a very mixed race future

[Dan Jones]

The only real solution is to teach children (and adults) to celebrate their differences and individuality, not to try to mould everyone the same.

Celebration of difference is a noble aim, but as Psychotick says above, there are those who want to remain outside the cultural herd, to go against the grain. Or, to put it on your words, the ones who are happy to be teased in the playground. When the cultural norm is diversity/difference (where I believe current trends are heading - though we're not there yet), the idea homogeneity becomes an outlier, an oddity; perhaps ultimately even a cult. And at that point, it could easily adopt a kind of perverse, outré, subversive attractiveness. Which could in turn grow to become the norm again. And so the cycle continues anew.

Piousflea has it right - conflict is written into our code. You could easily even argue it's essential to our development and survival.

 

[MWagner]

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.

True. However, there is a matter of degrees. The circle of empathy is widening. Germans and French aren't at each other's throats any more, and created an elaborate and unprecedented political union to ensure it would stay that way. The notion that all humans have value, and that we should care about the welfare of people of different ethnicities and religions halfway around the world is quite recent. If you told our great-grandparents about something like the Rwandan genocide, they would have shrugged it off as nothing to do with them. A lot of people today even think animals have inherent rights, something that would strike most people who have ever lived on the planet as absurd.

So while we have an innate desire to internalize all that is good and externalize all that is bad, we've shown we can overcome that natural instinct through empathy and reason.

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.

It seems to me that we're already doing that. The schoolyard and office are dramatically different places than they were 50 years ago.

Celebration of difference is a noble aim, but as Psychotick says above, there are those who want to remain outside the cultural herd, to go against the grain. Or, to put it on your words, the ones who are happy to be teased in the playground. When the cultural norm is diversity/difference (where I believe current trends are heading - though we're not there yet), the idea homogeneity becomes an outlier, an oddity; perhaps ultimately even a cult. And at that point, it could easily adopt a kind of perverse, outré, subversive attractiveness. Which could in turn grow to become the norm again. And so the cycle continues anew.

We may already be there. Look at the modern practice of parents giving their kids rare or unique names in order to proclaim their individuality. It's almost transgressive today to name your kid something traditional and once common-place like John or Susan. Even the word 'normal' itself is far more likely to be considered a pejorative today than it was decades ago. Teen in 1985: "I just want to be normal!" Teen in 2015: "I don't want to be normal!"

 

[Ihe]

Communications globalization will soon blur cultures, it's already happening. They'll all bleed into each other eventually.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

They'll all bleed into each other eventually.

It seems to be mostly one way, especially in English Speaking countries.

Communications direct to Public is LESS global, with nasty stuff like DAB radio, AM transmitters being closed to save money and satellites having more channels, less choice and smaller footprints.

1930s Radio was more "global" and diverse than TV, Radio or Cinema today.

So called "Social Media" are "echo chambers" were like opinions and cultures are inward looking.

 

[MWagner]

So called "Social Media" are "echo chambers" were like opinions and cultures are inward looking.

True. But those cultures don't have anything to do with geography, or traditional ethnic or cultural identities. So video-gamers from Brazil to Norway will share a culture, as will environmental activists, aspiring novelists, etc. It may become easier to vilify other people over ideology (or their preferences in popular entertainment), but it will less common to vilify others over nationality, ethnicity, gender, even class.

 

[Ihe]

So called "Social Media" are "echo chambers" were like opinions and cultures are inward looking.

The internet has opened doors that would've otherwise stayed close. Take the Middle East, for example. Remember those teens that got incarcerated for performing a "Happy" (song) video? How did they get to listen to that song? Where did that mixed fashion sense come from? They defied the generalized/stereotypical idea westerners have of middle-eastern people, and also defied their own culture's restrictions. Yes, they got incarcerated, which points to a culture that still needs to progress, but they are the start. Social media vilified their jailing. Social media can put pressure. Maybe it won't noticeably affect much at first. But think of the water drip and the rock. Sooner or later... (maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but it is possible). Globalization puts mosques in Europe, Muslim schools/youth centres... Immigrants are a big part of western countries now, economically and culturally. They're here to stay and mingle. And mingle they will. And the maybe they go back to their home countries and spread the western disease XD.

Maybe it's a one-way aperture with some cultures for now (the West growing in tolerance and understanding of Muslims, for example, with the Middle-East nearly the opposite, at least politically) but I don't think it can be stopped, even with purist pigheadedness.

The echo chamber may be partially true, but eventually, the chamber will grow to encompass the entire world. Could take centuries, but that's the only logical direction given the social basis we see now. Easy travel and blurred frontiers make the cultural exchange much more fruitful. And now with internet, you don't even have to cross those borders to sink your teeth in other cultures.

 

[Parson]

We may already be there. Look at the modern practice of parents giving their kids rare or unique names in order to proclaim their individuality. It's almost transgressive today to name your kid something traditional and once common-place like John or Susan. Even the word 'normal' itself is far more likely to be considered a pejorative today than it was decades ago. Teen in 1985: "I just want to be normal!" Teen in 2015: "I don't want to be normal!"

I think this depends on the context and on the teen. Many teens today would love to be "normal" in the sense that they hate being "odd." Which clearly has always been so. And there have always been a subset of teens (and every other age group for that matter) who want to unusual and trend setting. Still, I would agree with the major point that being "different" isn't as likely to get you into "trouble" as it used to be. --- But remember none of us (I think) are teens any longer and first hand observation often gives a different perspective than trying to generalize from the outside.

The internet has opened doors that would've otherwise stayed close. Take the Middle East, for example. Remember those teens that got incarcerated for performing a "Happy" (song) video? How did they get to listen to that song? Where did that mixed fashion sense come from? They defied the generalized/stereotypical idea westerners have of middle-eastern people, and also defied their own culture's restrictions. Yes, they got incarcerated, which points to a culture that still needs to progress, but they are the start. Social media vilified their jailing. Social media can put pressure. Maybe it won't noticeably affect much at first. But think of the water drip and the rock. Sooner or later... (maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but it is possible). Globalization puts mosques in Europe, Muslim schools/youth centres... Immigrants are a big part of western countries now, economically and culturally. They're here to stay and mingle. And mingle they will. And the maybe they go back to their home countries and spread the western disease XD.

Maybe it's a one-way aperture with some cultures for now (the West growing in tolerance and understanding of Muslims, for example, with the Middle-East nearly the opposite, at least politically) but I don't think it can be stopped, even with purist pigheadedness.

I would not quickly count out the voices of tribalism from being able to stump out the voices of tolerance. Tolerance is an advanced trait and one that must be learned and cultivated. Tribalism is hardwired into the human psyche. When times get hard, and they always will, tribalism shows the depth of its strength. The Spartans always wear down the Athenians because Athenians are "softer."

 

[Ihe]

Tolerance is an advanced trait and one that must be learned and cultivated.

That's why I'm saying it can take a while. Tolerance is an advanced societal tool alright, and "advanced" implies it takes time to get the hang of it (the West is still struggling with it at times). But with enough time, it's logical that everyone will advance towards it. It's the only path that leads to the future (if you count out extinction-level wars, ofc.). Sooner or later, even the most stubborn will have to come around. You can't fight reason forever.

 

[Venusian Broon]

@Ihe - lovely utopia, but ultimately a bit naive .

We could argue it, but I do believe that humans are not rational (or perhaps to be more precise not fully rational/not always rational - but I'll leave that for another thread) We are never going to get to a Mr Spock world of Zen-like peace. Trying to force us to be something we are not will only lead to tears and pain. On that basis the vision I think you are trying to sell us is in fact not logical at all.

The arguments you give are valid, but you omit all the negatives that the internet brings and do seem to be on the increase: trolling, bullying, hate crimes, death threats. And I haven't even got to the criminal side of things and the trend for ever increasing control that all governments will apply to running such a wonderful source of information for them to control their citizens. (In this regard I can happily put all governments whether China, UK, US, Russia or Iran...)

Whilst I would like the negatives to wither away, I think expecting cultural exchange to magic away our hard-wired irrationalities and negative traits is asking too much of it. IMO

 

[MWagner]

That's why I'm saying it can take a while. Tolerance is an advanced societal tool alright, and "advanced" implies it takes time to get the hang of it (the West is still struggling with it at times). But with enough time, it's logical that everyone will advance towards it. It's the only path that leads to the future (if you count out extinction-level wars, ofc.). Sooner or later, even the most stubborn will have to come around. You can't fight reason forever.

I agree, and there's a lot of evidence that we're getting more rational and tolerant over time. That's not utopian, but borne out by all kinds of empirical data. Though I'd say the West is well ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

though I'd say the West is well ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the world.

We are just "tolerant" of different things. It's mostly apathy and quite niave "liberalism" rather than real tolerance. It's also often got tunnel vision and rabidly intolerant of some "traditional" western values. It's an illusion.

 

[MWagner]

We are just "tolerant" of different things. It's mostly apathy and quite niave "liberalism" rather than real tolerance. It's also often got tunnel vision and rabidly intolerant of some "traditional" western values. It's an illusion.

No, it's real. Far fewer people today are beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and killed for what they believe than two hundred years ago. The notion that people in the West today can largely marry who they like, follow whatever religion they like, go to school and work with people of all races, women can choose to have children or not, work or pursue politics, and children aren't routinely beaten for disobeying parents, would all be shocking to people a mere century ago. That doesn't mean there are no ideological cleavages. Or that everyone gets along. It means the consequences of not getting along is an internet flame war, instead of being beaten, denied a livelihood, or thrown into prison.

I never ceased to be astonished at how fiercely resistant so many people are to the very notion that things are getting better. One trait both the ideological left and ideological right share is the belief that modernity is bad and we live in fallen times. Anyone who finds the things people say to one on the internet shocking in their intolerance should try reading a political or legal speech from a century ago, when respected statesman spoke of women as daft children, other races as subhuman, and homosexuals as monstrous. Anyone who finds the ignorance on display in forums and social media dismaying would not want to be a fly on the wall in a working-man's bar 50 years ago. Anyone upset at the bullying children undergo today should try to remember how violent and merciless schoolyards were a short 40 years ago. Recognizing progress isn't naiviety. There are all sorts of human conditions we can measure empirically. They are, almost without exception, improving.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Far fewer people today are beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and killed for what they believe than two hundred years ago.

In the "west" only.
It's mostly due to better rule of law. Not people being better internally.

Yes, in the "west" we live in a better society than 200 years ago. But I'm not so sure how much better than 40 years ago, though I was an adult 40 years ago. Some intolerances have been replaced in that period by new ones.

 

[Ihe]

In the "west" only.
It's mostly due to better rule of law. Not people being better internally.

Well, someone had to recognize the problem,make, and then pass those laws (people who many times are picked by the populace). The improvement might not be worldwide, but some who understand it are taking action.

 

[Ihe]

@Ihe - lovely utopia, but ultimately a bit naive .
We could argue it, but I do believe that humans are not rational (or perhaps to be more precise not fully rational/not always rational - but I'll leave that for another thread) We are never going to get to a Mr Spock world of Zen-like peace. Trying to force us to be something we are not will only lead to tears and pain. On that basis the vision I think you are trying to sell us is in fact not logical at all.

I'm not implying we'll ever be in a utopia. Just that is logical for greater social-cultural mixing to usher in an era of more tolerance, simply because we have to. The system will work itself out to remain in the level of lowest energy/effort. Tolerance is it. Chaos and hate eventually run out of steam. Being at peace is much more energy-efficient.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I'm not implying we'll ever be in a utopia. Just that is logical for greater social-cultural mixing to usher in an era of more tolerance, simply because we have to. The system will work itself out to remain in the level of lowest energy/effort. Tolerance is it. Chaos and hate eventually run out of steam. Being at peace is much more energy-efficient.

Except we are not molecules that act in accordance to with some set of hard physical laws. We are humans driven by emotions and hard-wired irrationalities as well as rational thoughts. Multiculturalism may eventually breed a race of tolerant beings or it may not - it may accentuate differences and cause irrevocable splits. And there's too many other factors beyond that that influence - economic progress or lack of it and ideologies of all flavours that spring up etc... I'd say there are a great deal of very different states that are equally valid going forward.

Europe was extremely 'energy-efficient' in the summer of 1914 - the great powers never so great, rich trading with each other and at peace. Then within a few short months, millions of men were enthusiastically killing each other.

Now don't get me wrong - I do think there are a lot of positives about mixing and finding out about other cultures, it gives me a respect and empathy for people different from me. I just don't buy your logic that applied to the whole of humanity it will eventually lead an optimum peaceful state for us. Optimistically I hope we are being guided close to such a state (with the help of a whole bunch of other factors), but one must understand the nature of the beast to ever hope to control it, hence my more guarded thoughts on the subject...

 

[Ihe]

Multiculturalism may eventually breed a race of tolerant beings or it may not - it may accentuate differences and cause irrevocable splits.

Well, at the genetic level, we are already merging (check the projections of how people will look in the future). Culturally, we can make our presence felt across the world through media and internet, and we can absorb other cultures through it as well. The economy has seen various trading alliances (European Union, NAFTA, LAFTA, Mercosur...), and we have things like NATO and the UN. I mean, it's not perfect, but there is a unifying sense to our progress.

Europe was extremely 'energy-efficient' in the summer of 1914 - the great powers never so great, rich trading with each other and at peace. Then within a few short months, millions of men were enthusiastically killing each other.

Yes, a war can ruin everything, but there's more cohesiveness now than there was in 1914. All things are more interconnected, and we're all starting to depend on everyone else to keep things going right. Common interests are tightening relationships across the world. And I don't feel these ties are as frail as you might think. Media and politics are being dissected more and more often by people who want the truth.
It's a work in progress, granted, but we're moving ever closer to a world government (so SF in our minds still). We might not get there, but we're getting closer, like an asymptotic function. Yes, you can't go against human nature, but as a collective, we can roll with the punches. I'm not affirming we'll get to a utopia. Only that the chance to do so is there, as is the evidence of past and present efforts toward unity. It is not madness nor outlandish idealism to think it possible.

 

[Mirannan]

Regardless of the genetic variability that may arise in the future between humans, it's quite possible that there will be drastic differences between groups caused by differences in conditions while growing up. This is, of course, assuming human expansion beyond Earth. It's a common SF trope; it's very likely that Martians would be tall and thin (and probably quite physically weak as well) simply because of growing up in a 0.38G field. Someone who grew up on a hypothetical extrasolar planet with a 1.5G surface gravity would probably be squat, wide and very strong. That's even if there was no genetic difference, which there probably would be - eventually.

 

[Dave]

Well, at the genetic level, we are already merging (check the projections of how people will look in the future).

I'm not arguing that we aren't mixing our genes up more than ever in the past, because clearly we are, I'm only saying that the actual amount, or the rates of mixing is unclear, and that OP gung-ho science project makes for very poor science. So you also need to tell us where these "projections of how people will look in the future" you have seen are? Who made them? How do they arrive at them? Is it peer reviewed by other scientists?

I think it is important to be clear on the accuracy of these statistics because not only are they used by the people who want us put in a "melting pot" and all to be the same, but also by those who want "racial" purity maintained or even to practice eugenics. Personally, I don't think it is really that important, because as others have already pointed out, we humans differ on a lot more levels than physical appearance and those differences are probably much more important for us to get along together without resorting to beating each others brains out.

As a species it is more healthy to have mixed up genes. That's the reason why F1 plants varieties are so productive, but the inbred dog breeds at Crufts have so many serious medical problems.

Regardless of the genetic variability that may arise in the future between humans, it's quite possible that there will be drastic differences between groups caused by differences in conditions while growing up. This is, of course, assuming human expansion beyond Earth. It's a common SF trope; it's very likely that Martians would be tall and thin (and probably quite physically weak as well) simply because of growing up in a 0.38G field. Someone who grew up on a hypothetical extrasolar planet with a 1.5G surface gravity would probably be squat, wide and very strong. That's even if there was no genetic difference.

That's true, but it's still a bit long term though. As you point out, genetic differences would take much, much longer. Those are just sci-fi.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Ihe, VB et al - it seems to me that what you're both arguing different sides of is what Billy Joel called the stranger. The idea that there is this image we have of ourselves as civilised human beings, but underneath those very few thin layers of civilization there is the human animal. We don't recognise it mostly. We all lie to ourselves and want to pretend that we are truly civilised, enlightened people. But every so often something comes along that rips away that veneer and exposes our underlying nature and as Billy Joel says it hits us right between the eyes.

Yes society - at least in the west - is becoming better in terms of allowing us to live more civilised lives and to allow us to believe the self image we have of ourselves as enlightened people. But how long does that last? What happens when as is shown in a number of movies, the lights go out? When hunger beckons? When law breaks down?

There is a scene / plot element in Survivors (the 70's tv show) where there's a murder in the group and someone has to be held accountable. Naturally they blame the simpleton for the crime with nothing but the most circumstantial of evidence and execute him. He's innocent of course. For some reason that has always stayed with me. Society gets wiped away. Laws get forgotten. And the so called civilised - still believing they are civilised of course - start acting according to their more base natures. They start judging people according to essentially whether others are like them or not.

This is also the message of Lord of the Flies. We aren't who we pretend to be. We just want to be them.

Cheers, Greg.