groups of genetically related individuals can exhibit average differences in various biological aspects (see more on this here). for example, immediate family members are more similar to each other genetically — and, usually, phenotypically — than they are to strangers. moving outwards from that circle, extended family members are also more similar to each other genetically than they are to strangers, although less so than are immediate family members. and the circle can be extended even further to: clan and tribe members, traditional villages and regions, ethnic groups, and races, until we reach the human race where we start comparing our collective biological traits to those of other species: primates, mammals, vertebrates, life on earth…. biodiversity in humans also exists between the sexes. remember that the biodiversity found in all these populations — which don’t necessarily have well-defined boundaries — includes features like epigenomes and microbiomes in addition to genomes.
It seems to me that biodiversity has to exist just because genetics exist, and this shouldn’t be controversial. But the left are as anti-science as anyone when it conflicts with their sacred beliefs.
I’ve looked pretty hard for serious counter-arguments to human biodiversity, but Google is flooded with the answer, “that’s racist”, which is not an argument so much as something they feel.
Here’s Tyler Cowen on the subject of biodiversity.
