7 ms·

Germs and ancient migrations help explain our world of 'haves' and 'have nots'

39 points by anastalaz 8y ago

reader5000 8y ago
A lot of these debates ignore that evolutionary success is simply defined as persistence. If population A has 90% infant mortality and lives on $1 day but has genetic descendants 1000 years from now, then they are evolutionarily "better" than population B that has <1% infant mortality, lives on $100 day, and has no genetic descendants 1000 years from now. Declaring one group a "have" and another group a "have not" is myopic. Literally every group on the face of the earth at some level believes they are "chosen" and superior to other groups. The only way to actually tell though is to see which genes are still geneing 1000 years, 10,000 years, etc into the future. To date it's not even clear that multicellularity is that great of a branch to be on.
- mar77i 8y ago
  > To date it's not even clear that multicellularity is that great of a branch to be on. Doesn't it hurt to realize your multi-cellular brain came up with this? Of course you want multi-cellular life. It's the only known answer of nature capable of particle physics, space exploration and postulating one's bad ideas on HN. You shouldn't become that agnostic to your place in the universe, and unless a couple of much better reasons aren't more obvious to you, at least because people will think you like insulting yourself, together with your entire branch of life, that also includes the reader.
  - gumby 8y ago
    If the point of a gene is to reproduce itself, the GP's conjecture is likely correct. Evolution itself is non-judgemental and has no inherent bias to the development of spaceflight over, say, a massively distributed system willing to tolerate huge die offs. They are simply two different approaches (not even strategies) for dealing with local conditions.
    - mar77i 8y ago
      I kind of see the utility in prevailing in the universe can much more be an active and guided persuasion through us humans (maybe by proxy, through whatever robotic arks we can come up with), because it can be so much more effective than a passive and kind of brittle and to me unconvincing process of post-solar system panspermia.
      - gumby 8y ago
        You may have a bias towards humans but nature doesn't care: all the bets are played in parallel. In fact by your own preference, the unicellular organisms are more likely to successfully spread their DNA (as it's "packetized" into a complete organism) via the surfaces of the robot ships you describe than the multicellular ones are.
        bilbo0s 8y ago
        Gumby is right here. While it's obviously important to US whether or not we survive, Mother Nature doesn't care whether we live or die. As long as the genes keep propagating, she's good. I think it's healthy for humans to look to their own survival, but I realize that Mother Nature only cares for the propagation of genes. We should never confuse the one with the other. We should never start to believe that Mother Nature has an interest in our survival more than the survival of some other fish, or alien lifeform far away, or some bacteria, or virus. That could be a fatal mistake for us.
        mar77i 8y ago
        I see my argument solely as one driven by my own survival instinct. And as it's nature that biases me towards my species, is it wrong to try live up to that and build those spaceships?
        gumby 8y ago
        That’s up to you — I also think spaceships are great (and also don’t really see the point of putting humans in them). We’re all just telling you that nature doesn’t prefer you or me to the amoeba, nor vice versa.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  You seem to be suggesting that all values that don't contribute to long-term evolutionary success are not worth pursuing. Perhaps in the thousand-year timeframe it's irrelevant what it means to be a "have" or "have not" in today's society. But does that really mean that we shouldn't care about the lives of the people around us who are living right now? In fact, why should any of us care all that much about who's still got descendants long after we're dead?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    I wouldn't create a dichotomy between these two choices. In many ways our descendants will determine the state of the future far more than any particular change we might engage in today. Imagine that people who are well educated, secular, and generally well off start to stop having children. At the same time people who are poorly educated, highly religious, and generally poor continue to have children at a high rate. Think about what this would mean for the lives of people born into the next generation. They're going to disproportionately come from households that are poorly educated, highly religions, and mostly poor. And of course this isn't a hypothetical. This is exactly what's happening today on a global and crucially, even on a national level. For instance in the US people who earn < $10,000 per year annually have a fertility rate that is just about exactly 50% higher than those earning > $200,000 per year. [1] And there's a disconcertingly smooth gradient in the incomes in between. This is a very new problem. It was speculated about in the past, but generally well to do families continued to pump out the kids at a decent rate and there were macabre systems in place that prevented reckless procreation from those who could not afford it. Today fertility rates have plummeted and such macabre deterrents have become completely unthinkable which is a very good thing, yet it's simultaneously a very bad thing in that it effectively enables reckless and socially destructive behavior. It becomes clear that one of the easiest ways to have a society where more people are better off is simply by encouraging those that can afford to have children to do just that! This also goes a step further as well. You might argue that 'well, if we create better social systems then we can start to transform those poorly educated, highly religious, and generally poor families into the [perhaps subjectively] better off households today.' Maybe, maybe not -- it'd be a herculean task in any case. But there's an even more fundamental problem. The future of those systems will be upheld, or tossed aside, by the generation of tomorrow. And we once again end up back at square one as this generation will be comprised heavily of these poorly educated, highly religious individuals who are going to generally have different social motivations. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
scarface74 8y ago
Another good read that says something similar. Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867 And the documentary based on the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgGw8kZnJxE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgGw8kZnJxE
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  One of the more interesting theories in that book is that Europe and Asia were technologically so far ahead of Africa and the North Americas was because Europe and Asia are lined up "horizontally" which allowed for easier migration by nomadic tribes in prehistoric times, thus allowing for faster spread of ideas like writing, farming, domestication of animals, etc.
  - jameane 8y ago
    I'm not sold on the hypothesis that Europe and Asia were way ahead technologically, because honestly (mostly Europeans) did all they could to eliminate any culture indigenous cultures in the Americans and Africa, ignored them and devalued them completely. And definitely didn't make any attempts to understand or document what was going on before they got there. So likely lots of informaiton got lost along the way. Yes, proximity helps with cross pollination - but there are hundreds of distinct ethnic groups in the Americans and Africa that also traveling, cross-pollinated and shared. History decided to group them together and call these all one big group.
    - photojosh 8y ago
      Similar story here in Australia. I'm currently reading "Dark Emu" [0], which shows how Indigenous Australians, always claimed to be hunter-gatherers with only primitive societies, actually were agriculturists... using the early explorer's own journals. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21401526-dark-emu https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21401526-dark-emu
- wyldfire 8y ago
  AFAICT that video on youtube is infringing. But you can watch it on Amazon Prime Video (and they also have it available on DVD -- you have to pay a premium for the convenience of DVD, though: 144 USD).
kukx 8y ago
Environment vs genetics is a minefield for anyone who tries to be objective. Just say that differences are in 99% shaped by environment and you are fine and safe for today. However a lie is good for a short time, but really bad for a long term. Especially if it becomes a base for, let's say, a national policy. Also, saying it is mostly environment makes individuals blame others for their own failures - "I am perfect, the environment is wrong and has to change". A sad thing is that scientists that study this question get publicly destroyed.
- tossaccount123 8y ago
  >Just say that differences are in 99% shaped by environment and you are fine You can find flaws and inconsistencies in their logic easily though. People have no issue with saying that height is genetic for example. Even racially, it's ok to say Asians are on average shorter than Africans But imply intelligence is genetic, and now there are issues. For some reason we are told that evolution and genetics stop at a human's neck My question is that if intelligence isn't genetic, why doesn't somebody teach a dog, or cat, or bacteria how to do quantum mechanics? Surely it's just environment right?

39 points by anastalaz 8y ago

A lot of these debates ignore that evolutionary success is simply defined as persistence. If population A has 90% infant mortality and lives on $1 day but has genetic descendants 1000 years from now, then they are evolutionarily "better" than population B that has <1% infant mortality, lives on $100 day, and has no genetic descendants 1000 years from now. Declaring one group a "have" and another group a "have not" is myopic. Literally every group on the face of the earth at some level believes they are "chosen" and superior to other groups. The only way to actually tell though is to see which genes are still geneing 1000 years, 10,000 years, etc into the future. To date it's not even clear that multicellularity is that great of a branch to be on.

mar77i 8y ago
> To date it's not even clear that multicellularity is that great of a branch to be on. Doesn't it hurt to realize your multi-cellular brain came up with this? Of course you want multi-cellular life. It's the only known answer of nature capable of particle physics, space exploration and postulating one's bad ideas on HN. You shouldn't become that agnostic to your place in the universe, and unless a couple of much better reasons aren't more obvious to you, at least because people will think you like insulting yourself, together with your entire branch of life, that also includes the reader.
- gumby 8y ago
  If the point of a gene is to reproduce itself, the GP's conjecture is likely correct. Evolution itself is non-judgemental and has no inherent bias to the development of spaceflight over, say, a massively distributed system willing to tolerate huge die offs. They are simply two different approaches (not even strategies) for dealing with local conditions.
  - mar77i 8y ago
    I kind of see the utility in prevailing in the universe can much more be an active and guided persuasion through us humans (maybe by proxy, through whatever robotic arks we can come up with), because it can be so much more effective than a passive and kind of brittle and to me unconvincing process of post-solar system panspermia.
    - gumby 8y ago
      You may have a bias towards humans but nature doesn't care: all the bets are played in parallel. In fact by your own preference, the unicellular organisms are more likely to successfully spread their DNA (as it's "packetized" into a complete organism) via the surfaces of the robot ships you describe than the multicellular ones are.
      - bilbo0s 8y ago
        Gumby is right here. While it's obviously important to US whether or not we survive, Mother Nature doesn't care whether we live or die. As long as the genes keep propagating, she's good. I think it's healthy for humans to look to their own survival, but I realize that Mother Nature only cares for the propagation of genes. We should never confuse the one with the other. We should never start to believe that Mother Nature has an interest in our survival more than the survival of some other fish, or alien lifeform far away, or some bacteria, or virus. That could be a fatal mistake for us.
        mar77i 8y ago
        I see my argument solely as one driven by my own survival instinct. And as it's nature that biases me towards my species, is it wrong to try live up to that and build those spaceships?
        gumby 8y ago
        That’s up to you — I also think spaceships are great (and also don’t really see the point of putting humans in them). We’re all just telling you that nature doesn’t prefer you or me to the amoeba, nor vice versa.
cimmanom 8y ago
You seem to be suggesting that all values that don't contribute to long-term evolutionary success are not worth pursuing. Perhaps in the thousand-year timeframe it's irrelevant what it means to be a "have" or "have not" in today's society. But does that really mean that we shouldn't care about the lives of the people around us who are living right now? In fact, why should any of us care all that much about who's still got descendants long after we're dead?
- rjf72 8y ago
  I wouldn't create a dichotomy between these two choices. In many ways our descendants will determine the state of the future far more than any particular change we might engage in today. Imagine that people who are well educated, secular, and generally well off start to stop having children. At the same time people who are poorly educated, highly religious, and generally poor continue to have children at a high rate. Think about what this would mean for the lives of people born into the next generation. They're going to disproportionately come from households that are poorly educated, highly religions, and mostly poor. And of course this isn't a hypothetical. This is exactly what's happening today on a global and crucially, even on a national level. For instance in the US people who earn < $10,000 per year annually have a fertility rate that is just about exactly 50% higher than those earning > $200,000 per year. [1] And there's a disconcertingly smooth gradient in the incomes in between. This is a very new problem. It was speculated about in the past, but generally well to do families continued to pump out the kids at a decent rate and there were macabre systems in place that prevented reckless procreation from those who could not afford it. Today fertility rates have plummeted and such macabre deterrents have become completely unthinkable which is a very good thing, yet it's simultaneously a very bad thing in that it effectively enables reckless and socially destructive behavior. It becomes clear that one of the easiest ways to have a society where more people are better off is simply by encouraging those that can afford to have children to do just that! This also goes a step further as well. You might argue that 'well, if we create better social systems then we can start to transform those poorly educated, highly religious, and generally poor families into the [perhaps subjectively] better off households today.' Maybe, maybe not -- it'd be a herculean task in any case. But there's an even more fundamental problem. The future of those systems will be upheld, or tossed aside, by the generation of tomorrow. And we once again end up back at square one as this generation will be comprised heavily of these poorly educated, highly religious individuals who are going to generally have different social motivations. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

scarface74 8y ago

Another good read that says something similar. Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867 And the documentary based on the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgGw8kZnJxE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgGw8kZnJxE

commandlinefan 8y ago
One of the more interesting theories in that book is that Europe and Asia were technologically so far ahead of Africa and the North Americas was because Europe and Asia are lined up "horizontally" which allowed for easier migration by nomadic tribes in prehistoric times, thus allowing for faster spread of ideas like writing, farming, domestication of animals, etc.
- jameane 8y ago
  I'm not sold on the hypothesis that Europe and Asia were way ahead technologically, because honestly (mostly Europeans) did all they could to eliminate any culture indigenous cultures in the Americans and Africa, ignored them and devalued them completely. And definitely didn't make any attempts to understand or document what was going on before they got there. So likely lots of informaiton got lost along the way. Yes, proximity helps with cross pollination - but there are hundreds of distinct ethnic groups in the Americans and Africa that also traveling, cross-pollinated and shared. History decided to group them together and call these all one big group.
  - photojosh 8y ago
    Similar story here in Australia. I'm currently reading "Dark Emu" [0], which shows how Indigenous Australians, always claimed to be hunter-gatherers with only primitive societies, actually were agriculturists... using the early explorer's own journals. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21401526-dark-emu https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21401526-dark-emu
wyldfire 8y ago
AFAICT that video on youtube is infringing. But you can watch it on Amazon Prime Video (and they also have it available on DVD -- you have to pay a premium for the convenience of DVD, though: 144 USD).

kukx 8y ago

Environment vs genetics is a minefield for anyone who tries to be objective. Just say that differences are in 99% shaped by environment and you are fine and safe for today. However a lie is good for a short time, but really bad for a long term. Especially if it becomes a base for, let's say, a national policy. Also, saying it is mostly environment makes individuals blame others for their own failures - "I am perfect, the environment is wrong and has to change". A sad thing is that scientists that study this question get publicly destroyed.

tossaccount123 8y ago
>Just say that differences are in 99% shaped by environment and you are fine You can find flaws and inconsistencies in their logic easily though. People have no issue with saying that height is genetic for example. Even racially, it's ok to say Asians are on average shorter than Africans But imply intelligence is genetic, and now there are issues. For some reason we are told that evolution and genetics stop at a human's neck My question is that if intelligence isn't genetic, why doesn't somebody teach a dog, or cat, or bacteria how to do quantum mechanics? Surely it's just environment right?