I was just pointing out that "race" simply determines different varieties within a species, often emerged through geographical isolation, and can be seen in many species besides humans, though we do not tend to call those "races" so much as "varieties" and even "subspecies". The latter of which, if applied to people, would be an interpretational minefield, assuming of course that the human races had diverged enough to be called such. Such diversion is quickly deteriorating with modern travel, now that few populaions are truly geogaphically isolated.
I just think it is interesting the way we attempt to preserve the subspecies or other organisms, but only the worst people in the world are interested in doing the same to people. And I am very much opposed to that sort of attitude, I just think it is an interesting insight into he values we place on humanity. Clearly concerns about discrimination feature heavily, and free will (the freedom to choose a partner of a different race to reproduce with, for example). Evolution is what made the races appear, the early onset of speciation, but that is being reversed by our ability to globally integrate.
Again, what I find interesting is the way we as conservationists are horrified to see that occur in the animal and plant kingdoms, as part of the loss of diversity that the current mass extinction brings, but we have the total opposite attitude when it comes to humans. And the reason is that we ourselves are human.
Clearly this is a speciesist attitude, with the unusual quality of probably being a good one. Says the self-admitted speciesist. It is very difficult to look at objectively when you are as intimately involved with the issue, as all Homo sapiens are.
__________________
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
|