> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction. Maybe it’s a bad idea to to look at the current birth rate anf extrapolate it in the future like it’s a constant number.
A good point. But one could also look at an ailing elephant, and say it need not worry about dying, because look, it is so much larger than a healthy kitten. Yet in a year, the elephant will be a skeleton, and the kitten will be a healthy cat. It all depends how they will handle the population drop - in a controlled way, gently reducing their numbers, or will it trigger a crisis, they let 52 million Chinese into their country, and slowly disappear as a distinct people.
> The culture? That already dies through changes in time.
By this logic a child dying or growing up is no different - both are "deaths through change". Of course the culture that Korea's culture will evolve into is much different than how Hungarian or Nigerian culture will evolve.
> The South Korean gen? Humans are pretty similar regarding their genes.
Even in a place as small and inter-connected as Europe, people have differentiated genes [1]. Globally, especially with geographic barriers, the diversity is even greater [2]. I find it extremely callous to so casually say Korean genetic distinctions aren't worth preserving, or that Koreans are interchangeable with any other people.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2735096/
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...
The genetic differences are negligible.
Like your first link showed: There is a greater diversity between African countries than any African country to Europe.
You could break down those differences down to the village level but it’s a useless distinction and more likely the base useless racism and nationalism.
By that logic every single humans death is a loss of genetic diversity.
And thanks to international travel and migration this differences already get mixed up.
> By that logic every single humans death is a loss of genetic diversity.
This is "how many grains of sand make a pile" territory, isn't it? You're claiming that because a change of X is negligible, it must mean that a change of 1000000*X is also negligible.
As for my first link - I couldn't find where it showed that, and even if it did, it doesn't follow that the differences are negligible (to whom?) [1]. Why does Africa having a lot of genetic human diversity, make those differences negligible?
[1] Especially since Africa has two completely different populations due to the barrier of the Sahara - of course the difference between Europeans and Arabs are smaller than between Arabs and Namibians.