Each Thursday I have a session with clients who I have known for many years now, which means we get to have some very interesting discussions - with no holes barred. It is refreshing to be able to talk about things openly, with curiosity and humor, without having to worry about anyone getting offended, It is so rare these days, as taking offence is a sport now, where people look to make themselves the victim, because being a victim means not having to add anything of value to the discussion.
One of the several topics today was a strange one - inbreeding. Where we were talking about some of the genetic effects, but also what might lead to it. For instance, even though the vast majority of people have zero attraction to their relatives (unlike in Game of Thrones), when the conditions are right, some will cross that line.
In Finland, it is still legal to marry first cousins. And I assume that because back in the day families would live around family farms, it was very cold most of the year, distances were long, there were no roads and, Finns like a drink - it happened.
If it is good enough for the royals...
But this led into a discussion about "opposites attract", where science suggests that we are more likely to be attracted to people who are genetically dissimilar to us. I have long thought this, because it makes sense that there is more chance of there being strengths coming from the mother and the father to create a stronger progeny, mitigating risk through diversity.
However, I brought up that this doesn't work at the cultural level, where people tend to make decisions and are attracted to people who think similarly and have similar hobbies, but most importantly, similar major beliefs. Even if they are genetically different, if two people have opposing world views, they are unlikely to be attracted to each other - at least long term. For instance, there probably aren't that many couples where one person is very liberal, and the other is highly bigoted, even if they share other social similarities. This is probably because they will find the potentially repulsive as a trait, which makes a long-term relationship difficult to maintain. Or for the short-term.
Then we started talking about eugenics and creating a superior race, and it got me thinking about what people mean by superior. Is it physical superiority? Mental acumen? Looks?
At least from a glance, a "superior" race would have to have all three at least, as well as probably many other traits. Yet, no race actually has all three, or even one of the three, but individuals within those groups might. So if there was going to be a "master race", it would have to be one that is a combination of the best of the best from all races mixed together.
So what race is that?
I am half Indian background, my daughter a quarter Indian - at what point is it irrelevant? An eighth, a sixteenth, a thirty second, a sixty forth?
1/4 - my daughter
1/8 - my grandchild
1/16 - my great grandchild
1/32 - my great, great grandchild
That is what, 200 years covered? Doesn't a lot change in that time, especially culturally? Even without outside intervention, things would change, but in a world that is so globalized, so mixed, with so many interdependencies, so many crossover influences...
What is "cultural appropriation"?
Can my white-skinned, blue-eyed daughter wear a saree?
We live in a world where people are having to publicly apologize for their hairstyles.
Am I allowed to make tortillas and tacos?
As far as I know, I have no Mexican ancestry. But I do have Spanish, does that count?
Strange discussions.
But what I found interesting is that what people tend to think is the "superior" form of something, is pretty much just whatever they happen to be attracted to at the time. Most people listen to the music that they like, because at that point in their lives, it is superior to other forms. Someone can argue that Mozart is better than Bieber, but what does that matter for preference to the individual? If you like listening to Bieber and don't like listening to Mozart, Bieber is superior.
The thought makes me feel ill.
It is weird how people will say that diversity makes us stronger, and then look to section themselves off from one another along lines that are largely arbitrary, putting up barriers to protect their slices of identity at ever decreasing thinness, until all that is left to divide, are the atoms within our bodies.
In nature, diversity gives strength through risk mitigation, where for instance, if there is a disease that targets one gene, there will be others without that gene that will survive. Location diversity also reduces risks, as well as the ability to eat from different food sources.
Diversity is risk distribution.
Decentralizing across multiple nodes, with multiple components used, multiple setups and configurations, multiple power sources and multiple failsafes - just makes sense. But, strength is also built through those diverse configurations mixing together and potentially creating new strengths, ne attributes that increase risk mitigation, by adding another mutation onto the board. However, there are also the chances for negative mutations, that can make us weaker, but which is more common?
And then, when it comes to "culture" what does that actually mean?
Culture:
the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society.
Worth protecting?
But, new cultures can form, right? New mutations, like the shift in music from banging a piece of wood with a stick, to Mozart, to Nirvana. They are building on each other, yet they aren't necessarily better or worse, they are suited to the conditions.
Culture:
maintain (tissue cells, bacteria, etc.) in conditions suitable for growth.
If the conditions change, the culture has to change in order to survive. If it doesn't it dies. And, as conditions are always going to change, the easiest way for culture to adapt is by mixing traits with other cultures, using components from one and components from another, to fuse into something new, something suitable for the time.
It is ridiculous to limit cultural growth by limiting who is able to be part of it.
We should be welcoming the change, especially from the people who we are spending the most time with locally, because as new people come in, our conditions are going to change too, and if we don't change with them, we become irrelevant. It isn't about giving up who we are, it is about learning who we are in the current conditions. What is needed from us? Where are we most valuable to ourselves, our families and our communities?
It is an interesting thing to consider, because in each group and each population, there is a large range of diversity, even if genetically people might be more similar. For instance, who would you rather have over to your place for dinner;
Me, or the violent addict in the local park, that is genetically similar to you?
And this is why so many of the "identity" definitions that people find so important are stupid, because they look at them from an individual perspective, as if one trait lives in a vacuum, independent and unaffected by the rest of the person, the conditions of the moment, the whole.
And it is this dividing up of the whole that is tearing us apart as a society, because we are putting so much emphasis on some aspects, without recognizing that we are generally better off with diversity and difference. The real danger isn't in the homogenization of people, it is in the homogenization of conditions, because if conditions were unchanging, then we would align to the conditions and all start to become the same, and then, one mutation wipes us all out, because all of us would be resistant to change ourselves.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]