3 ms·

How the heck would men dying make the next generation of men shorter?

Twisol 8y ago
Is it possible that taller men were selected for the first war? (I have no particular position on this, but if we're asking the question, let's think seriously about it.) World War I and II were about 20 years apart, so it seems just barely plausible that, if soldiers from the first war did not pass on their genes, and taller men were selected as soldiers, then the average height might have decreased based on genetic factors alone.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  That was the theory. The fittest were selected for combat, and as they got ground into hamburger the less selective the drafting went. For a similar example, initially WW1 pilots were selected from the nobility. Once those got massacred, the various Air Forces had to abandon that idea, and allow commoners in. The subtext of the movie "The Blue Max" was about that transition. (The life expectancy of a British WW1 RAF pilot was 6 weeks. There's also a movie about that, "The Dawn Patrol".) This also happened to the officers, which ended the notion of officers being restricted to nobility.
swsieber 8y ago
Easy - kill more tall men than short men. The offspring of the remaining men will be shorter. It's like how fishing for big fish makes the remaining fish population shrink over time.
johan_larson 8y ago
Armies typically have minimum (and sometimes maximum) heights, to ensure soldiers will fit into uniforms and standardized gear. The US Army, for instance, has had a minimum height for men of 5' 0" for a long time. If those who are drafted are killed in really vast numbers, a disproportionate share of the children in the next generation will be fathered by men who were not drafted, including those who were too short.
- flukus 8y ago
  Aside from that, height has a selective disadvantage during times of trench warfare. You don't want to be a 7' tall man trying to duck in a 5' trench.

Is it possible that taller men were selected for the first war? (I have no particular position on this, but if we're asking the question, let's think seriously about it.) World War I and II were about 20 years apart, so it seems just barely plausible that, if soldiers from the first war did not pass on their genes, and taller men were selected as soldiers, then the average height might have decreased based on genetic factors alone.

WalterBright 8y ago
That was the theory. The fittest were selected for combat, and as they got ground into hamburger the less selective the drafting went. For a similar example, initially WW1 pilots were selected from the nobility. Once those got massacred, the various Air Forces had to abandon that idea, and allow commoners in. The subtext of the movie "The Blue Max" was about that transition. (The life expectancy of a British WW1 RAF pilot was 6 weeks. There's also a movie about that, "The Dawn Patrol".) This also happened to the officers, which ended the notion of officers being restricted to nobility.

swsieber 8y ago

Easy - kill more tall men than short men. The offspring of the remaining men will be shorter. It's like how fishing for big fish makes the remaining fish population shrink over time.

johan_larson 8y ago

Armies typically have minimum (and sometimes maximum) heights, to ensure soldiers will fit into uniforms and standardized gear. The US Army, for instance, has had a minimum height for men of 5' 0" for a long time. If those who are drafted are killed in really vast numbers, a disproportionate share of the children in the next generation will be fathered by men who were not drafted, including those who were too short.

flukus 8y ago
Aside from that, height has a selective disadvantage during times of trench warfare. You don't want to be a 7' tall man trying to duck in a 5' trench.