Will the white race die out?

[ThePeacekeepers]

Yes. White people will cease to exist if the world continues on its present course. There has been to much mixing between peoples and soon all white bloodlines will be tarnished to a point beyond recognition.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think that depends on what our definition of race is.

Your insistence on geography makes me wonder if the word you are looking for is "subspecies".

No, it isn't; there are adaptations based on geography that do not go nearly as far as subspecies do.

[Sun Wukong]

The latter is characteristic to topography, and for obvious reasons. Any racial correlation is arbitrarily enforced over it.

Lactose tolerance has racial correlations relating to variant cultural farming practices, but is not usually thought of as a racial characteristic.

If race were an objective category, "Lactose Tolerant" would be a race.

But that's my point, see: race is mostly geographic, with cultural differences having been weaved in from separate development of civilization in different parts of the world.

No, race is mostly arbitrary, and enforced over genuine distinctions with little or no awareness of their existence.

[Mavorpen]

So is Europe and China.

And?

You're clearly avoiding my question.

No, I'm not. I'm stating your question is nonsensical if you aren't going to apply the same standards here.

[Libertarian California]

No the white race as all races will remain because whites are the second highest race after the Yellow people, who are the Chinese and SOutheast Asians.

I'd say we're BROWN, not YELLOW. Because, come on, only those Mongoloids are yellow.
Probably not, but gee, I hope not. I'd like a mixed race dominating Earth and all, but it'd be nice to have a pure sample of each still living in the world to remind me of what it used to be like.

What? Humans were probably even more diverse and separate in the past.

[Libertarian California]

You're clearly avoiding my question.

No, I'm not. I'm stating your question is nonsensical if you aren't going to apply the same standards here.

I edited my post, and my question still stands.

[Mons Garle]

The white/caucasian race makes up 20% of the world's population and it has been declining over the recent years. Will the race eventually die out?

Yes and no. While there may be a huge decrease in white population in the future, I doubt the race will die out due to certain isolated communities that will remain majority white and the changing definition of who is a white person. Unless there is a genocide against all people with white ancestry and skin color, there will still be multiracial people who have some white ancestry and because race is a social construct, some people will likely identify as white even if they some non-white ancestry, similar to how many multiracial people of European and African ancestry would just identify as black, such as the United States President, Brock Obama.

While I hope that we stay the majority in Europe because that has historically been our land, I'm not so concerned with the North and South American countries, because those countries are supposed to be 'melting pots' and the land was stolen from the Native Americans anyway.

Thoughts, NSG?

The problem here is that race is entirely subjective. In real life I have dark brown eyes and hair, and a Mediterranean skin tone, however all my traceable ancestry is from the British Isles, mainly Scotland and Ireland. So what "white" is can vary hugely according to who you ask.

And even if it were that the "white" race is/was/will be in decline, then so will the other groups that they mix with, as the world continues to become a more diverse and mixed place.

In essence I don't think any races will die out, only that people will have more diverse origins and backgrounds - indeed it's often more about who people choose to identify with than the literal colour of their skin.

(And yes America was totally nicked from the First Peoples by our wonderful and "civilised" British ancestors! )

[Antarticaria]

Die out? No not unless humanity is dead all at once.

Genetics cycle and reappear again and rarely will you see genes get phased out 100% unless in a case of evolution but even then it appears that certain genetic codes seem to go dormant until a later date. IE: Parent A has green Eyes Parent B has green eyes, highest probability suggests a child with green eyes however lets say that Parent As great great grandfather has blue eyes, there is now a chance that the child can have blue eyes, this goes for any chances that may be present for many many generations of dormant genes all that changes is the probability of which will be present, being the most recent genetics (parents, grandparents) would be more obvious to show then say great great grandparents. So by this logic there will always be some white person some where just like there will always be someone with another human characteristic such as blue eyes or brown hair unless a major deviation in humanity such as a die off of everyone should occur.

[United Marxist Nations]

But that's my point, see: race is mostly geographic, with cultural differences having been weaved in from separate development of civilization in different parts of the world.

No, race is mostly arbitrary, and enforced over genuine distinctions with little or no awareness of their existence.

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

[Mavorpen]

No, I'm not. I'm stating your question is nonsensical if you aren't going to apply the same standards here.

I edited my post, and my question still stands.

And my response still stands.

[Libertarian California]

No, race is mostly arbitrary, and enforced over genuine distinctions with little or no awareness of their existence.

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

And pretending they don't exist is dangerous.

[Libertarian California]

I edited my post, and my question still stands.

And my response still stands.

How?

[Sun Wukong]

No, race is mostly arbitrary, and enforced over genuine distinctions with little or no awareness of their existence.

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

Not really. The three I mentioned are the major evolutionary adaptations of the last 40,000 years. We can measure that.

And, again, only one is widely used in determining race. One that is actually rather unhelpful in determining lineage.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

All I know is humanity won't die out....

[Mavorpen]

No, race is mostly arbitrary, and enforced over genuine distinctions with little or no awareness of their existence.

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

Differences such as?

[Libertarian California]

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

Not really. The three I mentioned are the major evolutionary adaptations of the last 40,000 years. We can measure that.

And, again, only one is widely used in determining race. One that is actually rather unhelpful in determining lineage.

Which is why saying that race is only skin deep is dumb.

There are scenarios where skin color isn't indicative of race. Skin color is just used because it is the most noticeable.

[United Marxist Nations]

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

Not really. The three I mentioned are the major evolutionary adaptations of the last 40,000 years. We can measure that.

And, again, only one is widely used in determining race. One that is actually rather unhelpful in determining lineage.

All, however, help determine the geographic area of environment that one's ancestors are from in recent history.

[Veceria]

All I know is humanity won't die out....

Not yet, at least.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

All I know is humanity won't die out....

Not yet, at least.

Yes.

[Mavorpen]

Not really. The three I mentioned are the major evolutionary adaptations of the last 40,000 years. We can measure that.

And, again, only one is widely used in determining race. One that is actually rather unhelpful in determining lineage.

Which is why saying that race is only skin deep is dumb.

There are scenarios where skin color isn't indicative of race. Skin color is just used because it is the most noticeable.

Which is precisely why it isn't an actual scientific basis.

[Novus America]

All I know is humanity won't die out....

I would not be so sure about that... In all probability humanity will die out at some point.

[Mavorpen]

Not really. The three I mentioned are the major evolutionary adaptations of the last 40,000 years. We can measure that.

And, again, only one is widely used in determining race. One that is actually rather unhelpful in determining lineage.

All, however, help determine the geographic area of environment that one's ancestors are from in recent history.

And how big is this geographic area?

[United Marxist Nations]

The distinctions are usually arbitrary, but there are clearly differences in characteristics that are directly related to geography and the environment.

Differences such as?

Several, those in tropical areas often have sickle-cell anemia to protect against malaria, have more melanin in the skin to protect against damage from the sun, for example. The distinction that is traditionally used is wrong, it is absurd to say "if someone has X, they belong to Y race"; we need to stop looking at race as an either/or thing, and start looking at it as a sort of "flowing" (not sure that's the right word, but I can't think of a word to express what exactly I mean) thing.

[Katganistan]

There's only the human race. So really, it doesn't matter.

[United Marxist Nations]

All, however, help determine the geographic area of environment that one's ancestors are from in recent history.

And how big is this geographic area?

Depends on what all the characteristics that are observed are. If it's solely dark skin, then it is a very large geographic area (especially given the vagueness of the term "dark skin").