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 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 136

Thread: Is Human Miscegenation Unnatural?

  1. #1
    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

    Question 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?
    Let's assume that both phylogeny and ontogeny from simple to more complex levels (upwards evolution) are biological principles of nature.
    Let a mandate of nature be defined as something that naturally should occur under all circumstances; e. g. the purpose of a development.
    Please elaborate on your opinion.
    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.
    No. I don't think so. First, because according to your definition:
    Let a mandate of nature be defined as something that naturally should occur under all circumstances; e. g. the purpose of a development.
    there is no such thing as a "mandate of nature". 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). The purpose of a natural development or process on the other hand is a matter of mere speculation (as long as you're not a neo-Aristotelian ).
    Second:
    Let's assume that both phylogeny and ontogeny from simple to more complex levels (upwards evolution) are biological principles of nature.
    I wouldn't say so either. I think sometimes simplicity is the result of an evolutionary process. A large variety of forms is reduced to a few standard variants through a process of natural selection and adaption to an environment. In the end complexity is reduced to reach an ecological equilibrium.
    Simple, noncomplex lifeforms have also been much more successful within the evolutionary process as a whole. The procaryotes are still there (and would maybe be laughing about our silly multicellular lifeform problems if they could ).
    If I were to chose an evolutionary principle that is relevant for the question of miscegenation, it would be the principle of harmony.
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, December 27th, 2006 at 04:06 PM. Reason: recovering thread found deleted: reason unknown [first post found deleted so had to merge it with second to recover thread

  2. #2
    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
    no...not if "natural" is defined as above...
    miscegenation => greater genetic variation => greater complexity => natural

  3. #3
    Freethinker "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pixie View Post
    no...not if "natural" is defined as above...
    miscegenation => greater genetic variation => greater complexity
    Thus, human miscegenation is actually positive in your view? Greater genetic variation and greater complexity sound beneficial?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    there is no such thing as a "mandate of nature".
    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."

    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).
    Right. But that's not how it is defined. 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). 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.

    The purpose of a natural development or process on the other hand is a matter of mere speculation (as long as you're not a neo-Aristotelian ).
    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.

    I wouldn't say so either. I think sometimes simplicity is the result of an evolutionary process. A large variety of forms is reduced to a few standard variants through a process of natural selection and adaption to an environment. In the end complexity is reduced to reach an ecological equilibrium.
    Doesn't the diversification of a species into various subspecies increase the complexity? 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?

    Simple, noncomplex lifeforms have also been much more successful within the evolutionary process as a whole. The procaryotes are still there (and would maybe be laughing about our silly multicellular lifeform problems if they could ).
    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. Don't you believe the universe realizes itself (through us and everything that exists)?

    If I were to chose an evolutionary principle that is relevant for the question of miscegenation, it would be the principle of harmony.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Skull View Post
    Mixing with the Negroid, Capoid or Australoid race is unnatural, imho. I can't be arsed going into detail.
    ... while miscegenation with the Mongoloid is natural? You base this evaluation presumably on genetic distance?
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  4. #4
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Thus, human miscegenation is actually positive in your view? Greater genetic variation and greater complexity sound beneficial?
    although i would say that miscegenation is certainly natural i don't see it as necessarily beneficial. mainly because there are more things to concider than just physiology, but also because i agree with Pervitinist in that intricacy of balance, harmony if you will, is a better indication of evolutionary advancement than mere complexity.

  5. #5
    Γνώθι σεαυτόν
    Guest

    AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Nature as a whole or as a principle divine has no consciousness, thus there's no higher plan, so it's only the question "Does it work or not?" as simple as that may be.

    Human miscegenation works, mules "don't work".

    If everything natural seems also desirable to mankind is another question though - homosexuality also works... (because of the Kinsey Scale and because HS doesn't seem to disappear, regardless to any education, taken action or eugenics)

    There are many examples of natural phenomenons we try to compensate as individuals, as society, and so on and in my opinion it's not wrong per se as nature is only divine because there's no higher principle and we can't transcend it, but it's no sacred rule in the common sense.

    But we always have to look upon our deeds, so we never step out of our limits as human beings, otherwise we will perish, but I think fighting human miscegenation (if that's our opinion) won't kill us too soon.


    Short: NO, it's not unnatural, BUT that doesn't mean we have to advocate it.

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

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by psycho_pixie View Post
    although i would say that miscegenation is certainly natural i don't see it as necessarily beneficial. mainly because there are more things to concider than just physiology, but also because i agree with Pervitinist in that intricacy of balance, harmony if you will, is a better indication of evolutionary advancement than mere complexity.
    The more harmonious, the more evolutionary advanced you argue? Not sure if I can follow. Eukaryotes seem to be very harmonious and homogeneous, but does this make them an advanced life form? I would tend to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Γνώθι σεαυτόν View Post
    Short: NO, it's not unnatural, BUT that doesn't mean we have to advocate it.
    Right. But nothing you say suggests that we should oppose it either?
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  7. #7
    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
    The more harmonious, the more evolutionary advanced you argue? Not sure if I can follow. Eukaryotes seem to be very harmonious and homogeneous, but does this make them an advanced life form? I would tend to disagree.
    i think that both complexity and harmony are essential. with simpler lifeforms the harmony is there but not complexity, in the case of multiracial individuals greater complexity is bought at the price of introducing a disbalance which makes miscegenation not physiologically beneficial.

  8. #8
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 11th, 2016 @ 01:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    CM-Atlantidish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Location
    Mamvcivm
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    British
    Posts
    3,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    I'd say unnatural, as what we're seeing in the west now is not the usual mixing at the edges phenomenon but one of artificial pockets of mescegenation right in the hearts of European countries, supported by unnatural laws and political machinations, and not replicated in the third world where the native populations are largely secure [except in South America perhaps].
    It's unnatural in so far as it's a result of such unnatural things as the petrol engine and air travel, and medical science. That leads on to the question of humanity's naturalness, but I'll go for the simple shorthand that if it didn't happen in the early history of our species, then it's unnatural!

  9. #9
    Γνώθι σεαυτόν
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Right. But nothing you say suggests that we should oppose it either?
    To me there are no direct reason on the natural level to oppose it.

    But there are reasons on the sociological and historical level (mainly) which let me strongly oppose human miscegenation, but that isn't the topic, right ?

    BTW: "direct", because sociology and history evolve by nature among all humans, thus being indirectly natural factors too

    Quote Originally Posted by Oswiu View Post
    I'd say unnatural, as what we're seeing in the west now is not the usual mixing at the edges phenomenon but one of artificial pockets of mescegenation right in the hearts of European countries, supported by unnatural laws and political machinations, and not replicated in the third world where the native populations are largely secure [except in South America perhaps].
    Why isn't it natural that rich Europe attracts foreigners more than states which are just as poor as the own ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oswiu View Post
    It's unnatural in so far as it's a result of such unnatural things as the petrol engine and air travel, and medical science. That leads on to the question of humanity's naturalness, but I'll go for the simple shorthand that if it didn't happen in the early history of our species, then it's unnatural!
    But mankind also travelled in earlier times without "unnatural" stuff like planes and also mixed, e.g. the goths, so what's early ?

    Well, I guess (no, I already knew ) the "problem" is the lacking of a universal definition of "human nature"...which is, BTW, also natural as we're living in a relative world
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 04:48 PM. Reason: merged two consecutive posts

  10. #10
    Freethinker "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by psycho_pixie View Post
    i think that both complexity and harmony are essential. with simpler lifeforms the harmony is there but not complexity, in the case of multiracial individuals greater complexity is bought at the price of introducing a disbalance which makes miscegenation not physiologically beneficial.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oswiu View Post
    I'd say unnatural, as what we're seeing in the west now is not the usual mixing at the edges phenomenon but one of artificial pockets of mescegenation right in the hearts of European countries, supported by unnatural laws and political machinations, and not replicated in the third world where the native populations are largely secure [except in South America perhaps].
    It's unnatural in so far as it's a result of such unnatural things as the petrol engine and air travel, and medical science. That leads on to the question of humanity's naturalness, but I'll go for the simple shorthand that if it didn't happen in the early history of our species, then it's unnatural!
    I fully agree with you, Oswiu, and you made very valid points that should at least be mentioned in a footnote to the topic. However, the question was not about the political phenomenon of today, but about the biological act per se. Is it unnatural? Or is it, as I believe, totally natural that a group of a species gets isolated from the rest of a species; that, over the course of time, a race or subspecies develops; that, as more time passes, speciation occurs, OR if the barriers, that originally had separated the group from the other members of the species, should disappear again before speciation happened, the race returns into the lap of the greater species and its members freely miscegenate with their brothers and sisters until the race is dissolved and its genes become once again a part of the greater family, the species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Γνώθι σεαυτόν View Post
    To me there are no direct reason on the natural level to oppose it.

    But there are reasons on the sociological and historical level (mainly) which let me strongly oppose human miscegenation, but that isn't the topic, right ?
    Right. Just exploring your position.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... 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
  •