why would i want to unite with everyone else when its their difference that creates a lifestyle that is less preferable for me to live through? @Deleted User

This presumes common ancestry groups a priori operate for the interest of common ancestry instead of other factors, such as national identity or individual preference.

dunno

With the great success of humanity i dont think our main goal is to reproduce due to the lack of dangers. Out main goal is to work and do what makes us happy.

Reducing it to evolution or biology seems very reductive, since we don't need to work that way in the modern world.

@Irish Princess that would just be covered by kin selection

Sure, but selection is geographic. It's rare in human evolutionary history that we specifically chose someone over another due to 'common ancestry' variables. It's who we're around. If we move, we select people there, regardless of ancestry.

i say we still do as people like me have to live with those whose difference negatively impact us

yeah eactly

to @Irish Princess

I hate the average person because I find them intolerable, but I do not want to reject them from existing near me. Guess it's just a difference of opinion.

thats not universally true when we look at the history of international affairs @Irish Princess

ahh random, i see youve fallen back to it

many times over that hasnt been the case where we would pick those further from us due to common interests

using precedent for most of your argument

but concerning the individual

there are those likely to simply prefer whose within their vicinity but it isnt that simple

because when given the choice to pick whose within their vicinity most pick their own race or a perceived upper class race like white

S ... Sure. I'm saying we can easily track human population variation and distribution genetically and it isn't uniform. Only very isolated places have uniform genetic distributions. This *indicates* that geography was more of a decider than, say, ancestry or preference of in-group; we tend to mate with those we live around rather than making an active decision of preference for a specific denominator.

we dont need uniformity

When it comes to something like race and iq, culture / social factors accounts for arround 80% of the problem. That means race only accounts for about 20% of the issue. Therefore i think ethnic nationalists need to look a bit more at the full picture despite them making some good points.

hey @crocodile plate wanna see my gpa

just that theyre closers to us in a way thats more comfortable to live in

We don't need homogeneity, either. You just don't like strange people.

bring on the homogenity

no i can tolerate strange people

i can tolerate Indians easily as well as those from Bangladesh @Irish Princess

What did the "paki" do to deserve death?

there are just some people who are more preferable than others

wow. youre racist

Its not about deserve. They have the ethnic markers that are inferior traits to me

....

r u 4 real rn?

?

As I said before, there's studies that showcase both increases and decreases in cohesion and trust when accounting for diversity of populations, hence why I'm iffy on this topic. Certainly Putnam's study of social hunkering is the most critical and enlightening in terms of the trust reduction, but even that was a very small effect size.

So we have to be careful when making claims.

you cant even sit beside someone?

cuz theyre paki?

So does someone more intelligent than you have the right to kill you? As they have better traits than yourself.

really?

oh god whenever someone references the Putnam study