View Poll Results: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

Voters
138. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, naturally.

    75 54.35%
  • No, of course not.

    40 28.99%
  • Well, the complexity and facticity of everything that exists in reality is of such a nature that no true comprehension of the question and its answer can be gained, least one considers a few essential points which I, for the hoi polloi's convenience, shall briefly touch in the seventy-eight or so paragraphs below-mentioned, namely ...

    18 13.04%
  • No idea. | I'm not sure. | Who cares?

    5 3.62%
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 136

Thread: Is Human Miscegenation Unnatural?

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 03:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    That's a very bold thesis, Miss. The Alsatian/dachshund puppy might approvingly bark, but on the other hand, most black U.S. athletes in any sports discipline are mulattoes. The average American black has ~30% Caucasian blood; and they don't appear physiologically challenged.
    not beneficial =/= harmful

    you seem to suggest that it's beneficial, i don't know about that, it very well may be in some cases and for some "proportions".
    another angle to consider is had these athletes been purely black they would have been better at their sport of choice, but would not have had the imposed discipline/bringing up/means to allow them to successed as they did...or better yet - how often do they beat "pure bred" opponents?

    (i know very little about sports, so cannot adequately answer my own question. any input is welcome)

  2. #12
    Γνώθι σεαυτόν
    Guest

    AW: Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Right. Just exploring your position.
    As a relativist I'm thinking of the world in infinite numbers of frameworks and infinite possible combinations, every piece is part of different frameworks.
    Frameworks are defined by place, time and whatever your mind tells you and are of different significance.

    Berlin, 1930 <-> Berlin, 2006
    Toronto <-> Okinawa
    You <-> Me

    ...and so on...

    Furthermore every human being needs an identity providing security, "social warmth", education, organisation, chances for further self-development, hence every human being needs frameworks on different levels.

    Besides the ones every human being seems to chose by nature (the being itself, friends and family) there's also need of other, wider significant frameworks to increase your options and I think nation has proven to be the best (reasons can also be discussed, but not within this topic ).

    One-World on the other hand wouldn't work as it would destroy diversity and identification, both aspects are very important for gaining identity.
    Not to mention all-too-human weaknesses...

    So, as race is one aspect of nationality, I oppose human miscegenation.

  3. #13
    Auf der Durchreise
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 27th, 2008 @ 10:26 PM
    Subrace
    Nordocromagnosomething
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    There might be or not. That's a merely philosophical question. In any case, I threw it in in order to give the opponents of miscegenation another option to vote for miscegenation being unnatural. I desired to have a wide definition of "unnatural."
    [...]
    A mandate of nature as I defined it is simply something that should occur. Such a mandate of nature could be your development from a baby to a teenager. It should happen; that's your natural purpose. Your destiny. To develop to an adult. If it doesn't occur because you have a car accident at the age of eight, then that's unfortunate, but it changes nothing about the fact that your development from a baby to a teenager is a mandate of nature; something that should happen (but not necessarily must in reality).
    Ah ok, then I got you wrong. But I'm still sceptical about the idea of a teleological/cosmological "should" behind or within the chain of natural events (Is there a cosmic plan that sets the standards in an absolute way? Or is there some element of indeterminateness or relativity of ends?). Anyway, let's accept some basic evolutionary teleology for the sake of argument. Your question was:

    Is breeding with one's own race something that should happen in nature? Is there a purpose of nature that creates races and which would demand their preservation? This would be a mandate of nature as defined.
    If you put it that way, I think this depends on whether it's actually beneficial for (a) the survival and (b) further evolutionary development (progress) of the species as a whole if its racial varieties are kept pure or not.

    I don't see how these two sub-questions can be answered in the absence of empirical data from which the relative rates of survival and evolutionary progress of pure vs mixed populations could be evaluated.

    The result will also depend on the exact genetic structure of the populations/races in question insofar as it would probably make a difference whether e.g. Negroids are mixed with Amerindians or Europids with Mongoloids while each possible combination of subraces of these races would again have to be investigated individually.

    Besides, it depends on the environmental situation whether non-miscegenation is mandatory or not. One could argue that within the hierarchy of evolutionary ends survival of the species always precedes its further development or progress. So if you imagine an environmental situation (like some drastic change in global climate) where there are two extremely specialized groups that are both ill-adapted to the new situation and wouldn't have a chance to adapt to it separately, miscegenation between the two groups could at the same time be necessary for the survival of their species while lowering the evolutionary level ("progressiveness") of one or both groups. In such a scenario there would not only be no mandate not to miscegenate but a mandate to miscegenate.

    Even if this is an extreme example, it shows that the question cannot be resolved in an easy way without taking into account the concrete genetic structure of the populations in question as well as prospective changes in their environment. Radically different environments could also entail different standards for evolutionary progressiveness.

    Maybe. It can definitely be argued. That's why I imperatively included upwards evolution as an undisputed purpose -- the question should be answered under the assumption that it is a purpose of nature.
    Ok, let's accept this as well for the sake of argument. But who can tell whether a large-scale mixing of certain races or subraces (or specific subraces from separate races) could not even lead to a leap in upward evolution? According to my (limited) knowledge we seem to lack the empirical data that we would need to exclude this possibility in the case of homo sapiens. And how could such data be gathered? Only through large-scale miscegenation, it seems ...

    Doesn't the diversification of a species into various subspecies increase the complexity?
    Yes, but only in the first phase of an adaption of a species to a new environment. When all the ecological niches are filled, complexity will stagnate at some point or even be reduced through the successive extinction of overspecialized varieties. When we look at the biological history of our planet, we can point out several bottlenecks in evolution where complexity in the sense of biodiversity and/or individual complexity of species (which is hard to measure anyway) seems to have been greatly reduced. Perhaps reduction and increase of complexity are somehow two sides of the same coin within an evolutionary process?

    And if we assume that upwards evolution is both the purpose of this diversification and (that's a given) the purpose of nature, would then miscegenation not be unnatural? We could avoid the conclusion by claiming diversification and the formation of races does not serve upwards evolution. Would this be a valid assumption?
    Probably not if you put it that way, since it would be near impossible to prove that race formation does not serve evolution in any way. But provided that it does, what happens after races have been formed?

    The formation of races A, B, C is not necessarily a dead end in the development of the species. Races change within themselves through an ongoing genetic drift and successive adaptions and specialisations becoming A', B', C'. New species can develop out of old ones (like when races D, E develop out of A'). And new races can develop through a mixing of old ones (like a race F could develop out of a mixing of B' and C'). So miscegenation could be a factor within the process of race formation, not its opposite. And it could be beneficial for evolution if e.g. progressive varieties of different races are being mixed to form a new race.

    Yes, they are there, and might fulfill a purpose but without the upwards evolution that lead to human beings and their consciousness, nobody would have realized their existence.
    Agreed. That's why I added the "". Only multicellular eucaryotes can be procaryote supremacists.

    Don't you believe the universe realizes itself (through us and everything that exists)?
    Ah ... no. Not really, to be honest. I'm not even sure about whether the universe really knows what it's doing.

    Well noted. It counts as well. The question speaks merely about "principles of nature." If harmony is such a principle, then miscegenation violates it, and, consequently, is in your view unnatural after all?
    (1) Miscegenation doesn't necessarily violate harmony as a natural principle, since certain interracial combinations could turn out to produce a harmonious result (depends again on which combination of races/subracial varieties is concerned).

    (2) On second thought, I'm not even sure whether harmony is a natural or rather a cultural principle (but I'd opt for the latter).

  4. #14
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    573
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    522
    Thanked in
    229 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    My own feeling is miscegenation is unnatural. As a child I was not aware of people marrying persons who were not of their race. Of course American Negroes are mostly mulattoes & many Mexicans are Mestizos but I was not aware of the mixed race origins of those races. My own natural instincts without being instructed as to what they should be was that people married their own kind. Even after being indoctrinated with a pc education & bombarded by multiracial/miscegenationist images for years I am still disturbed by the sight of mixedraced couples & children. I am more offended by White women/non-Europids but even White men/non-Europids couplings have bothered me. I have never understood why any man would want children who are racially different from himself. I have always felt there was something wrong with persons who did not share these same natural instincts that I have.

    Prior to WWII most miscegenation was the result of sexual imbalances, such as in the New World with Spanish men & Amerindian women. Most miscegenation since WWII seems to be the result of brainwashing via television & popular culture along with the multicultural education systems in the West.

  5. #15
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    I've only read the first 2 posts in this thread as yet, so please excuse me if I repeat anything already said. I don't have time to go through the whole thread just now.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think that it doesn't come naturally to humans to mate with those who are very foreign to themselves and their own people. In a natural (tribal) human existance it wouldn't happen, except in perhaps extreme and unusual circumstances (eg, in the instance of exiles).... but we are living in a perverted and unnatural world in modern times, so of course miscegenation does occur now....

    Whatever happens in the world is - in some sense - natural. Miscegenation happens. So it's natural (in the sense of being part of the realm of natural events, not in the sense of being desirable).
    Bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, homosexuality and other very disturbing perversions occur too, yet one could argue that these practices are the result of sick minds and unhealthy people, and are NOT supposed to occur in the natural world. Such states are deviations of nature, ie, so not natural at all.

    One could argue that in a more natural state of existance for humans, such perverts as those listed above would have been forcibly exiled from the group, or perhaps executed... either way, it's most likely that in a tribal or clan situation such harmful and disturbing practices would not have been tolerated by tribal leaders.


    Think about it this way... we currently live in a world where all cultures/languages are continually melding into other's... where man-made transport is such that distances between populations are easily surmounted and pose no obstacle... where human communities are often divided, diverse, dysfunctional and continually having new people come and go... where human relationships are often superficial as a result.... where great social isolation is commonplace... and mental illness and suicide is rife. This is not a "natural" state of being. In part, it means that people who are from very foreign populations are now being largely influenced by each other, and losing their own uniqueness in the process. Individuals within these popluations are continually questioning their own worth, comparing themselves to foreigners who are not in any way like them (are essentially incomparable)... their self-esteem is suffering... this coupled with socio-political pressures to accept and form amicable, bonding relationships with these same "foreigners" is causing modern day people to consider relationships/sexual activity with people who in nature would be repulsive to them.

    I believe that it is natural for humans to feel threatened, frightened and repsulsed by those who are very foreign to themselves.



    N.B. By "foreign" I basically mean racially, culturally, linguistically, socially different.


    EDIT -
    However, the question was not about the political phenomenon of today, but about the biological act per se
    I believe that it is relevant to bring up the subject of socio-political influences, since it is largely these forces that are, in modern times, responsible for the "perverted" world we are living in, leading to social/sexual deviations from what should occur in nature (tight-knit human social groups, bonded by familiarities and concepts of kinship and blood), including miscegenation.
    Last edited by Bridie; Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 07:58 AM.

  6. #16
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 07:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    The fitness of a hybrid in either parental enviornment is reduced.

    Example: a black person coming into northern Europe and breeding with a European and producing a child, a hybird. That hybrid would be less adapted to restricted sunlight, cold and possibly the diet. The hybrid would run a high risk of developing rickets, for example.

    But Worse: For the black person to enter Europe, he would have had to cross two geographical barriers, the Sahara and the Mediterranean. A Negro is adapted to neither of these and belongs in neither of these enviornments. Therefore, his migration is unnatural.

    So, since miscengenation can only happen between two different races and. therefore, at least one of these races is out of place, AND the resulting hybrid is less fit in either parental enviornment, miscegenation is not natural.

    The situation with local races is not the same since a cline is involved. In this setting, neither race is out of place and the resulting offspring are not at a selective disadvantage. Normally, this is called Gene Flow.

  7. #17
    Senior Member OdinThor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2012 @ 11:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    661
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    It is known that mixed raced people are more ill. The races arent meant to be mixed:

    http://anonym.to/?http://quickstart.....RTFL_DN3.html



    For more see here: The health consequences of race mixing

    So, yes miscegenation is unnatural. If anyone isnt convinced then have a look on this website and tell if this is what mother nature would strive to produce:

    http://www.mixedfolks.com/community.htm

  8. #18
    Auf der Durchreise
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 27th, 2008 @ 10:26 PM
    Subrace
    Nordocromagnosomething
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie View Post
    I think that it doesn't come naturally to humans to mate with those who are very foreign to themselves and their own people. In a natural (tribal) human existance it wouldn't happen, except in perhaps extreme and unusual circumstances (eg, in the instance of exiles).... but we are living in a perverted and unnatural world in modern times, so of course miscegenation does occur now....
    Well, I think we all agree that we don't like miscegenation. Otherwise we wouldn't be writing in a pro-Germanic racial preservation forum.

    But as I understood Thorburn, his question was whether there is a naturalistic justification for considering miscegenation as something unlikeable. Here I have my doubts. I think that we should oppose miscegenation even though it's not unnatural (since from something being natural there does not follow that we must accept it, especially when there are good non-naturalistic reasons to oppose it).

    Bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, homosexuality and other very disturbing perversions occur too, yet one could argue that these practices are the result of sick minds and unhealthy people, and are NOT supposed to occur in the natural world. Such states are deviations of nature, ie, so not natural at all.
    No, probably not. But miscegenation can (a) hardly be compared to these extreme perversions. And (b) even homosexuality, bestiality etc. might serve an evolutionary purpose and could thus be natural.
    As humans, however, we are able to transcend our biological restrictions to a certain degree and deliberately categorize homosexuality as something we don't want to see in our society even though it may be natural serving some unknown evolutionary purpose. That we feel appalled by something doesn't mean that it doesn't serve some (more or less obvious) natural purpose (and there are sufficient non-naturalistic reasons to be against pedophiles, necrophiles etc.).

    Diseases like AIDS, cholera, tuberculosis are part of nature, too and probably serve an evolutionary purpose in controlling the size of populations, preventing overpopulation, tightening evolutionary bottlenecks etc. But this doesn't mean that we have to accept them as inevitable. Our cultural abilities (that are part of our 'human nature') enable us to surpass the level of mere evolutionary logics. Same with miscegenation. The affirmation of the value of a certain race may be something Nature 'doesn't want' or 'doesn't favor'. But when we decide that we want it, then we have the technological and cultural ability to control Nature (just like Nature probably wouldn't have produced the Yorkshire Terrier without the help of man).

    So basically your reply misses the point. Something's being natural doesn't entail that we must affirm it, and something's being unnatural (on the evolutionary level) doesn't entail that we must abhorr it (as long as you're not sympathizing with Jehova's witnesses or other Fundamentalists who claim that anything unnatural is against the will of 'God').

    One could argue that in a more natural state of existance for humans, such perverts as those listed above would have been forcibly exiled from the group, or perhaps executed... either way, it's most likely that in a tribal or clan situation such harmful and disturbing practices would not have been tolerated by tribal leaders.
    Maybe, but then the question remains whether exiling homosexuals would be a 'natural' thing or rather something cultural. Seeing something as "disturbing" at least doesn't sound very naturalistic. Again, there are good sociological, demographical, political reasons to be against rampant homosexual behavior within a society. We don't have to resort to nature to argue this point.

    Think about it this way... we currently live in a world where all cultures/languages are continually melding into other's... where man-made transport is such that distances between populations are easily surmounted and pose no obstacle... where human communities are often divided, diverse, dysfunctional and continually having new people come and go... where human relationships are often superficial as a result.... where great social isolation is commonplace... and mental illness and suicide is rife. This is not a "natural" state of being. In part, it means that people who are from very foreign populations are now being largely influenced by each other, and losing their own uniqueness in the process. Individuals within these popluations are continually questioning their own worth, comparing themselves to foreigners who are not in any way like them (are essentially incomparable)... their self-esteem is suffering... this coupled with socio-political pressures to accept and form amicable, bonding relationships with these same "foreigners" is causing modern day people to consider relationships/sexual activity with people who in nature would be repulsive to them.
    I agree: this is not a natural state of being. But on the other hand it's not unnatural either. Who knows what Nature's hypothetical purpose in guiding the development of homo sapiens sapiens would be (if there is any such purpose, which I doubt). We don't like the present situation, but we have no reason to consider it unnatural in the sense of not conforming to a natural path of evolution, because we lack the criteria to judge where the natural path of our evolution would lie (which also depends in part on future changes of our environment [ecological catastrophes, changes in climate etc.] that we simply can't forsee).

    What we do know, however is what is good or bad for us as a ethno-cultural group (not as part of an abstract species) and what we politically want. It's up to our choice whether we want to continue the project 'the white race' or dump it. Both alternatives are just as natural or unnatural. The problem is that abandoning this project would mean to destroy anything our ancestors have fought for, giving up ourselves, our culture and our racial identity. But none of these are naturalistic issues in the strict sense.

    I believe that it is natural for humans to feel threatened, frightened and repsulsed by those who are very foreign to themselves.

    N.B. By "foreign" I basically mean racially, culturally, linguistically, socially different.
    I'd rather say that humans may feel frightened or repulsed by people who don't fit their acquired self-image that is the result of their early upbringing. When a white boy grows up amongst Gorillas he probably won't be afraid of them. But that's again not sufficient to say that Gorillas are to be considered his equals or that he should try to miscegenate with them.

    EDIT -

    I believe that it is relevant to bring up the subject of socio-political influences, since it is largely these forces that are, in modern times, responsible for the "perverted" world we are living in, leading to social/sexual deviations from what should occur in nature (tight-knit human social groups, bonded by familiarities and concepts of kinship and blood), including miscegenation.
    Again, two problems: (1) why "shouldn't they" occur in nature? (2) Why should we care whether something should occur in nature when we have the power to control and change nature?

    Like Goethe said in his "Prometheus": Let's make humans!

  9. #19
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    No, probably not. But miscegenation can (a) hardly be compared to these extreme perversions.
    I think it is comparable. As a result of my believing that miscegenation is unnatural (a deviation or a perversion of natural law) I believe that it is as perverted as bestiality etc.


    And (b) even homosexuality, bestiality etc. might serve an evolutionary purpose and could thus be natural.
    Please tell me you're joking Perv.


    That we feel appalled by something doesn't mean that it doesn't serve some (more or less obvious) natural purpose
    Repulsion is a natural instinct that functions to protect us from harm. It leads us to take action to eradicate or avoid whatever it is we find appalling. For example, studies show that people find physical characteristics indicative of disease (such as poor skin condition/rashes, excessive mucous, hair loss etc) instinctively repulsive... and this functions to prevent people from contracting the illness themselves or interbreeding with unfavourable people (to prevent sickly or deformed offspring). So my thinking is that if we naturally feel appalled or repulsed by something it's because it's harmful to us in some very fundamental way... therefore it's natural purpose is to be eradiated and/or avoided. Or said another way; if the perversion served such an important natural puropse, it would not be repulsive to us.

    there are sufficient non-naturalistic reasons to be against pedophiles, necrophiles etc.).
    There are biological (naturalistic) reasons too... like resultant infertility, psychological trauma and disease.


    So basically your reply misses the point. Something's being natural doesn't entail that we must affirm it, and something's being unnatural (on the evolutionary level) doesn't entail that we must abhorr it (as long as you're not sympathizing with Jehova's witnesses or other Fundamentalists who claim that anything unnatural is against the will of 'God').
    I'm afraid you've missed my point. I wrote nothing of affirmation or abhorration... I really think that it goes against what humans are biologically "wired for" to desire sexual contact with "foreigners". I believe that humans have been biologically wired for living in small, tightly-knit social groups... that humans are naturally and instinctively territorial, and fearful/distrusting of those who don't belong to their group (or kin). Going against these natural instincts, as we are forced to in modern times, I believe contributes greatly to the ever-escalating problems in 1st world countries of mental illness, physical illness, drug abuse, anti-social behaviour, other forms of social dysfunction, dometic abuse, sexual perversions and suicide.

    You said that if something is occuring in our modern societies that it is necessarily natural. I disagree with this. If this "something" occurs in a "natural" human environment (ie, an environment that humans have evolved to thrive in) then it is natural. In our modern times, much that we are forced to live with is very unnatural in the sense that we aren't thriving, or even coping much of the time... and we're not thriving because our bodies weren't designed to cope with the conditions that they currently are being forced to. For example, our bodies weren't designed to digest and process man-made chemical food additives... therefore it is not natural for us to consume them... but we do consume them nevertheless because some small number of fellow humans have deemed it "okay" (!!).... still many additives are now being shown to cause health problems...


    Seeing something as "disturbing" at least doesn't sound very naturalistic. Again, there are good sociological, demographical, political reasons to be against rampant homosexual behavior within a society. We don't have to resort to nature to argue this point.
    As I explained above, seeing something as disturbing can/is indeed instinctive or biologically determined as a natural protective mechanism.


    Again, there are good sociological, demographical, political reasons to be against rampant homosexual behavior within a society. We don't have to resort to nature to argue this point.
    All of these factors (sociological, demographical, political) are NOT INDEPENDANT of "nature" or biology.... they are necessarily interdependant.


    Who knows what Nature's hypothetical purpose in guiding the development of homo sapiens sapiens would be (if there is any such purpose, which I doubt). We don't like the present situation, but we have no reason to consider it unnatural in the sense of not conforming to a natural path of evolution, because we lack the criteria to judge where the natural path of our evolution would lie (which also depends in part on future changes of our environment [ecological catastrophes, changes in climate etc.] that we simply can't forsee).
    It's unnatural as I said before in the sense that our bodies (including our psychological make-up) weren't designed to cope with modern social conditions and physcial pollutants.

    To know what's natural and what's not, we only have to examine the human body and mind to determine which conditions are most favourable in maintaining homeostatic balance...

    Tropical plants thrive in the tropics, for this is their natural environment... cacti thrive in the desert, for this is their natural environment... Humans are arguably not currently thriving... what are we to conclude from this?? (And I'm not talking about geographical environments in the latter instance. )


    I'd rather say that humans may feel frightened or repulsed by people who don't fit their acquired self-image that is the result of their early upbringing. When a white boy grows up amongst Gorillas he probably won't be afraid of them. But that's again not sufficient to say that Gorillas are to be considered his equals or that he should try to miscegenate with them.
    But is it natural for humans to grow up amongst those who are not their own kind? (I don't think so.) Is it natural to be reared by foreigners??


    Why should we care whether something should occur in nature when we have the power to control and change nature?
    We don't have the power to control and change nature in my opinion... that's just an illusion and transitory...


    Like Goethe said in his "Prometheus": Let's make humans!
    We're already made... we don't run the show...
    Last edited by Bridie; Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 05:54 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Is miscegenation amongst human beings or human races (subspecies) unnatural, i. e. does human miscegenation necessarily defy the principles of nature or a mandate of nature?

    A biological or philosophical question? Both, but I feel it fits best into the Philosophy forum, since it will have to be established what in our biological world is natural ... and that's a philosophical, meta-biological question. In our minds, nature is only established by our grasp of its concept or notion.
    As you say Thorburn, its both biological & philosophical. Biologically , as we know all too well , the races of mankind are clearly inter-fertile. Were we dogs or mice, I am not sure the question would arise. As we would say, they behave quite naturally, doing what nature allows. But man is more complex and has other imperatives beyond what is purely natural. We might say, for example, we don't like people of that (other) race very much and we will stay away from them socially. And given lots of freedom of choice, that might work. But, under pressure, on a desert island for example - it would perhaps more readily beakdown. When it comes to sex, if the 'need' is great and the choice is limited , then a person's own reluctance to be drawn into a particular relationship is more likely to be eroded. But its remains an IF - there is of course , no necessity even there.

    When the field is socially wide open, then one is surely reponding to 'oughts' and 'shoulds' that are themselves bio-socially ingrained. Also higher questions of aesthetics and notions of correct or 'proper' social continuity must be deeply at work in the person's choices and actions. So I would contrast the purely biological possibility with the more complex human bio-social (philosophical) imperative. Which is why educational and social values are so important when it comes to "miscegenation".

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Should I Do when Confronted with Miscegenation?
    By karolvs in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, December 18th, 2011, 09:49 PM
  2. Unnatural Selection: How Far Will Parents Go?
    By Dagna in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, February 9th, 2009, 05:08 AM
  3. I may have been wrong about miscegenation
    By Baldrson in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, October 22nd, 2005, 08:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •