Well see, that just doesn't make any sense to me.crudus said:Well here's the thing: back in the hunter-gatherer days the most attractive person was the person with the most "normal" features(more "normal" the "better" your genes are). When you are a baby, that is your mother who is the same skin-tone as you. As you got older that would stay with you. Therefore, if you encountered a different race, the logic is "that isn't normal and has terrible genes". For the most part that seems to be staying with us today(hence why races still exist).i7omahawki said:I think it's actually in our code to be anti-racist, especially when it comes to reproduction. Novelty is an important factor and different races (back then) were nothing if not novelty. On the other hand we had an inset tribalism which is probably what stirs up racism today.
Why would that behaviour be instilled through evolution? Surely it is evolutionary beneficial to favour divergency (to a degree). Otherwise when an adaption was coming about, it would be quelled right away and the result is that we'd die out.
Anyhow, I remember reading a paper about sexual conditioning in which partners tired of each other and sought after 'novel' partners as a way of getting their seed spread, so to speak. Whether that's accurate, or if I could even find it on demand, is anyone's guess.