Miscellaneous desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 30

What's this "Human Biodiversity" all about?

I stumbled across several websites that appear to be celebrating and analyzing something they call "human biodiversity". I have the nagging feeling that these websites are to white supremacism what "Intelligent Design" advocates are to Creationism. And, though they never say this explicitly, I feel that their "celebration" of "biodiversity" are just a lament against the mongrelization of the "races" and a desire to keep people of different skin colors separate.

The websites seem at first glance to be full of technical information about genes, linguistics and facial reconstructions, etc., but I am too ignorant to tell whether what they are discussing is science or pseudoscience.

Is anyone familiar with this term or this movement? Are they run by right wing neo-Nazi types, or am I just getting bad vibes for no reason?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only related Wikipedia article I could find is Steve Sailer (founder of an online discussion forum called Human Biodiversity). A cursory google search seems to support your suspicion, as being synonymous with "Scientific Racism" or "Racial Realism". —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an abandoned draft article at User:RH5882/Human biodiversity, which - well, at a first glance, also seems to support this thesis. A candidate for WP:MFD, perhaps? I doubt if it's usable in the state it's in. Tevildo (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has stumbled across something on the internet, and knows how to edit this page (across which he didn't stumble) but doesn't know how to cut and paste a URL? Can the OP at least quote a source he's read? μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I get from Sailer's blog (many 404s, though) is that he's really into races opinion polls and stats, but not a racist. More a scientist (but mostly a writer). Talking about differences is naturally going to ruffle some feathers and give off some vibes. It's a touchy subject, and one that would seem to interest some supremacists, but that doesn't make the field inherently hateful. Seems to just be looking for the truth.

Of course, I just barely dipped my toes. Could be pure evil, for all I know. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Sailer, see also VDARE. —Tamfang (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "celebrating human biodiversity" sounds like racist code words for "opposing the mixing of the races". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it meant just the opposite, as a diverse mixture of genetics would make some people most likely to survive a new plague (or a new strain of an old plague). StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear "being glad we're not clones". When someone else has qualities you don't, but want, friendships form. Two heads are better than one at most tasks, even ten of that one. If we were all equal, we'd all be bored with ourself. And like Stu notes, extinct. Germs aren't ashamed of their diversity. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, I suppose I oppose the total mixing of the races. But that doesn't mean I think nobody should interracially breed. More still could, and it wouldn't be enough to get to the situation I don't want. Just makes more diversity. If that's racist, I'm racist. In any case, I do technically agree with Bugs after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, an intensely controversial subject - Race (human classification) is probably our most appropriate article. Note particularly the statement from the Social Constructions > European Union section - "The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races." How this reflects on such theories, or how it reflects on the European Union, are perhaps separate issues - however, proponents of "human biodiversity" would disagree (very positively) with that statement. Does this make them racists? A matter which we (theoretically) shouldn't discuss here. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP. To most of us, "white supremacy" sounds bad. So intelligent white supremacists (it seems they do exist) have come up with a name that sounds positive, tolerant, and inclusive, as camouflage for their ideas. Maproom (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define what "intelligence" means when applied to a racist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still missing the part that suggests white supremacy at all. Saying races are different (or exist) doesn't mean you think yours is better. It's a common racist idea that blacks are stronger and Asians are smarter. That's not supremacy, that's statistical observation. A supremacist doesn't care about truth, she just knows what she knows. If you're confusing racism with supremacism, fair enough. It happens. But if not, share a link or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MPVs Peugeot Citroen Renault seven seater

Which Peugeot, Citroen and Renault MPVs have seven seats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.184.233 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peugeot: 806, 807, 5008
Citroen: C8 (the same vehicle as the Peugeot 806/7), C4 Grand Picasso.
Renault: Espace, Grand Scénic.

Tevildo (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]