perceived difference is skin colour.

>they do get along as long as there's no white oppressor thrown in the mix
Did you not see the Japanese berating white families, telling them to go home... or the black south africans murdering white settler families... how many white people do you see moving to pakistan? NONE, because they would be fucking killed.

>No but they are silent about uncontrolled immigration.
Correct. It's conservatives trying to force everyone apart and fanatically control who lives where, who fucks who, and so forth. And that's the source of the "ethnic tension".

I don't have a problem with blacks if they do good work, therefore I do have a problem with blacks.

>Most individuals don't care about other individuals skin colour.
Bullshit. Everybody is racist. Its a tribal defensive reaction. Doesnt mean you cant ignore it upon finding out more about the person.

>Bullshit. Everybody is racist.
Speak for yourself, racist.

Are you racist against my racism?

>political ideal
Well I know that from science you can say relevant things about all of this, but by now the rightness (right or not) of a political ideal belongs to I would prefer a /phi philosophy board though.

Why is it then in Britain during the labour party's (centre left) time in power 1997-2010, 4 Million immigrants came to the UK. There was no uncontrolled immigration into Britain until then.

Conservatives 1979-1997

Some years more people left the country then arrived in those years. Look at the stats.

Didn't realize I was racist until I saw this. Thank you. I'm no longer ignorant of this fact. Finally, enlightenment
>you're a fucking racist

Yes but even if that is true, the mutual resentment between individuals is more to do with factors other than race. However in large groups 'cliques' organisations/societies people are more 'racist' with actual violence sometimes occuring, innocent people being hurt etc.

>Bullshit. Everybody is racist. Its a tribal defensive reaction.
Not everyone.

Only those without the intellect to question their own thinking processes. Admittedly, that's a very, very small percentage of the population.

Don't worry, I don't hate racists, for the same reason I don't hate my dog even though he's xenophobic as fuck.

No body type is adapted to the way civilized humans currently live lol

so basically you recognised that you were a racist and denied it in your own head. Well done you.

Everyone is a racist - an unusual skintone immediately, and unavoidably, raises primarily negative associations in the mind.
It is a knee-jerk moment of reactionary concern. An animal instinct to distrust the unusual. You cannot avoid it.

HOWEVER - the ignorant assholes who choose to go with their initial instinct and condemn any other race - THEY are true racists.

Also
>the Chinese vs Japanese, the Germans vs the Slavs and Jews, the indians infighting over cast, hell even the Irish vs the English contained sentiments about Celtic vs Anglo blood...
>implying the physical differences between such closely related groups are significant

Humans are the only species capable of creating nuclear fission at will. We are well beyond the point of just being natural at least in terms of deviation from the mean in animal ability.

Also you can't have it both ways. Your premise states that evolving different features (like skin color) is natural and that mixing into one homogeneous population with homogeneous traits is unnatural. But if the current population of modern humans are decendents from a ancestral "base" population that means mixing back into one population is natural too.

One cannot be true without the other, unless you don't believe in modern humans coming from a single ancestral population. It doesn't even matter if you believe in the out of Africa theory or not, our particular branch of homo came from a base group and dispersed.

Speciation (or soft speciation in this case) requires a base of some kind to diverge from. And our greatest strength comes from our generalist genome in that if all but one populations we're wiped out we could still continue the species and it's future divergent traits.

For fuck sake we still have the genetic code for having tails in us.

I think that was the point - that not only blacks and whites (the most different visually) commit racist acts, the similar (indians of different casts, jews and germans, etc) do it too.

>the Chinese vs Japanese, the Germans vs the Slavs and Jews, the indians infighting over cast, hell even the Irish vs the English contained sentiments about Celtic vs Anglo blood...
Divide & Rule
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

>if the current population of modern humans are decendents from a ancestral "base" population that means mixing back into one population is natural too.

Not really - the trend has been for the races to separate themselves tribally for 100'000 years. Why would that suddenly change to joining them together, despite their bodies now being better suited to their environments and food sources?

Only the development of a rudimentary utopian ideology has produced that idea. "We're all the same" is such hippy bullshit - you only have to look at the olympic games to see where certain skills fall.

>Not really - the trend has been for the races to separate themselves tribally for 100'000 years.

And those races had to have a "base" to diverge from and separate in the first place.

>Why would that suddenly change to joining them together, despite their bodies now being better suited to their environments and food sources

Because the base of the genome still exists thus why we can still fuck each other and have relatively healthy kids who are capable of reproducing themselves. We aren't required to return to the base again but the fact we are capable of such a feat means it's still natural. And honestly the way we are going economically at least in terms of engineered food production we're all going to head back to some converging point at least in diet and all traits affiliated and dictated by that.

>Only the development of a rudimentary utopian ideology has produced that idea

Doesn't change the fact that racial convergence is still natural since it's effectively returning back to a "modern" equivalent of a base population we diverged from in the first place.

>We are well beyond the point of just being natural at least in terms of deviation from the mean in animal ability.

Other animals' abilities make no difference in whether what humans create is natural or not. If something comes from nature, what it does is natural.
And I'm not having it both ways. I stated that all actions of every living creature are natural, or none of them are. This point was made to combat the arguement that claims humans are different from animals and humans' effects on Earth are unnatural. I stated that if this was the case, that if human effects on Earth were considered unnatural, then every living creatures effect on Earth is unnatural. All actions are the same in the sense that they have a cause and effect. They only differ in their form.

>so basically you recognised that you were a racist and denied it in your own head. Well done you.
I see that you've assumed a priori that your hypothesis ("everyone is racist") is correct and then based all of your conclusions from that assumption. Not to be mean, but that habit is why you live the unexamined life.

You didn't realize that the truth could be the opposite -- it had never occurred to me to hold racist attitudes, and I had always rejected them without much thought, but after reading /pol/, I seriously considered becoming a racist, but decided not to, in the end.

>an unusual skintone immediately, and unavoidably, raises primarily negative associations in the mind.
Again, only in those who aren't capable of metacognition. As I said before, it's a small number of people. I don't expect you to understand.

>It is a knee-jerk moment of reactionary concern. An animal instinct to distrust the unusual. You cannot avoid it.
Even if this is true, it wouldn't make you a racist, any more than being aroused by every attractive female you see would make you a rapist.

there are several points in this thread where it should have been clear that it's not worth it to reply, including from within the OP

Like this one, but here I am, replying

Thank you

...

>inheridate
>intensificate
user I sure hope English isn't your first language

It's vit D production, you scientifically illiterate pleb.

Not so. Everybody probably notices people having different skin colours to their own, but it requires social indoctrination or negative experiences with differently coloured individuals (then a statistically indefensible extrapolation) to become racist

>Not really - the trend has been for the races to separate themselves tribally for 100'000 years. Why would that suddenly change to joining them together, despite their bodies now being better suited to their environments and food sources?
Food sources are nowhere near what populations evolved to handle thanks to capitalism and a touch of globalism. Also, environments are changing anyway thanks to global warming, vit D supplements are cheap as shit, and desu humans are generalists that don't rely on the skills from their body, but primarily on the tools they can create.

>Only the development of a rudimentary utopian ideology has produced that idea. "We're all the same" is such hippy bullshit - you only have to look at the olympic games to see where certain skills fall.
And mixing the best to potentially produce even better offspring is what fuels evolution. People have different skills. Combining those different skills (where it is possible) can lead to the best people, and combination is something that can be seen at the genetic level in recombination, to the population level in neanderthal-sapiens interbreeding

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Rape is per definition a natural occurence in many species, including humans. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it is good.

Just say you hate niggers and get over it. You don't have to invent a whole pseudoscience just to justify your hate. Be a man for once.

if you mix 50% pale japs and 50% darkest africans you will pretty much always have 25% pale skinned, 50% brown, 25% black people

diversity doesn't really disappear, but you have 3 groups instead of 2 now as far as skin color is concerned

you just hate niggers and im fine with that as long as you dont come up with bullshit and pretend you are smart
dont have kids with a black woman if you are so concerned

This should be /pol/'s banner

You will hear its only black people that naturally rape from people who haven't looked into history

caste

>Human bodies have, through time, evolved to suit the food and environment which they are born into.
That's wrong though. It happens for so many other reasons. You think the Irish got red hair because it suited their environment?

Plus mixing doesn't make everyone the same. Basic genetics.

I'm sure you will hear what you want to hear on /pol/ though. Go there.

They want less tribalism and more unity. The long term strategy of our overlords is to create a harmonious collective that doesn't nuke itself and obeys the law.

>I don't expect you to understand.

Just because you can examine your immediate reactions and act contrary to them doesn't make you a God - it just makes you like any another douchebag human. You are not special. I dont expect you to understand because your head is so far up your ass.

Nature doesn't care about what skin color you have.

It just happened that those light skinned people in places with lots of sun had a slightly lower survival rate. Over lots of time the population becomes darker skinned. Now people can just apply sunscreen or live indoors. We are slowing down human evolution through society. There's no selective pressure as there was in the past, especially with modern medicine.

It's not a liberal agenda, to conglomerate everyone. We can just fuck whoever nowadays.

Go crawl back to /pol/.

green shirt girl has some nice titties

Literally everything you just said was wrong.

>Nature doesn't care about what skin color you have.
If that was true everyone would be the same colour. Skin tone is the result of environmental and dietary change over time. societies that spend longer in the sun have their genetics changed raised melanin levels - the human body gets darkened by the sun, that changed becomes permanent, the changed skin tone is adapted by DNA, the DNA is then squirted into a woman and you have a dark skinned baby. Light skinned people live in cooler climes and experience less direct sunlight - hence pale skin. So yes, nature does care about your skin tone - it adapts to your surroundings.

>It just happened that those light skinned people in places with lots of sun had a slightly lower survival rate.
Thats not how it works bitch, what, you think all the white people in Africa just died out? What the fuck are you talking about.

>Over lots of time the population becomes darker skinned.
Er, nope. Not in any country has that ever happened. Theres evidence of light skinned people living in northern Europe for 30'000 years.

> Now people can just apply sunscreen or live indoors.
what the absolute... are you on drugs?

>We are slowing down human evolution through society.
Again, no, if anything you are blending the races at an increased rate - at a much higher ratio than has been common in nature before the 20th century.

>There's no selective pressure as there was in the past, especially with modern medicine.
Is that why having black children is seen as a negative choice in most white countries?

>It's not a liberal agenda, to conglomerate everyone. We can just fuck whoever nowadays.
Thats absolutely what a liberal would say. What a fucking utopian nightmare.

>Go crawl back to /pol/.
Crawl back to fucking school man.

evolution occurs 1000x faster the more mixing there is
genetically there are more chances of getting a new configuration never seen before
Have you ever read the evolution of terrestrial plants?
Flowers appeared instantly everywhere in the fossil record
they diverged instantly into multiples species
now they rule the land world

Hi OP

exactly, its like rolling dice
having more dice to roll will not make any difference in the short term but it would be an exponential difference the more times you roll them compared to if you were with the same number of dice

>
>Literally everything you just said was wrong.
>>Nature doesn't care about what skin color you have.
>If that was true everyone would be the same colour. Skin tone is the result of environmental and dietary change over time. societies that spend longer in the sun have their genetics changed raised melanin levels - the human body gets darkened by the sun, that changed becomes permanent, the changed skin tone is adapted by DNA, the DNA is then squirted into a woman and you have a dark skinned baby. Light skinned people live in cooler climes and experience less direct sunlight - hence pale skin. So yes, nature does care about your skin tone - it adapts to your surroundings.
Not the guy you replied to but this gave me a genuine, lasting laugh. This entire paragraph is just irreparably, terribly wrong. Are you Lamarck reborn?

>>It just happened that those light skinned people in places with lots of sun had a slightly lower survival rate.
>Thats not how it works bitch, what, you think all the white people in Africa just died out? What the fuck are you talking about.
Their genes died out, yes, and that would be due to them reproducing less, due to dying thanks to skin cancer and their babies dying in the womb due to the effect of excess uv absorption on folate.

>>Over lots of time the population became darker skinned
Here the user was referring to how black countries became black, presumably

No one is trying to "force" anything. Seek mental help for your paranoia.

this is a science board

not a bullshit pseudoscience board to discuss gay edgy political views

mods please ban these threads.

>Just because you can examine your immediate reactions and act contrary to them doesn't make you a God
Certainly not. I ever claimed such a thing. It makes me a human of what I would consider average intelligence.

>it just makes you like any another douchebag human.
Clearly not. If you disagree, please explain at the huge number of nignogs in American ghettos, or the huge number of white trash in the trailer parks, all living the unexamined life.

There are just some concepts that most people simply seem unable (or unwilling?) to grasp. An example that springs to mind: the concept of posterior probability.

>You are not special.
I don't think metacognition is some superhuman trait or anything. It's not even hard. For a human, anyways. But for a subhuman, maybe it is. Otherwise, why would you choose not to do it if you could?

>philosophy which is a subset of politics
>philosophy is a subset of politics

>Why are we fighting against the natural course of natural history?
What is your argument that what is happening now is NOT a natural course of natural history. We are, afterall, natural beings born out of nature.

>It makes me a human of what I would consider average intelligence.
Of what you would consider average intelligence.

Correct.
Sad that so many subhumans exist on the planet.

...

I wonder how many morons will come out of the woodwork to claim that race is a social construct?