4 ms·

Is there evidence of other cases where there was no such adaptive behaviour in other human groups? I study adaptation to shocks in modern societies and I am ash

by ispo 4y ago

Is there evidence of other cases where there was no such adaptive behaviour in other human groups? I study adaptation to shocks in modern societies and I am ashamed to admit we have no clue why it does not work.

TheRealPomax 4y ago
I mean, there's North Sentinel island...
- ispo 4y ago
  Sorry that I don't know about this case, please can you specify what do you mean exactly?
  - clarionbell 4y ago
    Self isolation in extreme. Nobody knows for sure what language they speak, what they call themselves, nothing. We don't even know how many there are. What we do know is that they survived on a rather small island in Indian ocean with stone age technology for ... well we don't know because they don't want to talk to us. But they did get trough 2004 tsunami just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
wahern 4y ago
I imagine there are important definitional aspects that come into play. When the article says, > Models developed from radiocarbon dates and the distribution of archaeological sites indicate the population shifted back to the north and grew between 1350 and 1450. In the north, soils were ideal for agriculture and temperatures were warmer. does that mean that people literally migrated, or merely that the northern population grew predominately through, e.g., a greater reproductive rate while the southern shrank in-place according to similar dynamics? If the latter, is that actually adaptation in the sense you mean?
- ispo 4y ago
  Not really, adaptation in my context means changes in what you do, so that you cope better with a new stressor. Migration as adaptation is really less interesting for me, while learning new practices, tools and even management styles without migrating means higher levels of adaptive behaviour.
  - wahern 4y ago
    I figured as much. My point is that nothing in the paper abstract (I cannot access the actual paper) seems to necessarily imply adaptation as I assume you mean it, notwithstanding that that is the terminology the authors choose to use. Rather, the adaptation seems more like a semantic sleight of hand--if you look at each population in isolation, each responded as you might expect if there were no abrupt, substantial cultural changes. The southern population, which more heavily relied on hunting and lived in an environment where they could not easily shift to agriculture, declined; whereas the northern culture happened to live in an environment and with habits that benefited from the climate shift. But if you arbitrarily (from the perspective of aliens looking down from space) draw a circle around both populations, call them "Maori", and analyze relative changes in population over a specific window of time, you can elect to discern adaptation within that collective population. You could just as well draw a circle around all of human civilization and write about how supremely adaptive humans are. Or you could draw a narrower circle around just that southern population and tell a story about how hopelessly rigid human cultures can be even in the face of impending doom. Maybe the actual paper has some substance capable of supporting a more concrete claim of extraordinary adaptation (i.e. beyond what we typically see in human populations), but if so it's not apparent from the abstract.
    - ispo 4y ago
      I read the original article here [1] but really adaptation is not the main point of it. Therefore the "conversation" materials are misleading in title, still they triggered this discussion, which is more interesting than both, thanks! [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207609119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207609119

by ispo 4y ago

TheRealPomax 4y ago

I mean, there's North Sentinel island...

ispo 4y ago
Sorry that I don't know about this case, please can you specify what do you mean exactly?
- clarionbell 4y ago
  Self isolation in extreme. Nobody knows for sure what language they speak, what they call themselves, nothing. We don't even know how many there are. What we do know is that they survived on a rather small island in Indian ocean with stone age technology for ... well we don't know because they don't want to talk to us. But they did get trough 2004 tsunami just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese

wahern 4y ago

I imagine there are important definitional aspects that come into play. When the article says, > Models developed from radiocarbon dates and the distribution of archaeological sites indicate the population shifted back to the north and grew between 1350 and 1450. In the north, soils were ideal for agriculture and temperatures were warmer. does that mean that people literally migrated, or merely that the northern population grew predominately through, e.g., a greater reproductive rate while the southern shrank in-place according to similar dynamics? If the latter, is that actually adaptation in the sense you mean?

ispo 4y ago
Not really, adaptation in my context means changes in what you do, so that you cope better with a new stressor. Migration as adaptation is really less interesting for me, while learning new practices, tools and even management styles without migrating means higher levels of adaptive behaviour.
- wahern 4y ago
  I figured as much. My point is that nothing in the paper abstract (I cannot access the actual paper) seems to necessarily imply adaptation as I assume you mean it, notwithstanding that that is the terminology the authors choose to use. Rather, the adaptation seems more like a semantic sleight of hand--if you look at each population in isolation, each responded as you might expect if there were no abrupt, substantial cultural changes. The southern population, which more heavily relied on hunting and lived in an environment where they could not easily shift to agriculture, declined; whereas the northern culture happened to live in an environment and with habits that benefited from the climate shift. But if you arbitrarily (from the perspective of aliens looking down from space) draw a circle around both populations, call them "Maori", and analyze relative changes in population over a specific window of time, you can elect to discern adaptation within that collective population. You could just as well draw a circle around all of human civilization and write about how supremely adaptive humans are. Or you could draw a narrower circle around just that southern population and tell a story about how hopelessly rigid human cultures can be even in the face of impending doom. Maybe the actual paper has some substance capable of supporting a more concrete claim of extraordinary adaptation (i.e. beyond what we typically see in human populations), but if so it's not apparent from the abstract.
  - ispo 4y ago
    I read the original article here [1] but really adaptation is not the main point of it. Therefore the "conversation" materials are misleading in title, still they triggered this discussion, which is more interesting than both, thanks! [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207609119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207609119