From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 02 2001 - 06:28:05 MDT
Charlie wrote:
> Obviously, this doesn't work in the US, which has a large indigenous
> black population... Given that white anglo-saxon types are due to become a
> minority in the US by 2050 if current trends continue...
This sparked a memory in my mind of a very attractive young
white woman roller skating around Greenlake the other day. The
most striking thing about her was the large tattoo that she had
covering most of her arms and shoulders. She was someone who
obviously viewed her body as a canvas on which designs could be
painted.
Now switch to genetic engineering -- control of skin color has
to be regulated by a very few genes. That would suggest that
within a decade or so it should be feasible to pop a pill that
regulates how dark you are. (Caucasians can already put on
suntan lotion that activates their endogenous tanning response).
Now I would guess that tattoos are not as effective on dark skinned
people due to the lack of contrast. That would suggest that such
people would utilize genetic means to lighten their skin to allow
them to take advantage of tatooing. Eventually we will get dynamic
control of skin color (though this will take a while).
So isn't the debate kind of meaningless? Skin color will no longer
be a useful marker for the identification of people as belonging
to a particular "clan". It seems to me that language is becoming
the key factor for the "bin-ing" of people you encounter rather than
color.
And of course discussing policy based on any expectations about what
2050 is going to be like seems silly. We know that 2050 is going
to be very different from any possible pictures of it we have today.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:19 MST