How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future

[wshc 46]

The question I have is: Who is going to support all the old people?

Send them all to England. They have FREE health care and it is wonderful I am told.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

Send them all to England. They have FREE health care and it is wonderful I am told.

canada is closer.

[Danno 1,228]

so what will?

What will save them?

They will have to "save" themselves.... we can't even get a tinny country like Haiti up and running despite the billions of wealth transfers.

These peoples and countries have to bloom where they are.

Immigration is no serious plan of action.

Look at all the money shipped to Mexico via the millions of their former citizens living here.... has Mexico grown to self sufficiency?

Cut the money transfers off and let's see.

I am inclined to think our immigration is hurting these countries more than helping, we are removing the very people these countries need and allowing them to immigrate.

Foreign aid should consist in large part to education, with the clear understanding, those we help educate have no hope of remaining here, they go back to their country with new skills and an understanding of how more successful parts of the world work.

[SMR 368]

Perhaps the book is interesting but I have always had a problem with theories that claim that genetics can tell us when and where from and to people migrated. You may be able to tell that certain people in India and certain people in Saudi Arabia diverged genetically 10000 years ago(hypothetical example that probably isn't true). But that doesn't tell us anything about where they lived 10000 years ago or where they have lived since. It's possible that they continued to live in close proximity but didn't intermingle genetically. And for all we know (from genetics), they may have lived in South Africa.

For some reason the erroneous assumption is made that one group moves while other groups stay in place and thus you can track the moving group by comparing genetic similarity to the 'stationary' groups. But since likely most groups have been moving there are no stationary groups to track against and trying to link DNA to geography is a series of educated guesses at best.

[Zero Sum 305]

Perhaps the book is interesting but I have always had a problem with theories that claim that genetics can tell us when and where from and to people migrated. You may be able to tell that certain people in India and certain people in Saudi Arabia diverged genetically 10000 years ago(hypothetical example that probably isn't true). But that doesn't tell us anything about where they lived 10000 years ago or where they have lived since. It's possible that they continued to live in close proximity but didn't intermingle genetically. And for all we know (from genetics), they may have lived in South Africa.

For some reason the erroneous assumption is made that one group moves while other groups stay in place and thus you can track the moving group by comparing genetic similarity to the 'stationary' groups. But since likely most groups have been moving there are no stationary groups to track against and trying to link DNA to geography is a series of educated guesses at best.

This may be my limited understanding of genetics, but you can follow gene flow from one area to the next with ample correlates to historical periods. I think your problem may be more of the not understanding how the science collects such data type. I may be speculating as much as you may be concluding things about genetic diversity and DNA variations from group to group that perhaps you may not have considered previously.

[Ironman140 45]

too late to warn us, obama's already here.

LMAO

[Captain Oates 911]

<<<< If rich countries were to admit enough migrants from poor countries to expand their own labour forces by a mere 3%, the world would be richer, according to one estimate, by $356 billion a year. Completely opening borders would add an astonishing $39 trillion over 25 years to the global economy. That is more than 500 times the amount the rich world spends on foreign aid each year. Migration is the most effective tool yet devised for reducing global poverty.>>>>

There are 1.7 billion people in absolute Poverty (not to mention relative poverty).

"Opening up our boarders" will not save the masses.

I hope you mean 'borders' as opening our 'boarders' is murder

[Captain Oates 911]

It's a curious fact, but if you ask any educated Brit which British Politician of the last 100 years should be called a racist, they will all say 'Enoch Powell'

Yet Enoch Powell blasted his own Conservative government from the benches of Parliament about the torture of Kenyans during the mau-mau emergency. He then sat down and openly wept about what the British troops were doing. He was referring to the treatment of Obama's granddad among others

[웃 910]

It's a curious fact, but if you ask any educated Brit which British Politician of the last 100 years should be called a racist, they will all say 'Enoch Powell'

Yet Enoch Powell blasted his own Conservative government from the benches of Parliament about the torture of Kenyans during the mau-mau emergency. He then sat down and openly wept about what the British troops were doing. He was referring to the treatment of Obama's granddad among others

English only outside of the regional forums please.

[^_^ 5,021]

English only outside of the regional forums please.

I never noticed your siggy till now. Love it!

[Captain Oates 911]

English only outside of the regional forums please.

Bit highbrow I admit

Especially for him with the username 'backward'

[웃 910]

I never noticed your siggy till now. Love it!

Thanks. I love the new topic I just posted on the invisible man. Even funnier if you are sitting a few feet back from the monitor as I was...Took me a good 15 seconds to see him

[SMR 368]

This may be my limited understanding of genetics, but you can follow gene flow from one area to the next with ample correlates to historical periods. I think your problem may be more of the not understanding how the science collects such data type. I may be speculating as much as you may be concluding things about genetic diversity and DNA variations from group to group that perhaps you may not have considered previously.

As I said, it's a guess. Combined with archaeological evidence and records you can probably make some good guesses. But that doesn't change the fact that a person's DNA doesn't conclusively tell you anything about where they live or have lived. Looking at my DNA, you can't tell me where I was born or where I have lived. You can't tell me where my father or grandfather were born. You may be able to guess at my so-called national origin but you can't conclusively tell me when my ancestors left that place of national origin. And importantly, you can't state conclusively that my ancestors ever lived in this place of national origin. For instance, I may have DNA similar to people now living in Timbuktu so you would say my ancestors originated there. But the people in Timbuktu perhaps used to live in Egypt. Maybe my ancestors left Egypt before the people now living in Timbuktu did. Those people who stayed in Egypt were completely wiped out by an invading force so no record of that DNA stayed in Egypt.

Yeah, this story sounds fantastic if it was 2000 years ago, since we would have evidence and records of this migration and wipe-out. But if it was 10000 years ago, we might have no evidence or record. If we could recover DNA from people in ancient city sites, we could probably do better. But very little DNA has been recovered from thousands of years ago.

[Zero Sum 305]

As I said, it's a guess. Combined with archaeological evidence and records you can probably make some good guesses. But that doesn't change the fact that a person's DNA doesn't conclusively tell you anything about where they live or have lived. Looking at my DNA, you can't tell me where I was born or where I have lived. You can't tell me where my father or grandfather were born. You may be able to guess at my so-called national origin but you can't conclusively tell me when my ancestors left that place of national origin. And importantly, you can't state conclusively that my ancestors ever lived in this place of national origin. For instance, I may have DNA similar to people now living in Timbuktu so you would say my ancestors originated there. But the people in Timbuktu perhaps used to live in Egypt. Maybe my ancestors left Egypt before the people now living in Timbuktu did. Those people who stayed in Egypt were completely wiped out by an invading force so no record of that DNA stayed in Egypt.

Yeah, this story sounds fantastic if it was 2000 years ago, since we would have evidence and records of this migration and wipe-out. But if it was 10000 years ago, we might have no evidence or record. If we could recover DNA from people in ancient city sites, we could probably do better. But very little DNA has been recovered from thousands of years ago.

Actually you can amplify fragmented DNA using a technique called PCR. This is commonly used to explore forensic DNA evidence as well as archaeological finds, and there is actually a surprising amount of 'evidence' left over from the ages of this sort. Add to this two lines of evidence that can be linked to geographical patterning: mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA... female and male (respectively) patterns of inheritance. There was an interesting report in Nat Geo a few years ago I'd wish to find about how researchers used existing Phoenician historical DNA evidence and matched some of it to present-day gene linkage around the Mediterranean. Pretty cool.

As to concluding origin and DNA gene flow- I think you're simplifying it too much. For a gene to be completely wiped out you'd have to have a total genocide of the area. In reality we can't be that naive... plenty of breeding has ensured that genes 1) concentrate geographically and 2) flow outwards in lesser frequency from their 'founder effect' nuclei. When they flow outwards like the spokes on a wheel- or in historical instances, along trade, migration, etc routes, you can trace the flow of the genes themselves.

Finish it off with structural analysis of genes themselves. Like I said I'm no expert but genes have variations that make them identifyable- like a fingerprint. These sequences are heritable over eons and remain within the mentioned DNA molecules (mitochondrial, Y-chromosome) and can be studied by comparison to quite a very accurate and narrow range.

[Captain Oates 911]

The genes of the Celts in Ireland are close to those of Austrians and this connection was picked up when it was noticed that both populations are wheat allergic

10,000 years ago, Ireland was under a mile of ice and so it is likely the emigration was from Austria rather than vice versa

A drive through East Yorkshire (the former Danelaw) had my red head wife chuckling at all the red head kids in the villages there

Not many red heads in Timbuktu I would guess

'Types' are very obvious in the more rural regions. The Real Irish have green eyes and jet black hair and are the top totty in the world from my observation. My mother informed me that the Dutch have long noses and the Welsh have broad foreheads from my observation

Being an amalgam of Viking/Norman French/Saxon/Irish/Welsh within the last 140 years, I am happily without any of the more concentrated and extreme features apart from from the resilience of the mongrel....

ps I have been married to 2 red heads and it is true what they say about them so I suspect it is genetic