Brit soldier killed. Looks like execution

Also...if the human race is homogenised...we lose our genetic diversity and become vulnerable to change...could be our undoing.

 

Thread moved to the stump

 

"Around her, she estimates that 60 to 70 people had gathered at a distance, all watching, some filming with their phones, none offering to help."

At what point does a society no longer deserve the sacrifice of it's soldiers.

 

That statement is just wrong.

Nature will always throw out, spontaneously, slight changes / mutations, some of which might be beneficial to survival at some point, others not so. Additionally, one of the benefits of sexual as opposed to asexual reproduction is the variety it produces in offspring. A lot of the genes we carry, even if 'switched off' or dominated by others, can still be passed on.
Most changes that were beneficial in our past were passed on simply because that was what was required to survival, while others remained in neutral in the background. Homo sapiens' ability to problem solve may have interfered with that process of natural selection, but it isn't a bad thing either.

 

Statement is fine...The genetic difference and mutations have to take in time...Extinct species didnt have the time...their bretheren already had the diifference so survived. You sort of argue the unimportance of genetic diversity...?

 

I argue against what to me reads like a euphemistic case for racial purity, against what is already, and has been for eons, a 'melting pot'. This shows that genes of an extinct species of Homo are still amongst the human population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project

To reiterate: Diversity is inherent in us already, and is maintained by our method of reproduction as well as contributed to by naturally occurring mutations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2139462/Riddle-Solomon-solved-Scientists-South-Sea-islanders-blond-hair-didnt-come-Europeans-evolved-separately.html

 

Racial purity?? Only racists think those terms...
Actually i had the African in mind when i wrote this...he is the most genetically diverse of us all...two Africans living on each side of the same village have more diversity than a Greek and an Eskimo!
Hasnt been a melting pot for years...we have only been travelling for about 200 years...Our skin can quickly tell a person from what environment they grew up in. The darker, the more sun they receive, the lighter the less they receive etc etc...The environemt has decided which genes to be used (over time) not sex.
All except the African DO NOT have the diversity to cope with sudden change.
Time is the factor here...we "Africans" have the available genes but usually not the time to activate and spread the gene or mutation.

We have come leaps and bounds in terms of understanding genes but are lagging in terms of understanding how they are "used"...We'll get there.

 

Really ... from hunter gatherer group to group, from village to village, from city to city state, over land but particularly sea trade routes, within empires, via conquerors and conquered ... but you say genetic migration has been achieved only in the last 200 years?

We humans have been travelling since we could walk and taking our genes along for the ride - perhaps vice versa.

I can't share either your warning about homogenisation, or your conclusion.
We have a track record of natural resilience within populations.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/black_plague.html
http://www.livescience.com/9983-immune-hiv.html
And when pandemics threaten, our ability to problem solve, more recently through medical advances, kicks in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030

 

No the statment was wrong. If the Human race became "homogonized" it's not at all clear that genetic diversity would change all that much. If the population were a few thousand or less you might be correct but given the population size and the fact that it is still growing genetic diversity would be in little or no danger.