I already dealt with the alleged hypocrisy in the other thread, but also logically, this is a red herring. It's like saying that we should cut all social servi

I already dealt with the alleged hypocrisy in the other thread, but also logically, this is a red herring. It's like saying that we should cut all social services because everyone thinks they should be paying less tax. On trade, the most valuable trade is within Europe and East Asia, and yet East Asian immigration is relatively small. The amount of immigration that is truly needed for trade is very small. On genetics, I never claimed that it is objectively better to preserve particular ethnic groups. In fact, I don't think evolution implies anything about how things should be. However, your claim about how important genetic diversity is for overall success, strikes me as either untestable or wrong. How can you explain the success of the very un-diverse Scandinavia? Or if you can explain this away, how is your claim testable, and therefore backed up by fact. If you want to base your claim on some general theory, what about how plant and animal breeders maintain specific breeds instead of mixing them all together? EDIT: there is a time limit placed on replies, to slow the discussion down the deeper the thread gets. This is intended to cool the tone of the discussion and prevent flame wars. If you repost your edit as a reply, I will reply to it when I can.