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