Category: population genetics

23andMe Jumps the Shark Again

More nonsense.

Read this.

Even if you think that is all good, why concentrate on countries like Nepal and Tonga, rather than concentrating on their core White customer base?  They instead should give more detailed breakdowns like North vs. South Germany, North vs. South Italy (and breaking out Sardinia and Sicily), East vs. West England, etc. The Pareto Principle folks….20% of ethnies provide 80% of your customers.

Traditionally, our Ancestry Composition report compared customers’ data to 31 different populations, allowing 23andMe to report the percentage of DNA that came from those regions. This helped connect individuals to their ancestry back 500 years before the advent of modern migration.

Poor coverage, a lack of proper interpretation, a lack of full disclosure about statistical significance, and accusations that “exotic” admixture is added to people’s profiles for leftist political agendas.

There are researchers out there with access to DNA samples from various regions, particularly in Europe, not covered in 23andMe’s “31 populations,” and there are published SNP data sets.  Granted, those published SNPs are not the same ones used by 23andMe, but what about the actual samples?  What about obtaining samples yourself?  What about using verified customer data to expand the base of parental populations?  Those data already exist!  They just need to be verified, collated, and curated, and then used for the required calculations.  But no, an easy buck is made in other ways.

With this new update, we still make those estimates…

In other words, they blithely continue all their previous errors.

…but add another layer of insights with clues to the location of much more recent ancestors. 

Recent.  Now, why doesn’t 23andMe expand the parental populations for the Ancestry Composition so they can actually give their customers more accurate ancestral determinations, decrease artefactual admixture, and also decrease percentages of unassigned ancestry?

We can do this by looking for exact DNA matches between a customer and over 130,000 individuals of known ancestry from 120 regions across the globe. If a person exactly matches with five or more individuals from one of those specific regions, that region is assigned as a “recent ancestor location.”

Five individuals!  And, how is any of this really any different from their relative finder feature?  It’s the same nonsense just repackaged differently.

If the company was interested in providing a quality product, instead of easy “buck-making” and leftist political agitation, they’d expand the number of parental populations, be more forthcoming about statistical significance, PROVIDE GENETIC KINSHIP DATA to ethnic and racial (continental) populations, allow for genetic integration analyses, and provide other breakdowns that may be of interest (e.g., for Europeans, ancestry percentages from Western Hunter-Gatherers, Neolithic Farmers, Steppe Peoples, etc.).

If I wanted to engage in Trumpian “4-D Chess” (sarcasm) I would praise 23andMe, and other currently available genetic tests, so as to prompt all the Der Movement obsessives and fetishists to critically examine those tests.  But I am unable to do this; the product is just too atrocious to even attempt to present it as positive.


Racial Facial

Or is that facial racial?

Genes for facial shape identified in human (i.e., European) samples.  Emphasis added:

Genome-wide association scans of complex multipartite traits like the human face typically use preselected phenotypic measures. Here we report a data-driven approach to phenotyping facial shape at multiple levels of organization, allowing for an open-ended description of facial variation while preserving statistical power. In a sample of 2,329 persons of European ancestry, we identified 38 loci, 15 of which replicated in an independent European sample (n = 1,719). Four loci were completely new. For the others, additional support (n = 9) or pleiotropic effects (n = 2) were found in the literature, but the results reported here were further refined. All 15 replicated loci highlighted distinctive patterns of global-to-local genetic effects on facial shape and showed enrichment for active chromatin elements in human cranial neural crest cells, suggesting an early developmental origin of the facial variation captured. These results have implications for studies of facial genetics and other complex morphological traits.

A summary, emphasis added:

Scientists from KU Leuven and the Universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, and Penn State say they have identified fifteen genes that determine our facial features. Doctors could use DNA for skull and facial reconstructive surgery, forensic examiners could sketch a perpetrator’s face on the basis of DNA retrieved from a crime scene, and historians would be able to reconstruct facial features using DNA from the past….

…“We’re basically looking for needles in a haystack,” says Seth Weinberg, Ph.D., of the departments of oral biology and anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh. “In the past, scientists selected specific features, including the distance between the eyes or the width of the mouth. They would then look for a connection between this feature and many genes. This has already led to the identification of a number of genes but, of course, the results are limited because only a small set of features are selected and tested.”

In the current study the team adopted a different approach.

“Our search doesn’t focus on specific traits,” lead author Peter Claes, Ph.D., KU Leuven, explains. “My colleagues from Pittsburgh and Penn State each provided a database with 3D images of faces and the corresponding DNA of these people. Each face was automatically subdivided into smaller modules. Next, we examined whether any locations in the DNA matched these modules. This modular division technique made it possible for the first time to check for an unprecedented number of facial features.

The scientists were able to identify fifteen locations in our DNA. The Stanford team found out that genomic loci linked to these modular facial features are active when our face develops in the womb.

“Furthermore, we also discovered that different genetic variants identified in the study are associated with regions of the genome that influence when, where and how much genes are expressed,” adds Joanna Wysocka, Ph.D., at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Seven of the fifteen identified genes are linked to the nose, and that’s good news, according to Dr. Claes. “A skull doesn’t contain any traces of the nose, which only consists of soft tissue and cartilage. Therefore, when forensic scientists want to reconstruct a face on the basis of a skull, the nose is the main obstacle. If the skull also yields DNA, it would become much easier in the future to determine the shape of the nose.”

The four universities are continuing their research using larger databases.

“We won’t be able to predict a correct and complete face on the basis of DNA tomorrow. We’re not even close to knowing all the genes that give shape to our face. Furthermore, our age, environment, and lifestyle have an impact on what our face looks like as well,” points out Mark Shriver, Ph.D., of the department of anthropology at Penn State.

Shriver…Der Movement’s least favorite physical anthropologist (cue heavy breathing, re: DNAPrint Genomics).

In any case, this interesting work has implications for race, genotype-phenotype correlations, and other topics of at least peripheral interest to biologically-minded racialists (however genetic kinship is still fundamental and this other data, although interesting, is secondary).

They Wuz Dumb II: More Movement Misinformation about Race

Lies or stupidity – it’s anyone’s guess.

In all cases below, emphasis added.

Read this. After rehashing the points I made about Cheddar Man several days ago, we then get comments about Egyptians, ancient and modern, that are either mendacity or reflective of a problem with reading comprehension.

Today’s Egyptians have some sub-Saharan alleles, but this mixing appears to have begun only about 700 years ago.

The linked Nature article concerning that issue clearly states that the events of 700 years ago were in addition to the significant sub-Saharan ancestry that existed before:

The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq. 

Got it?  That’s 8% more than what was there before, not 8% suddenly appearing 700 years ago on a background of 0%.

See this.

The original paper:

…reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient…Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference population

Got it? Moderns have ~8% more than the ancients, but the ancients may have been as high as 15%, with a floor of 6%.

So, what is the take home point?  It is this: Der Movement, and particularly its HBD wing, LIES about race, LIES about population genetics, and LIES about racial history. Or, if you want to be more generous, they are not lying, but they are simply sincerely stupid, unable to read clear English, so they spread their wrong-headed misinformation around the Internet.

Thanks a lot for giving the Left ammunition to accuse racial activists of peddling pseudoscience about race. But, then, the HBDers do that a lot, don’t they?  I don’t call them the Alt Wrong for nothing.

By the way, did you catch this from the original paper: “depending on method and choice of reference population.”

Sound familiar?  Yes, it does.

Facts on race = EGI Notes

Falsehoods on race = Der Movement, Inc.

More on Admixture Testing

Don’t compare apples to oranges.

I will attempt to explain the problems about parental populations and genetic tests for the typical Type I “movement” Nutzi dimwit. I will use simplified examples to illustrate the concept.

Let’s say Company X is assaying the autosomal genome of a Russian and trying to construct “ancestry percentages.”  The parent populations they are using as the standards of comparison are Germans and Japanese.  The Russian tests out as “95% German and 5% Japanese” (cue heavy breathing from the anti-Slavic contingent of Der Movement, Inc.).  However, if that same Russian was tested with parental populations of Russians and Japanese, the test results may be “100% Russian and 0% Japanese.”  The same basic principle applies to other groups.  The more similar the person or group tested is to the parental populations, the less “exotic admixture” they will display, and vice versa.

This does NOT mean that “race is a social construct” or “genetics is subjective” or “deconstructivism is correct.”  In the example above, the Russian’s genome is what it is, and can be identified as ethnically Russian.  However how one wishes to describe the objective reality of the genome can be subjective, or partially subjective, dependent on what parental populations are used.  And, even more fundamentally, how those parental populations are named.  What if the German population was labeled as “European” and the Japanese as “Asian.”  Then the Russian is “95% European and 5% Asian.”  On the other hand, most Germans would test as “100% European” as they are essentially being compared to themselves (in practice  of course there is statistical error, and not all Germans derive from identical genepools, so typical German percentages may vary from, say, “98-100 European” in this case.  The main point is that if Germans are being tested against a German parental population that is labelled as “European” they will have higher European percentages than other groups).

Of course, one can argue that this critique can be taken too far.  If you want to know the admixture percentages of Puerto Ricans, then using, say, Iberian, West African, and Amerindian parental populations are reasonable.  Using Puerto Ricans themselves as the parental population, and comparing Puerto Ricans to Puerto Ricans – with people getting test results of “98-100% Puerto Rican” is not going to be informative about the admixture question asked.

Fair enough.  But what if we were asking: which Hispanic group has the most admixture?  And then assume you use as the parental populations Puerto Ricans and Japanese.  Mexicans are going to show more “Asian admixture” in this case, given their greater percentage of Amerindian ancestry compared to Puerto Ricans.  If the parental populations were Mexicans and Nigerians, then Puerto Ricans would be seen as a Mexican-Nigerian mix.  

You can see that the manner in which the question is asked, and what data are used to answer it, is going to influence the interpretation of the outcome.

Subtleties like this fly right over the head of the typical “movement” fetishist.

Cheddar Man: More Anti-White Race Denying System Stupidity

Der Movement isn’t much better.

Read this.  As Madison Grant would say, that ancient Briton was “suspiciously swarthy.”

The first ancient Britons had black skin, dark curly hair and blue eyes, according to DNA tests.

The ‘extraordinary’ findings were made by cutting-edge genetic tests and facial reconstruction techniques carried out for the first time on the bones of ‘Cheddar Man’ who died 10,000 years ago.

The bones, found in Somerset’s Cheddar Gorge, are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain and scientists said they were surprised to discover that the earliest Briton would be considered ‘black’ if he lived today.

The research suggests the first inhabitants of the British isles developed white skin later on than previously thought.

Experts also revealed that Cheddar Man is directly related to 1 in 10 people living in the UK today.

The first ancient Britons had black skin, dark curly hair and blue eyes, DNA tests show. The findings were made by genetic tests carried out for the first time on the bones of ‘Cheddar Man’ who died 10,000 years ago. The bones are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain

Let’s deal with the race denial in the article and the implied idea that “this ancient Briton looked ‘Black’ therefore why object to dark migrants into Britain.”

Assuming these data are correct, and further assuming that this sample is representative of the whole, and that there is an ancestral connection between the sample and modern Britons, what does it mean?  It means that the “high trust hunter gatherers” that Der Movement undergoes onanistic heavy breathing about had certain phenotypic traits not representative of modern Britons.  However, the ancestral connection means what?  Undoubtedly – and can we see THAT data please? – any analysis of genetic distance (or, better, genetic kinship) will demonstrate that this ancient Briton is genetically most similar to modern Europeans – particularly those European ethnies most strongly derived from hunter-gatherers (spontaneous “movement” orgasm at this point) – and not at all genetically similar to, say, sub-Saharan Africans.  

The ancient Briton was simply an old European with a few phenotypic traits different from what is found today. The overall ancestry, broadly defined, is similar to modern Europeans, but a few selected traits have changed, for whatever reasons (sexual selection? selective pressure from the environment as suggested in the article?) – So what?  As to where the altered alleles came from?  Mutation?  From the outside – those dastardly Neolithic farmers perhaps?  [Joke on Der Movement: were the Neolithic farmers more “White” in physical appearance than the hunter gatherers? Apparently so.].  It in no way invalidates race; simply, racial traits can change over time, and this also of course has no bearing at all on any justification for modern Britons accepting their genetic replacement by alien peoples. You know, humans are descended from Home erectus as well  – who looked quite different from non-Negro humans, and this means what?  Should Chinamen then accept race replacement by other races?  Did Ancient Chinese look exactly the same as their modern counterparts?  Why this constant search for ever more bizarre and relevant rationales for race replacement of indigenous Europeans – and for Europeans only?

Yes, I know, the time frames comparing Homo erectus and Mesolithic Britons are radically different but the principle is the same.  People today are what they are, they have ethnic interests today, genetic interests look forward not backward in time, and modern Britons have the right to self-preservation regardless of what their ancestors looked like.  

And again what about genetic similarity and kinship?  The idea propagated by the pseudoscientific frauds interviewed for this article is that the original Britons were generically completely unlike those of today – hogwash. There were obviously differences in alleles affecting certain aspects of phenotype.  And of course, there are going to be genetic changes in any population over 10,000 years.  But once again I ask this question: to which modern populations is Cheddar Man most closely related, genetically?  Is he, for example, closest to Nigerians?  Can we learn more about his overall autosomal genome rather than hearing System talking points for British race replacement?

Of course, on the other hand, all of this should bring some reflection on Der Movement and their Ultima Thule Ostara racial fantasies, and it should also bring reflection that we cannot depend on Der Movement narratives to understand what ancient indigenous European phenotypic traits were, where white skin came from, etc.

Meet Chad Crowley: Anti-White Activist

Another Type I fetishist.

I am postponing the post originally scheduled for today, to make some brief comments about Chad Crowley, the latest Type I Alt Righter who regurgitates warmed over Kempism, deluded that some novel insights are being made.

Crowley’s all-too-familiar, and, from a general “movement” standpoint, boringly repetitive and grossly unimaginative, ramblings on Rome are both non-historical as well as anti-scientific (*).

I know I’ve seen the name “Chad Crowley” before, and a cursory search brings up sweaty mumblings about “Indo-Europeans” that laughably accepts Gunther as some sort of serious scholar, instead of the embarrassing crank that he was, at, and we can also observe more juvenile Alt Right nonsense at Counter-Currents.  Let’s examine a piece about “Viking Superman” (of course).  Emphasis added:

Viking — the word itself still conjures up the stereotypical image of bloodthirsty blonde barbarians, whose rage can only be sated by acts of pillage and rapine. Fortunately, this dated historical perspective has been somewhat revised, and establishment historians now tacitly acknowledge that Norse civilization was much more complex than previously thought, and a lot less one-dimensional. 

If only Der Movement could consider the history of Rome and the rest of the Classical World, as well as that of “modern” Southern Europe, in a manner that is “much more complex” and “a lot less one-dimensional.” Alas, that would entail some original thinking and a break with fossilized dogma (blasphemy) so such revised “historical perspective” will not be forthcoming from the babbling zombies of “movement” discourse.

If you are familiar with any of my writings, you’ll know that I firmly advocate the study and superimposition of past historical experiences onto present circumstances. Julius Evola

Who was of course a non-Indo-European, non-White, subhuman mongrel (which doesn’t prevent the Type I crowd from being fascinated with Evola and his insipid ramblings)

…presents my view of the usefulness of history succinctly when he posits that exploration of the past isn’t done for the ghoulish resurrection of long-dead peoples or cultures, but rather for the perennial spirit that animates and gives life to both. 

Or to engage in the usual “movement” ethnic fetishism.

The Vikings were many things — warriors, poets, explorers, statesmen — and in the dark days to come, I can think of no better “spirit” to invoke and study than that of our intrepid and oft-misunderstood Norse brethren. Like White Nationalism, Norse culture and the ‘Viking Age’ are still a sadly misunderstood phenomena, and this makes their examination all the more relevant.

The Roman period, particularly the Later Western Roman Empire, is still “a sadly misunderstood” period (misunderstood by Nutzi nitwits); I plan to read up on that period and eventually share my insights here (which you should not read if disagreement with “movement” dogma gives you fainting fits).

Furthermore, for centuries the Vikings were feared and hated by their non-Norse contemporaries, and later despised by generations of the anti-White academic establishment. All of this has only changed within the past several decades. What does this tell us? It illustrates that like our Viking kin, we White Nationalists will too someday be vindicated retrospectively, because nature favors the victorious, and our cause is glorious.

Please don’t say “we White nationalists.” I neither consider you a White nationalist nor part of “we.”

The White/European predisposition for heterodox thinking

Oh, the irony!  Someone who parrots decades of rigidly fossilized “movement” dogma with nary an original thought anywhere to be found talks about the “White/European predisposition for heterodox thinking.”

… is rooted in our people’s unique ethno- and evolutionary history. The great prophet of decline Oswald Spengler

Who would vehemently disagree with the bulk of your writing, including the confusion of Apollonian with Faustian.

 speculated that the Nordic (Aryan/Indo-European/European) soul was forged in the “harder struggling” environs of the “Nordic steppe,” and though I am not an environmental determinist, I would hold that this is partially true.[4] In the early Indo-European world, and even later in the Norse world of the Viking Age, the love of competition, permeated by the struggle of low-intensity conflict and in conjunction with the extreme climes of Northern Europe, gave birth to an inegalitarian and hierarchical society of aristocratic-warriors and heroic individuals. 

At the same time, the HBD-Nordicists tell us that Germanic Northwest Europeans are egalitarian altruistic universalists, uniquely helpless against immigration, being descended from “high trust hunter gatherers” who evolved in “the extreme climes of Northern Europe.”  The fact that these internally inconsistent views cause no cognitive dissonance is clear evidence that we are not dealing with rational analysis, but with a form of secularized religious faith.

These individuals favored deed and action over the pettiness of mere physical existence and material comfort. The cumulative tempering effect of all of these forces gave shape to the White/European man, whose desire to transcend the biological and the material…

That coming from someone who is a biological-minded materialist, albeit one peddling pseudoscience.

…whose penchant for a grounded abstract, became a proclivity for transcendence through self-overcoming. The White race’s ability to think clearly and creatively, harnessing our inner ‘Faustian’ nature has always been our people’s greatest strength, and we would be wise to continue to harness that which has always made us strong.
As White Nationalists…

Crowley is an anti-White activist, not a White nationalist (see below).

..we’ve dedicated ourselves to representing the highest, most transcendent attributes of our race, and the utilization of our ‘Faustian’ spirit in the service of a cause greater than our individual egos should be one of our greatest ideals. Ernst Jünger proclaimed that the underlying principle of the modern world is the centrality of pain. By experiencing and embracing hardship we have much in common with our Viking and Indo-European ancestors, and as such possess the potential for yet-undreamed-of greatness. 

Such greatness not manifested by the likes of Crowley.

Adolf Hitler once said that the Aryan “is the Prometheus of mankind” and I can conjure up no better epithet to describe the collective awesomeness intrinsic to our blood.

“Collective awesomeness.”  Cue cries of Pepe!  And Hail Kek!

Crowley is just another run-of-the mill, dime-a-dozen ethnic fetishist; same old, same old. By peddling distortions and untruths to divide Whites against themselves, Crowley does the dirty work of the System, and therefore can be considered a dedicated anti-White activist, not a White nationalist.

Sadly, The Occidental Observer has degenerated into a highbrow version of Chateau Heartiste, being a mix of Trump fanboyism, HBD pseudoscience, Nordicism, and juvenile AltRightism. More evidence that Der Movement, Inc. corrupts everything it comes in contact with, including otherwise intelligent and well individuals (TOO blog founders, not necessarily all of the contributors).

*Further, looking at Novembre’s “genes mirror geography” study, we can see that Italian samples, derived from various parts of that nation, fall exactly where one would expect given the geographic cline of gene frequencies.  There is no significant shift, as one would expect if the population base of the nation had been significantly replaced by others from origins outside the European genetic cline.

Genetic Structure and Altruistic Self-Sacrifice

A more precise accounting is required.

We are all aware of Haldane’s oft-quoted assertion that he would lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins, the genetic payoff of such altruistic self-sacrifice being the equivalence – as measured by ”bean-bag” genetics – of the numbers of gene copies between these sets of relatives.

In general, I am in broad agreement with the sentiment, although as we shall see, it requires modification.  Even more broadly, those on the Far Right invoke this paradigm to support the idea of altruistic self-sacrifice in favor of larger numbers of an ethny, in defense if ethnic genetic interests.  Likewise, I support that as well, with the proper modifications as with the smaller-scale examples of familial relatives.

Even though at first glance, Haldane’s reasoning seems sound, likely most people would be hesitant to follow that advice.  In large part, this is the natural impulse of self-preservation, but there are other reasonable objections that can be made.

One could argue, all else being equal, that judging between two sets of equivalent genetics, it’s better to preserve yourself for reasons of control.  A person concerned enough with genetic continuity that they would consider such altruistic self-sacrifice is someone likely to start a family, care for children, and properly actualize the continuity. Can you be sure your two brothers would do the same?  Why are they in the position that they need your sacrifice to begin with?  Are they stupid?  Reckless? Are you sure they’ll act in support of your (in this case indirect) genetic continuity with the same vigor you would do for yourself?  So, to be safe, maybe you need to raise the bar for self-sacrifice to three brothers or ten cousins?

A more important reason, and one that may be intuitively sensed by most people even though they wouldn’t be able to explain it, or likely even articulate their feeling about it, is that there is more about kinship than mere numbers of gene copies.  Genetic structure is important – what genes are coinherited and, to the layman’s eye, what phenotypic traits (derived from those genes) are inherited together.  Of course, family is going to be more similar here than (co-ethnic) strangers, but similarity is not identity.  Even with siblings (apart from identical twins, which are a special case), recombination and independent assortment will ensure that your brothers will have a distinct genetic stricture from you.  Now, granted, these same processed, even with a co-ethnic mate, will ensure that your children will also have a different genetic structure than you, but, all else being equal, your brothers’ children will be more unlike you, with respect to genetic structure, than your own children, as the “starting point” (you vs. your brothers) is already different. So, when genetic structure is taken into account, two brothers are not really your genetic equivalent.  Apart from an identical twin, you have no genetic equivalent, just degrees of relative similarity and difference, even after numbers of gene copies are accounted for.  Then how many brothers are sufficient for self-sacrifice?  This requires a more rigorous analysis, which will be dependent upon accurate measures of genetic structure, and that’s not something we can expect SJW population geneticists are likely to do. However, while the overall Haldane argument – and its Salterian extension – makes sense the numbers given based on “bean bag” genetics is going to be an underestimation of where you need to draw the line in sacrificing yourself for others.  On the other hand, the reverse is true – if you have to choose between your brothers and strangers, or between co-ethnics and non-ethnics, taking genetic structure into account means that helping your brothers and your co-ethnics is even more important than before, because in comparison to more genetically alien peoples, genetic structure amplifies how much more close you are to your brothers and your co-ethnics.  It’s a double-edged sword: it makes your own preservation a bit more important, but it also makes the preservation of those more similar to you more important than those more distant.

Now, one can argue that after several generations of recombination and independent assortment – even assuming endogamous mating within the ethny – genetic structures derived from your posterity and those of your brothers will be more or less the same, converging on the common pool of ethny-specific genetic structures.  So, while in the first generation, your offspring and that of your brothers may be distinct with respect to genetic structure, that difference would be attenuated over time and, as long as endogamous mating is maintained, your posterity and theirs would reflect similar genetic structures.  But there are problems here.  First, a rigorous analysis is required; perhaps some differences would continue over at least several generations; even if these differences are small, they nevertheless would need to be accounted for.  Second, if it is true that familial genetic strictures would tend, over time, to converge on more generalized ethny-specific structures, then why bother favoring two brothers over two random co-ethnics?  The brothers would share more of your genes, yes, and be more similar as far as genetic structure, but if one invokes “long term intergenerational effects” with respect to questioning the need to account for structure in modifying Haldane’s argument, then one can use the same “intergenerational effect” to directly question Haldane’s original premise.  The answer I believe is that one must do the best they can at a given time in maximizing their genetic payoff, and hope that subsequent generations do the same. In the absence of the required analysis, one can simply argue that looking to the next generation, differences in genetic structure are important and, hence, two brothers are not quite the genetic equivalence of yourself.  Your structure is different from theirs and the genetic payoff of your reproduction is greater for your than both of theirs combined.  So, maybe you need to hold out and sacrifice for three (or more) brothers instead, including for the other reason outlined above. Note that these fine points deal with very close genetic similarity.  When we are talking about racially alien peoples, the genetic distance becomes even more amplified with genetic structure, and in the absence of panmixia, ethny-specific patterns of genetic structure are broadly stable over evolutionary time (we can see that the Iceman is genetically more similar to Europeans than to, say, Asians  of Africans, as one example).

In the absence of the sort of careful quantitative analysis that population geneticists won’t do, from a qualitative standpoint, it would be prudent to require more of a genetic payoff before engaging in Haldane-style altruistic self-sacrifice.  On the other hand, when considering a choice in investing between two genetic entities, picking the group genetically closer to you is even more important when considering genetic structure.  So, when the choice is between self vs. family or family vs. ethny, genetic structure will require a larger genetic payoff before agreeing to sacrifice the interests of the former for the latter. However, when considering a relative choice between ethny one vs. ethny two, genetic structure means that choosing the more similar-to-you ethny is even more important than with “bean-bag” genetics.  

The overall Salterian imperative remains the same as before, once these adjustments are made.