3 ms·

I'd thought that by living indoors and in otherwise controlled environments that there's not really much evolutionary pressure in any particular direction. High

I'd thought that by living indoors and in otherwise controlled environments that there's not really much evolutionary pressure in any particular direction. Higher intelligence isn't a specific requirement to have (many) children live healthy lives.

brian-armstrong 1y ago
This is obviously untrue, isn't it? A great many person has died maidenless, as it were.
- Muromec 1y ago
  Nobody offerred them toyota accord either. Really unfortunate
chongli 1y ago
You don't have to die to be selected out of the gene pool, you just need to fail to reproduce. If intelligence contributes to wealth and wealth contributes to reproductive success, then there will be evolutionary pressure favouring intelligence (and any other genes that "come along for the ride" with it).
- svnt 1y ago
  It also weeds you out if you reproduce but your children choose not to (and/or don’t get chosen), which adds an interesting dimension.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  The reality is that wealth is inversely correlated with fertility. As are intelligence, education, secularity, and so on. IQ is a decent proxy for intelligence. What many people don't know is that it's not a raw score, but relative. The mean of a population is always set to 100 and a standard deviation is generally 15 points. So an IQ of 115 means you performed better than 84% of people, one positive standard deviation. It was discovered some time back that the 'raw score' for IQs was increasing over time - meaning the mean kept going higher and higher. This is called the Flynn Effect. [1] People were getting smarter. The section I linked to is about the fact this trend reversed some time around 1990 in the developed world. Wiki uses weaker language 'possible end' but it's been tested and verified repeatedly at this point - we're getting dumber, and quite rapidly. This remains true even after controlling for obvious explanations like immigration. This is yet another reason why fertility is, in my opinion, the issue of the century. The world is going to look so absurdly different, and not in a good way, in 50 years, owing to fertility rates alone. We're very likely living on the tail end of a societal golden age. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
  - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
    For most of human history wealth was positively correlated with fertility and especially with next generation fertility. The trend has changed in the more recent centuries but it’s not enough to affect us too much evolutionarily (for now).
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      But it is! To take a silly but noncontroversial example - if, for just a single fertility generation (which is driven by the female fertility window for humans - about 20 years) anybody over 5'3" stopped having children, all humans would become quite short! Of course there's some asterisks there like malnutrition may mean somebody's genetically 'normal' height is greater than their expressed height, but the broad point remains true - in a single generation there would be a dramatic transformation in humanity. This has also been observed in nature. For instance most people view the variation in Darwin's finches as something gradually happening over eons, but further studies on them showed a rapid shift in beak morphology following a single severe drought. [1] It's the same stuff - suddenly one beak became more likely to reproduce (or not), which drove a very rapid population level change. [1] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421145759.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421145759.h...
    - trallnag 1y ago
      Bottlenecks of just a few generations should have a huge impact in the longterm, no?
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    > This is yet another reason why fertility is, in my opinion, the issue of the century. The world is going to look so absurdly different, and not in a good way, in 50 years, owing to fertility rates alone. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      That documentary? Yeah, highly recommended.
poulpy123 1y ago
Evolution still happens, but in any case if autism is a side effect of the genes that make us intelligent, they are here from much before than central heating and plumbing
ErigmolCt 1y ago
But the evolutionary pressures discussed in the paper are much older

brian-armstrong 1y ago

This is obviously untrue, isn't it? A great many person has died maidenless, as it were.

Muromec 1y ago
Nobody offerred them toyota accord either. Really unfortunate

chongli 1y ago

You don't have to die to be selected out of the gene pool, you just need to fail to reproduce. If intelligence contributes to wealth and wealth contributes to reproductive success, then there will be evolutionary pressure favouring intelligence (and any other genes that "come along for the ride" with it).

svnt 1y ago
It also weeds you out if you reproduce but your children choose not to (and/or don’t get chosen), which adds an interesting dimension.
somenameforme 1y ago
The reality is that wealth is inversely correlated with fertility. As are intelligence, education, secularity, and so on. IQ is a decent proxy for intelligence. What many people don't know is that it's not a raw score, but relative. The mean of a population is always set to 100 and a standard deviation is generally 15 points. So an IQ of 115 means you performed better than 84% of people, one positive standard deviation. It was discovered some time back that the 'raw score' for IQs was increasing over time - meaning the mean kept going higher and higher. This is called the Flynn Effect. [1] People were getting smarter. The section I linked to is about the fact this trend reversed some time around 1990 in the developed world. Wiki uses weaker language 'possible end' but it's been tested and verified repeatedly at this point - we're getting dumber, and quite rapidly. This remains true even after controlling for obvious explanations like immigration. This is yet another reason why fertility is, in my opinion, the issue of the century. The world is going to look so absurdly different, and not in a good way, in 50 years, owing to fertility rates alone. We're very likely living on the tail end of a societal golden age. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
- zeroonetwothree 1y ago
  For most of human history wealth was positively correlated with fertility and especially with next generation fertility. The trend has changed in the more recent centuries but it’s not enough to affect us too much evolutionarily (for now).
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    But it is! To take a silly but noncontroversial example - if, for just a single fertility generation (which is driven by the female fertility window for humans - about 20 years) anybody over 5'3" stopped having children, all humans would become quite short! Of course there's some asterisks there like malnutrition may mean somebody's genetically 'normal' height is greater than their expressed height, but the broad point remains true - in a single generation there would be a dramatic transformation in humanity. This has also been observed in nature. For instance most people view the variation in Darwin's finches as something gradually happening over eons, but further studies on them showed a rapid shift in beak morphology following a single severe drought. [1] It's the same stuff - suddenly one beak became more likely to reproduce (or not), which drove a very rapid population level change. [1] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421145759.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421145759.h...
  - trallnag 1y ago
    Bottlenecks of just a few generations should have a huge impact in the longterm, no?
- lelanthran 1y ago
  > This is yet another reason why fertility is, in my opinion, the issue of the century. The world is going to look so absurdly different, and not in a good way, in 50 years, owing to fertility rates alone. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    That documentary? Yeah, highly recommended.

poulpy123 1y ago

Evolution still happens, but in any case if autism is a side effect of the genes that make us intelligent, they are here from much before than central heating and plumbing

ErigmolCt 1y ago

But the evolutionary pressures discussed in the paper are much older