PD3

The Evolutionary Origins of Race and the Functions of the Xenophobic Response
Every human subgroup, or race, is the product of a somewhat unique evolutionary experience. As groups migrated to different regions and became relatively isolated from one another, they began to evolve traits that would make them better adapted to conditions in their local environments. These adaptive traits would be favored by the process of natural selection and would become concentrated in local populations. Over a period of many generations, this process would result in the evolution of traits that we recognize today as the distinguishing features of race. Again, these traits would make a subgroup better adapted to the environmental challenges (principally, climatic conditions) it faced in the particular region in which it evolved. Thus, in combination with a behavioral response which acted to further concentrate and maintain adaptive traits within local populations (the xenophobic response) natural selection and a relatively high degree of isolation allowed unique traits to evolve and become characteristic of subgroups in particular regions.

The Functions of the Xenophobic Response In the Context of Racial Preservation
In addition to geographic isolation and natural selection, a behavioral mechanism was needed to ensure that the adaptive traits which evolved and became concentrated in a local population were preserved and were not adulterated by less adaptive traits that might belong to groups that a local population came into contact with over the course of seasonal migrations (its own or those of other groups). For this purpose, the xenophobic response evolved. The xenophobic response tends to occur on two levels. First, it occurs as a heightened sense of affinity for those that we perceive to be most like ourselves, and who are in fact most closely related to us genetically. And secondly, this response occurs as an aversive reaction towards those we perceive as being significantly different from ourselves. The intensity of this response is a function of the extent of the perceived difference from or similarity to self.

As it likely occurred in human prehistory, the xenophobic response would have functioned to discourage members of a group from breeding with members of other groups that they might have come into contact with over the course of their migrations, but which had not evolved the same adaptive traits as one's own group. It would have resulted in a strong tendency to breed with those that we perceived as being most like us, (and who shared one's phenotypic characteristics) and a corresponding tendency to avoid breeding with those that we perceived as being different .The xenophobic response would have manifested itself both as a greater affinity for those we perceived as being similar and as an aversive reaction towards those we perceived as being significantly different. As a consequence of the xenophobic response, members of one subgroup would simply avoid groups or individuals they came in contact with who were noticeably different. Over a period of many generations, this response would help to concentrate adaptive traits in local populations.

In its operation and effect, the xenophobic response could be compared to the territorial response in lower mammals. But, as it likely manifested itself in early humans, the xenophobic response would have simply resulted in avoidance of other human subgroups we might have come into contact with who appeared to be significantly different. From the standpoint of evolution, "strange and different is bad." Because any significant differences that one observes in strangers carry the potential to be maladaptive, that which is unfamiliar is to be avoided. Strangers that one might come into contact with in one's home range would be less likely to have evolved traits that would make them well adapted to one's home range. In this sense, the xenophobic response evolved as a way of assessing genetic proximity and fitness.

The intensity of the xenophobic response in a given subgroup would likely depend upon the degree of uniformity within the subgroup. For instance, if there were substantive variations in the traits of one's own group, if no single trait afforded a clear survival advantage to a group in a given environment, then the range of such differences would be unlikely to trigger the xenophobic response. And, one would be relatively less likely to experience the xenophobic response if one were to come into contact with individuals whose differences fell within the range of differences that one observed in one's own group. However, if the people that one came into contact with had differences which far exceeded the range of differences one observed in one's local group, then one would be more likely to experience the xenophobic response.

Thus, the xenophobic response evolved as a behavior which served the function of gene pool maintenance, or the preservation of gene pools with characteristics that made local populations better adapted to the unique environmental challenges they faced in the regions in which they evolved. By extension, the xenophobic response evolved as a behavioral tendency to avoid close contact and prevent breeding with individuals who appeared to be different, or with those who belonged to another subgroup that one might come into contact with. This had the effect of concentrating those traits which afforded a particular survival advantage in one's own gene pool. Any behavior which would have interfered with this tendency would have tended to decrease the survivability of a group which had already evolved traits that would make it best adapted to its environment.

The xenophobic response evolved because it tended to insure that the traits which would make a group best adapted to its environment remained concentrated in a group. If one's group did not have any particular trait that afforded it a greater survival advantage, one's group would be relatively less fit for survival in its particular environment to begin with, and it would have become a smaller part of the subgroup that inhabited its range.
Conversely, over time it could have evolved those traits which would make it better adapted and more like the other groups that inhabited its range.

Implications of the Xenophobic Response for Forms of Social Organization
The xenophobic response has important implications for the forms of social organization we adopt. Specifically, it strongly favors the ideal of the cosmopolitan model of society over the multiracial model. In fact, the xenophobic response emerges as the primary affective and behavioral obstacle to the long term stability and viability of multiracial societies. The xenophobic response also stands as one of the main reasons why multiracial societies are constructed at odds with natural law. Given what we now know about human nature, the multiracial model emerges as a suboptimal form of social organization.

Throughout the greater part of human history, and especially in prehistory, the xenophobic response has operated to cause distinctive traits to become concentrated and perpetuated in human subgroups and to maintain the separateness of human subgroups. It is only relatively recently in human history that technological innovations and societal conventions have conspired to suppress the xenophobic response. A multiracial society is constructed on the premise that no such innate tendency exists, and that the primary source of instability in a multiracial society is dysfunctional social norms. Consequently, all that is needed to stabilize such an arrangement is to create conventions designed to counter these norms. Because this tactic addresses symptoms and not causes, it merely results in the suppression of innate behavioral tendencies. Hence, it leads to an inherently less stable condition than would result from constructing society so that it was in accord with behavioral tendencies in the first place.

Over the short term, suppression of the xenophobic response in a multiracial society may be so successful that it leads people to believe that this response does not even exist as an innate tendency, and that any xenophobic tendencies are only a chimera of dysfunctional socialization. But, once material conditions emerge which can strip this artificial and unnatural social form of its window dressing, the flaw in this logic tends to be revealed. However, use of such strategies over the short term is understandable. The civil authorities in a multiracial society cannot even begin to imagine or cope with the cost that would be entailed in trying to place their society on a more natural footing. Consequently, they deny all thoughts of rectification by means designed to increase the racial homogeneity of their society.

One of the main casualties of creating conventions to artificially prop up an unnatural social order (a society which is at odds with fundamental innate tendencies such as the xenophobic response) has been a reduction in the natural barriers to miscegenation. Throughout human history, the xenophobic response has been allowed to manifest itself for the purpose of maintaining "racial integrity." That is to say, it has been allowed to operate to maintain gene pools with distinctive adaptive characteristics which correspond to race. It can be argued that because of technological advances, we no longer need to maintain racial integrity. It can be argued that we now have technology to overcome the environmental challenges which led the subgroups to evolve their distinctive characteristics. For instance, we have sun block to protect light skinned people in southern latitudes and we have vitamin d supplements for dark skinned people in northern latitudes. This is true, but it ignores the central point of our differences. The point is that we evolved a behavioral mechanism for the purpose of maintaining a certain distance between subgroups, and for preserving their distinctive characteristics.

From the standpoint of anyone who values the distinctive features of the races as part of our natural heritage, the increasing rate of miscegenation must be viewed with concern. For even though large populations of relatively pure genetic stock still exist for all the major races, there are disconcerting signs that the major racial stocks are being eroded at their peripheries. And, it is the behavior of human subgroups at their peripheries that is potentially of greatest concern to anyone who believes that racial preservation is a worthy aim. The increasing rate of miscegenation is mainly due to a combination of the increasing frequency of contacts between member of different subgroups, and it is also a result of the intentional efforts of social engineers to reduce the social inhibitions that have historically tended to keeps rates of miscegenation low.

The xenophobic response is mainly important for the implications it has for the forms of social organization we adopt. It has especially important implications for multiracial societies. Many social engineers subscribe to the view that humans have progressed beyond any innate differences that may exist between them. They will go on to say that, as sentient beings which are capable of reason, if the xenophobic response does exist, it does not matter, to the extent that we are capable of suppressing it and controlling it with socialization. Hence, the existence of the xenophobic response should not be a design consideration in how we construct our societies. But the doctrine of natural law says something different.

The doctrine of natural law is based on the premise that, from our knowledge of human nature, we can extrapolate principles for the purpose of organizing society. Necessarily, forms of social organization which are in accordance with natural law are most closely in accord with human nature. Once we come to understand aspects of human nature in the context of their evolutionary origins and functions, these can serve as a blueprint for the forms of social organization we should adopt. If we ignore natural tendencies, we do so at our peril. The xenophobic response suggests that we should adopt the "cosmopolitan model" of social organization as an alternative to the "multiracial model." The key difference between the cosmopolitan model and the multiracial model is the proportions of minor subgroups in relation to the major subgroup. The cosmopolitan model presumes a high degree of racial homogeneity, because, given the xenophobic response, this arrangement tends to be more conducive to a society's internal stability. By contrast, the multiracial model must rely on an elaborate combination of artificial social conventions, subterfuge, and miscegenation to achieve stability. And, even using these mechanisms, a multiracial society will be unable to achieve the level of stability that could be achieved under the cosmopolitan model.