3 ms·

Humans continue to evolve

16 points by CWuestefeld 17y ago

ars 17y ago
The implications of this, is that we are selecting for early births, with no regard at all to how long we will live. Normally long life means you can take care of the offspring, but since offspring will survive even if you don't, this aspect is not selected for. The implications of this are not good, because we are selecting for the traits least desirable in modern society. People who delay births, and thereby demonstrate health later in life have far fewer children than those who give birth early. Additionally there is an unfortunate trend for people to delay children until their "career" is settled. Which means that people with simple careers (manual labor and the like) have far more children than those who's careers take longer (and are presumably more intelligent), and it's those more complex jobs that are in demand right now.
- Retric 17y ago
  There has been a fair amount of research that suggests over some point having more money results in more kids. There seems to be a dip when you have some but not enough with spikes at low and high levels of income. An interesting take on this: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483 http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?...
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  we are selecting for early births, with no regard at all to how long we will live. No. The article says "...women who conceive earlier in life and reached menopause at a later age, all had more offspring" (emphasis mine). So it's trying to maximize for child-bearing years, on both the early and late sides.
teeja 17y ago
The ongoing financial meltdown (not to mention Warming) argues against that assertion. Our rationalization skills are evolving though. We now know many more people to point our fingers at.
tokenadult 17y ago
"Ever since Charles Darwin, a prevailing attitude among medical practitioners has been that evolution does not operate in humans because modern medicine and culture have greatly leveled the playing field by homogenizing survival rates." I call baloney on this. Where's the citation of anyone saying that?

16 points by CWuestefeld 17y ago

ars 17y ago

The implications of this, is that we are selecting for early births, with no regard at all to how long we will live. Normally long life means you can take care of the offspring, but since offspring will survive even if you don't, this aspect is not selected for. The implications of this are not good, because we are selecting for the traits least desirable in modern society. People who delay births, and thereby demonstrate health later in life have far fewer children than those who give birth early. Additionally there is an unfortunate trend for people to delay children until their "career" is settled. Which means that people with simple careers (manual labor and the like) have far more children than those who's careers take longer (and are presumably more intelligent), and it's those more complex jobs that are in demand right now.

Retric 17y ago
There has been a fair amount of research that suggests over some point having more money results in more kids. There seems to be a dip when you have some but not enough with spikes at low and high levels of income. An interesting take on this: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483 http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?...
CWuestefeld 17y ago
we are selecting for early births, with no regard at all to how long we will live. No. The article says "...women who conceive earlier in life and reached menopause at a later age, all had more offspring" (emphasis mine). So it's trying to maximize for child-bearing years, on both the early and late sides.

teeja 17y ago

The ongoing financial meltdown (not to mention Warming) argues against that assertion. Our rationalization skills are evolving though. We now know many more people to point our fingers at.

tokenadult 17y ago

"Ever since Charles Darwin, a prevailing attitude among medical practitioners has been that evolution does not operate in humans because modern medicine and culture have greatly leveled the playing field by homogenizing survival rates." I call baloney on this. Where's the citation of anyone saying that?