Is segregation a human condition?

[danfromwaterloo]

Ever notice that it seems like segregation in fundamental to the nature of humanity?

We seem to take great pleasure in illustrating the differences between ourselves in somewhat large groups. For example, when in groups, we often segregate ourselves into racial distinctions, then, once that group gets significantly big, we divide ourselves into class groupings. Once that distinction gets significantly large, we divide ourselves yet again into a "cool" crowd, and an "uncool" crowd. It seems that humanity itself cannot be content in a group of sufficently like-minded individuals. There's always one more distinction that we can seperate each other on: sex, sexual preference, wealth, health, popularity, intelligence, etc.

While this is absolutely nothing new to anybody who's actually stopped to think about this, something dawned on me a few days ago. Maybe this is the evolutionary mechanism for propagating evolution. Maybe we're psychologically induced into segregating ourselves in order to provide competition between difference races of the species. When we were monkeys, at some point a chunk of our species evolved some new trait. Perhaps they segregated themselves based on this new trait. This allowed the interbreeding to concentrate the mutation, and in the end provide competiton between the old species and the new, allowing one to dominate. Maybe this psychological habit of forming little subdivisions based on one thing or another is actually an instrument of evolution?

Thoughts?

[asim99]

human condition is to be afraid of the unknown or lesser known...hence birds of a feather flock together

[CodecX81]

Sure, I can see segregation as the Modern day survival of the fittest. The ones that are given a better upbringinging separate themselves from the latter, leaving them to either evolve themselves so they can bring their offspring up with a better place... or just stagnate and become trailer park trash.

With the "upper&middle class" society successfully being fulfilled, they take on roles to further distinguish themselves from the rest.

e.g.
Used to be, if you did not eat meat, you were simply vegetarian. Simple.

Person 1: "I don't eat meat, I am vegetarian"
Person 2: "eat only vegetables and raw foods, I am vegan"
Person 3: "I do not eat animals, but I still eat eggs and chesse, I am lacto-ovo"

Does it need to have these degrees? Probably not. But to use the wrong phrase on the wrong type of person could result in a very angry herbivore.

Same could probably be said about sexuality now as well.

Ever notice that it seems like segregation in fundamental to the nature of humanity?

We seem to take great pleasure in illustrating the differences between ourselves in somewhat large groups. For example, when in groups, we often segregate ourselves into racial distinctions, then, once that group gets significantly big, we divide ourselves into class groupings. Once that distinction gets significantly large, we divide ourselves yet again into a "cool" crowd, and an "uncool" crowd. It seems that humanity itself cannot be content in a group of sufficently like-minded individuals. There's always one more distinction that we can seperate each other on: sex, sexual preference, wealth, health, popularity, intelligence, etc.

While this is absolutely nothing new to anybody who's actually stopped to think about this, something dawned on me a few days ago. Maybe this is the evolutionary mechanism for propagating evolution. Maybe we're psychologically induced into segregating ourselves in order to provide competition between difference races of the species. When we were monkeys, at some point a chunk of our species evolved some new trait. Perhaps they segregated themselves based on this new trait. This allowed the interbreeding to concentrate the mutation, and in the end provide competiton between the old species and the new, allowing one to dominate. Maybe this psychological habit of forming little subdivisions based on one thing or another is actually an instrument of evolution?

Thoughts?

[danfromwaterloo]

Sure, I can see segregation as the Modern day survival of the fittest. The ones that are given a better upbringinging separate themselves from the latter, leaving them to either evolve themselves so they can bring their offspring up with a better place... or just stagnate and become trailer park trash.

But you're making the distinction on class. I'm saying that you can notice this segregatory (is that a word?) behaviour in even the smallest groups. We isolate people we don't want to be around based on the most arbitrary conditions. This can be emphatically seen in children. Remember how, if you didn't have the coolest gizmo or gatchet or jeans or hypercolour t-shirt, you were an outcast? While our distinctions become a little more esoteric when we age, we still basically do the same thing. I wonder if maybe this isn't really a character flaw but an evolutionary instinct?


e.g.
Used to be, if you did not eat meat, you were simply vegetarian. Simple.

Person 1: "I don't eat meat, I am vegetarian"
Person 2: "eat only vegetables and raw foods, I am vegan"
Person 3: "I do not eat animals, but I still eat eggs and chesse, I am lacto-ovo"

Does it need to have these degrees? Probably not. But to use the wrong phrase on the wrong type of person could result in a very angry herbivore.

Same could probably be said about sexuality now as well.

It used to be that the distinction was simply made from religion. I mean, in the early days of the Middle Ages, you were Christian or you were Evil. Then they broke it down by class, with the opulent knights, lords, and kings. Then, they broke it down by country. Then further, by area. Etc.

You know that Star Trekkian future where every human just gets along? I don't EVER see that happening because it contravenes this basic human priniciple of cutting down society into "us" and "them" groups.

[Jessica April]

Yes because human beings are stupid idiots.

They try to find the differences in "other" people because they are too afraid to look for similarities.

[FastFokker]

I think you've got something Dan, but I just wouldn't call it segregation.

[danfromwaterloo]

I think you've got something Dan, but I just wouldn't call it segregation.

Segregation is the only word I could think of. We self-impose boundaries on our groups based on arbitrary (and often STUPID) criteria. Its not solely racism, classism, sexism, prejudice, or any of those because its far larger than that.

[Jessica April]

Segregation is the only word I could think of. We self-impose boundaries on our groups based on arbitrary (and often STUPID) criteria. Its not solely racism, classism, sexism, prejudice, or any of those because its far larger than that.


Like I said, Human Beings are stupid idiots who feel the need to feel superior to others by excluding others.

There is no Ying/Yang in most human beings. Humans suck.

[FastFokker]

Like I said, Human Beings are stupid idiots who feel the need to feel superior to others by excluding others.

There is no Ying/Yang in most human beings. Humans suck.I would disagree, unless you're just speaking of yourself, in which case I can't disagree because I don't know you.

[Tiberius]

I agree that "segregation" probably isn't the perfect word for it - but the point is interesting.

I actually think that the argument about this causing evolution and the apparant focus on "improvement" of the species was interesting. I would argue that it does result in evolution - but not necessarily improvement (just because one sub-set may improve - the rest may actually stagnate or take steps backwards - in the times of kings and queens, the bloodlines actually were flawed and the flaws magnified over the years so that - in the words of the crocodile hunter ;) - they could easier "bleed out and die" :lol:

The "best" genetic scenerio seems to be if you cross-breed different groups (cultures, etc.). Taking the most diverse DNA and crossing it seems to produce the most diverse offspring and results in new, substantially more unique genetic combinations.

There will always be natural forces that cause people to feel more comfortable with some people than with others - but I believe this doesn't get us ahead as a species but instead by giving in to these forces we hinder our species. The various "groups" eventually are so entrenched in their beliefs/mindset/culture that they don't really understand other beliefs/mindsets/cultures and it leads to confrontation. Anyone heard of Hitler before? ;)

[CodecX81]

Segregation is the only word I could think of. We self-impose boundaries on our groups based on arbitrary (and often STUPID) criteria. Its not solely racism, classism, sexism, prejudice, or any of those because its far larger than that.

Alright, minus the titles I gave to it, the ideas the same. I was just basing it on observances of when I was growing up. a kid would not be judged on whether or not they had a style or a gadget.. They'd be based on where they lived and in some cases, how clean they were.

backstory: My town had 4 public schools, the town split into 4 quadrants, each quadrant had a diverse neighbourhood in it.

Case in point..
My primary public school was situated around town housing on the North and West sides of it. Needless to say, mine was for the most part--ghettos. I lived 2 blocks away, but in the easternly direction, so it was an actual neighbourhood.


Two subjects
Boy "P" and boy "R" both lived in the same project, both came from single parent households and both parents worked, were able to provide their kids with more or less the same luxuries as the rest of us.

"R"'s mom was somewhat of an alcholic, hit him a lot, but she'd make up for it by buying him everything... Neo Geo, Genesis, snowboarding stuff when it was in effect. Dispite this, none of us (Our group of 15) ever went to his house. Never went to his birthdays and he was never invited to ours.

Same situation with Boy "P". but his dad never hit him, he was just going through a divorce so cheap housing was the most effective, "P" still had a nintendo, snowboard gear..He lived behind the school in the projects, therefore he was different.

.... until one day...

He moved a block away from me. just a single block East. Otherside of the school basically. And as such, he was accepted in our group. That was the only criteria really. Not like we ever held grudges against anyone, we just favoured for "???" reasons. He had a birthday in grade 6, and we all went. To do a flowchart of how the hierarchy of friends worked in publicschool would be an undertaking, but I think i might do it if i ever got bored. I encourage you danfromwaterloo, to do something similiar. It might help you shed some light on your question.

I classified myself as "friends with everyone but at the same time, not"
I was more or less happy to observe, I had a couple friends throughout the whole thing, but I kept my distance. I still do keep distance. I've kept all but 2 people from my hometown close to me. One being my fiancee. :P

[Tiberius]

Like I said, Human Beings are stupid idiots who feel the need to feel superior to others by excluding others.

There is no Ying/Yang in most human beings. Humans suck.

It is base, primal, and closed-minded thinking like this that causes people to "segregate" themselves. (closed-minded in the sense that it leaves no wiggle room - it is concrete, closed-off thinking that leaves no room for variation or... hope... hmmmm... so maybe you are right... ;) )

Humans are driven by fundamental forces that drive them to seek out a community of others who will make them feel accepted, valued, and comfortable. In addition, humans feel a need to find "purpose" in their life. Without purpose, life can be... well.. unbearable! :| People find this purpose and comfort in things like religion, etc. Once you have found your "purpose" (your reason for living)... you are easily manipulated by that "purpose"... if the church tells you what to think/believe/do... you follow along... even if it means going to war with another group of people, etc.

Luckily, some people see past this and overcome the natural tendency to seek out easy, comfortable, and... closed-minded? community. They recognize that all cultures and people have something of value to offer and they try to foster co-operation and peace amongst everyone. The problem is they are swimming against the natural tide of "human nature".... but as a species, we have to do this and succeed or we will destroy ourselves.

In which case... human beings would prove to be stupid idiots who suck... :twisted:

[danfromwaterloo]

I agree that "segregation" probably isn't the perfect word for it - but the point is interesting.

I actually think that the argument about this causing evolution and the apparant focus on "improvement" of the species was interesting. I would argue that it does result in evolution - but not necessarily improvement (just because one sub-set may improve - the rest may actually stagnate or take steps backwards - in the times of kings and queens, the bloodlines actually were flawed and the flaws magnified over the years so that - in the words of the crocodile hunter ;) - they could easier "bleed out and die" :lol:

Oh, at no point did I mean to infer that this grouping phenomenon actually results in a beneficial improvement...instead, it just provides for competition. Here's an example: we're all monkeys. We go through a few years of genetic mutation, and some of us have tails and some of us don't. We segregate ourselves based on those who have tails, and those who don't. As a result, the genetic pool with these mututations increase, and the species splits. Now you've got monkeyus withtailus and monkeyus notailus. Through an event, the group of monkeys without tails end up being eaten by dinosaurs, or something. Thus, the act of sticking with other monkeys with tails helped you out. Now, lets ignore the fact that this trait is a physical alteration. Maybe we do this as a way of evolution forcing us to consolidate our genes with "likes" so that, when the eventual sub-species extinction occurs through war, famine, etc. that one like species survives. Not necessarily a better species, but a whole subspecies.

Let's use another, more disturbing analogy - WWII and the holocaust. Germans were one species sub-group, and Jewish people were one other sub-group. Both stuck together, and in the end, it resulted in an almost a complete wipeout of one of those groups. This would be a form of evolution (not one that results in a superior species - don't misinterpret my meanings - but an evolution of a species).

Interestingly enough, if we remove this segregation of our species, the heterogeny of our species would diminish. All the groups would over time, intermarry, and share genetic code. Same applies with cultural and religious habits. For example, I would hazard a guess that much of the fact that society today is atheist is in part because our parents intermarried more than any other generation.

Just some interesting observations I thought I'd share.

[danfromwaterloo]

As a funny note, maybe we have evolution all wrong.

Maybe its not evolution that forms species...maybe its species that form evolution? We aren't the result of evolution, evolution is a result of our instinctual attitudes toward our own species?

[Tiberius]

As a funny note, maybe we have evolution all wrong.

Maybe its not evolution that forms species...maybe its species that form evolution? We aren't the result of evolution, evolution is a result of our instinctual attitudes toward our own species?

It's both (assuming you believe in evolution... *cough*). If you are segregated (think Galapagos islands) evolution will occur that will take your species in a different direction than the rest of the species. However, the direction the evolution goes will be influenced by the environment (using your tails example - if a tail is beneficial, that will give an advantage and will become part of the evolved species... if a tail doesn't help but improved camoflauge ability or swimming ability helps in that environment.. those things will be what sticks in the evolution of the species.

Without complete segregation - like happened on the Galapagos - some intermingling will occur resulting in less pronounced variation.

[danfromwaterloo]

It's both (assuming you believe in evolution... *cough*). If you are segregated (think Galapagos islands) evolution will occur that will take your species in a different direction than the rest of the species. However, the direction the evolution goes will be influenced by the environment (using your tails example - if a tail is beneficial, that will give an advantage and will become part of the evolved species... if a tail doesn't help but improved camoflauge ability or swimming ability helps in that environment.. those things will be what sticks in the evolution of the species.

Without complete segregation - like happened on the Galapagos - some intermingling will occur resulting in less pronounced variation.

Agreed. I remember from Grade 11 Biology the White Moth/Black Moth example in Britain as being an example of what I'll coin "exoevolution". Where external events help or hinder one species over another.

I guess "endoevolution" is where the species evolves through its own selective breeding.

[Tiberius]

Let's use another, more disturbing analogy - WWII and the holocaust. Germans were one species sub-group, and Jewish people were one other sub-group. Both stuck together, and in the end, it resulted in an almost a complete wipeout of one of those groups. This would be a form of evolution (not one that results in a superior species - don't misinterpret my meanings - but an evolution of a species).

Interestingly enough, if we remove this segregation of our species, the heterogeny of our species would diminish. All the groups would over time, intermarry, and share genetic code. Same applies with cultural and religious habits. For example, I would hazard a guess that much of the fact that society today is atheist is in part because our parents intermarried more than any other generation.

Just some interesting observations I thought I'd share.

That is exactly why it would likely be bad for us if "segregation" won out amongst humans. We would eliminate all other groups and their genetics... that would limit us to whatever genetics were in our (comparatively) homogenous gene pool. We would have just limited our evolutionary ability by MILLIONS of years. Keeping the entire gene pool in tact and creating new combinations, etc. is what will lead to new evolution of the species. Actually... new evolution will always occur - you just have more evolutionary options with a broader genetic base to build from. You are more likely to have beneficial evolution occur and "stick".

[Jessica April]

I would disagree, unless you're just speaking of yourself, in which case I can't disagree because I don't know you.


Earthling, how dare do you question me?!

[CodecX81]

in truth, it is a terrible thing.

The more we diversify our genesets the healthier our offspring are.
On a small scale, its just as basic as finding a mate that is not existed in the same geography you have.

boy from small village in England mates with girl from small village in Germany.

On a larger scale its a matter of breaking the ethnicity barrier and procreating hybrids.

my great grand mother on my mom's side came over here from england at the turn of the century..so I have english from her side.

my great grand mother on my dad's side was Sioux who married a colonist, gave birth to my grandmother who married a Quebec'er, so I have french canadian/Métis in me. My fiancee's grandparents/parents came over in another immigration in the 50s, so they are pure italian from the small town of San Nicandro, Italy.

When we have children, her geneset will merge with mine and no doubt we'll have healthy children. Thats the theory at least.

I am a firm believer that "sticking with your own" will cause a higher chance of birth defects, regardless of whether or not you are directly related to your mate.

This also blends into the "hybrid asian" topic a few weeks ago. Take an asian, mate them with another race and the offspring are more "beautiful" than a pure asian.

Pardon me, if I've went off topic..:)

sidenote: 2000th post, wee!


That is exactly why it would likely be bad for us if "segregation" won out amongst humans. We would eliminate all other groups and their genetics... that would limit us to whatever genetics were in our (comparatively) homogenous gene pool. We would have just limited our evolutionary ability by MILLIONS of years. Keeping the entire gene pool in tact and creating new combinations, etc. is what will lead to new evolution of the species. Actually... new evolution will always occur - you just have more evolutionary options with a broader genetic base to build from. You are more likely to have beneficial evolution occur and "stick".

[danfromwaterloo]

in truth, it is a terrible thing.

The more we diversify our genesets the healthier our offspring are.
On a small scale, its just as basic as finding a mate that is not existed in the same geography you have.

boy from small village in England mates with girl from small village in Germany.

On a larger scale its a matter of breaking the ethnicity barrier and procreating hybrids.

my great grand mother on my mom's side came over here from england at the turn of the century..so I have english from her side.

my great grand mother on my dad's side was Sioux who married a colonist, gave birth to my grandmother who married a Quebec'er, so I have french canadian/Métis in me. My fiancee's grandparents/parents came over in another immigration in the 50s, so they are pure italian from the small town of San Nicandro, Italy.

When we have children, her geneset will merge with mine and no doubt we'll have healthy children. Thats the theory at least.

I am a firm believer that "sticking with your own" will cause a higher chance of birth defects, regardless of whether or not you are directly related to your mate.

This also blends into the "hybtid asian" topic a few weeks ago. Take an asian, mate them with another race and the offspring are more "beautiful" than a pure asian.



sidenote: 2000th post, wee!

sidenote: congrats!

I've noticed that this conversation has drifted off into an almost eugenics sort of feel, which was never my intent. MOST of the distinctions which we use to create these subgroups are not genetic at all. MOST of them are ideals. We split into religious factions. We split into political factions. We split into cultural factions. We split into educated/noneducated factions. These are all ideals - completely non-dependent on genetics. I guess, in that sense, evolution transcends simple biology. For example, we segregated ourselves into communist/capitalist groups, and one has died out. As a result the evolution of these two groups has resulted in a successor. I'm sure we've seen the same thing with religions (ie. african tribes), and cultures (ie. ancient greeks, etc).

If there was no segregation of these people into distinct like-minds, this evolution might never occur. In order for a clear successor to be seen, the group must seperate itself, and compete in order to be eliminated or successful.

[CodecX81]

With your example..

For example, we segregated ourselves into communist/capitalist groups, and one has died out. As a result the evolution
of these two groups has resulted in a successor.

Although, I call this form of capitalism "Democracy 3.0"

Russia went thru Monarchy-> Socialist-> Communist-> Dictatorship and now they are venturing finally into a capitalist society. In the long run I do believe they will dominate in the global span of things, over the US, (running democracy 2.0 (1.0 being the old Republic of Roman Empire) I think Canada for the half part of it, is a blend of the two, with our government regulating everything heavily, yet allowing for public freedom.

Iraq, same thing. Sure, Democracy 2.0 is being forced upon them, they will eventually create their own system and will end up with a blend of the "Old ways" and the "New ways" and develop their own spin on Democracy 3.0.

China will one day follow suit with this.. possibly within the next 50 years of our life. I think the steps that Russia went through were necessary steps to take before the freedom was given to think on your own. It may seem barbaric to us, but its taught them lessons that we can never know ourselves.

There is no doubt in my mind that the youth of countries like Russia are keenly aware on the ongoings of the outside world, moreso than the entity of the US, or even Canada, although our youth are far more observant than the US to begin with.

[keanefan]

I noticed this:

in elementary school, there didn't seem to be boundaries.
kids easily became friends with people of other races.

then in high school and adulthood, I noticed that people of the same race or ethnic group seemed to hang out together or become best friends.

neighbourhoods tend to be predominantly Jewish, WASP, Chinese, Italian, South Asian, Portuguese, Korean, etc

Some people seem to think that people who don't look like themselves are not equal or not human.

This is probably why people of the same ethnic background, religion or race end up living in the same neighbourhoods so that they don't have to deal with other ethnicities, religions or races= avoidance.

Perhaps there is less conflict and tension if you live in a community of people who are similar to you- share the same cultural background, religion, etc.

Some people seek status and want to live in a fancy house in a fancy neighbourhood, hang around the rich and beautiful.

[danfromwaterloo]

I noticed this:

in elementary school, there didn't seem to be boundaries.
kids easily became friends with people of other races.

then in high school and adulthood, I noticed that people of the same race or ethnic group seemed to hang out together or become best friends.

neighbourhoods tend to be predominantly Jewish, WASP, Chinese, Italian, South Asian, Portuguese, Korean, etc

Some people seem to think that people who don't look like themselves are not equal or not human.

This is probably why people of the same ethnic background, religion or race end up living in the same neighbourhoods so that they don't have to deal with other ethnicities, religions or races= avoidance.

Perhaps there is less conflict and tension if you live in a community of people who are similar to you- share the same cultural background, religion, etc.

Some people seek status and want to live in a fancy house in a fancy neighbourhood, hang around the rich and beautiful.

Yes, but the fact that it exists was never the point of my post. EVERYBODY sees that when they hit adulthood, birds of a feather do in fact flock together. The curiousity I'm figuring is that this behaviour is A) instinctual and B) an evolutionary appendage that facilitates that evolution.

The question is not why do we do this, per se, but rather, does it link to evolution at all?

[Jessica April]

Yes, but the fact that it exists was never the point of my post. EVERYBODY sees that when they hit adulthood, birds of a feather do in fact flock together. The curiousity I'm figuring is that this behaviour is A) instinctual and B) an evolutionary appendage that facilitates that evolution.

The question is not why do we do this, per se, but rather, does it link to evolution at all?


I think there are certain groups of people throughout this world who have been mixed with different ethnicities for many centuries without even knowing it.

An example is some people in the Pacific or South East Asia who might possibly have Black and Asian genes in them. Micronesia, The Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc etc.

So though some may strive for "racial purity", they might be ignorant to the fact that they can trace mixed heritage far back down the line. How can any of us prove actual purity? What based on the pigmentation of our skin or the way our hair or nose/eyes are shaped?!