Could we see the end of racism in our lifetimes?

It seems almost inevitable to me that large swathes of non-white populations will be able to pass as white if CRISPR ever gets perfected. Phenotype mainly consists of two things:

1) Pigmentation - We know that pigmentation is not ancestry; it is simply correlated with it. Therefore, anyone can theoretically be any color while maintaining 99.99% of their genetic selves; only the alleles associated with pigmentation would be different.

2) Facial morphology - Off the top of my head, it seems that almost every, if not every region in the world has at least some individuals that fall into the "European" zone of facial morphology. This is particularly true for regions from W.Eurasia (MENA, India, and parts of east Africa/central Asia).

Conservative estimate, people would be able to become "close to white". Even if a complete transformation of all pigment alleles is not possible, we still know of only a handful of alleles that control a disproportionate amount, sometimes the vast majority, of pigmentation: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785344/

Something similar happens with skin tone, where two genes make the difference between the blackest black and a medium-skinned Arab.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.phys.org/news/2017-05-crispr-gene-hundreds-unintended-mutations.html
doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003.
qrg.northwestern.edu/software/cogsketch/
mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2017/01/making-ai-systems-see-the-world-as-humans-do.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Whites are becoming the minority, and if everyone actually was white, we'd still find reasons to hate each other.

A related graphic I have saved: What we see is that morphological distance is nowhere near as great, or even consistent, as genetic distance.

That is to say, ancestry is not immediately obvious by gauging the "average" facial features. And shared morphology (appearance) does not necessitate shared ancestry, even for ethnicity-wide averages.

Intra-European diversity is extremely high, with the distance between Icelanders and Greeks being nearly as high as that between Danes and Congolese!

>Pigmentation is not hereditary
And we all came from Africa too.

Europeans are a minority in the world population.

Also, genetic diversity, or specific alleles can't magically disappear from the gene pool unless EVERYONE with those traits died instantly.

Look up why the 'red heads will go extinct' concept is retarded.

edited pic. Red ellipse encircles Europe (and parts of MENA), while the green lines are of the same length (going from Iceland-Greece and Denmark-Congo)

Sure, but pigmentation is only one trait that high selective pressure.

>inb4 cold weather makes you a genius

forgot to post pic

I'm pretty sure that guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Learning how not to freeze to death requires a bit of intelligence.

Humans already knew how to make clothes long before they left Africa.

Of course he has no idea what he's talking about.. this is your typical Sup Forums race bait thread.

I don't think so. Racism will persist.

Europeans are part Neanderthal. So no, not all our ancestors came from Africa.

All humans have some amount of neanderthal DNA, except for some regions of Africa.

>All humans
Sub-saharans have 0% Neanderthal DNA.

Yes... all humans, except for some regions of Africa... can you not read?

Europeans have a higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA than any other people.

People with some European ancestry, yes.

Not that neanderthal DNA does anything for you

>inb4 neanderthal DNA makes you super smart and super strong!

Neanderthal DNA correlates with higher intelligence.

...

Where are all the African nobel prize winners?

Where's your Nobel prize?

Every European and Asian who has ever won a nobel prize.

>making it personal that quickly

kek

>I'm a brainlet who tries to take credit for other peoples' works

If race doesn't exist why does most of africa have an average iq 70. Even students at the best African universities have an average iq of 85, which makes sense considering the average iq of university students is one standard deviation above the mean.

I think the main cause of racism is people's experiences and not what people look like. I grew up in a rural area and never even experienced racism until I started getting exposed to other races.
> Went to high school where the only only exposure to aboriginals was being kicked in the back when playing footy, and having the drunk ones ask me for money on the street.
> Got exposed to Indians and tht they were dishonest and always full of shit. I didn't even know anything abt Indians and then everyone else started saying the same thing when I said my experience.
I was not born racist but became one through experiences. It doesn't mean I hate Indians, one of my best friends is Australian born Indian. It just means I judge Indian born Indians based on my previous experience the same way I judge everything based on my previous experience. If everyone who I interact with from a certain race has the same personality traits then I will judge people from that race that way, but can easily change my judgement when I start talking to them.

Everyone having the same skin colour will not change racism.

Well if we can get gene therapy to work we could make people fucking green.

Unfortunately CRISPR has been found to cause lots of mutations:
m.phys.org/news/2017-05-crispr-gene-hundreds-unintended-mutations.html

The hype is over

lets blame all white people for slavery

The only people talking about blame and guilt for those kind of things are the one who want to bring it back, because they know they are in the wrong

>Everyone having the same skin colour will not change racism.

You contradicted your own point.

Assuming that anti-social behavior is more prevalent in certain races (probably is, but the tendency of majority groups to overestimate it is probably high too), everyone looking the same would necessarily eliminate racism.

That's literally the definition of race (to 99.9% of people in the real world, excluding population geneticists and autistic internet dwellers)

Not that bad, desu. It's still a very valuable tool for animals, bacteria, etc gene editing, it's just not human rated yet. For instance, using it to gene drive weaker mosquitoes, even if it targets lots of other loci, it'll still work if you alter a large amount of them so that different mosquitoes mutate different parts of the DNA.

It'll need dramatic improvement until it can be safely used in humans, though, since 1500 unintended mutations would be very bad. When this number drops to 150 well predicted mutations, then we could just see which parts are the bad ones and repair those again.

Hotel Rwanda. Niggers nigg. It's not in the skin colour, it's in the mind and culture. As long as people remain uneducated chimps, they will find something else to chimp out about. Now, if you can make the appearance changes sufficiently different and diverse so no one could make a big enough tribe to attack the others, that may work.

>"These predictive algorithms seem to do a good job when CRISPR is performed in cells or tissues in a dish, but whole genome sequencing has not been employed to look for all off-target effects in living animals,"

>Dr. Bassuk says the researchers didn't notice anything obviously wrong with their animals.

So, nothing wrong in living CRISPR'd mice, and good reliability anyway when editing cells/tissues (such as in the hypothetical case of an in vitro baby). How is the hype over again?

Not to mention it's literally what, 3 year old technology?

racism is a special kind of chimping out, whereby decisions are made mostly based on things the individual has no control over.

We all know how stupid and fucked up people are in general. Human race isn't scientific to begin with, it's a dumb social construct over some extremely minor genetic variations.

As long as there are people or anything human-like in intelligence in the future, especially people who think some are better than others because of stupid shit, there will always be racism.

Why are you posting black guy - white woman cuck images rather than actual racial harmony? You know races include indians, russians, asians and lots of others too right?

That is a bunch of debunked baseless dogshit spewed out by some psychologist named Richard Lynn.

If he didn't remove all the Africans who scored well and if he accounted for most of the continent starving too much to give a fuck about the tests, his results might be good.

Right, but not all differences are equally noticeable.

Race is a particularly salient factor, because pigmentation is very salient. Moreso skin than eye/hair, but all nonetheless.

For example, most Jews can pass as white, or at least southern European. Outside of faggots on the internet, nobody really hates Jewish people when they look at them--they may do so when they find out that they're Jewish, but this is ultimately something that is chosen to be disclosed.

I don't see why we truly need everyone to have the same pigmination, it's not like that particular trait effects things like intelligence and stuff.

Only cuckservative brainlets think that Black people aren't entitled to any white woman as compensation for American Slavery and European Colonialism. Anyone with an IQ greater than 110 knows the Europeans are directly responsible for the deaths of 99% of Native Americans and for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

lol

Jews aren't a race. Everybody hates their racist greedy culture so they are all individually hated. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Speak for yourself Racist, the only greedy culture people hates are American white people and over zealous Europeans.

Could have been an ok bait if you didn't exaggerate the bullshit out of it.

>Europeans are directly responsible for the deaths of 99% of Native Americans

You say that like it was a tragedy.

Do you think anyone gives a shit about the rain of misinformation you disgusting racist pedophiles trying to spread? Go back to Israel to calling innocent children terrorists so you can kill more palestineans.

fpbp

Look at the white supremacists and laugh, go back to le Sup Forums. Everyone knows that. /sci/ is for c̶u̶c̶k̶s̶ educated individuals only, your hate has no support in science!

It's not working chaim. Everbody still hates you :(

>he doesnt let other men fuck his gf

I bet you didn't even graduate from College you fucking child.

I graduated from collage, stanford even the straight white male club. come fite my privilege bitch

Masters from MIT and The University of Phoenix in African American Studies, graduated from the LGBTQIACOMPTIA+ Alliance. You're outmatched shitlord.

Mind giving some sources supporting this bullshit statement of yours?

Not him but here you go.

It's actually comedic how dishonest Lynn is. Pic related. Greatest predictor of a study being considered valid by Lynn: the IQ of the sample. If it's too high, he deems it clearly unrepresentative and discards it so it doesn't skew his results away from the ones he's aiming for.

Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, January–February 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003.
>Discarded a 96 IQ sample because it's from "a fee-paying school", but kept 59 and 72 samples even though they were also from "fee-paying schools".
>Used IQ samples of Senegalese children suffering from malaria.
>Accepted samples from a Sudanese test where children who had never used a pencil before averaged a 50 IQ on the "draw a man" IQ test. The same children averaged 94 on the portions of the test that don't involve use of a pencil.

The bullshit doesn't stop there. Lynn did a study of Japanese IQ and came up with an average of 111. Then based a bunch of papers on this supposed Japanese superiority.

Harold Stevenson and Hiroshi Azuma, “IQ in Japan and the United States,” Nature, Vol. 306 (November 17, 1983), pp. 291–292.

Turns out all his Japanese samples were the children of well-off parents from major metropolitan areas. The skewed sample was then compared to the average (and more representative) American IQ.

>this bullshit statement
You have the mind of a child. Run along back to Sup Forums now.

Just in case it wasn't clear, those were just a few examples out of many. Consistently, low IQ samples were accepted despite being their source studies being obviously flawed, and high IQ samples were rejected on grounds for which similar low IQ samples were not. The statistical analysis in the study already linked shows the clear correlation between sample mean IQ and inclusion in Lynn's data. He is a eugenicist shill. If you piggots want to prove something you should probably take the more scientific genetic angle and stop referencing massaged, stilted, and largely debunked "social science" data.

That was made in R

half of Sup Forums BTFO in a single post?

>Including all the samples raises mean IQ from 69 to 75

Thats still retard tier tough

Is this supposed to make us ignore how niggers are the dumbest race on this planet cause half the crimes out there even though they're a minority?

considering they're starving it's quite interesting they're got IQ so close to whites

everyone growing up in a rural area is like you.

I don't blame all whites but
you support slavery and would do it again so why shouldn't I blame you?

Black people are responsible for their african warlords selling their own people to the europeans. Nobody hears your cries for slavery because it's just childish and it's asking for free money & opportunities that you don't deserve.

Not only did Africans support slavery, slavery still exists in Africa today, so blame yourselves first.

What's it like to not even be able to read?
>We systematically reviewed the literature of IQ testing of Africans and found that the average IQ of Africans in terms of British norms after correction for the Flynn Effect is 80.

>yeah ok, but 80 is still retarded!
Ask yourself they feel the need to game the data, if that was the case?

Figure out what "in terms of British norms" means.

No, it's supposed to make you ignore Lynn and his bullshit "studies". You're just changing the subject.

The eugenicist position is that crime in black communities is due to an innate tendency towards violence (a "warrior" gene), independent of IQ. Of course, if you insist on linking IQ and crime rate, we can discuss that as well, starting with an analysis of Irish and Italian immigrant crime in inner cities. I'm sure you'll learn a lot.

You shouldn't blame (or credit) a person for something he hasn't personally done. Nor can you say with any certainty what a person "would do again" given the chance. Logically, it's no different from hypothetical claims like "all men rape given the chance" or "all blacks steal given the chance".

Yes, I know they always want to appropriate the achievements of people that never knew them because muh heritage. Yes, I know the only thing they bother to learn about various artistic and scientific achievements is the race of the inventor. But still, be fair.

so racist scientists have been discarding high black IQ because they're not supposed to be smart?
WHO ARE THE JEWS NOW Sup Forums?

sure that's fair.
But if they claim themselves as being related to every white nobel prize winner they should also be related to every racist.

Could we see the niggers pushed back in the Africa in our lifetimes?


Negro is worth nothing

pol are jews to blacks as jews are jews to white people

even if that happens people will still debate if one's white enough.
See Sup Forums:
germans? all turks now
finns? They are chinks man
>slavs >white
southern europe might as well be congolese
etc.

don't dodge the question

"white nationalist" is a common childish boogeyman because it doesn't exist as a threat to anyone in the real life. People are afraid of beheading ISIS cockroaches and HIV infested rapist niggers so they can't just go around criticize them.
This is exactly why libtards are a laughing stock of the society since they can only attack what doesn't hit them back and try to claim some backwards morals while completely ignoring real threats. I'm glad America and UK is right-leaning lately so they can kick out these hypocrites to get raped and die in the cesspools they are trying to endorse.

>everyone does slavery
>europeans keep doing it
>eventually, europeans are the ONLY ONES IN THE WHOLE WORLD to say "hey man this is kinda fucked up... we should stop slavery"
>200 years later nonwhites blame whites for slavery despite slavery still existing and widespread in africa and also africans being responsible for the slaveroy of other africans in the first place

nonsense.

>mean goes from 60 to 85
wowitsfuckingnothing.jpg

I knew Flynn was full of shit since blacks are dumb but not THAT dumb and that pic only confirms it.
Blacks still subhuman, Shlomo. Sorry.

do you think you could go back to making your smutty interracial porn you filthy fucking kike.

>>everyone does slavery
>>europeans keep doing it
>europeans are the only ones that have evidence of it
>europeans are the only ones that have benefited from it
>europeans have museums full of stolen loot
Be a little more fair.

the european mean is around 90.
Why are blacks so close to it despite being poor, low tech and starved?

>It's bullshit that black africans have low mean IQ !! look at these samples that were excluded!

>with the samples included the mean IQ is still only 75

hahaha liberals are so dogmatic and desperate to cling to the idea that all races must have the same average IQ that they'll grab on to evidence that refutes their world view and ignore that it refutes their world view.

>the european mean is 90
according to a quick search in google no it's not. The minimum IQ of an euro country is 91 (i'm obviously not counting turkroachs).
Minimum can't be the average, so try again or provide a source.

Anyway not only africa living conditions aren't as bad as you might think but also the shitholes in Europe having an IQ sub 95 are slav countries previously under communist government are probably closer to actual african conditions than you'd believe.

So why are shitholes in Europe around 6 to 10 points higher than african highest scores (that would be from countries with better living conditions similar to slav countries) despite similar living conditions?

>despite similar living conditions
I call bullshit. As a european.
You're insulting slav countries with that

>even if that happens people will still debate if one's white enough.
>See Sup Forums:

The majority of well adjusted adults do not browse Sup Forums, so that's not really of any consequence.

And even if they did, they wouldn't be able to discriminate against people without sequencing the DNA of every single person they come across.

>So why are shitholes in Europe around 6 to 10 points higher than african highest scores (that would be from countries with better living conditions similar to slav countries) despite similar living conditions?
Cite the studies of these European "shitholes"

Nope, racism will never end, the only thing that will end are those lunatics from Europe who think people are all the same, I say they deserve it for being so delusional and idealistic honestly.

Here is what will happen:
Mexicans will either kill or enslave the blacks in America

Muslims will enslave blacks in Europe.

Asians will one day kill everyone and leave this planet with only asians.

>with the samples included the mean IQ is still only 75
False. Like typical Sup Forumscucks you only look at the pretty picture, have zero understanding of the science, and you certainly don't actually read the cited article (too many words?). The IQ must be corrected for Flynn Effect and also renormed if possible (tip: it's not).

>they'll deperately cling to the idea that races must have the same average IQ
Strawman. I never said that. I was responding only to the request for evidence that Lynn is full of shit. And I think I settled that matter pretty well.

>being so retarded you can't even read the chart correctly
85 isn't even a number here. See (You)

At last this race will finally become real

Flynn Effect is bullshit.

Jews are absolute proof IQ is all about genetics not culture.

Actually it was 89, in Serbia.

>the shitholes in Europe having an IQ sub 95 are slav countries

Nope. Ireland (and likely Scotland as well) tops out at anywhere from 87 to 92 IQ. This IQ is representative of the 1970s to present day.

Of course, there ARE causative relations betwen certain races and average IQ.

There are ALSO causative relations between different white ethnicities and IQ/achievement.

The fact is that white nationalists make up stupid bullshit all the time, and 90% of it is outright wrong, or terribly exaggerated. The black IQ thing is simply terribly exaggerated.

They are also extremely averse to exploring paradigms that have some factual basis, but don't paint whites as uniformly superior, and as inferior.

A short list of white nationalist bullshit:

- Asians have lower IQs at the ends of the curve (they don't, they have higher ones)

- European genetics are inherently suited to creating modernity (it's not, 80% of European invention was done by 30% of the populace, Japan also tops most Euro countries today and for the last century)

- Ancient Greeks were light pigmented "Aryans" who got Africanized/Turkified to look like they do present day (genetic studies prove this wrong)

- The R haplogroup spread from Europe (it spread from Asia/India)

- The Indo-europeans were white and spread light hair/eyes (they were uniformly dark, with skin on par with MENA people)

- The IEs were genetically identical to native Europeans (they were not, and the genetic distance between IEs and the native Europeans they conquered was actually LARGER than that between starkly different racial groups today)

- Light pigmented tribes of Pakistan/North India are "lost Europeans" (they're genetically as far from Europeans as Indians are, and actually have completely Indian Y DNA and European mtDNA)

- Same tribes are descended from Alexander the great (not even remotely close, they completely lack Greek specific haplogroups)

etc

Indo-Euros are pale skinned but not WHITE PEOPLE.

Genetic engineering will result in the biggest racism gap ever. Those with access will basically be unto gods, living among filthy apes. You can bet they won't want to breed with anything lesser.

Racial favoritism will never go away, not even if 'white people' went extinct or all races blended together into one homogenous global race. Humans have hardcoded instictive preference for their own physical appearance. When people deviate from this it's because they've been subjected to some form of propaganda and it leads to mental problems.

Holy shit are you astral projecting?

I am astounded that someone from a culture where shitting in the street is acceptable could create a list that is nowhere near representative of any sort of thought except for discredited nonsense from 80 years ago.

The social sciences generally discard anything past 40-50 years as being out of date.

Just saying.

>non-white populations will be able to pass as white if CRISPR ever gets perfected. Phenotype mainly consists of two things:
>pigment
>face
Go wew lad over at pol next time idiot

They weren't pale skinned originally, unless you consider the average MENA person to be pale.

>he thinks I'm a street shitter

lel

How realistic is it that race will be something people could just select on a screen for designer babies?

>a list that is nowhere near representative of any sort of thought except for discredited nonsense from 80 years ago.

apparently you've never been on Sup Forums because at least half of his list is just standard fare.

I don't think it's realistic at all. Unless the tech is sophisticated enough to qualify as magic the parents' looks will still have the most influence.

>Flynn Effect is bullshit.
It is directly observable and really not even up for dispute. Even your right-wing eugenicist shills admit its existence, and try to "correct" for it.

>Jews are absolute proof IQ is all about genetics
According to whose studies? Citation please.

>not culture.
Up until now I've used arguments based only on facts, but this time I'll make one based partially on facts and partially on logic:

The AI CogSketch is a Lisp script that can recognition hand-drawn sketches as well as perform the "sketching" task itself (i.e. "draw a dog")
qrg.northwestern.edu/software/cogsketch/

This AI's functionality was adapted to try to learn patterns in Raven's Progressive Matrices, one of the most popular IQ tests:
mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2017/01/making-ai-systems-see-the-world-as-humans-do.html

>“The model performs in the 75th percentile for American adults, making it better than average,” said Northwestern Engineering’s Ken Forbus. “The problems that are hard for people are also hard for the model, providing additional evidence that its operation is capturing some important properties of human cognition.”
>the 75th percentile
This means the measured IQ of any computer running CogSketch can be raised to approximately 120. Yet your PC has no innate intelligence -- it is merely an electrical circuit. This is evidence that a culture of learning and preparation, with the inclination and means to provide learning materials to its children from young ages, can "game" the current battery of IQ tests.

Not the poster you've been talking to, but the logic you're employing here doesn't make any sense.
>This means the measured IQ of any computer running CogSketch can be raised to approximately 120. Yet your PC has no innate intelligence -- it is merely an electrical circuit. This is evidence that a culture of learning and preparation, with the inclination and means to provide learning materials to its children from young ages, can "game" the current battery of IQ tests.
You can't possibly be serious. The PC has a network of sophisticated circuitry. A lesser PC wouldn't be able to run the program at all. What do you think people mean when talking about innate intelligence? That babies are born smart? No. People are saying that some babies are born with a higher capacity to learn than others.

>The IQ must be corrected for Flynn Effect and also renormed if possible (tip: it's not).

You can do all that and it rises to around 85. This usual IQ gap of 10-15 points persistently remains, and thats the part that may very well be genetic.