4 ms·

My naive hypothesis is that health problems are only going to get worse because we've killed the fundamental constant force of improvement in nature: natural se

My naive hypothesis is that health problems are only going to get worse because we've killed the fundamental constant force of improvement in nature: natural selection. Industrial countries people have way weaker health and more health problems than countries with bad health and hygiene systems. I'm definitely not advocating for a Social Darwinism but our genetics will only get worse in the context of an ever changing ecosystem that surround us. Sometimes we think we live in a bubble outside of the ecosystems but we don't. If we don't find a solution for this we're definitely doomed.

maceurt 8y ago
The fact that first world countries/ wealthy people are not having many kids and that third world countries/ poor people are having a lot of kids is very problematic. Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests. The size of human skulls and brains are also increasing too, so natural selection may be working, just in a different way than we would expect.
- com2kid 8y ago
  > Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. You have to compare childhood mortality rates. Countries with high rates of childhood mortality see mothers having more children. The cost of having a child also factors into it, in Western countries each child is really expensive. (30k for birth in the US! And that is just the cost to get started!) Also you are making the implicit assumption that people in poorer countries are having "worse" babies than people in developed countries. Off the top of my head, a few countries that used to be looked down upon by everyone else include England, Germany, Ireland, and the US. Also all of northern Europe, all of SW Asia, and all of East Asia. The fact that China thought the same thing about Europe that Europe thought about China is also a good indicator that "undeveloped" is a rather crude benchmark. Every major study has shown that if you correct for environmental pollution, childhood nutrition, and childhood health care, IQs between regions of the world are all within spitting distance of each other, and human potential falls along a nice bell curve. tl;dr clean up the air, feed the kids, get them to doctors, and everyone thrives. Also stable environments means there be less pressure to have lots of kids, so the population will stabilize than decline.
- volkl48 8y ago
  The Idiocracy hypothesis you're basically expressing is false. I only follow US data somewhat closely, so this is a US-centric claim, but I suspect the same is true elsewhere. Teenagers, the poor, and the less educated are seeing much sharper fertility declines than the wealthier or better educated. Teen births are down 55% since 07. Statistically poorer minority groups are seeing the sharpest fertility declines, more than double the decline that White or Asian groups are seeing. (I can't find income-based data, just racial) Likewise, fertility has fallen for the college-educated (bachelor's degree) by only half as much as for the less educated. Birth rates are getting less like the "Idiocracy hypothesis" than they were before, not more. ---------- I don't agree with many of the political views of this organization, but they do wrap up all the data in a nice article with good graphs here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-...
- HappySweeney 8y ago
  > Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests This is called the Flynn effect. It unfortunately peaked in the mid 80's, and is now on a steady decline.
  - maceurt 8y ago
    Did not know that. It makes sense though, because a lot less people are malnuiroshed than before.
rafiki6 8y ago
Natural selection is definitely still at play. For e.g. look at the parents who've decided against vaccinating their children which is now leading to the re-emergence of many diseases and viruses we've already eradicated. That's natural selection. It comes in many forms. Humans will never defeat nature, and we shouldn't be so arrogant to think we can. We are still subject to climate, weather events, and our own stupidity. At least we can complain about it on [insert internet forum/social media of choice here].
- rafiki6 8y ago
  Not sure why I got down voted. Is there anything I said that's factually incorrect?
- scarface74 8y ago
  Unfortunately it has the knock on affect of effecting those who are too young to get vaccines and people who really do have issues with vaccines and can’t get them.
m0skit0 8y ago
So I'm getting downvoted for proposing a hypothesis? Not that I really care but come on, at least discuss it ;)
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but it's not a new hypothesis and it hinges on a giant assumption: that gene-level evolution is all that matters, and that gene expression, environment and culture aren't also important factors in evolution and life outcomes.
  - m0skit0 8y ago
    Never said it is new, and still not a reason to downvote but to discuss. Very disappointed at HN. Yeah, epigenetics, however that is not my point. My point is that the genetic pool is degrading and environment and culture are not going to fix that.
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      Please take this as helpful feedback rather than a rebuke: None of us are entitled to upvotes or replies on HN, or indeed on any web forum. Some people have made thoughtful replies to your comment and that's great. Others have signalled their disapproval of your comment by downvoting. Chances are it was just one or two people out of the thousands/millions who frequent this site, yet you criticise the entire community. There are good reasons why complaints about downvotes are against the guidelines [1]: they make for uninteresting reading, and the time would be better spent thinking about how to express your ideas in ways that are better received. In this case: I replied with a reason why people may have downvoted your comment on the basis that it may not be scientifically sound, but you simply dismissed that response out of hand, without providing any evidence or material from which anyone could learn anything new. Dang recently wrote a helpful comment about HN's downvoting culture [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214965

maceurt 8y ago

The fact that first world countries/ wealthy people are not having many kids and that third world countries/ poor people are having a lot of kids is very problematic. Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests. The size of human skulls and brains are also increasing too, so natural selection may be working, just in a different way than we would expect.

com2kid 8y ago
> Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. You have to compare childhood mortality rates. Countries with high rates of childhood mortality see mothers having more children. The cost of having a child also factors into it, in Western countries each child is really expensive. (30k for birth in the US! And that is just the cost to get started!) Also you are making the implicit assumption that people in poorer countries are having "worse" babies than people in developed countries. Off the top of my head, a few countries that used to be looked down upon by everyone else include England, Germany, Ireland, and the US. Also all of northern Europe, all of SW Asia, and all of East Asia. The fact that China thought the same thing about Europe that Europe thought about China is also a good indicator that "undeveloped" is a rather crude benchmark. Every major study has shown that if you correct for environmental pollution, childhood nutrition, and childhood health care, IQs between regions of the world are all within spitting distance of each other, and human potential falls along a nice bell curve. tl;dr clean up the air, feed the kids, get them to doctors, and everyone thrives. Also stable environments means there be less pressure to have lots of kids, so the population will stabilize than decline.
volkl48 8y ago
The Idiocracy hypothesis you're basically expressing is false. I only follow US data somewhat closely, so this is a US-centric claim, but I suspect the same is true elsewhere. Teenagers, the poor, and the less educated are seeing much sharper fertility declines than the wealthier or better educated. Teen births are down 55% since 07. Statistically poorer minority groups are seeing the sharpest fertility declines, more than double the decline that White or Asian groups are seeing. (I can't find income-based data, just racial) Likewise, fertility has fallen for the college-educated (bachelor's degree) by only half as much as for the less educated. Birth rates are getting less like the "Idiocracy hypothesis" than they were before, not more. ---------- I don't agree with many of the political views of this organization, but they do wrap up all the data in a nice article with good graphs here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-...
HappySweeney 8y ago
> Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests This is called the Flynn effect. It unfortunately peaked in the mid 80's, and is now on a steady decline.
- maceurt 8y ago
  Did not know that. It makes sense though, because a lot less people are malnuiroshed than before.

rafiki6 8y ago

Natural selection is definitely still at play. For e.g. look at the parents who've decided against vaccinating their children which is now leading to the re-emergence of many diseases and viruses we've already eradicated. That's natural selection. It comes in many forms. Humans will never defeat nature, and we shouldn't be so arrogant to think we can. We are still subject to climate, weather events, and our own stupidity. At least we can complain about it on [insert internet forum/social media of choice here].

rafiki6 8y ago
Not sure why I got down voted. Is there anything I said that's factually incorrect?
scarface74 8y ago
Unfortunately it has the knock on affect of effecting those who are too young to get vaccines and people who really do have issues with vaccines and can’t get them.

m0skit0 8y ago

So I'm getting downvoted for proposing a hypothesis? Not that I really care but come on, at least discuss it ;)

tomhoward 8y ago
I didn't downvote you, but it's not a new hypothesis and it hinges on a giant assumption: that gene-level evolution is all that matters, and that gene expression, environment and culture aren't also important factors in evolution and life outcomes.
- m0skit0 8y ago
  Never said it is new, and still not a reason to downvote but to discuss. Very disappointed at HN. Yeah, epigenetics, however that is not my point. My point is that the genetic pool is degrading and environment and culture are not going to fix that.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    Please take this as helpful feedback rather than a rebuke: None of us are entitled to upvotes or replies on HN, or indeed on any web forum. Some people have made thoughtful replies to your comment and that's great. Others have signalled their disapproval of your comment by downvoting. Chances are it was just one or two people out of the thousands/millions who frequent this site, yet you criticise the entire community. There are good reasons why complaints about downvotes are against the guidelines [1]: they make for uninteresting reading, and the time would be better spent thinking about how to express your ideas in ways that are better received. In this case: I replied with a reason why people may have downvoted your comment on the basis that it may not be scientifically sound, but you simply dismissed that response out of hand, without providing any evidence or material from which anyone could learn anything new. Dang recently wrote a helpful comment about HN's downvoting culture [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214965