1. Future U.S. politics
By 2050 U.S whites will be a minority race vis-av-is a total aggregate of non whites in that country . What happens then ? Don't forget that voting in many democracies is normally polarised along racial, ethnic or tribal demarcations. For instance in U.S. politics you often here that a candidate went to, for example, state of New Mexico to appeal for latino vote. Or a certain Black Baptist minister urged his fellow breathrens " to vote early and in droves" for a change. When Barrack Obama won a second term as U.S president many voters from some states later indicated that they wanted to secede. The question then is; what happens next when the whites are a mirority race in american political dynamics? We can only quess ! Top

3. Where Nature and Science pull in Opposite Directions
If you learnt some physics in high school you know that black color absorbs most heat and, on the other hand, white objects reflect most light and therefore absorbs least heat. In very hot conditions and terrain like the Namib desert, this phenomenon is exemplarily displayed by chameleons that inhabit there. When the sun is overhead and therefore very hot, the chameleon's color is almost complete white. Come evening and the sun is down the chameleons color changes to black in order to absorb most light for maximum heat retention. In above scenario, science and nature rhyme and are in sync. But for human beings nature and science seems to be pulling in different directions !

O.k. What I am saying is this: according to above natural setting of things Black people should be inhabitting the scandnivean region or the northern and southern pole regions where sunlight is limited and therefore would require black skin to absorb maximum light. And, on the other hand all people of light skin should be contained within the tropics where sunlight is maximum since their skin would reflect much of it. They would also not require much effort to absorb light since its in plenty. But, look, the blackest of the black in africa are concentrated along the equator, and whitest of the white in the poles where sun light is as valuable as oxygen. Nature and science seems to pull in opposite directions here. Again, skin cancer is a rare disease in africa compared to europe where it is significantly prevalent. Many "researchers" claim that a lot of sunlight is a causative agent of skin cancer. Is it?

I happened to speak to my friend, "professor" kujua-sana, a know-it-all academician who could rightly be a Darwin student. He explained that there are two scenarios that could have brought forth the present set up. One; either all humans originally inhabitted the poles but some found their way into the tropics after migration. They subsequently changed their complexion after settling due hot sun. Or, all humans lived within the tropics initially. But how did others find their way to the poles yet africans were not known to be explorers to suggest that some migrated to the poles where they eventually changed complexion due to limited sun light. Drawing from the aforegoing literature I think- just think- that Nature  is  not  science  and  Science  is  not  natural. Of course there is strong relationship between them. But either of them is stronger than the other and determining the stronger party is the most difficult thing if at all it can be done. We need help here Top