a very mixed race future

[MWagner]

e) People even moving to other countries mostly breed within their own culture. A minority mix.


Why? Look at one of the recent Colonies, the USA.

Up until about 50 years ago, interracial/cultural unions have been taboo in the U.S. With that sanction falling away, we haven't seen most people mix out of race/culture, but a sizeable minority is (and if you include the removal of the old protestant/catholic division, a great many people are). Naturally blonde hair has already become extremely uncommon in North America. If even 10 per cent of people breed out of culture, it will only take a few generations for most people to be of mixed origin.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Most people ARE of mixed origin already. But the idea we will become totally homogeneous seems unlikely.

Even the Japanese are more mixed (korean, Chinese and others) than they like to believe.

 

[Ursa major]

All those who are debating why (but not, oddly, if) Greeks living abroad are more or less** successful than those living in Greece are missing the point by a mile (or kilometre, as appropriate). The point is that cultures vary and mutate***, and the combination of people of different cultures will change the culture(s) of the place where they've met (or are on their way to) in probably more profound ways than them simply intermarrying (other relationships are available) with each other, given that humans are not particularly genetically diverse****.


**- Look at the shipping magnates. They stayed in Greece and have done very well for themselves, to the extent that the Greek Constitution is said to protect their businesses from (certain types of) taxation.

*** - Look at a country like Ireland, which has changed greatly (and probably not because of the immigration of the last few decades).

**** - Because of the relatively small number of generations between us and our common ancestors compared to species that have been on the planet longer, have more generation per unit of time, or both.

 

[Nick B]

Most of this discussion is missing technology. Genetic engineering is in its infancy (and yes, to those who believe we are very advanced, I do mean its infancy). Most planets are uninhabitable to humans, so real estate will be limited. I think there may be quite a lot of use of genetic tinkering done to make colonists able to live in differing conditions.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Look at a country like Ireland, which has changed greatly

All the hard working Polish People?

Actually late 1950s and early 1960s, the change from de Valera's agrarian vision to Industrialisation and then weakening of Influence of the Catholic church also started in 1960s. Nothing to do with emigration or immigration.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Most planets are uninhabitable to humans, so real estate will be limited. I think there may be quite a lot of use of genetic tinkering done to make colonists able to live in differing conditions.

By the Aliens that got there first

Genetic Engineering is maybe about were Electronics was in 1905. But how accurate are any guesses as to where the technology will lead. About 6% of people born deaf might gain hearing by infecting their inner ear with a genetically engineered virus.
Instead of drugs or radiation therapy, genetic engineering may enable your EXISTING UNMODIFIED immune system to destroy ANY cancer. Total remission from fatal cancers does happen. Achieved by our own immune system suddenly attacking it.

 

[Piousflea84]

Most of this discussion is missing technology. Genetic engineering is in its infancy (and yes, to those who believe we are very advanced, I do mean its infancy). Most planets are uninhabitable to humans, so real estate will be limited. I think there may be quite a lot of use of genetic tinkering done to make colonists able to live in differing conditions.

True; my main WIP right now revolves around a planet with marginally breathable atmosphere and marginally edible native vegetation/fish/etc. The humans who have been living on this planet (for ~220 years) are sufficiently heavily modified that they live comfortably on this planet, so they see themselves as a new and different race. Regular genotypical humans dislike them for their sour "skunky" smell and noxious food/drink.

 

[sorrel]

these are such great and interesting responses! :0

there are so many factors that could play into how the future looks, demographically, and i think that why science fiction is so interesting! an economic crisis could change the balance of world power; space aliens could take over; a nuclear war could break out; a supervolcano could explode. any one of those events at any point between now and the setting of a work could affect the earth and the people who live here
i also think one thing to consider is how highly individual culture is valued in a given time. i have had a lot of exposure to alaska native groups, and, in my experience, it's not like they don't HAVE strong or integral culture. the entire 20th century was just blow after blow to them, from the often deadly relocation of aleuts to concentration camps during wwii, to the forced assimilation to western culture in schools. now, a lot of elders who grew up in these hostile environments want to restore their culture, but some of the the younger folks don't even really know what that culture is, so they don't place as much importance on it. that said, a lot of native youth are very involved in their culture! it depends on the person/area/historical context

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Well to add my two cents worth - I suspect that in one or two hundred years the terms race and culture will have entirely different meanings. Not being flippant here. Just consider that there are forces that push towards greater homogenisation of ethnicities - obviously the ease of transport being one of them. But just as there are forces pushing towards homogenisation there are forces pushing away from it as well. Geographic isolation will no longer be one - but cultural identity will be one. And cultural identity is changing.

Yes cultures are homogenising in some respects. But culture is also an expansion of personal and familial identity and that's basically an individual thing. Just as there are people who want to be like everyone else, there are people who don't. Who want to be distinctively themselves. Consider the movements towards increasing body art and then consider what may happen in twenty or thirty years when genetic engineering becomes freely available to all. Now instead of having a culture stuck and defined by a geographic location. A culture could instead be defined by collective values. So skinheads might actually not be people who shave but people who have altered themselves so that hair no longer grows for them. We could have an entire culture of basketball players - all of them nearing seven feet, six finger pianists / muso's and the super intelligent. That's before we start looking at cultures comprised of those who want to live in the oceans or on the moon where certain adaptations will be extremely valuable.

Personally I'll be joining the Trekkies culture - just can't decide if I want to go for pointed ears or cranial ridges!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[ralphkern]

Humanity is moving into an era where they can control their own evolutionary destiny. Part of that may be technologically based(augmentations and improvements) and part of that may be genetic.

Already there are discussions about designer babies. Children with the genetic predisposition to be smarter, stronger, more handsome etc etc (I should know... I was one of the originals )

Setting aside ethical debates, the appearance, even the genetic ethnicity of a child may well follow fashion trends.

A person may even, in the future, have the ability to change within their own lifetime. (Transethnicity?)

I suspect if that side were left alone though, we would see mixed heritage people (like myself) becoming the norm.

And it can't come too soon - mixed power!

 

[Parson]

Consider the movements towards increasing body art and then consider what may happen in twenty or thirty years when genetic engineering becomes freely available to all.

I have sever doubts about the "freely" part of your statement. Anything that is considered valuable comes with a price, and that price might be very steep indeed.

 

[Ursa major]

At the moment, there are few opportunities for children to sue their parents on account (pun intended) of the children's biological condition. However, once the parents have, in effect, chosen (through positive** intervention) a child's genetic makeup, with the expected physical outcome(s), those opportunities will become legion (desperate pun intended).


** - By this I mean that the child has, at some point, had its genome changed, as opposed to being the selected embryo out of a number of other candidate embryos, the other of which are not implanted. However, even this could be subject to legal proceedings. Imagine an embryo chosen only the child will be capable of providing an existing sibling with suitable transplant material. At some point, this material will turn out to be an organ such as a kidney. What are the donor child's rights in this case. Who has ownership of that transplantable kidney? The child? The parents? The sibling? The courts?

 

[psychotick]

Hi Parson,

I looked at things like DNA testing as a guide for this. Consider that twenty or thirty years ago the tech was in it's infancy and the cost of testing was huge and done only for important cases. Now a DNA test costs $200 - $300 and anyone can get some samples tested by mailing them away.

It's simply the nature of progress.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Parson]

Hi Parson,

I looked at things like DNA testing as a guide for this. Consider that twenty or thirty years ago the tech was in it's infancy and the cost of testing was huge and done only for important cases. Now a DNA test costs $200 - $300 and anyone can get some samples tested by mailing them away.

It's simply the nature of progress.

Cheers, Greg.

But not free. And seldom is the desire for this going to equal the desire to have a "perfect" child.

 

[Dave]

I question the scientific validity of the livescience article. First of all, it is very sensationalist - they "interbred with their cousins" - calling it "sordid". That was fairly normal everywhere until about 160 years ago, and it had been forever. In the UK it was railway trains rather than bicycles that changed transport access between villages.

According to the article, 100 years ago, 1 in 3 Americans had blue eyes and now it is 1 in 6, but it gives no reference for that except to say a study in 2002 said so. It is possible you could estimate that from First World War Army Enlistment papers, but that would be a very skewed sample of predominantly white men. In any case, the American Academy of Ophthalmology says that it was still 1 in 3 in 2014 and not 1 in 6.

Also, I'm doubtful that it was ever any higher than that in any place from which American emigrants originated. Certainly, the UK and Ireland were high, but there were a lot of green and brown eyes even 400 years ago. Italy, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Germany, I would guess would be much lower, and the within those persecuted for their religion, and the poor of those countries, then likely to be even lower still. Many American emigrants were Norwegian, and one could speculate that it could have been higher within that Scandinavian population, but where is the hard written evidence for all this coming from?

 

[psychotick]

Hi Parson,

I didn't mean that it would be "free" as in cost no money. I meant that it would come down in price in time to reasonable level which people could afford and there would be few restrictions upon its use - just as DNA testing has done.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Denise Tanaka]

This thread must be sparking ideas for several novels of the future, I hope! All great posts, extrapolating on what's happening now.

I'm going to be a bit of cynic, today, as humans are herd animals that have a tendency to form into competitive groups. The details and definitions of those groups are constantly changing, but the basic human behavior is the same. The future may change the boundaries and definitions of our groups but we will always make tribes of ourselves. I'm feeling it very strongly, lately, here in the United States where we're united under a single flag, and we all call ourselves Americans, but at the same time we are very cognizant of our regional differences.

I recall reading first-person accounts of the Chinese immigrants who were forced into hard labor building the railroad here in the United States, using hand tools to dig tunnels through mountains, suffering hardships of poor food, back-breaking work, etc. China is a huge territory with distinct regions and dialects, and they were surprised when the Americans lumped them all into one group. They would be thinking, I'm not at all like this guy next to me... he's from such-and-such province, and I'm from somewhere else. But to the Americans, they were all just "Chinese."

Up until about 50 years ago, interracial/cultural unions have been taboo in the U.S. With that sanction falling away, we haven't seen most people mix out of race/culture, but a sizeable minority is (and if you include the removal of the old protestant/catholic division, a great many people are). Naturally blonde hair has already become extremely uncommon in North America. If even 10 per cent of people breed out of culture, it will only take a few generations for most people to be of mixed origin.

Very true! 50 years ago, I would not have been able to get married to this guy. I can't recall examples of overt prejudice, but there are some weird moments - usually when we're out in public, shopping or whatever - when the store clerks don't assume we're together. I mean, we can be standing side-by-side in line, and the clerk deals with the husband, then turns to me and says, May I help you?

 

[MWagner]

China is a huge territory with distinct regions and dialects, and they were surprised when the Americans lumped them all into one group. They would be thinking, I'm not at all like this guy next to me... he's from such-and-such province, and I'm from somewhere else. But to the Americans, they were all just "Chinese."

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese are oblivious to the differences between the various European nationalities of expats and visiting and living there. Apparently, in Hong Kong the term gwai is used generically for caucasian Westerners. And no doubt Indians are appalled at the ignorance people outside India have of their elaborate caste system.

 

[Piousflea84]

This thread must be sparking ideas for several novels of the future, I hope! All great posts, extrapolating on what's happening now.

I'm going to be a bit of cynic, today, as humans are herd animals that have a tendency to form into competitive groups. The details and definitions of those groups are constantly changing, but the basic human behavior is the same. The future may change the boundaries and definitions of our groups but we will always make tribes of ourselves. I'm feeling it very strongly, lately, here in the United States where we're united under a single flag, and we all call ourselves Americans, but at the same time we are very cognizant of our regional differences.

I recall reading first-person accounts of the Chinese immigrants who were forced into hard labor building the railroad here in the United States, using hand tools to dig tunnels through mountains, suffering hardships of poor food, back-breaking work, etc. China is a huge territory with distinct regions and dialects, and they were surprised when the Americans lumped them all into one group. They would be thinking, I'm not at all like this guy next to me... he's from such-and-such province, and I'm from somewhere else. But to the Americans, they were all just "Chinese."

Actually, what's really funny is that in California history (1849-early 1900s) the phrase "Chinaman" / "China Gang" was sometimes used to describe all sorts of non-white people, including Mexicans.

Human beings have always had a great talent for creating groups of "Us" versus "Them". I don't see that going away any time in the reasonable future. Even if we upload our minds into computers the racial differences will become "Androids" vs. "iPeople". If we turn ourselves into pure energy, we'll create internal tension between "Clockwise Polarized Energy" versus "Counterclockwise Polarized Energy". It is inevitable.

 

[Dave]

I'm still unconvinced from that article that there has been any substantial change in the % blue eyes in the USA the last Century, but the concept of eventually reaching some kind of racial harmony in the future is hardly a new one. They are just trying to add some pseudo-science to the idea. Have you not heard the cheesy but popular 1969 song 'Melting Pot' sung by Blue Mink and written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway?

Human beings have always had a great talent for creating groups of "Us" versus "Them". I don't see that going away any time in the reasonable future. Even if we upload our minds into computers the racial differences will become "Androids" vs. "iPeople". If we turn ourselves into pure energy, we'll create internal tension between "Clockwise Polarized Energy" versus "Counterclockwise Polarized Energy". It is inevitable.

Exactly! I was going to say a similar thing. That schoolkid in the school yard is always going to be picked on for being different - whether it is his skin colour, hair colour, birthmark, height, weight, shyness or awkwardness, style of shoes, length of his tie, colour of his socks - we learn the herd mentality at an early age, to single out those that are different. Maybe, long ago, it once helped to keep the tribe genetically healthy but it makes me think of John Wyndham's 'The Chrysalids.' The only real solution is to teach children (and adults) to celebrate their differences and individuality, not to try to mould everyone the same.