3 ms·
I doubt that infant mortality was mostly because of genetics, since natural selection would make it hard for that gene to spread unless there was some other ben
by matteoraso 3y ago
I doubt that infant mortality was mostly because of genetics, since natural selection would make it hard for that gene to spread unless there was some other benefit (e.g. how being a carrier for sickle cell anemia is good, even though having sickle cell anemia is bad). The main reason for high infant mortality was probably because of illnesses and famine, not genetic.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThat's irrelevant to some extent. It still means that those who could better resist illness and famine had a better chance to live, which is likely to have some genetic correlation. Even when the famine is extreme, it still selects for the families cold hearted enough to be able to consciously feed only those who have a chance to survive instead of trying to spread their resources to all their children, which itself may have some genetic source that can be selected by this pressure. Not that either of these are good or necessary for a healthy species, mind you. We will always adapt to our environment and the selective pressures that match it, even when it's one of our own making. If that means fewer children die young, that is an excellent outcome - evolution is never goal oriented anyway.
- EnigmaFlare 3y agoIt could be partly due to normal harmful random mutations reducing the mother/baby's fitness, which are now being allowed into the gene pool more than before.
- okaram 3y agoYes, but there would still be a very high selective pressure to have more resistance to illnesses and famine.