>>11345107For a behavioral biologist that studies kin/group selection, then yes, it is for now a useful heuristic.
To be more exact we would have to know the exact details of shared genes which stimulates our senses into acting with heightened altruism and cooperation in groups, especially with regards to evolutionary pressure.
In developed countries we can afford to be cooperative regardless of genetic dissimilarity due to excess of resources (virtually no evolutionary pressure), but if resources were in deficit (higher evolutionary pressure) behavior would become more tribal with regards to genetic similarity to ensure passing on individual and/or similar genes.
The easiest example for us to sense and demonstrate genetic similarity is by for example the visuals of the phenotype which is expressed in eye- hair- and skin color and other morphological traits, which we can -for our ease- categorize into race.
Other supplemental morphological traits can further categorize races into subgroups to differentiate between, take for example Saxons and Slavs. This is of course not empiric and doesn't account for possible convergence but with enough experience (personal data) you can determine the ancestry based on the occurrence of traits within certain groups to create an average (stereotype) which concludes that certain traits are indicative of certain races or subgroups of races.
And if you were to make an empirical analysis there would be genetic differences to support the differences in those traits as our morphology is mostly the expression of our genes.
So, to answer we are only considered as equals so long we can afford to with regards to natural selection.
