The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Just. No.
We have reached the epitome of evolution, broadly defined by scientists as the stage at which sun screen becomes readily available. Thus, migration is now OK.
Reply 42
ITT looks too much into things.
Reply 43
I hate it when people put 'Discuss.' at the end of their OP's. **** off :angry:
Reply 44
I think your ideal environment is a ******* special needs home.
Reply 45
That has got to be the most retarded argument against immigration I have ever read.

Besides, by this logic we should deport nearly everybody from Australia and a hell of alot of people from South Africa because their pigmentation doesn't match their location :wink:
Reply 46
Broderss
They are the result of thousands of years of evolution. Their bodies are perfectly suited to the environment their ancestors have lived in for millennia. Yet they think they can move to a completely different country and expect it to be healthy for themselves and their children?

Let's look at skin pigmentation.

Darkly pigmented:
Suited for places where UV radiation is high such as high altitudes and places near the equator. Dark skin was necessary for places of high UV radiation because it prevented the destruction of folate by UV radiation and thus prevent folate deficiency, whilst the skin is still able to produce the right amount of Vitamin D since the UV radiation is so high. Folate deficiency can affect the fertility of both males and females and can lead to potentially fatal birth defects. People with light skin moving to these places will have reduced fertility and birth defects of offspring because the folate nutrient in their blood vessels would be destroyed by the UV radiation as their skin cannot block much out.

Depigmented:
Suited for places where UV radiation is low such as low altitudes and high latitudes. Lighter skin is better for places of low UV radiation because at these low levels there is not much sunlight for the skin to produce Vitamin D, necessary for calcium absorption and healthy bone growth. Lighter skin would allow more UV radiation and thus aid Vitamin D production, whereas darker skin would prevent the production of sufficient levels of Vitamin D. Lighter skin in these areas has evolved to ensure maximum Vitamin D production in conditions of reduced sunlight. Vitamin D deficiency has been implicated in diabetes, auto immune diseases, and viral and bacterial infection. People with darker skin moving to these places would develop Osteomalacia and produce offspring who may suffer from Rickets.

As far as skin pigmentation and migration goes, it is bad for a person's health to do so and the health effects are very taxing on the healthcare in the country people are emigrating to, so in Britain's case large amounts of our money are being wasted on immigrants not suited to our environment.

Therefore it is sensible to stop all immigration outside the EU, or separate people by skin colour and place them in their suited environments.

Discuss.



Yes, good idea. With the reduction in the ozone layer move all light pigmented people to the far north, top end of Canada perhaps, and let those with darker pigmentation have the rest of the world.

Yes, we should stop allowing immigration of lighter skinned people while we arrange to move the lighter skinned to where their pigmentation isn't a problem, the far north.
Even a bunch of the natives here have pigmentation that causes a drain on the health service, what with sunburn and heatstroke. Yes, good idea you have to move those who can suffer such bad sunburn in the Spring.


Oh, and the above is all poking fun in a tongue in cheek kind of way.

Pigmentation doesn't make much difference except to narrow minded bigots desperate to prove their superiority to cover up an inferiority complex. :smile:
Reply 47
i'm not usually one to bother posting in threads such as this, but the question answers itself.

have you not considered that by moving around and adapting environment, (whilst it might be a short term challenge, adapting to more than one climate/culture/ecosystem is surely beneficial, especially for any future offspring?

and if you really are concerned about it in fact being detrimental to such a person/their offspring, then they would die out so to speak (a crude application of natural selection), so what's there to worry about?
I hope everyone at Aston aint like this.
They're hardly going to die moving to another country just because they aren't 'perfectly biologically programmed' to live in such a harsh hostile terrain =/
Reply 50
Eclectic Styles
Subtle racism is subtle, of course.


Even the other subtle racists have disagreed with him :teehee:

Way to put it ES, I love you man :five:
Lol what a load of nonsense.
People move because they want a better lives for themselves and/or families, to live in a warmer climate too perhaps, and so on.
Well I suppose brown ppl have the best of both the worlds...we're everywhere! :biggrin:
Reply 53
Oh it's you again :sigh:
Not only are you xenophobic , you're a bloody racist as well!
Broderss
....


If people hadn't moved in the first place from Africa, we'd all be black and we wouldn't be having this debate. See the flaw in your idea?
Reply 56
:biggrin: What?? This is wrong on so many levels I can't even
Reply 57
Australians should move somewhere cold then
So Broders, what happens to all the Northern Americans, and Australians?
They aren't native to that continent, they are all Europeans.
Reply 59
I have brown skin and absolutely die in hot weather :dontknow:.

Latest

Trending

Trending