4 ms·

I've been trying to follow the developing human origin story (as a layman) for while now. It's hard to overstate the importance of the elephant in the room here

by themgt 10y ago

I've been trying to follow the developing human origin story (as a layman) for while now. It's hard to overstate the importance of the elephant in the room here, which is race and variation within the human species. There was a huge movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all humans were the same and therefore "equal" The Out-of-Africa narrative has to be understood in this context, that it is a very positive narrative, that humans-as-humans developed just once in this tiny spot in Africa and then spread out around the world very recently, never interbred with other hominid species so they're all gone, and therefore we're all pretty much exactly the same. What has been emerging especially now that genetic sequencing is becoming rapidly cheaper and more advanced at picking human genomes out of the genetic diaspora found in old fossils, is a much more complicated picture. The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness, so they're beginning to push the evidence that Asian hominid genes contributed to the emergence of modern humans/civilization. The emerging picture to me is one of multiple waves of hominin advances spreading in a varied way and admixing with existing local populations. So there's pretty clearly an ancient Out-of-Africa wave of homo erectus(who were far more advanced than previously acknowledged), a possible evolution of "homo erectus+" and wave out of Asia, and likely an "Out of Arabia" mix of neanderthals and AMHs in the Levant, all of which intermixed imperfectly. The Neanderthals themselves look plausibly responsible for some advances in human civilization (Mousterians) What you wind up with is a far more complex picture of human evolution and far more significant and long-standing difference between human populations, which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity.

kbenson 10y ago
> which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity. As with so many sociological effects caused by technology and knowledge, there's a tradition of science fiction that deals with this concept. Is a human level AI intelligence human, or something else? If it's something else, does it deserve the same rights as a human? If we uplift a species, do we expand the classification of "human" to cover that as well? What does it mean to be human? We can inch along and slowly change our laws based on the understandings we have right now, or we can attempt to leap-frog that thinking and provide a framework for protecting intelligent species (to whatever degree) and try to take a more holistic approach to this before it becomes a mess. This is a problem we will have to deal with eventually, should we be so lucky to survive that long. Here's a less extreme (but still wild) scenario: A tribe of neanderthals is discovered. Do they deserve human rights? I could see some not very good things happening in the short time before consensus formed around that answer, but what, really makes neanderthals more deserving than Gorillas, dolphins, cows, or cats and dogs? We, as a species and as nations (mostly, there are exceptions) have been able to punt on this question because it may upset the way we currently function, but we owe it to ourselves to answer why we should care more about a neanderthal than a cow (if we should).
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness What? They're crazy racist and don't want to believe they're African. That's it. Its a common bias with the Chinese. You're playing up a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Why would the US give two fucks about telling everyone they're African? The US has a history of slavery and segregation and still is economically/socially segregated today. We have good evidence that everyone is from Africa: By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago. http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncove...
zasz 10y ago
"Obviously"? Have you ever met any older Chinese people, or folks fresh from the mainland? They're racist as hell. My dad was fond of telling me that the one black physics professor he knew at UC Berkeley was a very nice guy, but clearly a charity case, and that blacks were just lazy in general. It's much more safe to say that it's 'obvious' that the Chinese could have a political agenda in pushing the notion that there are special Asian hominid genes. They're as susceptible to racism and patriotism as anyone else. No man, or woman, on this planet, is free from ideological bias.
- justicezyx 10y ago
  I am not sure. Calling people lazy seems a logical conclusion for older generation Chines people. My parents call me lazy very often, because I cannot keep my apartment tidy... They led a life with prevalent poverty and lack of food, and almost any kind of living supplies. They all need to work hard. I am not surprised that an older generation Chinese call most US people lazy. As for whether there is a racism judgement, I dont know. You are most close to your dad. :)
  - euyyn 10y ago
    There's all the difference between calling you, his son, lazy, and saying "blacks are just lazy in general". Can you easily see your dad telling you: "you're lazy, like all yellows"?
    - justicezyx 10y ago
      No kidding, my dad actually says "your generations are too lazy"...
netcan 10y ago
Well put. I think there is a history of contorting facts about world to work well with moral or political goals, often well meaning. There’s the connection between homogenous Out Of Africa humanity to promote egality and fraternity, directly opposite nazi race theories. The Nazi race and culture theories were themselves contortions to support nazi political and moral agendas. Feminism did it, with the nature-nurture stuff. To some extent, gay rights did it with the “born like this slogan.” The effects on our theories of the world, popular or scientific, can outlast the political need by generations.
rm999 10y ago
>There was a huge movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all humans were the same and therefore "equal" ... The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness I also love following the human origin story (it's probably the scientific topic outside my field of study I read up on the most), and I have to admit I really don't like the way you framed your comment. You are following the pattern of many other anti-academics who paint a strawman of simple-minded scientists who miss obvious conclusions for some ulterior purpose. I'm sure you're not purposefully doing it, but you have to understand that 1000s of people have devoted their life to studying this topic, and there isn't some conspiracy to hide the truth. It's been known for years that modern humans have bred with other hominid species, and the theories have been changing to reflect this. A lot of evidence of early human settlements are 20 feet under water today, so it's a surprisingly tough study of topic. You're right that genetic testing has been changing our understanding of things, but this is a recent development. No one is trying to hide anything or avoid topics of study; everything is widely written about, including in pop-literature like this excellent book (which has a very candid chapter on variations in human intelligence, btw): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014303832X https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014303832X
junko 10y ago
>> which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity. I'm sorry but that sounds mighty dangerous. Human equality was never grounded in genetic similarity; you do not need to know that your salad mix of ancestors are different to others to understand that every human today deserves equality. Sure groups of people may be different - like culture - but once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority. It's not as if it doesn't exist today at varying degrees but careful that it doesn't gain mass momentum. It's a slippery slope and one we've gone down far too often.
jonnybgood 10y ago
That's a lot of unsupported claims. It's very unscientific with a lot of ideological rhetoric. How is this the top comment?
- dionidium 10y ago
  What you're noticing in the grandparent's comment -- or, should I say, what is revealed by the grandparent's comment -- is your own ideology. I don't read anything particularly ideological in the original comment. The call is coming from inside the house.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Jonnybgood is correct that comment is bunk. Out of Africa is true, but on a different timescale than more recent adaptations like skin color. You can walk back from eastern Asia to South Africa in well under a year. Assuming migration was completely in one direction is a laymen misunderstanding of long standing theory's. It's a density argument where you need populations in an area before there is any trace over these timescales. Consider some early hominid decides to follow the rising sun and ends up in Beijing. Great, well unless he finds someone else there he is going to live out his life and die without children. Even a small group does the same, without sufficient genetic diversity or immigrants they die out fairly quickly or are simply overwhelmed by the next wave. Also, 'humans' tend to make it safer for other humans in the area by killing off large predators, finding edible plants etc. PS: 70,000bce - 1,600,000bce is a very long time period. But, 1.6 million years ago South East Asia already had human ancestors and fire use is ~1.5 million years old.
mr_pink 10y ago
Not only that, another 'large mammal' in the room is the 'founder effects' that happen on every level (i.e. family, community, regional, ethnic) and their behavioral implications, that were common-sense non-taboo topics of discussion up to early modern times.

by themgt 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity. As with so many sociological effects caused by technology and knowledge, there's a tradition of science fiction that deals with this concept. Is a human level AI intelligence human, or something else? If it's something else, does it deserve the same rights as a human? If we uplift a species, do we expand the classification of "human" to cover that as well? What does it mean to be human? We can inch along and slowly change our laws based on the understandings we have right now, or we can attempt to leap-frog that thinking and provide a framework for protecting intelligent species (to whatever degree) and try to take a more holistic approach to this before it becomes a mess. This is a problem we will have to deal with eventually, should we be so lucky to survive that long. Here's a less extreme (but still wild) scenario: A tribe of neanderthals is discovered. Do they deserve human rights? I could see some not very good things happening in the short time before consensus formed around that answer, but what, really makes neanderthals more deserving than Gorillas, dolphins, cows, or cats and dogs? We, as a species and as nations (mostly, there are exceptions) have been able to punt on this question because it may upset the way we currently function, but we owe it to ourselves to answer why we should care more about a neanderthal than a cow (if we should).

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness What? They're crazy racist and don't want to believe they're African. That's it. Its a common bias with the Chinese. You're playing up a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Why would the US give two fucks about telling everyone they're African? The US has a history of slavery and segregation and still is economically/socially segregated today. We have good evidence that everyone is from Africa: By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago. http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncove...

zasz 10y ago

"Obviously"? Have you ever met any older Chinese people, or folks fresh from the mainland? They're racist as hell. My dad was fond of telling me that the one black physics professor he knew at UC Berkeley was a very nice guy, but clearly a charity case, and that blacks were just lazy in general. It's much more safe to say that it's 'obvious' that the Chinese could have a political agenda in pushing the notion that there are special Asian hominid genes. They're as susceptible to racism and patriotism as anyone else. No man, or woman, on this planet, is free from ideological bias.

justicezyx 10y ago
I am not sure. Calling people lazy seems a logical conclusion for older generation Chines people. My parents call me lazy very often, because I cannot keep my apartment tidy... They led a life with prevalent poverty and lack of food, and almost any kind of living supplies. They all need to work hard. I am not surprised that an older generation Chinese call most US people lazy. As for whether there is a racism judgement, I dont know. You are most close to your dad. :)
- euyyn 10y ago
  There's all the difference between calling you, his son, lazy, and saying "blacks are just lazy in general". Can you easily see your dad telling you: "you're lazy, like all yellows"?
  - justicezyx 10y ago
    No kidding, my dad actually says "your generations are too lazy"...

netcan 10y ago

Well put. I think there is a history of contorting facts about world to work well with moral or political goals, often well meaning. There’s the connection between homogenous Out Of Africa humanity to promote egality and fraternity, directly opposite nazi race theories. The Nazi race and culture theories were themselves contortions to support nazi political and moral agendas. Feminism did it, with the nature-nurture stuff. To some extent, gay rights did it with the “born like this slogan.” The effects on our theories of the world, popular or scientific, can outlast the political need by generations.

rm999 10y ago

>There was a huge movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all humans were the same and therefore "equal" ... The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness I also love following the human origin story (it's probably the scientific topic outside my field of study I read up on the most), and I have to admit I really don't like the way you framed your comment. You are following the pattern of many other anti-academics who paint a strawman of simple-minded scientists who miss obvious conclusions for some ulterior purpose. I'm sure you're not purposefully doing it, but you have to understand that 1000s of people have devoted their life to studying this topic, and there isn't some conspiracy to hide the truth. It's been known for years that modern humans have bred with other hominid species, and the theories have been changing to reflect this. A lot of evidence of early human settlements are 20 feet under water today, so it's a surprisingly tough study of topic. You're right that genetic testing has been changing our understanding of things, but this is a recent development. No one is trying to hide anything or avoid topics of study; everything is widely written about, including in pop-literature like this excellent book (which has a very candid chapter on variations in human intelligence, btw): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014303832X https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014303832X

junko 10y ago

>> which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity. I'm sorry but that sounds mighty dangerous. Human equality was never grounded in genetic similarity; you do not need to know that your salad mix of ancestors are different to others to understand that every human today deserves equality. Sure groups of people may be different - like culture - but once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority. It's not as if it doesn't exist today at varying degrees but careful that it doesn't gain mass momentum. It's a slippery slope and one we've gone down far too often.

jonnybgood 10y ago

That's a lot of unsupported claims. It's very unscientific with a lot of ideological rhetoric. How is this the top comment?

dionidium 10y ago
What you're noticing in the grandparent's comment -- or, should I say, what is revealed by the grandparent's comment -- is your own ideology. I don't read anything particularly ideological in the original comment. The call is coming from inside the house.
- Retric 10y ago
  Jonnybgood is correct that comment is bunk. Out of Africa is true, but on a different timescale than more recent adaptations like skin color. You can walk back from eastern Asia to South Africa in well under a year. Assuming migration was completely in one direction is a laymen misunderstanding of long standing theory's. It's a density argument where you need populations in an area before there is any trace over these timescales. Consider some early hominid decides to follow the rising sun and ends up in Beijing. Great, well unless he finds someone else there he is going to live out his life and die without children. Even a small group does the same, without sufficient genetic diversity or immigrants they die out fairly quickly or are simply overwhelmed by the next wave. Also, 'humans' tend to make it safer for other humans in the area by killing off large predators, finding edible plants etc. PS: 70,000bce - 1,600,000bce is a very long time period. But, 1.6 million years ago South East Asia already had human ancestors and fire use is ~1.5 million years old.

mr_pink 10y ago

Not only that, another 'large mammal' in the room is the 'founder effects' that happen on every level (i.e. family, community, regional, ethnic) and their behavioral implications, that were common-sense non-taboo topics of discussion up to early modern times.