Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
  • About
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Submissions
9K Likes
16K Followers
Areo
Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
Facebook 9K Likes
Twitter 16K Followers
  • Science & Tech

Why There Will Not Be a Beige Future: Skin Color, Genetics, Race and Racism

  • November 28, 2018
  • 4 comments
  • 6 minute read
  • Razib Khan
Total
65
Shares
65
0
0

There is more in heaven and earth than can be dreamt of in any human philosophy. This is why science is not philosophy. Those who map the skies, observe the patterns of a school of fish or dissect molecular processes are well aware of this. We scientists wander dark and strange lands, and encounter startling landscapes and creatures beyond our wildest imaginations.

Only within the last few centuries have we come to realize that the great bowl of the dark night sky is filled with suns of a power and spectacle that we can’t even recreate in our mind’s eye. The ancient constellation of Orion contains bright blue Rigel and resplendent crimson Betelgeuse. In biology, microscopes have given our eyes access to a world previously unknown to us. The water bear, the tardigrade, is a beast of such profound strangeness that we perceive in its essence something deeply alien, as if it were from another realm altogether, and not just part of a world below our conventional acuity of perception.

And yet one hundred and fifty years ago Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution, which was predicated on the fact that all life on this planet shares a common descent: from fish to fowl, to the great beech tree and the lowliest pond scum. And, yes, humanity and the tardigrade as well.

Like many of Darwin’s insights, this has been proven by modern molecular biology in a way that he could not have anticipated. By and large, living beings on this planet carry within them strands of molecules which we call DNA, and those strands in their form, function and structure exhibit similarities and differences which perfectly recapitulate the tree of life that Darwin envisaged. His understanding of the world is written in our very genes.

And yet Darwin did not understand genes. That was the discovery of a Moravian monk named Gregor Mendel. Around the time Darwin was expounding the theory of evolution, Mendel was experimenting with the breeding of peas, and inferring from them that inheritance exhibited precise and systematic patterns of transmission from parent to offspring: his laws of segregation and independent assortment. Every generation, genetic variation reassembles itself in equal parts from each parent, as genetic variants mix and match in dizzying arrays, some resembling those of previous generations, and others startlingly new.

This was something Darwin, and many early evolutionary biologists, did not grasp. And that was very unfortunate, because Mendelian inheritance held the key to resolving a major problem for the theory of adaptation through natural selection: this process required heritable genetic variation and pre-Mendelian theories were either deeply wrong about the details, or they made predictions which would have meant that all of that variation would have disappeared within a few generations.

Mendelian genetics is one of those systems of understanding our world that is at once simple and elegant, and yet counterintuitive. The average human, using common sense philosophy, observes that the offspring of two parents are a mix of the characteristics of the parents. This is correct as far as it goes, but from this many assume that characteristics are being blended together. This is not what is occurring. Rather, configurations of genes lead to the characteristics. Genes are discrete units of heredity: they do not blend, but preserve a full range of potential variation from generation to generation. Variation does not disappear because the genes do not disappear. They rearrange.

Scientists are humans who live in the world, so sometimes novel and peculiar systems of analyzing facts and patterns can inform seemingly unrelated matters. Consider racial prejudice and discrimination.

I am a brown-skinned human being who lives in the United States of America. I know a bit about racial prejudice and discrimination from personal experience. My ancestors hail from the northeastern corner of the Indian subcontinent. My wife is of Northern European heritage. My children are mixed. This is just a small fragment of a broader dynamic the world over. Though the vast majority of people marry others who look and think like them, enough do not that one can imagine a future generation down the line, in which all lineages are interrelated.

The implication that many people make from this is that racism may disappear because racial distinctions of appearance will disappear. As people mix their genes, their physical characteristics will melt away into a uniform beige whole, as distinct human races become one human race.

And yet this common sense intuition is profoundly wrong. People of mixed racial heritage are not predictable mixes of their parents’ appearances, but express a range of looks. Additionally, as people of very different ancestry intermarry, combinations of physical characteristics unlikely to be found in most people today may become more common. Imagine someone with richly-curled blond hair, deep olive skin and almond-shaped, pale blue eyes set above high cheekbones. There is nothing genetically impossible about such a set of features as per Mendel’s law of independent assortment. They are simply rare today because of the happenstance of history and demography.

Looking forward into time, the science of genetics tells us that the full range of human physical expression will still exist, even if the fractions change, because the underlying genetic variation will persist. Some people will be such that we recognize them as white, or black or Asian. Many more will be unrecognizable combinations thereof. Science tells that the beige future will never arrive, because there are no genes for beigeness. Beige is simply one expression of genetic variation among many.

And curiously, ancient DNA looking backward in time has shown that the past was quite like what the future may be. Many peoples that we consider unique, distinct and primal are in fact genetically novel—the product of great mixings is tribes and nations long gone. Northern Europeans, the native peoples of the New World and South Asians are all the consequences of ancient mixings between profoundly different peoples.

Our intuitions about race are in many ways imperfectly related to the genetic realities from which they emerge. And those intuitions are embedded in the social histories of our cultures. In the United States one hundred years ago, segregation was a fact of law, and there were black Americans and white Americans. Today, it is not a fact of law—and there are black Americans and white Americans. There was no scientific difference between then and now. There has been a historical and moral process of change and development.

The dream of the beige future obviates the need to emphasize the moral and ethical aspect of the way we organize societies—in both its urgency and its difficulty. The dream is that science and the march of history will magically make the problems of racism disappear because racial distinction will disappear. The fact is that the genetics does not suggest any such thing. And the human tendency toward faction is likely deeply hardwired. Even if external physical appearance in complexion and mien was homogenized, other cues of dress and manner might become hooks for human groupishness.

Science and society are different. The dreams of science do not shape the character of society, but they inform the choices we make, and constrain the possible spaces of action. Society comes from nature, but in a deep pragmatic way it is not of it. Our human model of moral conscience can be guided by science, but ultimately it stands on its own two feet. The material stars above may inspire and inform us, but they do not guide us.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:
Total
65
Shares
Share 65
Tweet 0
Pin it 0
Related Topics
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Genetics
  • Race
Razib Khan

Razib Khan is a geneticist who works in the private sector. He writes the blog Gene Expression. https://www.gnxp.com

Previous Article
  • Features
  • Science & Tech

Alice Dreger’s Middle Finger: Sex, Gender and Unhelpful Hair-Splitting

  • November 26, 2018
  • Cody Moser
View Post
Next Article
  • Culture & Media
  • Politics

Manchester City, Abraham Lincoln & True Sublime Heroism

  • November 29, 2018
  • Daniel Brooks
View Post
You May Also Like
View Post
  • Science & Tech

Health and Justice: Neoliberalism, Apps and the Limits of Individual Choice

  • December 11, 2019
  • Tina Sikka
View Post
  • Features
  • Psychology
  • Science & Tech

The Uses and Abuses of the Human Sciences

  • December 3, 2019
  • Galen Watts
View Post
  • Science & Tech

People and the Cosmos: Constructor Theory

  • November 25, 2019
  • Logan Chipkin
View Post
  • Science & Tech

Are Student Evaluations of Teaching Biased Against Professors?

  • November 15, 2019
  • Christopher Ferguson
View Post
  • Features
  • Science & Tech

Mother Nature Is Not Maternal

  • October 16, 2019
  • Callen Inman
View Post
  • Politics
  • Science & Tech

The Word for World is Forest: An Ode to Aarey

  • October 15, 2019
  • Iona Italia
View Post
  • Science & Tech

Why Antitrust Laws Reduce Competitiveness

  • October 7, 2019
  • Jean Vilbert
View Post
  • Science & Tech

The Future of Democracy in the AI Era

  • October 3, 2019
  • Sukhayl Niyazov
4 comments
  1. Hategraphs 📊 (@hategraphs_hg) says:
    December 7, 2018 at 2:22 pm

    Your Mendelian argument only works for small numbers of genetic loci. Just do the math. As the number of loci increases, the probability of a hybrid resembling one of the original genotypes approaches zero.

    Suppose the original “pure” individuals differ at N loci and mating is random. Their descendants many generations hence will have an average of N/2 variants from each side, with a standard deviation of sqrt(N/4). So for N=100, we have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 5. This means you need a 6-sigma event (P80% similarity to one of the original “pure” individuals.

    Extremely polygenic traits don’t behave like Mendelian traits. And *most* human traits are extremely polygenic (N>>100).

    3
    Reply
    1. Anonymous says:
      December 11, 2018 at 6:38 pm

      However skin color and most of the “racial” external markers are not extremely polygenic traits…

      Reply
  2. Ono says:
    December 3, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    Razib Khan writes in a poetic way which is a pleasing way to learn or take in viewpoints.

    1
    1
    Reply
  3. Pingback: Open Thread, 10/2/2018 – Gene Expression

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read by Topic
Academia Alt-Right Art Conservatism Culture Democracy Donald Trump Economics Education Environmentalism Evolutionary Psychology Feature Feminism Freedom of Expression Free Expression Free Speech Gender Higher Education History Human Nature Human Rights Identity Politics Immigration Intersectionality Islam Islamism Letter Liberalism Media Mental Health Philosophy Political Correctness Political Polarization Politics Postmodernism Psychology Race Racism Regressive Left Religion Science Social Justice Social Media Terrorism Women's Rights
New to Areo
  • How Individualism and Social Constructivism Can Be Reconciled: Part 2
  • Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
  • Health and Justice: Neoliberalism, Apps and the Limits of Individual Choice
  • Threats to Free Speech at University, and How to Deal with Them—Part 1
  • Come on B_by, Light My Fire: Challenges to Critical Thinking in Higher Education
  • How Individualism and Social Constructivism Can Be Reconciled: Part 1
  • The Generational Divide and the Death of Dialectic
  • Australia: No Country for Celebrity Entitlement
Join the Discussion
  • Ray Andrews on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Ray Andrews on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Ray Andrews on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Ray Andrews on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
Read by Category
  • Areo Magazine
  • Battle of Ideas
  • Culture & Media
  • Features
  • From Under
  • Letter from the Editor
  • Philosophy
  • Politics
  • Psychology
  • Report
  • Review
  • Science & Tech
  • Uncategorized
  • What We're Reading
  • What's in the Works
Read from our Vault
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
AreoMagazine.com uses cookies. To find out more, as well as how to remove or block these, see here: Our Policy
Areo
  • About
  • Submissions
2016– 2019 © Areo Magazine

Input your search keywords and press Enter.