Openness to Inaccuracy of Reproduction as an Ersatz Ideal

The attempted idealization of inaccuracy of reproduction, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms.
As the genetic differences between the parents grow larger, each must reproduce less accurately.
Reproduction is of like unto like, not of dissimilars to further dissimilars. Therefore, propaganda making out each additional increment, of genetic distance between the parents, sound like an improvement
in itself, is contrary to the accuracy of reproduction, and to reproduction in a more general way.
Similarly, a false dilemma is set up, when one is asked to choose between extremes of inbreeding and further and further degrees of outbreeding, as if there were not a best level much closer to the threshold of literal inbreeding, which is best for accuracy and excellence of reproduction.
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.
Now what would it mean, then, if insofar as a population has been resistant to despotism, they are asked to value this push towards inaccuracy of reproduction; unless those promoting such
further outbreeding, believe that the resistance to dictatorship has a significant genetic influence to it?
Additionally, from a posting of August 31st, 2007:
Slighting the Concern for Accuracy of Reproduction Involves the Use of Unreason Where Rational Arguments Were to be Expected
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.It would not be necessary to set up false dilemmas, such as marriage of first cousins versus having a preference for something like random breeding. It would not be necessary to pretend that a slippery slope exists such that we either idealize random breeding on a global scale, or slide inevitably towards compulsory close breeding. As with body temperature, salinity or any number of other measures, the ideal can be an intermediate range, and the false reasoning that would say that to reject, for example, high body temperature as an ideal, must result in idealizing low body temperature, is just obviously deceitful.
Added 7-4-08 from: Pro-Diversity's Over-Extended Analogy to 'New Blood',
If the 'new blood' or 'new ideas' are evaluated as a positive, regardless of whether they are really better or less likely to generate unfitness than the old, that is attempted non-evaluative evaluation, a contradiction-in-terms. Yes, it involves trying to be evaluative and non-evaluative at the same time and in the same respect: what is new is evaluated as being better just for being new somewhere, while at the same time and in the same respect, NOT being evaluated as to whether its 'new' contribution is a real improvement or not. Last year, I denounced the sort of motivations driving an embrace of the above contradiction in this way: Smear-Mongering And Analogies To Incestuous Inbreeding As Support For Valuing Openness To Diversity
If openness to diversity is to be regarded as a value, and as one, of which, one can never have too much, while the analogy originally was to a genetic openness to diversity just sufficient to ward off inbreeding depression, isn't that analogy strained enormously far beyond what it can bear?
It being thus broken, oughtn't one to conclude that the inbreeding analogy in the service of that pro-diversity rhetoric, was really just the preliminary to a smear, such as: Prove you're not an advocate of inbreeding and incest! It has long been used in exactly this way, in the wretchedly routine New Left-ish pattern: smearing, false dilemma, equivocation, slippery-slopes and misconception of ideals. Accept diversity value, or we'll call you incestuous and inbred! The false dilemma is extreme outbreeding or extreme inbreeding as ideals, with the vast middle ground of real possibilities excluded, as if only to facilitate smearing. Such an obviously fictitious dilemma between ideals, is a misconception of ideals as well. Slippery-slope is implicated, since those who would not make a drive on mass random breeding for the whole world their ideal, are implied to be on an inexorable slide towards inbreeding and incest. If not, then why the smears of 'inbred' this and 'incestuous' that? The term inbreeding gets equivocated with extreme inbreeding and with incestuous breeding, all to facilitate the smear job. If valuing openness to diversity were being presented honestly, in a moderate way asking for little or nothing beyond what people have always done, there would be no need for the smears, equivocations and other fallacies. There is no rational argument for valuing openness to diversity in the above-described way, as something beyond the practices of mankind for ages before now; that is why the smear approach must be used instead .
Added 7-4-08 from: Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Stunning Contradiction For The Pro-Diversity: Valuing More Openness To Immigrant Diversity Can Cause Defects From Inbreeding To Steeply Rise
From UK Telegraph of 16th Nov.,07: "By Marco Giannangeli[...]The report, commissioned by Ann Cryer, revealed that the Pakistani community accounted for 30 per cent of all births with recessive disorders, despite representing 3.4 per cent of the birth rate nationwide.[...]It is estimated that more than 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, resulting in an increasing rate of genetic defects and high rates of infant mortality. [...] Royal Infirmary Hospital [Bradford, UK] has identified more than 140 different recessive disorders among local children, compared with the usual 20-30." JB Comments: The pro-diversity, arguing also for valuing openness to diversity, on an analogy to inbreeding depression being lessened through increase of diversity, have, at the same time and in the same respect, managed to be both for and against the increase of inbreeding in a population of tens of millions. The contradiction is insuperable; valuing openness to diversity includes placing positive value sign on the openness to immigration which hugely increases the prevalence of defects from inbreeding.
Added 8-9-08 from: Thursday, August 7, 2008

Randomization Damage To Associations Of Alleles In Populations
such as races, which have persisted for thousands and tens of thousands of years, co-evolving as associations of alleles in long-isolated populations; may do untold damage. Unlike doomed species of no honest interest to man, the randomization/destruction of this human genetic information is sure to degrade that which we ought to value both as individuals and at every other level. Instead, though, the anti-culture of the government schools, bids us value openness to diversity. As anti-arts were set out to destroy the information contained in the (true) fine arts, so the emphasis on valuing openness to genetic diversity from as far afield as possible, attempts the ruin of real values. Of note is the need for government funding of such propaganda offensives, as what is pushed is highly contra natura. As bad as it sounds, it is a fleeting moment in the scheme of things, though, since this line counseling openness to diversity is to be abandoned once ultimate power is won. Meanwhile, it is used to provoke and then try to smear those who oppose the pro-diversity talk. Make them prove they're not racist, rather than your having to prove why you should have more power, is how it works.
Added 8-28-08: Mental health of biracial Asian Americans :
"biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder." -34 vs. 17% according to the linked study