Race and Society

I just finished reading Sarich and Miele’s “Race: The reality of Human differences.” Overall, I was rather unimpressed. Their chapter 9, Learning to live with Race, though, was mildly thought-provoking. They compared possible (multi-racial) scenarios, given the reality of race. In the end, the social import — and not whether N.E Asians have bigger cranium than Melanesians — is what HBD is about and this is, unfortunately, a neglected part. (We’re too busy trying to establish that this is even an issue that needs discussing.) Anyways, I reproduced Sarich and Miele’s table of possible scenarios and their comparative advantages. What would you add or subtract? Which seems the most promising?

(One disadvantage that I see with (post-national) global meritocracy is that it’s vulnerable to systemic collapse. Sarich and Miele describe this model as the most adaptable and it is likely in the short and medium run. In the long run, though, since it represents a reduction in global diversity — one global order to rule them all — the overall adaptiveness of the global system is reduced.)

(Another, of course, is that it assumes that there is no inherent economic disadvantage to increased genetic diversity. Some research suggests otherwise. For example: Ashraf and Galor, 2009. The ‘Out of Africa’Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Race and Society

  1. JL says:

    The table says that in the global meritocracy scenario existence becomes aromatized. Is that so bad? 😉

    I don’t believe that the ethnic states model maximizes the probability of interstate violence. The existence of an ethnic minority in a country is what often causes conflicts between that country and the country where that minority is the majority. For example, the Nazis would probably not have embarked on their Eastern conquest had there not been millions of (supposedly mistreated) Germans living in Eastern Europe. If countries were more homogeneous, there would be fewer casus belli.

  2. Chuck says:

    Thanks for the correction.

    “I don’t believe that the ethnic states model maximizes the probability of interstate violence. The existence of an ethnic minority in a country is what often causes conflicts between that country and the country where that minority is the majority.”

    We — meaning not me — should take a look at the INTERPOL data to compare rates of interstate violence and intrastate violence across levels of regional diversity.

  3. Kuularuisku says:

    “Maintenance of ethnic homogeneity requires highest level of internal reinforcement”

    The opposite conclusion seems to me more plausible when looking at the situation throughout the Western world today and the measures required to prop up multiculturalism (constant anti-racism moralizing campaigns, anti-discrimination legislation, restrictions on the freedom of speech, media propaganda and suppression of “hatefacts” etc). Ethnic diversity in the Western world would in all probability be markedly lower in the absence of different forms of state coercion and intervention in support of immigration (including “sins of omission” such as lax federal border control in the United States).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s