Maybe it's a good thing to consider different races to be different species. I personally think it will cause people to be more open-minded towards the plights of animals. Acknowledging diversity doesn't mean we have to hate the other kinds.
> two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee.
> Groups of chimpanzees within central Africa are more different genetically than humans living on different continents
> Our genetic homogeneity implies that anatomically modern humans arose relatively recently (perhaps 200,000 years ago) and that our population size was quite small at one time (perhaps 10,000 breeding individuals).
> approximately 90% of genetic variation can be found within [continents], and only about 10% of genetic variation separates the populations.
Calling us different species is laughable. We’re the genetic equivalent of putting 2 rabbits in a box and opening it up to find 300.
Didn't the human population drop to something like 2000 individuals at some point in history? Would be like dropping 2 rabbits in a box and opening it up to see 4 million.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. I personally think people would be too preoccupied planning the elimination of the other human species to consider animals with greater respect.
That being said, Noah Yuval Harari has very forward thinking writing along these lines. He uses the context of potential AI superior to our own intelligence, and how they will treat humans, to advocate for animal rights.
Sadly, separating humans into different species would further delineate the "other". Opening up the asinine argument of genetic superiority, the "others" as a less evolved species, and just reignite eugenics.
Acknowledging diversity doesn't mean we have to hate the other kinds, but it's sure a convenient excuse if you're looking. And there are always people looking.
