"I am Tiger Woods."

[EGarrett]

All the languages of the Earth were not created at one pivotal event at Babel, but rather are in fact in constant change, warping and evolving. Moreover, were Asians and Africans and Europeans and North and South Americans all gathered in one place, their interbreeding would have created a generic human "mutt", for lack of a better term, and this general look would have spread across the planet.

This post, (under "What modern intelligence of the world..." in Religion) got me to thinking. This WILL happen at some point.

So...how long should it be before human horniness and interbreeding turns us all into this man? And will this be a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Beerina]

Meh, genetic engineering will allow the tailoring of your child, and eventually of your own body, to far more radical designs long, long before modern jet airplanes engender the "muttification" of modern humans. Stuff that makes comic book babes (or even more exaggerated, e.g. "Heavy Metal" magazine/movie, you know "You have brought peace to my restless boh-dee") look as formless as Janet Reno.

 

[Darat]

Er - aren't we all already "mutts"? After all what are the "pure" lines of humans? My phenotype would seem to show that there are "Nordic", "Anglo" and "Celtic" in my ancestry so I am already a complete mutt.

I am also curious as to what the "mutt" really would be? Why would the mutt look anything like Tiger Woods?

 

[Phil]

This post, (under "What modern intelligence of the world..." in Religion) got me to thinking. This WILL happen at some point.

. . .

So...how long should it be before human horniness and interbreeding turns us all into this man? And will this be a good thing or a bad thing?

What kind of fears and insecurities do you harbor that you concern yourself with such insignificant ideas?

 

[Piscivore]

With cosmetic treatments, surgeries, and hair dyes, we already have that sort of thing going on. Only the result is Pam Anderson/Nicole Ritche/Anna Nicole Smith/ad Nauseum.

Tiger Woods is a lot better looking than my fat pasty a**. Sounds like a move up for most of the people I see around me as well.

 

[EGarrett]

What kind of fears and insecurities do you harbor that you concern yourself with such insignificant ideas?

An intense fear of being the subject of useless ad hominem attacks when I'm trying to start a discussion.

 

[hgc]

I don't quite truck with the premise.

Why would one think that we'll look like Tiger Woods?

Why would one think that physical variety will be reduced with greater cross-cultural breeding?

Why would one think that cross-cultural breeding is going to increase significantly? People will largely always gravitate toward their own kind, naturally, I think.

 

[Phil]

An intense fear of being the subject of useless ad hominem attacks when I'm trying to start a discussion.

Well I suspected there was fear in there somewhere.

Sorry you think this is an attack. I am truly interested in why you would concern yourself with such tripe.

There's no evidence that inter-racial breeding on the scale you suggest will necessarily take place. And even if it were to happen, so what? It won't mark the end of human existence. It won't create any vacuum in space. It won't affect the price of beer. It won't have any affect on anything except to cause biggots a lot of heartache a priori.

The only thing I can think for why you would post such absurd questions is you harbor fear that your own race will die out, or that you harbor anger that not everyone cares enough about their race to keep it within the family, so to speak.

So I'm asking seriously: Why would you concern yourself with this at all?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This post, (under "What modern intelligence of the world..." in Religion) got me to thinking. This WILL happen at some point.

So...how long should it be before human horniness and interbreeding turns us all into this man? And will this be a good thing or a bad thing?

He's filthy rich, perhaps the greatest golfer of all time, and married to a smoking hot Swedish babe.

I think it would be a good thing. How soon can we get started?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

After all what are the "pure" lines of humans?

White supremecists?

 

[Manny]

So I'm asking seriously: Why would you concern yourself with this at all?

In fairness, under a hypothesized world-wide interbreeding which resulted in the end of the sociological concept of "race" we'd have to make up something new to fight about.

 

[Darat]

Presumably our golfing handicaps?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Presumably our golfing handicaps?

My golf handicap is my swing.

 

[Piscivore]

My golf handicap is the whole "being outdoors" thing.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't quite truck with the premise.

Why would one think that we'll look like Tiger Woods?

Because he's a mixture of black, white and asian.

Why would one think that physical variety will be reduced with greater cross-cultural breeding?

Initially it should be increased, but if you mix it up enough you would eventually come up with something uniform that's just a mixture of everything.

Like if you took a tub of water and spilled red, blue and yellow pigment into different spots, as the pigments spread, you would see areas of purple, green and orange, for a much greater diversity. Then if you took a spoon and just stirred it all up, you'd get just a uniform brown for everything.

Why would one think that cross-cultural breeding is going to increase significantly? People will largely always gravitate toward their own kind, naturally, I think.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that people are actually attracted to different types, that there is an evolutionary drive to increase biodiversity.

In any case, it's a no-brainer to assume that with increased travel will also come increased opportunity for genetic mixing.

 

[punchdrunk]

So I'm asking seriously: Why would you concern yourself with this at all?

If submitter believes we will all eventually look like Tiger Woods, perhaps he's concerned that the loss of all the things that make people different would be a bad thing in general. At first glance, I could agree; I like having different shaped and colored and sized people in the world. But I think we are many generations away from this type of "cross-breeding", if at all. And the OP ignores the fact that there are other more substantial differences between people than their physical traits, which I guess is what we should be focusing on in the first place.

 

[drkitten]

Initially it should be increased, but if you mix it up enough you would eventually come up with something uniform that's just a mixture of everything.

Um, no. Genetics doesn't work that way. There's this little discrete unit called the "gene" that can't be arbitrarily mixed. Otherwise everyone in the world by now would have one ovary and one testicle.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that people are actually attracted to different types, that there is an evolutionary drive to increase biodiversity.

I believe the opposite is pretty firmly established -- look up "assortative mating." In particular, humans have been well-documented in showing evidence of assortative mating in almost any trait you care to study. I'll be happy to provide citations if you want to get into the debate-by-pubmed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Rather than theorize about the future, why not look at the present? We've had quite a long history so far, and more than one current culture is the product of millenia of intermixing of ethnic groups and races. China springs to mind as an excellent example.

 

[jj]

What kind of fears and insecurities do you harbor that you concern yourself with such insignificant ideas?

Could you explain this question? It seems quite rude to me. I've made the same observation that we're headed toward a more uniform world, racially, and wondered what the social and economic repercussions would be.

Your question, in that light, is both presumptive and insulting. You owe us clear evidence of "fears and insecurities", as well as evidence that the issue is "insignificant". If you can't come up with that evidence, then you really ought to apologize for a really bad job of mind-reading.

 

[jj]

Well I suspected there was fear in there somewhere.

Sorry you think this is an attack. I am truly interested in why you would concern yourself with such tripe.

Given the annals of human history, it is profoundly ignorant to regard the end of racial boundaries as "tripe".

There's no evidence that inter-racial breeding on the scale you suggest will necessarily take place.

Really? You have, then, I gather, not looked at the data on mixed race marriages lately? Sorry, chap, but in fact interracial marriages are becoming a lot more common in a lot of places.

And even if it were to happen, so what?

You know, I'm starting to think you're afraid of this issue. Are you?

Racial discrimination, as bad as it is (and no, I'm not supporting it at all when I say this) is presently one of the big sociological things that makes our world what it is.

If that issue disappears, that will be a fundamental change. Will it be replaced by something else, or will something more basic happen?

It won't mark the end of human existence.

Straw man. Nobody's suggested otherwise.

It won't create any vacuum in space.

Straw man. Also, define "vacuum". By many definitions, much of space is a hard vacuum.

It won't affect the price of beer.

Straw man.

It won't have any affect on anything except to cause biggots a lot of heartache a priori.

Both a straw man and an unsupported claim. Please show us how you know that this will cause bigots any heartache at all. In fact, one of the interesting questions involved is "what will people who have to act like that use as their criterion". Again, I'm not supporting their behavior, but I am observing that some people seem to have this particular tribal view of things as perhaps even an innate construction.

The only thing I can think for why you would post such absurd questions is you harbor fear that your own race will die out, or that you harbor anger that not everyone cares enough about their race to keep it within the family, so to speak.

And now a lot more unsupported, completely wild conjecture. Please explain why you see fit to make appalling accusations, with no support or evidence for them whatsoever, simply because someone asked an interesting, non-trivial question that is supported by present marriage and childbearing statistics, at least in the 1st world.

So I'm asking seriously: Why would you concern yourself with this at all?

No, you're building straw man after straw man, building an edifice of your own to burn down around your opponent, making claims counter to the current first-world statistics, and then ascribing insulting motivations to your opponent without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Yeah. I have to ask.

Why does this bother you so much?