Population genetics cannot be trusted.
I have often written how the science of population genetics has been corrupted by leftist, “woke,” “anti-racist” political bias, and thus everything coming from the mainstream (more so the interpretations rather than the data, but data can also be suspect if it was created by flawed and/or biased modeling) has to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
I have often read articles warning about “racists” “misusing” genetic data and have had “scientists” at conferences tell me to my face their political concerns about this field, including their own work.
Recently, I was reading nonsense about the “misuse” of ancient genomics data by “bigots” and the need for “scientists” to use such studies and their findings (or, more properly, biased interpretations of the findings) to “fight bigotry.”
It is not the place of science and genuine scientists to promote or oppose any ideology or belief system. Once that occurs, we are no longer talking about science but about politics and the so-called “scientists” are actually politicians, who have given up any pretense of objectivity. They should not be trusted and their perfidy is corrosive of the entire scientific enterprise, which is supposed to be based on disinterested, unbiased, and apolitical analysis and the pursuit of objective truth. And who are these people to judge what is moral or not, and then to have the temerity to apply their subjective value judgments to distort the pursuit of scientific truth? What arrogance! What if they are wrong and their opponents are right? Why not just present the data and leave value judgments to politicians and philosophers?
Some of the statements made in such articles are laughable. They fear that people may look at the data and conclude that certain past racial theories were correct. Well, if the data support the theories, then that is objective reality. If there is the belief that the conclusions are mistaken, then that can be debated based on the objective data; it is not the place of science to engage in the moralistic fallacy and conclude that because past theories were “bad” then the data cannot be allowed to objectively exist and to support those theories.
We are told that ancient genomics may show “diversity” in the past. Even if that is true, it is irrelevant for today (see below). And in some cases, the “diversity” they grasp at is pathetic. One breathless account tells us that ancient England had a mix of “native Britons” and “people from across the channel.” Yegads! Different Europeans! Different tribes of closely related peoples! So? Does that justify England today being overrun by Afro-Asiatic invaders?
They also claim that it is possible that modern populations may not be genetically related to previous occupants of the same territory (see below for the irrelevance of that for biopolitics). Well, maybe, and maybe not. So why don’t we just see the data and find out for ourselves? Why make such comments, with their implications, and then not actually allow people to see the data and to make the comparisons? Are they afraid the data will actually show this? Or this? Or that people will use this? If they think that showing ancient-modern differences in a territory somehow justifies today’s replacement (only for Whites of course) – and of course it does not justify that, as explained below – then would ancient-modern similarity then justify hardcore immigration restriction? And isn’t similarity relative in any case? The modern population of a European nation may be (or maybe not) somewhat different from the ancient peoples of the same territory, but I can be confident that both sets of peoples will be more similar to each other than either is to, say, Nigerians or Chinese.
In a very real sense, with respect to biopolitics, ancient genomic studies are irrelevant. Ethnic genetic interests (and all genetic interests for extant populations) are relevant for the present and future, not the past. The ethnic genetic interests of past populations was of relevance to them, not to us. It does not matter how a genome came to be, the owner of that genome has interests in the continuity of that genome’s distinctive genetic information moving forward. So, even if leftist “scientists” deconstruct ancient genomes that does not change one iota the interests that people today have in ethnic and racial preservation. Regardless of the underlying fabric of reality according to physics and cosmology, in a practical sense time only moves forward and the therefore tapestry of life moves forward. The adaptive interests of living organisms focus on their descendants, not their ancestors. That said, we do have proximate, cultural interests in preserving and promoting scientific truth, so we should oppose leftists rewriting genetic history for political purposes and obscuring realities of our ancestral heritages.
And of course, population genetics studies on modern extant populations do have biopolitical implications – at least metrics of genetic kinship have such implications – so we should be much more active in opposing lies about that.
eginotes 