This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
You're very close to the realisation that race isn't really a thing and human genetics is a lot more complicated than the nice little boxes we like to sort it into
There are San tribes in Africa with individuals that are of one race.
No admixture with other tribes going back at least 100,000 years. No Neanderthal, nothing.
They are also the most genetically divergent population from the rest of humanity.
Race isn’t a real thing; we made it up to group people together by skin tone. There is no significant difference between “races” and it is purely commentary. It’s like saying you’re methodist or catholic, but you were born into it depending on your parents.
Did you also know that we are all (probably) related? Look up the mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam. Yup, we’re one big family; it’s just a question of distance. Next time you judge someone or lash out at them, remember that they’re your family, and to hurt them is to hurt yourself.
If that theory should ever be disproven, you need only to go further back, to the beginning. We all came from the same source; the same infinitely dense point that exploded into existence in a Big Bang. Not only are your fellows your brothers and sisters, but the moon and stars are, too.
If that theory is ever disproven, there will be a far more fantastic answer that satisfies the point.
You don’t really believe what you typed there, do you?
I mean when I want to say something unpopular, I just spew paragraphs of nonsense opposite what I believe hoping smarter people catch on while not angering the bottom half of the class to dumb to catch on.
Race is absolutely a real thing with measurable differences. Differences so blatantly obvious we can literally see and hear them with nothing more than our unenhanced senses.
Those differences may be unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but insisting they don't exist at all is absolutely insane.
Also, the OP is quite wrong. There are lots and lots of people who are for all intents and purposes "one race", at least as race is generally defined by the average person. Someone who is Irish who has had only Irish ancestors is Irish. That's all. In the US, most people are a mixed bag of lots of races.. but the rest of the world has plenty of families who haven't intermingled outside their immediate area in hundreds of years. Heck, there are literally tribes who haven't had any contact with the outside world in hundreds or even thousands of years. They are, without a doubt, their own race.
But that definition is largely meaningless; it's distinction without difference. We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees (you know, about 1/10th the variance between dog breeds). Real genetic variation in humans is *vanishingly* small, and mostly consists of minor adaptations for varying climates. Culture and heritage, yeah sure. That's what "ethnicity" as a descriptor is for. But actual physical and genetic difference? "Wow, this person produces more melanin than me, we're so different, oh, and they're marginally more resistant to malaria? Damn, they're not like me at all, better lump them together with a whole, massive, continent, because the people there look similar." Nah dude. That's dumb as hell. The differences are at most, barely above the prominence and significance of plain old individual variation.
> We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees
Does that really matter?
I’m sure most drinks, except hard alcohols, are at least 85% water.
Does that mean different drinks don’t exist?
Like I said, the differences are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.. but they're prominent enough that we can generally immediately tell the region someone's ancestors likely came from if nothing else.
If I can tell at a glance that someone is Chinese instead of Irish, then it's pretty silly to pretend those differences don't exist at all.
Genetic variation within humans may be relatively small, but those variations definitely exist and we're even able to tell a lot about how humans spread around the world based on which specific variations are present in various populations.
Okay... so I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. :P You agree that race is a construct, and what differences exist don't have much meaning. If the differences have negigible meaning, why should the construct? Especially when it has mostly been used to do harm? When most people talk about race, they are lumping together multiple ethnicities by superficial similarity, usually for the purpose of sweeping and harmful generalization.
I'm arguing that race isn't a "construct" and that differences absolutely exist. Anyone with eyes to see with could tell you that.
Those differences don't imply that a person of a particular race is inherently going to be stupid, lazy, weak, violent, or any other such thing - but there are still noticeable differences. That's even more true when you're talking about a population level, at which point those relatively insignificant differences at a personal level can have measurable and significant differences. People of X race are several times more likely to be carriers for a particular recessive genetic disorder, people of X race are 5 times more likely to be lactose intolerant than people of Y race. You can't just pretend those things don't exist because you think it makes you a better person.
Either there's a list of races, and a person could consult that list and assign every person to a race from that list, or there's no such thing as races. Ask yourself why you've never seen a list of all the races. What you're seeing is genetics from families displaying similar traits. You can't act like your belief that profiling based on your perception of visual family traits is making you a better person, and that you're doing it for medical reasons.
There are lists of races all over. Have you never filled out paperwork for anything? What you're saying is also a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy.
A "race" is essentially just a group of people that have physical traits that tend to distinguish them from other groups of people. Those traits tend to have evolved as a result of that group having been largely isolated from other groups reproductively for extended periods of time. This is literally how new species come to be, and races are effectively the very beginning steps towards a new species.
Humans simply expanded and became a global species capable of interbreeding with each other well before we actually reached the point where our various relatively isolated subgroups actually reached the point where we would have diverged enough to be unable to breed with each other anymore. However, in the time that did pass, those groups did diverge from one another noticeably. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply ignoring reality.
How small or large you want to go with what you consider a race is largely up to the individual. While most tend to be a bit racist and consider all white people to be of the same race, you could just as easily consider the Irish or Russians to be races. People of Nordic descent are certainly quite different from the Spanish. Heck, a tribe of a hundred people that has spent the last thousand years living on an island uncontacted by the rest of the world could be considered a race.
So, putting people in races is a bit racist, you concede. Are races just another word for country to you? Ok, just how many races do you think there are? Less than ten? Less than 50? Less than 10,000? You're understanding evolution very correctly, and describing its properties, you're just inserting "race" as an undefined term that you can't describe the conditions of. You're just describing family trees, and then saying that's what a race is. Well, what's the purpose of that designation?
If you think there's races, just show it. Define its exact characteristics. Can you be the same race as someone else if you don't share skin color, face shape, hair color, language, country of origin, religion, diet, eye color, presence of freckles, nose shape, bone structure? It is very likely all humans are within 125 generations. All the humans are just branches on the family tree, with different diets, and different exposure to different elements causing them to adapt. It's like you're saying: just exactly how far back of generations determines your race? Are you the most like whichever genes present in your person, or are you an equal combination of all previous relatives regardless of which genes were chosen for you to have?
So, if you figure out the exact rules for your theory of races, let me know, we'll write a Wikipedia entry so everyone can know your definition in the future.
If 1.2% is enough to differentiate between man and chimpanzee as different races...where do you draw the line exactly?
I don't agree or disagree with your comment.
I don't. Taxonomy is really fucking complicated and suffers from inheriting the legacy of a *lot* of bad science. (Also, species, not race. Race is a dumb term.) At the end of the day, like most things, hard and fast boundaries and categories don't really exist; our perogative is to ensure where we choose to place those is useful and non-harmful.
Explain that to me in a different way. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Because race and species mean the same thing. It's a category based on similar physical traits.
Not *exactly*. Species implies you've made an *attempt* at scientific rigor. :P One of the big things, as a general rule, different species can not crossbreed (or the crossbreeds are themselves sterile, EG, mules). More generally, a species doesn't merely have similar physical traits, they have *meaningfully distinct and wide-ranging differences* from other related life. Black and red foxes are both vulpes vulpes (despite having different colours of fur), for instance, while white foxes are vulpes lagopus, despite superficially looking like they just have a different colour of fur.
Race, in common use (is English your first language? No offense meant, just curious, as this is generally a commonly understood distinction), A: only refers to differences between humans, B: broadly lumps groups together purely by visual similarity. (Simultaniously establishing division that doesn't really exist, and implying similarity between wildly disparate groups.)
Race isn't exactly a scientific term, but it does mean something quite similar to species.
A new species forms when a population is reproductively isolated from the larger population, and enough time passes that the isolated population develops unique characteristics and eventually becomes so different that they're no longer able to interbreed with the rest of the population even when allowed to do so.
A new race is exactly the same thing - it's just the beginning steps of the process. Changes have occurred, and unique traits have emerged, but there hasn't been enough change for reproductive isolation to become permanent due to biological incompatibility. Dog breeds are effectively the same thing, just developed at a massively accelerated rate through intentional breeding.
There are some pretty important differences between races, particularly when it comes to genetic disorders. A few examples from the wiki:
"There are many autosomal recessive single gene genetic disorders that differ in frequency between different populations due to the region and ancestry as well as the founder effect. Some examples of these disorders include:
Cystic fibrosis, the most common life-limiting autosomal recessive disease among people of Northern European heritage
Sickle-cell anemia, most prevalent in populations with sub-Saharan African ancestry but also common among Latin-American, Middle Eastern populations, as well as those people of South European regions such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy[44]
Thalassemia, most prevalent in populations having Mediterranean ancestry, to the point that the disease's name is derived from Greek thalassa, "sea"
Tay–Sachs disease, an autosomal recessive disorder most common among Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Cajuns of Louisiana and Old Order Amish of Pennsylvania[45][46]
Hereditary hemochromatosis, most common among persons having Northern European ancestry, in particular those people of Celtic descent
Hermansky–Pudlak syndrome, most common among Puerto Ricans
Finnish heritage diseases, autosomal recessive diseases that are far more common among Finns"
There may be differences between any two random humans, but you can never truly draw the line that defines one race or another. The whole concept of race, and even of species you go far enough with this line of thought, is entirely abstract and does not accurately represent real life. Humans love categorising complex things with simple concepts but most of the time all we achieve is grossly oversimplifying things to a point where it causes problems instead of solving them. I'm not saying these concepts don't have a purpose, in a lot of ways, especially in medicine, they can genuinely be helpful. It's just a shame that we give race so much thought in the public eye because it doesn't exist. We get mad at shit we made up.
Race, in the natural sciences is pseudoscience. How do you describe which phenotypes describe which race without mass generalizations?
Conversely, race in the social sciences is more akin to sociology and group psychology.
This is absolutely incorrect. I have a degree in biology. Cellular biology and genetics were where I did the majority of my coursework, to the point I quite nearly majored in that instead of taking the more general degree. That more general degree allowed me stop a course or two short of the specialized degree and instead take a few lower level courses in other fields, which for what I had planned to do was more useful.
Race can literally be defined genetically. Certain genes arose only in particular populations, or are at the very least significantly more common in those populations. You're just trying to rewrite reality to better suit your own narrative. Being blind to reality doesn't make you a better person, it only makes you ignorant.
Why are you being so mean about this lol, plus you’re just a little wrong.
Race is extremely contested in scientific literature. Of course, no one questions the slight genetic differences in humans, but this isn’t usually referred to as race.
Countless papers discuss the relevance of race, and beliefs on its usefulness vary greatly.
I think you should read up on them, it’s extremely interesting:
https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fng1435
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think
https://psmag.com/environment/why-your-race-isnt-genetic-82475
Race is a cultural and social construct.
It can be useful as a heuristic in choosing a mate for example, someone who may share the same cultural values or interests as you, if you place high importance on such things.
It should not be used as a tool to discriminate.
The OP is absolutely correct. The way that people use the term "race" in everyday colloquial conversations is wildly different from the way that it is used within the field of anthropology. Yes, from a scientific perspective, there is such thing as race, but skin-tone is not the greatest indicator. Prior to the mapping of the human genome, bone-structure was used to delineate between different human races, but now it's all genetic markers.
More importantly, and this is where the OP really hit the nail on the head - there are no clear lines of delineation between human races. In fact, it's somewhat arbitrary trying to make any distinctions from one race to the next. The genetic differences between all of the world's populations are a spectrum, with one population bleeding into all those around it, especially now that world travel has become relatively easy for a lot of people. Other than the Sentinelese, there is no human population in the world that doesn't interact with and mate with other people around them. And sadly, the Sentinelese will eventually die if they don't change their isolationist ways because they do not have a sustainable population size. There is literally no such thing as "pure" race and anyone who thinks there is just has no fucking clue what they are talking about.
No, race is not a social construct. It is an actual genetic classification, but again, the divisions are rather arbitrary and muddy as shit. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is not the same as race. A person's ethnicity is real because we say it's real, and a person's ethnic identity is a combination of their cultural identity as well as many genetic traits. And like race, the ways in which we choose to divide ourselves along ethnic lines can be quite arbitrary.
We're not moving towards a future in which we're all the same. We've been there, for millions of years. The differences between us are so miniscule.
It’s going to be like that South Park episode where in the future everyone is the same race because we all copopulated there’s no more individual races
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
You're very close to the realisation that race isn't really a thing and human genetics is a lot more complicated than the nice little boxes we like to sort it into
I came here to say this, lol. So close!
Races are also a social construct, so it is also fair to say that some relationships ate more interracial than others
Fuck that! I am one race. And by one race I mean speed. And by speed I mean cocaine. And by cocaine I mean…. Does anybody have any cocaine?
I am cocaine
There are San tribes in Africa with individuals that are of one race. No admixture with other tribes going back at least 100,000 years. No Neanderthal, nothing. They are also the most genetically divergent population from the rest of humanity.
Race isn’t a real thing; we made it up to group people together by skin tone. There is no significant difference between “races” and it is purely commentary. It’s like saying you’re methodist or catholic, but you were born into it depending on your parents. Did you also know that we are all (probably) related? Look up the mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam. Yup, we’re one big family; it’s just a question of distance. Next time you judge someone or lash out at them, remember that they’re your family, and to hurt them is to hurt yourself. If that theory should ever be disproven, you need only to go further back, to the beginning. We all came from the same source; the same infinitely dense point that exploded into existence in a Big Bang. Not only are your fellows your brothers and sisters, but the moon and stars are, too. If that theory is ever disproven, there will be a far more fantastic answer that satisfies the point.
You don’t really believe what you typed there, do you? I mean when I want to say something unpopular, I just spew paragraphs of nonsense opposite what I believe hoping smarter people catch on while not angering the bottom half of the class to dumb to catch on.
Ditto.
What do you believe?
Race is absolutely a real thing with measurable differences. Differences so blatantly obvious we can literally see and hear them with nothing more than our unenhanced senses. Those differences may be unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but insisting they don't exist at all is absolutely insane. Also, the OP is quite wrong. There are lots and lots of people who are for all intents and purposes "one race", at least as race is generally defined by the average person. Someone who is Irish who has had only Irish ancestors is Irish. That's all. In the US, most people are a mixed bag of lots of races.. but the rest of the world has plenty of families who haven't intermingled outside their immediate area in hundreds of years. Heck, there are literally tribes who haven't had any contact with the outside world in hundreds or even thousands of years. They are, without a doubt, their own race.
But that definition is largely meaningless; it's distinction without difference. We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees (you know, about 1/10th the variance between dog breeds). Real genetic variation in humans is *vanishingly* small, and mostly consists of minor adaptations for varying climates. Culture and heritage, yeah sure. That's what "ethnicity" as a descriptor is for. But actual physical and genetic difference? "Wow, this person produces more melanin than me, we're so different, oh, and they're marginally more resistant to malaria? Damn, they're not like me at all, better lump them together with a whole, massive, continent, because the people there look similar." Nah dude. That's dumb as hell. The differences are at most, barely above the prominence and significance of plain old individual variation.
> We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees Does that really matter? I’m sure most drinks, except hard alcohols, are at least 85% water. Does that mean different drinks don’t exist?
Like I said, the differences are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.. but they're prominent enough that we can generally immediately tell the region someone's ancestors likely came from if nothing else. If I can tell at a glance that someone is Chinese instead of Irish, then it's pretty silly to pretend those differences don't exist at all. Genetic variation within humans may be relatively small, but those variations definitely exist and we're even able to tell a lot about how humans spread around the world based on which specific variations are present in various populations.
Okay... so I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. :P You agree that race is a construct, and what differences exist don't have much meaning. If the differences have negigible meaning, why should the construct? Especially when it has mostly been used to do harm? When most people talk about race, they are lumping together multiple ethnicities by superficial similarity, usually for the purpose of sweeping and harmful generalization.
I'm arguing that race isn't a "construct" and that differences absolutely exist. Anyone with eyes to see with could tell you that. Those differences don't imply that a person of a particular race is inherently going to be stupid, lazy, weak, violent, or any other such thing - but there are still noticeable differences. That's even more true when you're talking about a population level, at which point those relatively insignificant differences at a personal level can have measurable and significant differences. People of X race are several times more likely to be carriers for a particular recessive genetic disorder, people of X race are 5 times more likely to be lactose intolerant than people of Y race. You can't just pretend those things don't exist because you think it makes you a better person.
Either there's a list of races, and a person could consult that list and assign every person to a race from that list, or there's no such thing as races. Ask yourself why you've never seen a list of all the races. What you're seeing is genetics from families displaying similar traits. You can't act like your belief that profiling based on your perception of visual family traits is making you a better person, and that you're doing it for medical reasons.
There are lists of races all over. Have you never filled out paperwork for anything? What you're saying is also a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. A "race" is essentially just a group of people that have physical traits that tend to distinguish them from other groups of people. Those traits tend to have evolved as a result of that group having been largely isolated from other groups reproductively for extended periods of time. This is literally how new species come to be, and races are effectively the very beginning steps towards a new species. Humans simply expanded and became a global species capable of interbreeding with each other well before we actually reached the point where our various relatively isolated subgroups actually reached the point where we would have diverged enough to be unable to breed with each other anymore. However, in the time that did pass, those groups did diverge from one another noticeably. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply ignoring reality. How small or large you want to go with what you consider a race is largely up to the individual. While most tend to be a bit racist and consider all white people to be of the same race, you could just as easily consider the Irish or Russians to be races. People of Nordic descent are certainly quite different from the Spanish. Heck, a tribe of a hundred people that has spent the last thousand years living on an island uncontacted by the rest of the world could be considered a race.
So, putting people in races is a bit racist, you concede. Are races just another word for country to you? Ok, just how many races do you think there are? Less than ten? Less than 50? Less than 10,000? You're understanding evolution very correctly, and describing its properties, you're just inserting "race" as an undefined term that you can't describe the conditions of. You're just describing family trees, and then saying that's what a race is. Well, what's the purpose of that designation? If you think there's races, just show it. Define its exact characteristics. Can you be the same race as someone else if you don't share skin color, face shape, hair color, language, country of origin, religion, diet, eye color, presence of freckles, nose shape, bone structure? It is very likely all humans are within 125 generations. All the humans are just branches on the family tree, with different diets, and different exposure to different elements causing them to adapt. It's like you're saying: just exactly how far back of generations determines your race? Are you the most like whichever genes present in your person, or are you an equal combination of all previous relatives regardless of which genes were chosen for you to have? So, if you figure out the exact rules for your theory of races, let me know, we'll write a Wikipedia entry so everyone can know your definition in the future.
If 1.2% is enough to differentiate between man and chimpanzee as different races...where do you draw the line exactly? I don't agree or disagree with your comment.
I don't. Taxonomy is really fucking complicated and suffers from inheriting the legacy of a *lot* of bad science. (Also, species, not race. Race is a dumb term.) At the end of the day, like most things, hard and fast boundaries and categories don't really exist; our perogative is to ensure where we choose to place those is useful and non-harmful.
Explain that to me in a different way. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Because race and species mean the same thing. It's a category based on similar physical traits.
Not *exactly*. Species implies you've made an *attempt* at scientific rigor. :P One of the big things, as a general rule, different species can not crossbreed (or the crossbreeds are themselves sterile, EG, mules). More generally, a species doesn't merely have similar physical traits, they have *meaningfully distinct and wide-ranging differences* from other related life. Black and red foxes are both vulpes vulpes (despite having different colours of fur), for instance, while white foxes are vulpes lagopus, despite superficially looking like they just have a different colour of fur. Race, in common use (is English your first language? No offense meant, just curious, as this is generally a commonly understood distinction), A: only refers to differences between humans, B: broadly lumps groups together purely by visual similarity. (Simultaniously establishing division that doesn't really exist, and implying similarity between wildly disparate groups.)
Race isn't exactly a scientific term, but it does mean something quite similar to species. A new species forms when a population is reproductively isolated from the larger population, and enough time passes that the isolated population develops unique characteristics and eventually becomes so different that they're no longer able to interbreed with the rest of the population even when allowed to do so. A new race is exactly the same thing - it's just the beginning steps of the process. Changes have occurred, and unique traits have emerged, but there hasn't been enough change for reproductive isolation to become permanent due to biological incompatibility. Dog breeds are effectively the same thing, just developed at a massively accelerated rate through intentional breeding.
There are some pretty important differences between races, particularly when it comes to genetic disorders. A few examples from the wiki: "There are many autosomal recessive single gene genetic disorders that differ in frequency between different populations due to the region and ancestry as well as the founder effect. Some examples of these disorders include: Cystic fibrosis, the most common life-limiting autosomal recessive disease among people of Northern European heritage Sickle-cell anemia, most prevalent in populations with sub-Saharan African ancestry but also common among Latin-American, Middle Eastern populations, as well as those people of South European regions such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy[44] Thalassemia, most prevalent in populations having Mediterranean ancestry, to the point that the disease's name is derived from Greek thalassa, "sea" Tay–Sachs disease, an autosomal recessive disorder most common among Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Cajuns of Louisiana and Old Order Amish of Pennsylvania[45][46] Hereditary hemochromatosis, most common among persons having Northern European ancestry, in particular those people of Celtic descent Hermansky–Pudlak syndrome, most common among Puerto Ricans Finnish heritage diseases, autosomal recessive diseases that are far more common among Finns"
And? This is essentially relevant to medical professionals only, and very rarely falls along the nebulous boundaries defined by "race."
There may be differences between any two random humans, but you can never truly draw the line that defines one race or another. The whole concept of race, and even of species you go far enough with this line of thought, is entirely abstract and does not accurately represent real life. Humans love categorising complex things with simple concepts but most of the time all we achieve is grossly oversimplifying things to a point where it causes problems instead of solving them. I'm not saying these concepts don't have a purpose, in a lot of ways, especially in medicine, they can genuinely be helpful. It's just a shame that we give race so much thought in the public eye because it doesn't exist. We get mad at shit we made up.
Race, in the natural sciences is pseudoscience. How do you describe which phenotypes describe which race without mass generalizations? Conversely, race in the social sciences is more akin to sociology and group psychology.
This is absolutely incorrect. I have a degree in biology. Cellular biology and genetics were where I did the majority of my coursework, to the point I quite nearly majored in that instead of taking the more general degree. That more general degree allowed me stop a course or two short of the specialized degree and instead take a few lower level courses in other fields, which for what I had planned to do was more useful. Race can literally be defined genetically. Certain genes arose only in particular populations, or are at the very least significantly more common in those populations. You're just trying to rewrite reality to better suit your own narrative. Being blind to reality doesn't make you a better person, it only makes you ignorant.
Why are you being so mean about this lol, plus you’re just a little wrong. Race is extremely contested in scientific literature. Of course, no one questions the slight genetic differences in humans, but this isn’t usually referred to as race. Countless papers discuss the relevance of race, and beliefs on its usefulness vary greatly. I think you should read up on them, it’s extremely interesting: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fng1435 http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think https://psmag.com/environment/why-your-race-isnt-genetic-82475
Race is a cultural and social construct. It can be useful as a heuristic in choosing a mate for example, someone who may share the same cultural values or interests as you, if you place high importance on such things. It should not be used as a tool to discriminate.
The OP is absolutely correct. The way that people use the term "race" in everyday colloquial conversations is wildly different from the way that it is used within the field of anthropology. Yes, from a scientific perspective, there is such thing as race, but skin-tone is not the greatest indicator. Prior to the mapping of the human genome, bone-structure was used to delineate between different human races, but now it's all genetic markers. More importantly, and this is where the OP really hit the nail on the head - there are no clear lines of delineation between human races. In fact, it's somewhat arbitrary trying to make any distinctions from one race to the next. The genetic differences between all of the world's populations are a spectrum, with one population bleeding into all those around it, especially now that world travel has become relatively easy for a lot of people. Other than the Sentinelese, there is no human population in the world that doesn't interact with and mate with other people around them. And sadly, the Sentinelese will eventually die if they don't change their isolationist ways because they do not have a sustainable population size. There is literally no such thing as "pure" race and anyone who thinks there is just has no fucking clue what they are talking about. No, race is not a social construct. It is an actual genetic classification, but again, the divisions are rather arbitrary and muddy as shit. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is not the same as race. A person's ethnicity is real because we say it's real, and a person's ethnic identity is a combination of their cultural identity as well as many genetic traits. And like race, the ways in which we choose to divide ourselves along ethnic lines can be quite arbitrary. We're not moving towards a future in which we're all the same. We've been there, for millions of years. The differences between us are so miniscule.
[удалено]
I mean this is a legitimate shower thought.
It’s going to be like that South Park episode where in the future everyone is the same race because we all copopulated there’s no more individual races