A Descent into Genetic Descent

More on EGI.

The following analysis is based on autosomal DNA, which constitutes the vast bulk of the genome and is the focus of what we typically consider to be ethnic genetic interests (EGI), and is not concerned with NRY and mitochondrial DNA, which are mostly irrelevant to EGI.

Critics of EGI from the Left and the Right (e.g., HBD) often focus on (unjustified) distinctions between genetic relatedness based on direct genealogical relationships (identity by descent) and genetic relatedness independent of direct genealogy (identify by state), such as belonging to the same ethny. Of course, as I’ve stated previously, identity by state is usually just a form of identity by descent that is based on very distant descent, but for the sake of my initial argument here we can consider them to be separate entities. 

Critics of EGI aver that adaptive fitness, and related inclusive fitness (what we do to achieve adaptive fitness; e.g., by assisting kin), only applies to (close, familial) kin, thus only applying to identity by descent, and does not at all apply to identity by state (i.e., to unrelated co-ethnics).  Salter refutes this by citing Hamilton’s modification of the original formulation of inclusive fitness, but let us evaluate the problem from another perspective.

Consider the genetic relatedness of a person, such as yourself, with their descendants. How do you relate, in this genetic sense, to your posterity? With each subsequent generation removed from self, not considering effects of independent assortment and recombination in meiosis, genetic relationship (identity by descent) with genealogical kin is halved. Now, properly considering the aforementioned meiotic processes complicates the situation, so actual relatedness may be somewhat greater or lesser than a two-fold change; however, the reality of a continuous diminishment each generation remains. Thus, at some point, after several centuries, genetic relatedness by genealogical kinship descent (identity by descent) will approach zero. That’s assuming your familial line continues; if it does not, obviously identity by descent will be cut down to absolute zero at the point the line of familial descent ends. But, in any case, at some point, identity by descent in the genealogical sense will become vanishingly small (if it exists at all). However, and this a key point, identity by state will remain, assuming your familial line has not suffered significant admixture with genetically alien stocks. And, even more important, this identity by state will be approximately equivalent to that of unrelated co-ethnics (assuming such co-ethnics exist and have also not suffered significant alien admixture, and also taking into account normal processes of genetic drift and selection that are expected events that occur with all evolved organisms).

Thus, if we assume no significant ethnoracial admixture of your genealogical line of descent, or of your ethny, and if we simply consider overall genetic relatedness, now without making any unnecessary distinctions between identity by descent and identity by state (after all, identical gene sequences are identical, regardless of their origin), then, at some point, your genetic relatedness to your distant posterity will be equivalent to that of a random, unrelated (non-kin) co-ethnic. If your line of descent actually suffered from significant admixture (and your ethny did not), then your distant kin may actually be less genetically similar to you than a random co-ethnic. But in either case, a random (unmixed) co-ethnic will not be any less genetically similar to you (in any meaningful sense) than is your distant genealogical kin (if any exist). This endpoint may be delayed by familial inbreeding (which would depress fitness by other mechanisms), but, eventually, this ultimate endpoint will be reached.

So, does adaptive fitness, and related inclusive fitness, simply “peter out” after several centuries and thus only applies to genealogical kin close to you in time?  Is adaptive fitness therefore self-limited and thus one should only care about a few generations of posterity and ignore what happens after that time (*)?  What justification is there for that view?  What is the specific endpoint?  When kin relatedness reaches that of the background population? Does that mean you have no adaptive interests at all at that point? Really? Why are identical gene sequences from descent at that point privileged over identical gene sequences by state? Does that make objective sense? Or can we dismiss the artificial distinction of identity by descent vs. identity by state and recognize that you would still have adaptive interests (for your posterity and for your co-ethnics) at that time? These would be your interests in (unmixed) co-ethnics to whom you are more genetically similar compared to other populations, and thus this identity by state allows you to exercise inclusive fitness on behalf of these future co-ethnics (that would include any [unmixed] distant kin who would be genetically more or less indistinguishable from the co-ethnics) by engaging in activity in your lifetime that will secure the well-being of your future ethnic kin?  And if the well-being of your ethnic kin in the future is important, then their well-being today certainly is as well (the former depends on the latter, does it not?). Even if today's unrelated ethnic kin are a less concentrated store of genetic similarity than are your immediate kin, there are many more of the former group, and if you want their future well-being to be assured, you need to act on their behalf today.

So, either the critics of EGI have to assert that adaptive fitness only applies to a certain number of generations of kinship, and thereafter is meaningless – which in the long run of evolutionary time means it is completely meaningless (which would go against neo-Darwinian theory and make inclusive fitness activity a long term waste of effort) – and that identical gene sequences are somehow different based on their origin (even though they are identical) OR the critics need to admit the validity of EGI. They need to admit that adaptive fitness, exercised through inclusive fitness mechanisms in pursuit of genetic interests, can apply to co-ethnics (present and future) as well as to genealogical kin. They need to admit that genetic interests apply to genetic identity by distant descent (identity by state) as well as genetic identity by close kin (recent descent; i.e., identity by descent). They need to acknowledge that at some point, genealogical relatedness becomes so dilute that (unmixed) genealogical kinship conflates to co-ethnic relatedness (and if the genealogical kinship is heavily admixed it may exhibit genetic relatedness less than that of unrelated unmixed co-ethnics).

Again, EGI is self-evident. I state that because it is objectively true.

*Another related issue – consider how the Left and Right would respond to someone who states – “I don’t have children and I don’t care what happens after I die, so I don’t care about the environment or anything else that affects the future of humanity.” The Left and Right would respond that this self-centered person has a common interest in humanity; the person is human and is in this manner linked to the interests of humanity as a whole. Putting aside that this view is inconsistent with Left/Right “song and dance” about identity by descent vs. identity by state, we can ask – if we have common interest in the well-being of humanity as whole, then why don’t we also have a common interest in the well-being of our particular ethny? Why do we agree that we have interests in self, family, and humanity, but are then supposed to skip over our interests at the level of ethny? Are all these anti-EGI arguments simply a tactic to ensure that Whites do not organize to defend and promote their collective group interests? It does seem to be the case. I do not see why Whites need to accept such a transparently obvious attempt to delegitimize their group interests.