4 ms·

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 interest

by 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

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