Could genetic have changed the course of History ?

[Petalpusher]

Considering similarities we find today and the knowledge we get with modern genetic, which is sometimes unexpected, could it have changed the way History unravelled ? For instance nations attacking neighbours while they were basically the same people or fairly close.

Is it possible it could have (or will) overcome some cultural/religious differences, stereotypes, experiences ? On the other hand would you say it may well have worsen things in some cases, leading to more genocide, data driven eugenistic policies.

[Gooding]

Considering similarities we find today and the knowledge we get with modern genetic, which is sometimes unexpected, could it have changed the way History unravelled ? For instance nations attacking neighbours while they were basically the same people or fairly close.

Is it possible it could have (or will) overcome some cultural differences, stereotypes, experiences ? On the other hand would you say it may well have worsen things in some cases, leading to more genocide, data driven eugenistic policies.

That is an excellent question. Back in the day, Europe was very much a survival of the fittest kind of place. With the Volkerwanderung, the religious wars, the rise of nationalism and the Age of Empire, if a particular ethnic element had been added or subtracted, would it have made any difference? Well, Petalle Puchier, that kind of goes up to the " nature versus nurture" argument. In colder climates, with long winters, the native inhabitants would not be warm and friendly to everybody, certainly not to everyone outside the immediate clan structure. In hotter climates, with longer summers, the native inhabitants would not have regarded every newcomer with a welcoming eye. Eugenics have as part of their base a desire to keep the ancestry of a given population stable and to avoid the addition of unwelcome elements. I would have to conclude that similar cultures with similar traits, even if they had different names, would have developed in lands familiar with their like today. If the Romans never invaded Britain, the Celts would still have had to deal with invaders, be they from the North or the South. If Germanic tribes had stayed put in their Northern cradle where the Y- DNA I1s would have roamed free, the Celts would have flourished in western Europe and perhaps we would be speaking a Gaelic or Cymric Celtic language today. Or, perhaps not. maybe the Germanic population would still have spilled over from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to wreak havoc on Europe. Had the Normans never invaded England, staying in Normandy even as the Saxons stayed in Saxony, the British Isles would probably have developed a warlike Celtic culture and ethnic rivalries ( although all Celtic.. which kind of Celtic.. P or Q? That would have been the question) that would mirror to a degree the ethnic elbow- jabbing you see going on in parts of the British Isles today. Instead of a damned Sassenach, they'd have been damned Breathnach or something. No, I think the actions and relations of people with their lands and with each other would be largely the same that you see today.

[Petalpusher]

That is an excellent question. Back in the day, Europe was very much a survival of the fittest kind of place. With the Volkerwanderung, the religious wars, the rise of nationalism and the Age of Empire, if a particular ethnic element had been added or subtracted, would it have made any difference? Well, Petalle Puchier, that kind of goes up to the " nature versus nurture" argument. In colder climates, with long winters, the native inhabitants would not be warm and friendly to everybody, certainly not to everyone outside the immediate clan structure. In hotter climates, with longer summers, the native inhabitants would not have regarded every newcomer with a welcoming eye. Eugenics have as part of their base a desire to keep the ancestry of a given population stable and to avoid the addition of unwelcome elements. I would have to conclude that similar cultures with similar traits, even if they had different names, would have developed in lands familiar with their like today. If the Romans never invaded Britain, the Celts would still have had to deal with invaders, be they from the North or the South. If Germanic tribes had stayed put in their Northern cradle where the Y- DNA I1s would have roamed free, the Celts would have flourished in western Europe and perhaps we would be speaking a Gaelic or Cymric Celtic language today. Or, perhaps not. maybe the Germanic population would still have spilled over from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to wreak havoc on Europe. Had the Normans never invaded England, staying in Normandy even as the Saxons stayed in Saxony, the British Isles would probably have developed a warlike Celtic culture and ethnic rivalries ( although all Celtic.. which kind of Celtic.. P or Q? That would have been the question) that would mirror to a degree the ethnic elbow- jabbing you see going on in parts of the British Isles today. Instead of a damned Sassenach, they'd have been damned Breathnach or something. No, I think the actions and relations of people with their lands and with each other would be largely the same that you see today.

This is another interesting face of the question, however i was more referring to recent history of wars and conflicts, not only WW1&2 but in that broad time frame.

[Smeagol]

No, nobody really cares about population genetics in real life.

[Petalpusher]

No, nobody really cares about population genetics in real life.

That's the point, what if people cared in the past. Dictators relying on this kind of information to carry out a plan or not.


I remember watching some racial justice warriors on TV sometimes ago, where they basically told people they were certainly more related to a Dogon than their neighbours across the hall. We all know that it isn't true but they could spread the information because no one was there to show them the scientific evidence, ie that there is at least an 100 folds of genetic distance between any Euro and a Dogon.

On the same basis some countries who hate each others for centuries are closely related, if it wasn't for historical borders, they would be almost indistinguishable genetically.

[Neon Knight]

Well, I think genetic closeness is a good reason for nations to be at peace with each other - it's logical, but it also requires a rather romantic/sentimental attitude. Suppose at the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland it was publicised that Protestants and Catholics were genetically virtually identical? Would that have led to a quicker peace? We can ask the same question now about Israelis and Palestinians.

The further question that springs to mind is: what if the German Nazis had use of population genetics and did not have to rely on measuring head shapes, eye colour, etc? Well, they could certainly have proved that Jews were different but they would have had difficulty demonstrating that Slavs were some kind of separate under-race. It would also have depended on the awareness and understanding of the general public - you could easily imagine the Nazi regime manipulating the scientific data.