Algernon
contactless khhv
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2026
- Posts
- 470
- Reputation
- 463
Introduction
these are often used as scientific defenses for racemixing, in this thread I'm not going to say racemixing is good or bad cuz i don't want to make this a racebait thread, this is just me questioning why these people are basically doing reverse eugenics in favor of mixing and pushing this when there are a lot of nuances (in fact, most of the studies supporting these two theories are done on animals and not humans, obviously but theres a lot of complications from taking animal data and interpreting humans from it)
these are often used as scientific defenses for racemixing, in this thread I'm not going to say racemixing is good or bad cuz i don't want to make this a racebait thread, this is just me questioning why these people are basically doing reverse eugenics in favor of mixing and pushing this when there are a lot of nuances (in fact, most of the studies supporting these two theories are done on animals and not humans, obviously but theres a lot of complications from taking animal data and interpreting humans from it)
pt.1 genetic diversity
usually it is said race mixing increases genetic diversity due to getting more DNA from across races
however, mixing actually decreases genetic diversity future potential
if in 100 years every race has mixed, every one will look the same, decreasing any potential for any new genetic diversity in the future
genetic diversity stagnating (sure you can have genetic diversity, but if its not constantly changing then viruses will adapt to it, it is not about diversity of genes but how quickly these genes are changing) leaving people susceptible to diseases etc, the usual defense of genetic diversity is because it reduces disease, but there is no actual research on it for humans (infact, races and offspring usually get defense against diseases due to their parents and ancestors evolving past it, like during the black plague they developed resistance to aids, and there certainly was a lot of genetic adversity)
usually genetic diversity studies are the opposite, they are studies saying genetic adversity is bad by "study showing incest is bad, obviously". this does not represent race though, there is a lot of genetic diversity within one race without being near that level, but it is usually seen "genetic diversity" and interpreted as "racial/cultural diversity" instead.
pt.2 genetic recombination
genetic recombination is when people of very different genetics have a kid, traits present in neither of the parents appear in the kid
an example of very different genetics is usually deemed as racemixing, there was a study a while back someone posted on this forum about how mixed kids often look better due to this
some obvious first thoughts are: What are they basing mixed kids looking better off of? Do they account for the fact these recombination traits could look worse, most of the time, since if random genes are shuffling it could potentially lead to negatice traits in the kid like disease, disability, unattractiveness? If two already attractive people are having kids then wont a recombination just end up having more risk then no recombination?
no, the study did not address a single one of those questions.
there are so many questions that could be asked about recombination that never are asked (in its applications to humans, usually it is done on animals, again, and then interpreted to humans), with only its positives being mentioned.
Conclusion
just because some study says something provacative doesn't mean its true, and almost every day I see some thread on here posting "new study" "researchers say" about some thing, and it is usually studied by like 4 people, unreplicated, not peer reviewed, outdated etc, and people just believe it (i'm sure everyone here realizes that it isn't true aswell, they just like adding it to their study arsenal to pull out whenever someone says what they are doing is bad so they can convince themself otherwise).
just because some study says something provacative doesn't mean its true, and almost every day I see some thread on here posting "new study" "researchers say" about some thing, and it is usually studied by like 4 people, unreplicated, not peer reviewed, outdated etc, and people just believe it (i'm sure everyone here realizes that it isn't true aswell, they just like adding it to their study arsenal to pull out whenever someone says what they are doing is bad so they can convince themself otherwise).
