Genetic Distance

The idea of genetic distance will become an extension of "The Selfish Gene" that postulates people's own genetic identity takes priority over "otherness", or genes that diverge from your own "kind/type/specie".

Necessary Question #1

Is it better, morally superior, more or less noble to "care for your own" (DNA/Genes) than it is for you to care for otherness or creatures distantly related to you?

Necessary Question #2

If you deem it noble and acceptable to care for ("love") genetic otherness, and support raising another's child, then how far are you willing to go? Is it noble, or not, to raise a different specie than your own? A dog, a cat, a pet, a bird, a cow? Here is the obvious fact. What do people truly think and opine about two white parents raising a black child, or two black parents raising a white child? If you can address this observation then you will begin to make a little bit of progress into how deep this ideology will go....it's not easy. It's not simple. It becomes very complicated.


To which degrees do people care or "love" or "value" what is most genetically separated from yourself? Is altruism true? How and why do people sacrifice themselves, for others, for an army or military order, for a religion, or for your "own" family? For memes? Or for genes? History provides some answers, as a first step to answer these types of deep questions. People have died for all sorts of reasons and causes, many types of sacrifices, some for very abstract ideals (memes), others for more pragmatic and practical reasons, like trying to save a drowning (stranger's) child.


And then you must confront The State or The Church. Are these not institutions built upon the concept, of "other people's children"? Yes, they are. In fact Christianity as a popular religion, many centuries ago, derived from Catholics and Clergy who began the practice of Celibacy, the specified and strict practice of denying (male) sexual instinct and urge. Thus the Catholic (Christian) Priests began to raise children not of their own genes, but with dominating memes, dominant ideals. These were the beginnings of the spread of mass (word and concept derived from Latin), popular religion. It should even be said that Christianity began with denying the male instinct completely.

Instead of males having their own sons (genetically), the first Christians (Priests) practiced celibacy, repressing their sexuality (denying Nature) and instead fathered other children who were more or less genetically related to them. Like a Priest caring for a Prince of a royal family, tutored under the ideals (memes) of their Christian church.

Etc.

Let this OP be a starting point to begin discussion on this broad, deep, philosophical concept.


Necessary Question #3

How far would you, or do you, go? Do you raise the progeny of another, not of your own kind, not of your own genes? Do you care for a pet? Would you? Under what circumstances? Why? And finally, how do you feel about raising an adopted child of your own race, versus one of a distant race, or even, an enemy tribe? Can you imagine raising the child of a different family, that slaughtered your own family? Wouldn't that be the worst, most humiliating and ignoble possibility?

Can you imagine a creature so deposed, that it "cares, loves" and nourishes the predator that feeds upon it???

Now watch this video with a new understanding:

So it will become obvious that some animals, organisms, and species can exploit others.

This is the solution, the key to the puzzle.

So keep this in your pocket as you explore the deeper concept. It will immediately answer why humans "care and love" ("value") even their pets, dogs, cats, pets, whatever.

It will also explain how some groups of humans can exploit the other (races).