A few posts ago, someone wrote here: "Americans are genetically superior to all others No other country has the same level of variety in its gene pool than America. Variety in the gene pool is important for increasing the odds of survival against genetic defect. Therefore, I assert that as a whole, Americans are genetically superior to all others." This is a very interesting statement, which clearly comes from a genetically inferior being (;-). First of all, human beings are social beings, not merely biological. When you put them together in groups, a socius and a culture emerge which are seperate and powerful entities that are more than just the sum of its parts. As we all know, both this socius and culture play a far more important role than genes when we're thinking on the scale of entire human populations. Well, if we take that into account, the American Empire may soon face the same fate as all previous empires, because in reality it is not a genetically diverse population, but a genetically segregationist society (here, culture and ideology already limit genetic mixing). (The Roman Empire had a far more diverse population than contemporary America--both in biological and in social terms). The per capita number of mixed marriages and kids in the US is not that much higher than in other hybrid populations (like those of Brazil, South Africa, and Europe). So I don't take the statement all too serious. But I want to elaborate on another point. It's obvious that in the end culture decides over the strength of a population. America's rise to power was mainly due to a 19th century ideology of Progress, Utilitarianism and Racism. Later on came Imperialism. These values brought wealth and prosperity to a totally racist society, with whites and blacks absolutely segregated. When Asian immigrants were imported to do dirty work we saw the same. America's multicultural society is a very recent phenomenon. And I'm not really sure if it is an interesting kind of multiculturalism, because it is so superficial. In fact, I consider the USA to be one of the most culturally homogeneous and least diverse societies on the planet. And this leads all kinds of weaknesses. Elements of that homogeneous culture and that unitary ideology--which you have to take an oath on to call yourself "American"--directly lead to premature death (Americans rank rather low qua overall health compared to Europeans; their Stress Society produces all kinds of strange phenomena, like massive drug abuse, incredible obesity stats, etc...). Now, premature death on a social scale is not really a great sign of genetic power. So we see that the cultural sphere directly influences the biological sphere of individuals, when we're thinking on the scale of entire populations. But the social and cultural sphere of course also create effects within their own spheres (and in the end, these come back to the biological sphere): problems arising from the American ideology may in the long run lead to the total destruction of that genetically diverse population. Because, when an Empire maintains its 19th century ideology (of imperialism, superiority etc...) in the 21st century, cultural anachronisms grow, which can be lethal (that's a "lesson" we have learned from history). Take gobal inequalities: the USA is by far the biggest and most arrogant consumer of all kinds of resources on this planet, per capita. Since American kids in general are just ordinary kids (socially and culturally a bit less intelligent than other people on the planet, that has been well documented), "then why are they so well off?", many people ask. Well, this global feeling of injustice in turn may lead to anti-americanism on a planetary scale which may lead to conflict, which may lead to an even bigger Stress Society, leading to even more premature death ratios etc... The question is: can America, being a wealthy society (but with enormous internal and external inequalities) technologically keep up with the growth of anti-Americanism? I don't think so. If America choses to keep its paranoia (cultural weakness) as its basic societal metaphor, history may prove it to be an unviable project. Therefor, I challenge the original poster to discuss the value of culture over genes. [Excuse me for my bad English, my native language is that of the future, so for now, my apologies ;-) ].