So does Sup Forums have an explanation as to why genetic diversity is beneficial to every species BUT humans?

So does Sup Forums have an explanation as to why genetic diversity is beneficial to every species BUT humans?

There are genetic differences and then there are different species.

White person 110 IQ
+
Black person 60 IQ
=
Mulatto 85 IQ

If that was the case we wouldn't be able to mate. Even if our bodies could produce offspring we still wouldn't mate with other races unless forced to do so.

There is little selective pressure left on humans.

Genetic diversity works when there is a system in place that constantly prune out the unfit. Human is no longer part of this cycle. I don't actually care about this issue though, breed with whoever you want, none of my business. Not everyone on Sup Forums is a white supremacist.

The sick, weak or deformed animals rarely have the opportunity to mate.

In humans we support said defective people and they're allowed to pass on their inferior genes.

spbp
holy shit Sven

I have no doubt race mixing is an improvement for niggers as the child is likely to have an iq 20 points higher than its nigger parent but it certainly isn't an improvement for the white parent as the child will have an iq 20 points lower than it would have otherwise.

Those other species told you it's beneficial or you just assume it is because they survived?

Gb2 T_D, cuck

Maybe society itself puts enough pressure to justify mixing with others. Isn't that what non-white women are accused of doing when they mate with whites? (muh goldiggers)
>The sick, weak or deformed animals rarely have the opportunity to mate.

if you are referring to non whites, there has been millions of them since before they came in contact with whites. Also, during slavery whites actually wanted non-whites to reproduce to have more labor to work with. Your claim is BS.

Mixing blood types cause the mixed offspring to have a sharp increase in the rejection rate of blood, bone marrow, and organ transplants. They will die. Plenty good, scientific reason.
Now, prove why it's a positive.

Keeping all the races separate = genetic diversity you dumb fuck.

>mix 1 high IQ parent with a low IQ 1
>the result is an average between the two
If you factor in regression to the mean, you should see why keeping human subspecies has its advantages

Mixing everyone together will destroy true genetic diversity. Pure sub species with certain characteristic adaptations will disappear are the population will be far more homogenised.

>genetic diversity=/= racialmixing

>racemixing is genetic diversity
Stop this stupid myth, genetic diversity is caused by accumulated mutations due to geographical isolation.

Genetic diversity is indeed beneficial, but the current policies (globalization, multiculturalism) act towards reducing overall human diversity, not towards increasing it.

Furthermore, the people who promote these policies claim not to believe in genetic diversity, only in some nonsensical abstract diversity. Don't you find that really weird?

>So does Sup Forums have an explanation as to why genetic diversity is beneficial to every species BUT humans?

genetic diversity beyond a certain point is neutral, who cares stuff. every human race has enough diversity in itself to be safe from bad genetic drifting. there are extreme cases of not enough genetic diversity, certain ashkenazi jewish sects come to mind, but otherwise any human race would be ok without other races.

>genetic diversity
>racemixing
pick one and only one op

> genetic diversity is beneficial to every species

Ever heard of the french bulldog?
Only got a breathing problem all it's fucking life, on some it even looks like the eyes are about to pop out anytime soon.
The race should get purged

>beneficial
Mixing with st bernards genes is not beneficial for a hunting dog that relies on speed. Civilization is dysgenic through many factors like the survivors of wars being the worms that avoid service while the strong fighting men die. Germanics and Nordics were recently barbarians while Semites have been degenerating in civilization for almost 10k years. If you want a physically fit child breed it from barbarian stock.

Because we have technology and governments (and sympathy)...

Humans have created technology that ameliorates unhelpful differences. Humans give resources through governments and charities to lazy democrats (i.e., humans that have unhelpful traits). Therefore, unhelpful traits receive no negative results in many situations.

Interesting question, OP. Way to add some class to this joint.

>black person
>person

I think you are heavily misguided here. Most people on Sup Forums don't think we shouldn't racemix, we are mostly afraid that whites will become a minority in their own countries and their culture becomes reduced to a cult. We are mostly butthurt about the SJW agenda being pushed and all white being synonym of bad

Genetic diversity means having a healthy and sufficiently large population of deer. It doesn't mean breeding a 430 lb UP Whitetail with a Florida Key Deer.

forgot to post sexy pic

What does diversity add other than food, music and a few other cultural aspects?

And even then, with the Internet and all, those cultural aspects can be easily replicated.

This "diversity" thing assumes that all blacks, Hispanics, and Asians act alike, therefore we have to mix and match by race? It's not diverse unless it's among a set of dimensions?

...

kawaii desu ne?

Subspecies.

Th reason why is that human subspecies evolved to perform best in different environments.
You mix these subspecies and you lose these specialisations e.g. mulattos:
>less vitamin D in northern latitudes
>less melanin UV protection near the equator

because god didn't make us in such a way that race mixing would be good for us

That would actually mean that if you were, say, a white person and invaded a tropical region, it would be better for your offspring to mix with natives. Sure, they wouldn't be as resistant to the climate as natives, but they would be more than you and their offspring can improve that resistance even further.

Same thing if a non-white settles in a cold weather, it would be better for their offspring to be a mix between natives and him.

I see you ignored the second post about IQ, why is that?

Europe alone is enough diversity.

Genetic variation just makes different genes, some being fit, others not so fit. Fit ones live and reproduce, not fit die. In humans, not fit people get to live and reproduce.
>Mixing fit people and not fit people doesn't pass on good genes.

Because of evolution wanted that. Being violent, stupid and dark skinned seems to be a better option in Africa. In Europe is being smart, creative and bright skinned the better strategy to survive the long winter.
Who we are to say that hundreds of thousands years of evolution are wrong and we should mix everything beck ito the status, before one part of homo sapiens has leaved Africa?

IQ outside of retardation is not that important for survival, and I have average IQ anyways. I'm pretty sure anyone can identify at first sight people with mental retardation and avoid them.

>take good-looking white person and ugly black person (all blacks are ugly)
>they have a baby that's uglier than the white person but looks better than the ugly black person
>"HERE'S PROOF THAT RACE MIXING IS GOOD!"
Yes. As long as the person who gave birth is was black.

I'm just here for the pics.

Indeed it's easy, on hand of skin color. More melanin, smaller frontal lobe more retardation.

Look at it this way: When breeding dogs you obviously want to breed dogs of the same breed but avoid incest aka have genetic diversity. But you wouldnt want to breed (at least if you want a good dog) e.g. a german shepard with a french bulldog because the former is superior in every way to the other.

Guess what the jew is trying? Let the Schäferhund breed with fucking french bulldogs

It was important for Jewish survival. In either case, having a higher IQ is a benefit, being below average/part black is a detriment

>IQ is not important for survival
How stupid are you? IQ is one of the three big things that give humans an advantage over animals, the other two being opposable thumbs and high endurance. If your only argument for mixing with subhumans is "lol who cares about IQ" then you've already lost.

>IQ outside of retardation is not that important for survival

This statement embodies the difference in outlook between eugenicists and miscegenists. Eugenicists are concerned with increasing human excellence and miscegenists are concerned with increasing the number of humans.

Rabbits and wolves. Classic r versus K selection strategies.

No you wouldn't.
The traits that your mixed children inherit might be a bit more suited for their environment, but not enough that it's certainly better.
In addition, they are probably less suited for the culture and society you create.

It would be better in some cases, just not for the native in most

It's beneficial for strains of corn and inbred dog breeds. No evidence of it being beneficial for humans.

Genetic distinction between subspecies is good, it makes the species, as a whole, more resilient to defects, diseases, and environmental changes that might otherwise wipe out the entire species instead of just smaller, genetically distinct populations.

Limited cross-breeding is good and introduces new sequences into the population, but widespread cross-breeding between populations removes genetic distinction as the differences between populations become indistinguishable.

>Diversity as in diverse groups of distinct people
>Blending all races into one brown mulatto underclass for the Jew to rule over

Pick one.

Because of white power