aussieAryan's going to revert back to being a criminal worth sending to a penal colony if we don't pressure him, it's in his genetic nature I'm sure

Race is a good metric to measure a nation's exposure.

A nation with alot of races = a nation that is very accepting of other races.

A nation with more homogenity is one that is more traditional.

But not every nation exists in a vaccum.

And people will always fall back to the teachings of their ancestors.

Or what they recall from their own collective identity.

The only way this experiment can work is if we somehow manage to create a completely sealed off environment

Put in some clones. Not even actual babies.

Governence is how the eliet of the society run it. Europeans evolved in Europe for thousands of years while Africans evolved in Africa, Asians in Asia, ect. These enivronment are every different from one another, Europe and north east Asia have harsh winters which selected for genes regarding intelligence because if people weren't smart enough to prepare for the winter they wold die which wasn't a problem in Africa. This lead to whites and Asians being smart enough to create and maintain civilization. I can't say for sure why Asians tend to be more autocratic but their relative isolation lead to them creating their own different types of societies like how isolated peoples tend to create different languages after enough time.

They became isolationist very quickl

It was only before that they were sailing out looking for trading partners.

And another when they decided to search again.

It was the ideas of the emperor that changed. How does the genetics affect that?

This relative isolation lead to different societes and those different socites lead to those different peoples having differen forms of government which worked for them.

Autocraatic? Then how does that explain the mongols?

They also were very good at spreading their seed, and assimilating other nations.

I told you I don't know why Asians are more autocratic I gess their environment required it.

How about the zulus in africa?

They assimilated them in the sort term. After the Mongols fell their ideas and culture were replaced by others.

They were able to wage war against technologically superior enemies

Because of the death of a leader.

And lost what is your point? @Deleted User

Same with rome

Genes don't determine ability, is what i'm saying

Khan's strategic prowess did not pass down to his sons.

How about Babur and the Mughals?

Yes the Romans were a genetic population on the ethnic level and once the Italians lost alot of that blood they weren't as successful anymore.

They took over delhi, and the rest of north india, while being technologically primitive and numerically smaller

Or because they relied too much on conquest and were running out of land to give to their millitary that wasnt being thinned out by war.

And replacing them with less disciplined barbarians that were paid the same despite being less disciplined which led to the downfall of quality.

Or the death of Julius Ceaser that led to the leaders squabbling over who should be his successor.

Once the Babure and Mughals lost control they didn't have much cultural influce that stayed because they didn't leave a large genetic legacy.

To be honest, I feel like I am having a very good discussion here.

But you know what?

How would be go about testing this?

Assuming we have infinite resources at our disposal

Sure.

This would be more fun to theorize

So heres the thing, youd need some genetic stock from a sizable population.

Divided by race?