3 ms·
Maybe because from a strictly evolutionary point of view, that’s a failure: they won’t pass on their genes (maybe also culture, values etc.), and other gene poo
by lossolo 1y ago
Maybe because from a strictly evolutionary point of view, that’s a failure: they won’t pass on their genes (maybe also culture, values etc.), and other gene pools will take over the resources their lineage worked to secure.
- dyauspitr 1y agoThat’s always happened in history.
- lossolo 1y ago"Always" is overstated. Populations have been reshaped before (e.g. farmers absorbing foragers in Europe, steppe migrations, Arabization of North Africa, the Americas after 1492 etc). So turnover isn’t new, but this mechanism is different. This pattern stems more from our system and choices (schooling, careers, costs, contraception, culture etc) than from violence/war, disease, forced moves, so in that sense it’s self driven, and historically unusual.
- dyauspitr 1y agoUnusual maybe but the outcomes are the same. Why grasp so tightly to a genetic window a handful of centuries old?
- lossolo 1y ago> Unusual maybe but the outcomes are the same. That’s an oversimplification. Dying of old age and being murdered both end in death, but we both know they’re not the same. > Why grasp so tightly to a genetic window a handful of centuries old? I believe I explained that in my first comment.