Video version of this article
In my video about the ice age, I received a lot of comments from southern europeans, or other europeans with dark features claiming that all they needed to do was to eat a lot of fish, to get vitamin D, and wear sunglasses if there was too much snow. Is that correct? Let's find out.
As a native european man, I actually have to wear clothes during winter here. Otherwise I will die. And I have to acquire the materials that I need to make clothes. And most of the time that would be animal skins.
Now if I on top of that also have to eat a certain type of food, like fat fish, you see, eating fish isn't good enough. You have to eat a fat fish to get vitamin D. And like I said, if I on top of that have to ensure that I get this type of food, then this requires a lot from me. And if I also need to protect my eyes by producing some sort of snow goggles, like the inuits do,[1]then that too requires more energy, more resources, than if I don't have to do that. So, the nordic native european man can spend the time that you would need to make these things and to catch this type of food on other things. So he has an advantage.
So yes, the southern europeans would survive in ice age europe too. But they would need to spend more energy and more resources on surviving. And therefore the nordic man, the native european man, or the purely native european man rather, has an advantage and would be more likely to have the energy and resources to produce more children and to survive when situations were difficult. So, in the long run, the native european man, or the purely native european man will be more likely to survive and produce more offspring that survives than the man that is a little bit mixed.[2]And I may add: when the mixed European man has children, those of his children that inherit the more Native European genes, are more likely to survive and have children that survive, than those who inherit more of the non-Native European genes. If you e.g. have three children, and only one of them inherits blue eyes, then that child is more likely to survive in the natural habitat of the blue-eyed Native European man than the two others. So no: Europeans with dark features are not going to "die out". But their non-Native European genes will. With time. And yes: the population of Europe will because of this naturally and gradually become more "Nordic" again.
Also, the argument that southern europeans can survive even though there is an ice age here, because they can eat a certain type of food and use snow goggles or in a civilized high-tech world, sunglasses. You have to remember that africans can survive here too, using that same argument. They too can eat a lot of fish, fat fish and use snow goggles and be able to survive here. However, if you need to do all these things, that means that this really is not your natural habitat. So, it all boils down really to simple mathematics. How much energy, how many resources, how much time would you need to spend in order to live well and survive and produce offspring here in Europe? And the answer is that the native european man, the pure native european man with the nordic features, is better suited to survive here in Europe. Everybody pretty much can survive, but in the long run they will be less likely to prosper and less likely to produce fertile, healthy offspring and therefore less likely to become dominant, so to speak.
And if you need to spend extra time, resources and energy on surviving here, would it not be more natural for you to move to a place where you don't have to do that? And if you have to move to another area in order not to do that, then I would argue that that area would be your natural habitat. Simple as that.
So it's not just about the ability to survive one place, it's about whether or not you are at an advantage there or not. And whether or not that environment is your natural environment.
Every now and then I get arguments against some of my points that are good and that would invalidate my point, if my point stood on its own. However, you have to look at the points I make in connection with the other points. So for example, the point about surviving the ice age and how being nordic is an advantage there, has to be seen in relation to the fact that the high tech civilization that we know is probably going to fall. Because we run out of rare materials, probably even before we run out of oil. When you take into equation more of the factors, you will understand that you can't really just wear sunglasses, because nobody will be able to produce sunglasses without this high tech civilization. And you can't just go fishing like that for fat fish to get vitamin D, because it's kind of difficult without high tech civilization. And also the fact that high tech civilization has removed almost all the fat fish from Europe. You are not going to find any salmon in the freshwater lakes or rivers here in Europe, because it's gone.
So it's not that easy, you can't just go out and fish a lot of fat fish to get vitamin D without high tech civilization. You can't just go buy it in the shop, if there are no shops. So, you have to consider all my arguments, not just each and every one isolated on its own.
As a native european man, I actually have to wear clothes during winter here. Otherwise I will die. And I have to acquire the materials that I need to make clothes. And most of the time that would be animal skins.
Now if I on top of that also have to eat a certain type of food, like fat fish, you see, eating fish isn't good enough. You have to eat a fat fish to get vitamin D. And like I said, if I on top of that have to ensure that I get this type of food, then this requires a lot from me. And if I also need to protect my eyes by producing some sort of snow goggles, like the inuits do,[1]then that too requires more energy, more resources, than if I don't have to do that. So, the nordic native european man can spend the time that you would need to make these things and to catch this type of food on other things. So he has an advantage.
So yes, the southern europeans would survive in ice age europe too. But they would need to spend more energy and more resources on surviving. And therefore the nordic man, the native european man, or the purely native european man rather, has an advantage and would be more likely to have the energy and resources to produce more children and to survive when situations were difficult. So, in the long run, the native european man, or the purely native european man will be more likely to survive and produce more offspring that survives than the man that is a little bit mixed.[2]And I may add: when the mixed European man has children, those of his children that inherit the more Native European genes, are more likely to survive and have children that survive, than those who inherit more of the non-Native European genes. If you e.g. have three children, and only one of them inherits blue eyes, then that child is more likely to survive in the natural habitat of the blue-eyed Native European man than the two others. So no: Europeans with dark features are not going to "die out". But their non-Native European genes will. With time. And yes: the population of Europe will because of this naturally and gradually become more "Nordic" again.
Also, the argument that southern europeans can survive even though there is an ice age here, because they can eat a certain type of food and use snow goggles or in a civilized high-tech world, sunglasses. You have to remember that africans can survive here too, using that same argument. They too can eat a lot of fish, fat fish and use snow goggles and be able to survive here. However, if you need to do all these things, that means that this really is not your natural habitat. So, it all boils down really to simple mathematics. How much energy, how many resources, how much time would you need to spend in order to live well and survive and produce offspring here in Europe? And the answer is that the native european man, the pure native european man with the nordic features, is better suited to survive here in Europe. Everybody pretty much can survive, but in the long run they will be less likely to prosper and less likely to produce fertile, healthy offspring and therefore less likely to become dominant, so to speak.
And if you need to spend extra time, resources and energy on surviving here, would it not be more natural for you to move to a place where you don't have to do that? And if you have to move to another area in order not to do that, then I would argue that that area would be your natural habitat. Simple as that.
So it's not just about the ability to survive one place, it's about whether or not you are at an advantage there or not. And whether or not that environment is your natural environment.
Every now and then I get arguments against some of my points that are good and that would invalidate my point, if my point stood on its own. However, you have to look at the points I make in connection with the other points. So for example, the point about surviving the ice age and how being nordic is an advantage there, has to be seen in relation to the fact that the high tech civilization that we know is probably going to fall. Because we run out of rare materials, probably even before we run out of oil. When you take into equation more of the factors, you will understand that you can't really just wear sunglasses, because nobody will be able to produce sunglasses without this high tech civilization. And you can't just go fishing like that for fat fish to get vitamin D, because it's kind of difficult without high tech civilization. And also the fact that high tech civilization has removed almost all the fat fish from Europe. You are not going to find any salmon in the freshwater lakes or rivers here in Europe, because it's gone.
So it's not that easy, you can't just go out and fish a lot of fat fish to get vitamin D without high tech civilization. You can't just go buy it in the shop, if there are no shops. So, you have to consider all my arguments, not just each and every one isolated on its own.
- They don't work to improve your night visions though. I can assure you.
- If there were nobody with an advantage, then of course one group would not be at a disadvantage in relation to others.