I'm a novice, so I'd like some perspective on this, not only from people who agree with this, but with people who disagree with this especially.Is it possible we don't see evidence for Out-Breeding Depression in humans because modern medical intervention supersedes the consequences of Out-Breeding Depression, i.e. Asian Mothers with non Asian Fathers having a 33% higher rate of Caesarean birth, mostly due to skeletal mismatches between their Pelvic Bone and the Cranium Size of their children, an issue that in the natural world would likely result in reduced fertility within that demographic, but due to C-Sections this issue can be circumvented, and the genetic mismatch can continue to breed and spread, necessitating further dependence onto modern medicine in future generations.Given the numerous racial distinctions:>Fat distribution>Muscle Anatomy>Bone Mineralization, skeletal structure, skull shape>Pore size>Larynx and Speech comprehension geneticsEtc. Is it possible that more instance of out-breeding depression exist that are flying under the radar, and this is possibly one reason why the modern populations have so many health related issues?https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/10/asian-white-couples-face-distinct-pregnancy-risks-stanfordpackard-study-finds.html
Actually there is quite a lot of evidence for outbreeding depression, much of it gets conveniently ignored.
It's odd really. Who would have figured that miscegenation would be dangerous both to the health of human society and the individuals living in that society. It's almost like a certain tribe of inbreds wants everyone to be even sicker than themselves. They purposely promote miscegenation to get outbreeding depression.
>>16881409I'm just curious what the argument against this is, if there is one, but I'd also be curious to look at more cases similar to previously listen Stanford study that might corroborate this.I also know there are issues in mixed pairing in regards to other birth related complications, such as low birth weight, still birth, premature birth etc>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2867623/The argument levied in these cases is usually socio-economics, i.e. access to proper treatment and care, and some people even go so far as to acknowledge the race of the mother in a lot of these outcomes, but I've yet to hear any argument that really tackles the issue comprehensively.This quote from the aforementioned linked also suggests that the subject is likely being ignored, wittingly or unwittingly.>"Although births of multiracial and multiethnic infants are becoming more common in the United States, little is known about birth outcomes and risks for adverse events."It also states that the risk is higher in Black Monoracial couples then any other pairing, which could corroborate the socio-economics argument, but given the American Negros history in the US, you could consider them a product of long term mixing.It's also hard to say how they concluded who was White, Black, or otherwise. A drivers license might list a mixed person as one or the other, so we can't say that the genetics are being studied really carefully.Most all the easily accessible studies only measure the immediate effects, which conclude in most cases that the race of the mother plays a large role in determining outcomes.>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8274554/
I think that by outbreeding depression you also would outbreed intelligence.
If we look purely at fertiliy you actually start to see outbreeding effects as close as I think 5th cousin.
>>16881566That would happen though, given the measured IQ of say Africans for example remains consistent across all cultures, nations, and economies. We can also see IQ rates going down, as well as literacy rates, etc.Of course the falling rates are still attributed to socioeconomics, like always, it is strange that these things are falling in tandem with the massive influx of migrants into Western countries, contradicting a lot of the mainstream narrative.It would also highlight how people from a foreign country without a keen understanding of English would necessarily tank the literacy rates, and also brings into question why our governments are importing a poverty class, given that most of the people coming in are Low IQ, illiterate, and end up on welfare.More on topic with the discussion, mixed race children typically score IQ between the average range of both their parents, meaning that IQ goes down from the higher parent, Asian or White, and goes up from the lower parent, Black or Hispanic.>https://cis.org/Report/Somali-Immigrants-Minnesota>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3283/>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study>https://literacybuffalo.org/2025/01/23/adult-literacy-rates-are-falling-new-literacy-study-shows-big-problems/>>16881596Do you have any sources on this? I don't quite have a picture in mind of what you're referring to.
>>16881848>>16881566We also see higher rates of mental illness among multi-ethnic individuals, in addition to substance abuse, chronic disease (Though still comparable to Africans, higher then other racial groups), higher rates of incarceration, etc.>https://mhanational.org/resources/multiracial-quick-facts/What is curious to note is combining statistics on multi ethnic marriages and what we know about children who are the product of divorce.Multi Ethnic marriages are more likely to end in divorce then monoracial marriages.Children who are the product of divorce also show lower performance in school, higher incarceration, substance abuse, etc, in addition to also being more likely to get divorced themselves.>https://legaljobs.io/blog/children-of-divorce-statistics>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4183451/
>>16881848>HispanicHispanic isn't a race, Hispanics are of varying racial compositions. Actually I'd be curious to know how this topic applies to Latin America since so many there are mixed race.
>>16881873That's a fair point, as the Hispanic label broadly refers to a variety of peoples and genetic compositions. This topic came up in the recent discussions surrounding the accuracy of crime statistics in the USA, where Hispanics are often distributed between multiple ethnic classifications.Brazil for example has the highest number of mixed race individuals, yet despite modern claims of hybrid vigor and increased intelligence, it's a hard claim to say they're really successful. From here the counter argument typically devolves into socioeconomics as an excuse for all ills. But the things I'm curios about is how they overlook this need for improving socioeconomics and how it fosters dependence onto medical and state systems, i.e. there are numerous health related issues that are increased in multi-ethnic people, rather then simply avoiding this all together people will instead give more power to the Authorities to solve these issues, issues that don't need to exist in the first place, etc.The other issue with South America, and many other 3rd world countries, is the poor statistical reporting. And this is another thing that is mentioned a lot in this field of research which is the lack of available data, which is again all the more reason to scrutinize the mainstream narrative, as it is clear we don't have all the variables.People in Brazil have higher rates of Mental Illness, leading globally, but this can again be devolved into the socioeconomic excuse. Yet given how access to psychiatric care in America has not seen our mental health rates go down, it's kind of a dumb argument.>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7111415/I'll cite a few others, you know what can be said in refutation. But the Socioeconomic and lack of access to Medical and State protections plays into my initial argument, that Modern Medicine is potentially be used to cover up the consequences of out-breeding depression.
>>16881873>>16881895>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198030/>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0325251>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11822307/Starting with the most notable, Brazil has some of the highest rates of Congenital Disease (Some say it's actually lower due to under reporting), and the highest rate of C-sections in the world (This ties into my initial post).Some studies I'm reading say that C-section births actually outnumber vaginal births, which is fucking insane to think about.>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7111415/>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9897814/>https://portal.fcm.unicamp.br/en/2025/05/21/45%25-of-Brazilian-adults-have-at-least-one-chronic-disease/Brazil also has a lower fertility rate, on par with the USA, despite being less economically stable.This is often attributed to Women's education, and the increase of Women in the workforce. Go figure.I also shouldn't need to cite the high levels of crime and so fourth, you're probably familiar with that.
>>16881848How is one not to lose hope in such a world?Billionaire child rapists rule us and we are subservient to infernal systems of implicit and explicit societal degradation and economic subjugation.How2cope?
>>16881848>Do you have any sources on this? I don't quite have a picture in mind of what you're referring to.The Icelandic birth and marriage record data from >Helgason et al 2008 An association between Kinship and fertility of human couplesIt's a pretty interesting paper.I think the graph for the grandchilren data is the most informative.I have seen comparable patterns in non human data
>>16882177In case it's not clearthe x axis is average relatedness with 1) closer than 2nd cousin, 2) 2nd-3rd cousins, 3) 3rd-4th, etc, etcThe fertility peak is thus at around the 3rd cousin, but for a population as small and homogenous as Iceland (~35,000) it could imply it's a little closer for other larger groups.I find it very thought provoking since it imples group sizes of only a few thousand people or the clusters of small villages would have the highest fertility.It's also quite worrying how there seems to be an endless decline after 4th cousin
>>16881343>t. Yasser El-Sayed>>16881493>Black monoracial don't workBleh, the hatred of white men has corrupted the sciences.
>Socioeconomic and lack of access to Medical and State protections plays into my initial argumentI'm not giving you more shit to help your retarded brown babies help globohomo.
>>16882076Their constant bombardment of your psyche is not to deprive you of autonomy, as much as it is to make you forget about the degree of autonomy you possess, and always will possess.You still have choices you can make that will improve your life and the life of those you value, no man is more pathetic then the man who doesn't try.The best thing you can do is start from a place of repairing your dignity, take care of your health, eat healthy, get good sleep, exercise, educate yourself, take up some physical hobbies, try to find your tribe; cut out all the background noise and distractions.Commit yourself to something greater then yourself, and rage against the dying of the light.
>>16882177Excellent topic, I'm going to have to read this one tomorrow. We know inbreeding is bad, and here we can acknowledge that outbreeding depression is also bad, so if the question is where can the line be drawn to create the balance between these extremes we're looking for, this paper is excellent for helping us discern where that line should be drawn.>>16882185I've read and followed the whole 50/500 rule for short vs long term genetic health, which applies to a place like Iceland given the smaller population size. Of course this would mean that in these smaller populations, you would have to be conscious of the genetic lines just be careful of closer relation, but Iceland itself, and their rather healthy standard of living, blatantly contradicts the whole constant drive for hybridization a lot of people advocate for.I don't think many people realize that genetic diversity already exists in these populations, because they associate the word "Diversity" with the modern cosmopolitan definition.I do wonder if their fertility can be associated with the tight knit social communities, a socioeconomic justification, but one that still doesn't alter the general argument, where cosmopolitan societies aren't high trust and fertility isn't really seen or encouraged after a certain population size.>>16882222Nice Quads. Research is notable no matter the man conducting it. All races of men should strive to want the best health outcomes for their people, anyone living in the middle east more so given the higher rates of consanguinity.>the hatred of white men has corrupted the sciences.I think people just don't want to confirm research that would reinforce so called "Racist" viewpoints, because for one reason or another, the truth would negatively affect the current lifestyle of these groups in Western countries. Misguided as they are, they ultimately believe that what they're doing is right for their people.
>>16882228Well that's the thing, it's in nobodies interest to perpetuate this ignorance except for the global elite. Acknowledging racial differences in health and genetics would lead to every race of man recovering their equilibrium so to speak, and if the races of man were made healthy, globohomo would lose leverage over their slave caste.This is why the modern medical industry is predicated on generating copious side effects and dependence onto modern medicine, because if people were healthy they'd lose power, money, control, etc.This is why it's imperative we learn as much as we can about how our own minds and bodies work, and also be humble enough to admit to what parts of our own knowledge is flawed and causing us to be unhealthy, that way we can learn to course correct ourselves without being reliant on any kind of parasitic authority.
>>16882296>We know inbreeding is badNot neccessarily.Some degree of inbreeding is adaptive and beneficial, and within a wider population it allows trait magnification and multi loci complimentary interactions. Or basically If you've got a new novel good gene combination for your environment you would see fitness benefits breeding a relative equally likely to have those traits instead of them getting distributed and split up.The risks of even close inbreeding like parent-child or sibling are not as big as you might expect as long as it's limited to one generation. there are effects since it increases autozygosity but I think the figures are like a quarter of an sd left shifted on broad performance traits. uk biobank extreme inbreeding study
>muh depression>muh geneticsdumb people "deal with" depression by ignoring it. how? they just pay attention to something else instead: watch TV or listen to music all day long, talk to random people, keep themselves occupied...I'd guess depression has some social/environmental component, most likely. so you won't outbreed anything, IMO.
>>16882299>and also be humble enough to admitWe need to be "humble" enough not to feed this thing.
>>16882296>All races of men should strive to want the best health outcomes for their peopleAll races should strive to treat others as they would have their own.
>>16882327An admirable philosophy, but not a practical one.It's simply not a good idea in a world of competing group interests. You get wiped out.You have to acknowledge who you are and who your group is,
>>16882315Not sure about this one, I can understand the argument for 4th to 5th cousin in proportion, but even that requires a degree of cognizance. You could maybe make the argument that in a population with relatively little to know negative genetic traits it is possible, but the likelihood of increasing the odds for recessive or negative genes goes up.Like I said, it's a balance, ideally we want to avoid both extremes.>>16882317Not sure what you're on about. People who ignore the cause of their emotions without treating the underlying conditions of their lives quality are fools and weak minded.>>16882325Feed into what via what?>>16882329Exactly, and part of this acknowledgement means realizing that other genetic groups are just as hardwired to act in their own interests as our own, and that they are superior relative to their own environments. It makes the job of preservation a lot easier if we are all on the same page.
>>16882339>Feed into what via what?Don't feed the cuckoo birds chicks.
>>16882343What sentiment here are you saying plays into that?
>>16882329>not practical>>16882339>other genetic groups are just as hardwiredAre you retarded? Everything you presented is feces because you admitted this. You are not only evil but luckily stupid.
>>16882344They don't feed your kids and make excuses for their failures. Why are you bending over backwards for theirs? What is wry with you?
>>16882354>wry*wrong
>>16881848They just want more votes. Fuck the consequences of anything
>>16882339>Not sure about this one,My point was somewhat extreme, but if an animal developed a trait that made it significantly more resistant to a disease but only because of a gene combination from the parents, then potentially the offspring of that animal with its own sibling or parent would have a higher likelihood of survival that actually compensated for the potential costs of inbreeding depression.Longer term as those with this trait combination increased they'd have more partners to pick from.Also It's not ideal, but my point is that it's just surprisingly less dangerous than is commonly thought.Oh there was a paper that looked at the habsbrug dynasty and found that over the centuries slowly purged out many of their dangerous recessives, based on comparing child mortality figures.
>>16882343>Don't feed the cuckoo birds chicks.There's a reason birds do this, it because cuckoos act like mafia with protection rackets
>>16882450I don't want to deal with cuckoo bullshit in society trying to get other people to take care of their children to the extent they start to bullshit in science but here we are.
>>16882410They want to punish people for not joining their religion.
>>16881902Many women here choose to do C-section to not ruin their pussies and bladders, not because they're unable to give birth naturally
>>16882345Can you explain your argument? Calling me names isn't really conducive to productivity, and if I'm wrong in some way, you have the onus to explain how and why.>>16882345I never meant to suggest putting anyones children before your own, by all means, migrants outside of their ancestral nations ought to be removed, and we should always put out own children first. My point was that it is ultimately in their best interest as well.You guys really need to practice substantiating your positions better, this internet playground bullshit is not productive for anyone involved, most especially yourselves.What solution do you have outside of name calling?>>16882410Sure, that could definitively be a part of it, but on some level many of these people involved or who are complicit in replacement migration genuinely believe that what they're doing is right.In order to relay the validity of our position, we have to engage in better rhetoric, so that those who are capable of rationality among traitors (unwitting traitors most especially), can also engage in this discussion and maybe see the light.
>>16882445A fair point, but I think the issue is generally rectified by the fact that parents, at least in a healthier environment closer to nature, tend to produce more than one child, each one of those children would be able to carry on the beneficial genetic trait on their own, without the risk of inbreeding effects.>habsbrug dynastyWeren't those recesses just purged by the fact that the line ended?>>16882478That is what we are lead to believe in many cases, but the argument is more based on the fact that if there are issues surrounding out-breeding depression, then the implementation of Cesarean Birth obfuscates the issue by making it harder to accurately gauge what flaws, if any, are occurring.The paper cited on Asian Women with White or non Asian fathers is one of many that states how that group of women Must get a C-section due to a variety of issues, not that they prefer it strictly for convenience sake, but because a vaginal birth would put them or their child at risk.
>>16882591>tend to produce more than one child, each one of those children would be able to carry on the beneficial genetic trait on their own, without the risk of inbreeding effects.Let's take that idea that from a litter the siblings have an optimised gene profile that makes them better adapted in some way to their environment so both of them are fitter, healthier and more dominant leaving more offspring behind.There are many ircumstances that could be constructed where there's an incentive to mate with a close relative such as a lack of alternative, or where the dominant stag retains his dominance by simply being the very best and maintains the breeding monopoly for long enough to breed his daughters, good or bad is subjective.Actually this raises the question of how contested harems avoid inbreeding I'm not super familiar with them.There was a paper by I think Richard Sibly in the early 2000s which took a look at the relationship between populations sizes and growth rates, he found a sort of relationship where large groups had low growth rates while small groups had high growth rates.I think ultimately group size affects the degree of relatedness to the mating options, so if we take the fertility/reatedness evidence we can use it to try to explain the sibly data
>>16882726*I'll try and find the sibly paper, I had a folder of this stuff when I dug into the topic a couple of years ago, but I'm only a motivated lay reader
>>16882735Sibly, R. M. (2005). On the Regulation of Populations of Mammals, Birds, Fish, and Insects. Science, 309(5734), 607–610. doi:10.1126/science.1110760 https://files.catbox.moe/5ojyg4.pdf
>>16882726>>16882735>>16882744>breeding monopoly The problem with this philosophy can be seen by Polygamous and Consanguineous cultures, namely Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, these cultures all have numerous genetic problems. Take a look at Pakistan for example which has a consanguinity rate of 68%, they're all obviously fucked up genetically but nobody wants to acknowledge it for fear of being called racist.Harem and multi wife culture sounds good on paper, you think >"Yes, the strongest should breed the most."But the reality is that even the most gigachad thundercock guy on the planet still has negative traits that can be passed on, and consanguineous and polygamous systems invariably narrow the existent gene pool. This argument sort of falls apart, because it requires first that the people participating in such a system are Adam and Eve levels of genetic purity, which I really don't think anyone is.I'd rather not see the rest of the world turn into India and Pakistan.>P.S. Yes, India's ancient history suggests out-breeding depression initially, but today and for most of recorded history now they have and continue to practice consanguinity.
>>16882753I don't want to argue it's good thing, just that it happens and that there are circumstances where it happening is advantageous.The key advantage of inbreeding compared to outbreeding is that any damage done by inbreeding is fixable in a single generation.But with outbreeding if you introduce incompatible genes it can take generations of purging to get rif of them with all the incompatibility issues that come with it.also remember I'm using the idea of extended cousins as that seems to be supported by the data. At least on long term fertility data.Whle pakistani and indian data is about multiple generations of first cousins.
>>16882762Right, according to 3rd-5th generation cousin and beyond, sure, if you consider any supposed inbreeding caused by that, but that degree of distance is fairly normal. Anything closer than 3rd degree is not so easy to repair, I just want to make that point clear so we know the parameters of what we're talking about.
>>16882763>Anything closer than 3rd degree is not so easy to repair,No, anon, if a guy had a kid with his sister, then any "damage" would be resolved by that child simply mating with a non relative.On the other hand f2 hybrids are just fucked.
>>16882579>What solution do you have outside of name calling?You produce a lot of noise without any substance. Like what are we supposed to be productive about on an imageboard? This isn't a corporate setting. There is no problem or solution. We are just talking.
>>16882766There's no way in hell dude, some slight statistical exceptions don't justify the overwhelming rule, that child already has innumerable fuck ups because of that, they're not going to be able to function let alone breed at that point.>>16882804I've been citing studies and providing genuine arguments throughout the whole thread, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the issue. If you disagree with something, you can say so, and we can talk about it, but all you're doing now is just shitting up the discussion.Now can you please substantiate your position?
>>16881343I'm just going to drop a phrase in, from an applied (real world) science field: farming. The phrase is: Hybrid vigor.
>>16882839>There's no way in hell dudeLook, one gen of even close inbreeding isn't some death sentenced webbed fingered, abomination.You are gonna have a hard time picking them out, I guarantee you have met at least one and never realised it.But not relevant. since we aren't discussing it.
>>16882845>The phrase is: Hybrid vigor.Yes, it's used under specific condiitions.But these are mostly terminal crosses, or rotational crosses of dam lines. and we're looking for heterosis effects under what amounts to quite closely related breeding populations, half the time the breed matching fails
>>16882845>(real world) science field:Have some professional bull breeder knowledgehttps://kcorner.forumotion.com/t900-reflections-condensed
>>16882845Hybrid Vigor only refers to Immunological advantages in first generation hybrids, there is no evidence to suggest Hybrids have greater health in other capacities, and if you have anything to suggest this, I suggest you cite it.This is one of the misconceptions that a lot of people have about hybridization, they typically don't have any knowledge to cooberate this notion.More interesting is that they disregard the notion of race, yet the idea of Hybrid Vigor would reinforce race because hybridization wouldn't occur if we were in fact all one race. Just one of many contradictions in the modern narrative.>>16882863This link is a conversation about cattle, the intention of talking about it is to determine what is best for the productivity of their industry, not necessarily the animals themselves.Though it does bring to mind the idea of what the Global Elite consider Right for us, given that they consider us Cattle, they would like to hybridize us for the sake of their benefit, not for the sake of Ours.
>invited review>Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation andmanagement >SUZANNE EDMANDS>Molecular Ecology (2007)https://docslib.org/doc/668779/evaluating-the-relative-risks-of-inbreeding-and-outbreeding-for-conservation-and-managementWhere would I find more up to date examples like this?some sort of population ecology juournal?
>>16881343>Is it possible we don't see evidence for Out-Breeding Depression in humans because modern medical intervention supersedes the consequences of Out-Breeding DepressionMost natural selection factors don't apply to humans because civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection. >Is it possible that more instance of out-breeding depression exist that are flying under the radar"Instances of out-breeding depression" is not the correct way to call it, what you mean is "potentially lethal loss of fitness due to outbreeding depression". It's not possible, it's indisputable. You should, however, consider that in the human populations there are similarly fucktons of cases of potentially lethal loss of fitness due to INbreeding. But both of those are a minority of all genogenic syndromes. The overwhelming majority of those are either simply hereditary and not tied to a specific population, or just straight random bullshit that you cannot prevent with deliberate in- or outbreeding. Basically if you really really don't want children to be born with genetic diseases, then the only solution is to stop all reproduction. If you don't want that, you gotta balance between in- and outbreeding, and there's no real optimal point between them.>>16882953>there is no evidence to suggest Hybrids have greater health in other capacitiesHybridization is one of the major ways for speciation, dipshit. >More interesting is that they disregard the notion of raceBecause race is not a thing in population genetics. We have populations, lineages, metapopulations, clines, we can just barely fit some ethnicities (since those are mainly linguistic), but not "Blacks, Whites and Asians". Those are made up from shittons of smaller groups on the basis of a handful of phenotypical traits for pure convenience.
>>16883295>Most natural selection factors don't apply to humans because civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection.>nature be like*miscarriages bruh*
>>16883295>civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection. Right, basically my point, "Dunk" on nature in this context just means pushing off the consequences, because if the technology or medicine ever fails then all of civilization is collapsing. But of course it's also misleading, because if issues really do exist, they're there, we're just not conscious of them, but maybe it's part of the reason everyone is so unhealthy and fucked up these days?>it's indisputable. Evidently not, as has been the discussion of this thread, there are a lot of potential consequences, but modern scientific research refuses to delve any deeper. Just go look at any of the "Conclusive" research that corroborates your view, almost all of them end with "We need more research in this are and we haven't looked into this enough."There is a profound degree of ignorance in this field. >you gotta balance between in- and out-breedingRight, again, that's been my intention in this thread. I think avoiding race mixing is that balance, as far as everything I've seen goes.>Hybridization is one of the major ways for speciation, dipshit. Within reason, there is obviously a limitation on how much genetic diversity until you start getting serious problems.>Because race is not a thing in population genetics.This just seems like a Semantic distinction. There are a plethora of variable traits that differ between different groups of people, at the least, mixtures between groups from completely different parts of the world is not going to be salubrious.
Nature wants us having big families so it can either kill most of them or prevent them reproducing in some way.Whoever survives that pressure has genes that work well together.The more of these effective gene combinations you can maintain the fitter your offspring, relatives have more of these compatible genes so choosing a relative increases the probability that the offspring will succeed.However mating with the less related has the potential to bring in new novel genes that could lead to better survival of the offspring.The ultimate challenge is finding new good genes while not disrupting functional gene groups
>>16883583>But of course it's also misleading, because if issues really do exist, they're there, we're just not conscious of themYou not being able to digest cellulose or impregnate yourself is "an issue that's there, you're just not conscious of it". Like you could be eating tasteless vitaminated cardboard and remain healthy, but instead you're overindulging in pizza rolls, which causes countless health issues.
>>16882839>Now can you please substantiate your position?I just looked over this thread expecting shilling for race mixing. I thought it was one of those. Looking more closely I guess not though.
>>16883583>but maybe it's part of the reason everyone is so unhealthy and fucked up these days?At the very top of the maximum hypothetical effect, it can be 0,001%, by scale or by severity, of the influence that just the obesity rates alone have. To say nothing of air and water quality, infections, lack of mobility and carcinogenic substances. In any case "these days" implies both that people are currently typically ridden with illnesses more so that they used to before, and that admixture used to be more rare. Which is wrong on both counts. People were getting sick a lot at all times, we know that from both medicinal records all the way from antiquity and from analysis of human remains. The idea that just the majority of people used to die off early for various health complications but the rest were permahealthy ubermenschen is schitzo bullshit. And there was no period in human history which did not involve shittons of admixture in one place or another. Populations and the absolute values of migrating individuals were smaller, but that also meant that you don't need that many migrating individuals to produce massive admixture. This is why the Migration Period had more severe admixture effects on the affected populations than anything we could achieve today - there are too many people now, acting as a genepool buffer, and they don't get excised as they could be back then.
>>16883583>Evidently not, as has been the discussion of this thread, there are a lot of potential consequencesI was not saying "it's indisputably impossible". I was saying "it definitely happens and it's not up for dispute". >modern scientific research refuses to delve any deeperDeeper how? GWAS and genogenic syndrome studies are not exactly rare. Straight up eugenic studies cannot happen because they are considered somewhat unethical anywhere in the world. >This just seems like a Semantic distinction. [spoiler]Semitic distinction kek[/spoiler]No, because if we blame race mixing it would mean that we ignore the admixture between genetically distant yellows, or genetically distant niggers, or genetically distant whites, because as long as it's the same race it doesn't count for some reason, we consider all races "optimal groups", for no real reason. It basically disregards the entire magnitude of genetic factors in favor of judging by specific phenotype elements. Like, I understand wanting to do eugenics, but then you go like "I want eugenics but without accounting for any actual analysis, my Mk I eyeball is fine".
>>16883605I don't see how that addresses my argument.If the implementation of Caesarean Birth causes us to lose sight of what women cannot conceive naturally, is that not a potential threat? Given the original link in the post, there are clear skeletal mismatches on average between Asians and Whites, and this issue could ever be seen between other racial groups, like Brazil for example, where C-Sections outnumber vaginal births.>>16883646Well, the initial link shows around 33% of Asian women with White Fathers, that seems like a pretty big number all things considered.Obesity itself could ever be affected by the differences in Fat Distribution between races, i.e. more Visceral Fat for Europeans, more Subcutaneous fat for Africans. Obesity is higher now than ever, and in Mixed and Minority groups it is higher, but if some greater cause exists, how are we to know?>implies both that people are currently typically ridden with illnesses more so that they used to beforeAbsolutely, the Obesity Rates alone are higher then any other period in recorded history.>People were getting sick a lot at all timesSure, but that was attributed more to sanitation and poor diet, something we don't face, yet Chronic Disease, Mental Illness, everything is at an all time high.>there was no period in human history which did not involve shittons of admixture in one place or another.Typically miscegenation occurred between groups that were already genetically similar, geographic constraints made sure to that.What relatively little migration occurred from different geographies wouldn't have been enough to alter the preexisting genetic mixture, hence why there are so many climate adaptations different groups have over eachother.>they don't get excised as they could be back then.Agreed, that's part of the issue. Globalization in all its forms though perpetuates this, brings out the worst in people, and Mixtures are not helping the case, as much as we are lead to believe.
>>16883657>[math]Semitic distinction kek[/math]newfag
>>16881343There are other issues that occur, a modern notable drawback is organ incompatibility. But it mostly doesn't matter.
>>16883583>Within reason, there is obviously a limitation on how much genetic diversity until you start getting serious problems.It has nothing to do with the absolute amount of genetic diversity, it's specific traits resulting from specific crosses, unlike inbreeding which straight up just burns fitness from two gens in. You can mix two individuals with ALL different polymorphic alleles, and it would have no debilitating effects. Or it will have a ton of them. It's purely case by case because we're dealing with literal combinatorics here, with every permutation producing more permutations, and there is no safe conservative option because inbreeding is also bad. Basically, once we have full genome data on the entire humanity, we could calculate optimal admixture rate for every single human sub-population valid in regards to admixing every single other human subpopulation at a time, which would be valid for one generation, and it would still be extremely stochastic. At which point we could simply do IVF and genogenic syndrome screening for every single fertilization. It would not eliminate all the syndromes either, but it would be both much easier and more effective. Just flush the bad zygote pulls and keep the better looking ones.Also I will fucking murder the Iceland relatedness study schitzo who is supplanting health with fertility again.
>>16883657>Straight up eugenic studies cannot happen because they are considered somewhat unethical anywhere in the world. This depends on what you mean by Eugenics, but acknowledgement of climate adaptations is largely overlooked, as people favor the socioeconomic argument moreso. I'm just pointing out that I tend to find in a lot of studies on race and genetics, they admit>We don't know as much as we should, and we need to know moreEspecially in racial or biracial genetic studies, they'll admit the social hurdle prevents them from really looking at the issue in full, at least in many of the cases I've read.>I want eugenics but without accounting for any actual analysisWell, if there is an absence of research, I as a novice am left only to rely on my own faculties. And judging from personal experience and the study of history, it seems clear that racial mixtures don't generally lead to positive results.Though I agree, I'm not trying to rely on my mind alone, hence why I have this thread to discuss the variables, research, and most importantly, to confront the issue of whether or not modern Medical Science prevents us from really seeing this issue (i.e. constructing ways in which the issue can be overlooked, such as C-Sections).
>>16883662>But it mostly doesn't matter.How do you feel about fertility collapses as shown by Herbert's research
>>16881848>given the measured IQ of say Africans for example remains consistent across all cultures, nations, and economiesBlack Africans should really be subdivided further into multiple races. In Asians obviously a Turkman, an Indian and East and Southeast Asians are rather distinct. Even in Japan they have several racial subtypes of Ainu, Jomon, and Yamato. Europe also has Celts, Germanics, Mediterranean which beyond cultural and language distinction do have characteristic genetics.Honestly I think the racists aren't being racist enough.
>>16883662Ah yes, I forgot about the HLA receptor incompatibility for Organs, and in Bone Marrow transplants it is an issue. My understanding is that the more these receptors become muddled, the harder they are going to be to match. Seems a pretty big contradiction to the One Race Narrative, especially when considering all the other aforementioned distinctions.>>16883663But why would we mix them in the first place? As stated, the various climate adaptations of a particular race are apparent, but when mixed, you're essentially creating a class of people who are not particularly optimized for any one environment, thus leading to either a notable degree of discomfort, or birth and fitness related complications as have been cited, which subsequently necessities further globalization and dependence onto the medical system for optimal survival.>It would not eliminate all the syndromes either,I don't think it has to do with purely syndrome related problems, but also the skeletal and muscle differences, as well as all the other incompatibilities/adaptations to their respective environments.I also think the genetics and IQ correlation is worth mentioning to, though skeptical, I think brain structure itself could possibly be linked to the particular problems of certain environments.There are enough distinctions that it just really doesn't seem worthwhile.I could pardon the experimentation of mixtures, only so long as it didn't threaten the genetic generalities that already exist, because if they do end up failing, we have nothing to fall back on, and we just allow all kinds of genetic incongruities to enter into our bloodlines.
>>16883671I agree, I think the terms are not the most accurate, because obviously genetics is not this clear cut and dry thing. However, it is viable to use in conversation, we just have to be careful to define what distinctions exactly we are considering.I generally refer to Northern Europeans as their own group, who have metabolic genetic adaptations to the cold that allow them to produce heat easier.Metabolic related genetics I haven't gotten into yet, but that's just another distinction that I think is worthy of noting.
>>16881895Hispanic is extremely odd due to it being such a variable mix of multiple indigenous, Iberian, SubSaraharan African, North African and broader European.Indigenous American itself is also any of the broadly Asian, to Oceanic and some outliers of which there were several isolated ethnic groups and lineages that separated over thousands of years.
>>16883674There are cultural and climate epigenentics as well as dietary gut biomes. Epigenetic changes can occur within a living individual that received the stimulis and can also influence offspring gene expression. Lactose intolerance is more gut biome than anything else.Behavior is also genetic/epigenetic as found in Human experiments and known in Animal Husbandry.
>>16883676For sure, and I wonder how much of that plays into the instability of the place as a whole. It's such a mixed bag, but there are a lot of major health issues there, both reported and unreported.>>16883680>Behavior is also genetic/epigenetic as found in Human experiments and known in Animal Husbandry.I wonder if this conflict in behavioral genetics could be attributed in part to insanely high mental health rate among mixed race individuals.Last I looked, it was reported that about 50%, half of all mixed race individuals possess some form of mental illness.
>>16883687Go take a look at neanderthal admxture. from what I remember, the gene regions related to the brain were havily purged because of icompatibilities
>>16881343Most of the genetic traits discussed here are complex traits, determined by dozens if not thousands of DNA patterns unique to each race. You get a chromosome from each of your parents. The chromosome you, as one parent, give to your child is a cut and pasted version of the two your parents gave you. Look up genetic combination (crossover) in Meiosis. If your parents are from different or mixed races, then you will not pass those unique racial genetic patterns to your children.Lets go by example: The HLA system. This is a protein that coats your cells and lets your body recognize & reject foreign tissue. The exact variation sequences of HLA proteins is determined by a series of DNA differences centred around chromosome 6. Chromosome 6 is a HOTSPOT for genetic crossover to occur. Crossover is THE major biological driver behind the difficulty of finding organ and bone marrow donors for people of mixed race. Meiosis will break apart established, unique racial genetic patterns, creating new, unique combinations of HLA markers. Which are impossible to find in other (donor) people. Because the HLA System is concentrated on a crossover hotspot on a single chromosome, the effects of racial mixing are IMMEDIATELY apparent in the next (and subsequent) generation(s). ie extreme difficulty in finding organ donors. Luckily, not a large % of mixed race people do require organ donors, but if they do, it really sucks.Now think about a complex trait like intelligence - where the racial DNA patterns that control the brain structures are spread over ALL of your chromosomes - you can now understand why the really adverse effects in these complex abilities are more latent, and can take a while to materialize, indeed across many generations. Someone here made the observation that some effects were only noticed after a number of generations had been born. This is the reason why. Race mixing is bad people. Not for you, for your children. And theirs.
>>16883870>Someone here made the observation that some effects were only noticed after a number of generations had been born2 generation is usually enough if you breed f1s together.I have a paper saved about an exp[eriment on fish from two adjacent rivers possibly trout.They created two lines of f1 hybrids of the two (male1xfemale2 + male2xfemale1), then they created f2 mixes , giving them several treatment groups with the two pure lines, the new f1s and the controlsNext they infected the groups with some sort of fish disease.The result were I think about 80-90% survival of the pure lines, similar number for the f1s and the f2 groups were at around 20% survival.Gave me a lot to think about. I can see why a medicalindustrial complex would promote mixing if it causes even a fraction of this much capitalisable health problems.
>>16883870>creating new, unique combinations of HLA markers. Which are impossible to find in other (donor) people.So just to play devils advocate here, the argument I typically see levied against this is that if More race mixing occurs they Will find more matches, and the reason they don't is because the mixture is still novel. Of course my thought was that continued mixing would only further discombobulate the mixtures, making it increasingly difficult for all subsequent generations. Does that add up?>you can now understand why the really adverse effects in these complex abilities are more latentThis would be similar to the negative effects we see in Mixed Dog Breed I would imagine, where after 100s of generations of interbreeding these animals develop: >Hip Dysplasia and other skeletal issues, nasal cavity deformity, organ and heart problems, and of course lower intelligence then prior generations.More to the original part of my post, I think these negative effects are going to be hard to measure, because modern medicine is able to intervene to separate us from the consequences. Therefor it's possible we're already experiencing the effects of late stage mixing in various populations, but most modern research is turning a blind eye.
>>16883870You post also reminded me of the RH factor for some reason. Though it's maybe not as relevant to the discussion, I could see some potential crossover with the overall discussion.An RH negative Mother will develop antibodies against RH positive babies following her first child. RH negative status is also higher in European populations then other racial populations, so even to a slight degree, European mothers who race mix are statistically more likely to face this issue then any other group.This risk factor will be dismissed and restated to only matter on an individual level, because again, science refuses to look at overall group variations.For mothers who are RH negative, they will actually find it easier to have children within their own racial populations, where they are more likely to find somebody who is RH negative.
>>16884102>I typically see levied against this is that if More race mixing occurs they Will find more matches,Directionally, this is correct. Races will come and go. Given enough time and constrained, intra geographic breeding, the organ donor problem will eventually resolve itself as best it can as a new race is developed. The same will be true of all the other complex genetic traits being discussed here. Eventually. Assuming your population of interest can survive.For organ donations specifically, if you can get a large enough "similar" mixed race population you can also increase the likelihood of finding an organ match. I seem to recall that there are 70 or genetic variants that control HLA types, now layer on a mixed race population of only 2 or three races in this particular mix and low inter-geographic breeding, then the Law of large numbers would apply. However that’s not really the point.
>>16884204I don't think these traits will simply "Iron themselves out," there are numerous genetic adaptations to environment, even if some kind of new race were developed, they would be nowhere near as acclimated to any particular environment, and I think because of this fact they will be more reliant on globalization and technology for comfort.Not to mention all the health problems that will occur before that race is born, it's essentially just a lot of unnecessary growing pains resulting in a new slave race incapable of revolt or higher ethics.Also, you'd think this trend would have occurred in Mixed Dogs, but given the innumerable health complications they're faced with, I don't think anyone can really say they're healthier then their purebred ancestors.
>>16884216>it's essentially just a lot of unnecessary growing pains resulting in a new slave race incapable of revolt or higher ethics.Yes. The short term problem you talk about is a dumbing down of the majority of people. And there are quite a few smart people promoting this. Dont forget though, the world has been a much more unforgiving place for life than it is now. The struggles you and I face of getting food on the table and feeding our kids mean nothing to the natural order. She is amoral, and doesn’t care if Schwab or Soros can implement their new world order or not. Time is on her side. There are rules, and those rules are violated at your own risk. Number one is survival of the fittest. Egalitarian beliefs mean nothing to her. She will get rid of violators as quickly - or as slowly - as she did all the other extinct species on this planet. It is hubris in the extreme to think you know better than life itself.
How much incentive is there for a woman to get other women to have sex with her brother or dad? She can expand her fitness by creating more 25% related offspring.I see the motivation is there but how strong is it in reality?
>>16884231Absolutely, but what we're trying to determine is the establishment of ethics that are in line with nature, which is the healthiest and best option for everyone involved.Modern ethics are out of line with Nature, that is why everything is so dysfunctional.It's also important to note that survival of the fittest refers to innumerable strengths, strengths of which future generations will lack.If the idea is that the world will reset to favor the fittest, i.e. the racially pure, this is true, thus it is important to take the steps now to ensure that our genetic stock survives.Of course, Israel could just nuke the world into oblivion out of spit, but I guess that shouldn't stop us from trying.>>16884256The social implications at the very least would be detrimental. It would erode the family unit, and create fractured psyche in the offspring.
>>16884259>The social implications at the very least would be detrimental. It would erode the family unit, and create fractured psyche in the offspring.What bullshit are you spouting bot?
>>16884115>This risk factor will be dismissed and restated to only matter on an individual level, because again, science refuses to look at overall group variationsEuropeans have typically double the Rh- frequency of other races. Except for Asians, where it is almost 20X greater. So yes, while you are statistically correct, especially for Asian X European mixes, nowadays there are medical interventions for the second baby should a Rh- woman develop antibodies to a Rh+ baby. I have no idea of the side effects of these drugs - but most would argue they are "worth it". Science hasn’t ignored the problem, its provided a symptomatic fix - which, to your point, is what they are trying to do with racial differences so as to avoid the core problem of having to discuss race openly.
>>16884262Monogamy is the most fundamentally healthy program for eugenics. Polygamous systems are inherently dysfunctional, and result in narrow gene pools, and low trust societies.This is why Europe was able to leap ahead of other cultures by such a vast margin, technologically and genetically. Adherence to monogamous systems is the healthiest behavior.>>16884265>nowadays there are medical interventionsWell ya, I see what you're saying, but that also plays into my point. Sure to some degree even in a racially homogenized society this would still exist, but if it would increase in any capacity due to miscegenation, it's just another way to avoid the consequences and foster dependence onto the medical system.Whether or not the Medicine works without side effects is irrelevant, the end result is a group of people that are thus More dependent on modern medicine then they would otherwise be.This same premise can be applied to all the various other issues mentioned, and not yet mentioned, in this thread.
>>16884292>Monogamy is the most fundamentally healthy program for eugenics. Polygamous systems are inherently dysfunctional, and result in narrow gene pools, and low trust societies.>This is why Europe was able to leap ahead of other cultures by such a vast margin, technologically and genetically. Adherence to monogamous systems is the healthiest behavior.As I said, what bullshit are you spouting? I'm asking a general question about how much incentive exists and how to measure it.Like finding a wife for her brother or widowed/divorced father.Don't just jump to some inane conclusion
>>16884297What even is the point of this? Widowed or divorced shouldn't even exist, and in an ideal society, if you already have kids, you should stay single after your partner dies.Aside from that, what is any different from now? People already set family and friends up with other people, that's how it's always worked.
>>16881343>s it possible we don't see evidence for Out-Breeding Depression in humansBut we clearly do. Anybody who argues otherwise is either retarded or lying.
>>16884319You don't understand the question at all.
>>16884324Restate it then.
>>16884328No, it was more than clear enough.
>>16884330You weren't responding to anything in particular, not did you explain how it would boost the fitness of an individual to have other women have sex with her father.At the least, you're suggesting that family members help find partners for other family members, which is something that people already do.Do you have anything to add to this?
Child investment. How close an affinity you have with your child will affect how much you're willing to invest in its future.r types fucking everything everywhere gambling on lottery numbers, while k type expends critical resources feeding and training offspring until it can fend for itself.k types should see a greater preference for related mates as it increases the surety of return instead of someone completely different to them.
>>16885086This is how I envision smaller population racial groups surviving the coming tidal wave of ethnic homogenization. Those that breed for quantity will inherit the world and lead it to ruin, they won't know how to feed the very mouths they produce, while small ethnic groups with tight knit communities will likely band together with other tight knit communities, and come out the other side with relatively no loss to their genetic bloodlines.As bad as the demographics seem, there is still a high number of these tight knit communities popping up all over the world, for every race.I don't think the coming leaps in technological surveillance and warfare will be enough to eradicate us either, try as they might.Find your mate, build your communities.
>>16883997>The result were I think about 80-90% survival of the pure lines, similar number for the f1s and the f2 groups were at around 20% survival.Susceptibility or immunity to disease is a well known and researched complex genetic trait. The literature is full of examples, quite a few have been quoted ITT. Mental "disease" is grouped in this category too. There is a much higher frequency in people of mixed race with this affliction as compared to mono-racial people.
What if you thought about it socially through clannish structures?Power effectively rests in the hands of extensive cousin groups of various extraction.Too close and you don't optimise potential numbers of allies.too far out and they're too different.I've not really thought this one over much it just came to me as an idea to pursue. But I think it makes sense if we#re thinking in terms of group survival.
>>16881343This is one reason why humans are raciest; your mixed race offspring are less adapted to European and African conditions so will be stunted in both.Other reasons like foreign disease and resource competition contribute to the adaptive of racism.Leftist ideology is profoundly working on many levels describing human behaviour.
>>16881343> Etc. Is it possible that more instance of out-breeding depression exist that are flying under the radar, and this is possibly one reason why the modern populations have so many health related issues?Yes loads of eugenic traits are hidden by the crutching effect of modern technology. Billions will die when civilisation collapses due to dysgenic selection pressures.
>>16882845Gosh, us eugenicists will never have heard of this basic genetic control. You’ve got us. With your new idea our theories collapse and racism is destroyed!
>>16883295> Most natural selection factors don't apply to humans because civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection.Without harsh Darwinian pressures, what will happen to the number of deleterious traits created by random mutation in the population?How might new selection pressures brought by welfare effect the populations number of individuals with traits for low intelligence and impulse control?>>16883295> Basically if you really really don't want children to be born with genetic diseases, then the only solution is to stop all reproduction.Clueless. You create artificial selection pressures; eugenics.If you want to be nice, you place those selection pressures on the genes themselves rather than the individual carrying them; genetic engineering.This isn’t a choice. You either implement eugenics to artificially stave off natural deterioration of the gene pool due to released Darwinian pressures, our civilisation runs out of pale with the correct genetics to run it; collapse.>RACE IS’NT REAL!!!Nothing is real, it’s made up by us to categorise reality. Like any other way of categorising people via similar phenotype it’s about convenience.It lacks granularity, but most gov’t statistics do; it’s painful that most stats categorise age beyond 60 as 60+, losing the information on diseases of 80 year olds. But the data is still of some use.
>>16881446You're a fucktard. You cannot fathom the difficulty of managing a planet of 8 billion people. If they outright culled people, you would call them a monster. But if they pick the least inhumane option, taxing lifespan, you still call them a monster.
>>16883605He’s on about capabilities we’ve lost or losing. Nobody had the ability to eat cardboard or see in the dark, so our genetics not permitting that is not an insufficiency he’s describing.
>>16883646> And there was no period in human history which did not involve shittons of admixture in one place or another.Cars and planes to transport many people from far off lands didnt exist to allow that foreign admixture.Part of the reasons we evolved racism is to avoid outbreeding.
>>16882296>We know inbreeding is badCousin breeding is perfectly fine if you mix it up, the reason Mussies fuck it up is they breed 1st and 2nd cousins constantly instead of mixing it up with some 3rd or 4th cousins every now and then.In saying that even their constant 1st and 2nd cousin breeding isn't really that big of a deal, a bigger issue is them being low IQ genetic trash to begin with lel.
>>16885808>You cannot fathom the difficulty of managing a planet of 8 billion people.Is that why they've been pumping food aid into africa for a century to explosively expand the most useless population?
>>16882766Reproducing with your sister creates ugly retards unable to reproduce
>>16885884One generation of sister breeding is apparrently only about as risky as a woman having a baby at 35.It's also far less dangerous than substance abuse.I'm not advocating for it since I don't feel it's particularly optimal but we should be realistic about the actual risks instead of fairytales.
Fig wasps.They all breed their siblings, have done for millions of years, being insects they can compensate with large numbers to gamble on and have had time to weed out the bad genes but they're an example of it used as a successful evolutionary strategy.
>>16885788It's not just Leftism, Right way thinking is riddled with the same disease. Modern political factions exist without regard to nature, they are corporate industrial units, which necessarily forgo things like Race because Race is an aspect of the Nature they are trying to destroy.>>16885805>genetic engineering.Genetic engineering has its own risks though, as people will not select for healthy traits necessarily, the medical industry will use it to essentially engineer slaves if we're not careful.>>16885808Just because it's hard, does that mean we shouldn't do it? If it is the right thing to do, nothing should stop us.>>16885817Maybe, but I still think maximizing genetic variation within the existing population is far less risky, at least to start with. If the race all share the same essential traits, then the difference wouldn't be that great, but it would get riskier the closer you get to 1st and 2nd cousins depending on the genetics involved.>>16885905Fascinating, this would imply the modern races aren't as pure.
My waist is quite small, but despite this I produce the most massive shits. Poops that drastically outperform OP's in density and mass and likely in higher geometry as well. Is this also a so called "evolutionary mismatch"? I think it's the highest stage of evolution. The ability to shred through macronutrients that would turn any other modernoid obese, yet my metabolism burns through it all like sunlight beaming down on a tired niglet's brow as he mines buxite for the Belgian or the Han or whomever. OP = MOGGED.
>>16885936>Fascinating, this would imply the modern races aren't as pure.What is pure even supposed to mean?Arguably inbreeding just implies increased homogeneity and specialisation to a given environment. Variability is only desired if it improves survival.
>>16886098See, this would only be a problem of outbreeding depression if your body produced bigger shits then your anus could handle, but given how much of a massive faggot you are, I'm sure you're used to punching above you weight, aren't you buddy?>>16886102If a genetically perfect specimen could reproduce with closer relation without risking inbreeding, that would make them genetically Pure.Obviously each of us have numerous genetic flaws, I doubt there's a single human on earth who is Pure in this regard, thus Modern Human races are not genetically pure, given that we allow many deleterious genetic defects to run rampant within ourselves.
>>16882177https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2008-iceland-an-association-between-the-kinship-and-fertility-of-human-couples.pdfmeant to share a file link to the paper
>>16886647Just finished reading, good source. For context, 4th or 5th cousins would be having the same great-great-great-great+ grandparent, and most people don't even know their own lineage that far back in the modern age.Iceland is also a really health nation, so the idea is, and I'm restating this moreso for my own clarity, that Icelandic people faced really harsh selection pressures which essentially removed many of their negative genetic traits, so 4th-5th cousin marriage would serve to preserve those positive traits.Though it's unfortunate, I think in the coming years we might also be able to reevaluate this principle with the influx of migration, thankfully mostly from other European Countries, to see how that might have an affect on their overall fertility.Icelanders really are chads.
>>16886185>I'm sure you're used to punching above you weight, aren't you buddy?man it really didnt take much to offend you mr eugenics neo nazicute thread with loads of AI spam, but we all know youre just talking to yourself
>>16887056Let's get one thing clear here buddy, you're literally me, replying to me, bumping my own thread, just to attack myself, who is you, pretending that you're not me, pretending that I'm you pretending to be me.
>>16881343I highly doubt asians are prone to depression even if its public reproducible data given they have higher IQs and cognitive ability correlates pretty high with emotional stability its nearly normally distributed following a gauss like FSIQ in major nations
>>16887006There were some follow up discussion papers, either challenging the conclusions or expanding on the data, but they aren't as easy to find or add much. I've got them saved on some drive but can't remember exactly where.I really ought to reorganise but it's a couple of terabytes......
If you want good data, look at racing horses.There's a huge amount of money thrown around to create the next big winner, but they're working within the constraints of constricted founder populations to achieve that goal.A lot of information is readily publicly available.
This is interesting.https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-supergenes-help-fish-evolve-into-new-speciesCichlid fish invert large sections of their DNA to maintain coherent gene combinations when they can't avoid the risk of interbreeding with other cichlids
>>16887118You'd think, but given the state of modern Japan, Korea, and China, they aren't the most stable places right now, and they struggle with just as many issues as the rest of us. Though generally yes, monoracial Asians have the lowest prevalence of mental illness, but biracial Half Asians have twice the prevalence of mental illness as their Asian parents, which tracks overall with the Mental Illness rates of biracial people in general.>https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032723014088>>16887212The research is legit, I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of it before now. I suspect Iceland and its role in our understanding of genetics will play a pivotal role in the coming ideological shift towards ethnic homogeneity. The more mindful of these new intentional communities will adhere to some kind of genetic practice, and Iceland has provided a decent rubric.
