4 ms·

In the long run all that matters is demographics.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thriftwy 9y ago
Nope. In the long run all that matters is culture. Small community may thrive. Community that was absorbed by different culture, no matter how large, is no longer yours.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Not if your culture doesn’t have children.
  - panic 9y ago
    It has more to do with where you're raised than who your parents are. Second-generation immigrants often have wildly different culture than their parents.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    Not a single one? I guess you can survive a few generations on fertility of 1.4.
    - usrusr 9y ago
      And as a bonus, all members of the next generation will inevitable be children to that subset of the culture who did breed. Bouncing back would be easy, particularly if the low birthrate is more a wild mix of family sizes than a uniform one child per family system.
- Red_Tarsius 9y ago
  > In the long run all that matters is culture. Genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure. If you move 1M Mexicans in Tokyo, their offspring will not act like Japanese people do, regardless of the environment. They would exhibit different behavioral and voting patterns.
  - panic 9y ago
    That's not because of their genetics; it's because of a tendency for groups of people to reproduce their culture. If a family in Mexico City adopted a baby from Tokyo, the kid would become a part of Mexican culture, to the extent that the Mexican culture accepts people who don't look Mexican. They would not be a part of Japanese culture.
    - Banthum 9y ago
      It's both. Large groups of people carry characteristic sets of genes which drive behavioral patterns, as well as culture which also drives behavioral patterns. On a large scale, the differences between Japanese and Mexicans are driven by cultural and genetic differences. The degree, balance, and nature of those differences is complex and up for debate, of course. But to state that Japanese and Mexicans have no distinguishing behavior-driving genes at all even in the slightest degree is basically the left-wing version of young-Earth creationism.
      - panic 9y ago
        Of course there are genes that affect behavior. I just don't think they're a major factor given how easily the children of immigrants can assimilate into cultures that are willing to accept them.
      - jholman 9y ago
        Do we have any evidence at all that any of the behaviour differences between populations are genetic? I'm not well-educated in this area, but I'm aware of no such evidence. Educate me? As far as I can tell (again, in my relative ignorance), the assertion that "genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure" is just as foolish and unsupported as the claim that you dismissed.
        MichaelGG 9y ago
        I'm honestly curious in why you think it's likely there are no genetic differences. Everyone accepts physical attributes, most people accept the brain is responsible for consciousness and personality and is a physical object. Would it not be completey bizarre if there were zero differences in the one most complex organ we do not understand? Would you argue that no group of people are taller? Or could run faster? Or perhaps have varying levels of visual acuity? What would cause such differences to suddenly just completely stop because it's related to the brain? http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Nope. In the long run all that matters is culture. Small community may thrive. Community that was absorbed by different culture, no matter how large, is no longer yours.

danieltillett 9y ago
Not if your culture doesn’t have children.
- panic 9y ago
  It has more to do with where you're raised than who your parents are. Second-generation immigrants often have wildly different culture than their parents.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  Not a single one? I guess you can survive a few generations on fertility of 1.4.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    And as a bonus, all members of the next generation will inevitable be children to that subset of the culture who did breed. Bouncing back would be easy, particularly if the low birthrate is more a wild mix of family sizes than a uniform one child per family system.
Red_Tarsius 9y ago
> In the long run all that matters is culture. Genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure. If you move 1M Mexicans in Tokyo, their offspring will not act like Japanese people do, regardless of the environment. They would exhibit different behavioral and voting patterns.
- panic 9y ago
  That's not because of their genetics; it's because of a tendency for groups of people to reproduce their culture. If a family in Mexico City adopted a baby from Tokyo, the kid would become a part of Mexican culture, to the extent that the Mexican culture accepts people who don't look Mexican. They would not be a part of Japanese culture.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    It's both. Large groups of people carry characteristic sets of genes which drive behavioral patterns, as well as culture which also drives behavioral patterns. On a large scale, the differences between Japanese and Mexicans are driven by cultural and genetic differences. The degree, balance, and nature of those differences is complex and up for debate, of course. But to state that Japanese and Mexicans have no distinguishing behavior-driving genes at all even in the slightest degree is basically the left-wing version of young-Earth creationism.
    - panic 9y ago
      Of course there are genes that affect behavior. I just don't think they're a major factor given how easily the children of immigrants can assimilate into cultures that are willing to accept them.
    - jholman 9y ago
      Do we have any evidence at all that any of the behaviour differences between populations are genetic? I'm not well-educated in this area, but I'm aware of no such evidence. Educate me? As far as I can tell (again, in my relative ignorance), the assertion that "genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure" is just as foolish and unsupported as the claim that you dismissed.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        I'm honestly curious in why you think it's likely there are no genetic differences. Everyone accepts physical attributes, most people accept the brain is responsible for consciousness and personality and is a physical object. Would it not be completey bizarre if there were zero differences in the one most complex organ we do not understand? Would you argue that no group of people are taller? Or could run faster? Or perhaps have varying levels of visual acuity? What would cause such differences to suddenly just completely stop because it's related to the brain? http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract