>>716155474
Also NTA but using a few examples of species that have spent hundreds of thousands of years in contention only to finally form a symbiotic (parasitic) relationship is not a valid counter to anon saying that species best flourish in homogenous groups. You put wolves next to foxes and they're not going to suddenly be buddy-buddy and cooperate. And when they do (as some species are known to), it requires them specifically being different and filling different niches to work. When it doesn't, however, its best for them to work with their own kind.
How does that translate to humans? It doesn't. Not really. Humans eat the same shit, have roughly the same lifespans, and share similar goals. Nature can't really compare to culture, despite people's attempts to do so. Forcing cultures together because "some things in nature cooperate!" is fucking retarded. But so is "Well monkies and tigers don't get along so why should whites and blacks?"
Culture is a different argument, and yes, theyre much much better off separate.
