4 ms·

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on huma

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on human health. And the fact that the article says we are taller now than we have ever been in history, which is patently not true, casts a serious level of doubt on the article. 1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our-species-first-appeared http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our...

kordless 12y ago
The article is mostly based on a work by "Tim Hatton, an economist at the University of Essex in the U.K.". That the author took license calling a moment in man's history 'most of human history' doesn't imply the rest of the article isn't worth anything. Also, I don't know living longer, or living without hunger is that terrible of a price to pay. More souls, after all.
trentmb 12y ago
> but it came at a terrible price on human health. Could you elaborate please.
tsenkov 12y ago
>"We are now generally shorter, lighter and smaller boned than our ancestors were 100,000 years ago. The decrease has been gradual but has been most noticeable in the last 10,000 years. However, there has been some slight reversal to this trend in the last few centuries as the average height has started to increase." Interesting, thanks for sharing. Another very interesting fact - brain gets smaller in volume and unlike height, this trend is still not reversed (not sure about weight, though).
ama729 12y ago
> We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1] Yes we do, there are a number of countries where the average height is close to 183 cm (average in your article, though there are no citations given for that fact): The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, ... In the Dinaric Alps, it even reach 186 cm, so in fact we ARE taller today[1]. But another article[2] with actual sources point to an 176.2 cm average, much smaller than today. > but it came at a terrible price on human health [Citation needed] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_ar... [2] http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.h...
- graeme 12y ago
  Re: health the linked article said that worse diet led to shorter height. Here's a longer discussions (cited by 178): http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...
- Retric 12y ago
  Comparing a world wide average with a relatively tiny sub population is hardly reasonable. Otherwise we could just look at the average height of NBA players and say that's a reasonable proxy for the US average height.
  - ama729 12y ago
    Cro-magnon specifically refer to early human living in Europe, seems fair to make the comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
    - Retric 12y ago
      Edit: Perhaps if you wanted to compare the average for all of Europe to estimates of European Early Modern Humans that might be reasonable, however that's not what you did. They where discovered in Europe, but the current theory is they did not originate in Europe note the direct link from that Wikipedia page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magnon_range_35%2C000_ybp.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magno... "The term "Cro-Magnon" soon came to be used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe. ... However, analyses based on more current data[8] concerning the migrations of early humans have contributed to a refined definition of this expression. Current scientific literature prefers the term "European Early Modern Humans" (or EEMH), instead of "Cro-Magnon". The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen is the Grotta del Cavallo tooth dated in 2011 to at least 43,000 years old." Note: "the term 'Cro-Magnon,' which has no formal taxonomic status" current evidence suggests they where effectively genetically identical to modern humans. Their diet was simply better leading to larger growth vs any significant DNA differences.
frozenport 12y ago
>>came at a terrible price on human health http://www.thelazycaveman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/caveman+cartoon.jpg http://www.thelazycaveman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cav...
- graeme 12y ago
  See this chart on historical life expectancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy... Early 20th century was also 30 years. Ancient Rome was 20-30. These expectancies were low chiefly because of high infant mortality. A life expectancy of "two days" really drags down your average. Average life expectancy is not a good measure for everyday arguments. Paleolithic average life expectancy was actually quite high relative to the historical periods that followed.
crusso 12y ago
but it came at a terrible price on human health That statement doesn't make sense. It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space. Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".
- graeme 12y ago
  "doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain. The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited: http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne... Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people within that culture, which let them dominate other cultures.
  - crusso 12y ago
    "doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain I have a great deal of knowledge in the domain of the English language. "Health" can mean a lot of different things. Support of the survival and dominance of a species is a great indicator that the diet is "healthy". flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people All you have to do is to refer to modern organizations like the WHO to know that supporting life for a lot of people is a great deal of the meaning of "health". [edit: clarity]
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    That's a weird point of view. If we continued to hunt and gather and didn't develop agriculture, we'd be extinct or like any other common animal. In my mind, existing is healthy than not existing.
    - Sharlin 12y ago
      This is not about some value-laden speculation whether the humankind "should" have stayed hunter-gatherers or not (as if that sort of a question makes any sense whatsoever). It's about a simple question of facts: Were individual subsistence farmers on average less healthful than hunter-gatherers? The evidence seems to indicate that yes, they were.
NIL8 12y ago
According to your article, the size of our brains has also decreased over the years. I would assume that this would also decrease our processing power and overall brain function. Interesting.
marcosdumay 12y ago
Those are different phenomena. The fast growth we experienced at the last centuries isn't related to genetic changes.

kordless 12y ago

The article is mostly based on a work by "Tim Hatton, an economist at the University of Essex in the U.K.". That the author took license calling a moment in man's history 'most of human history' doesn't imply the rest of the article isn't worth anything. Also, I don't know living longer, or living without hunger is that terrible of a price to pay. More souls, after all.

trentmb 12y ago

> but it came at a terrible price on human health. Could you elaborate please.

tsenkov 12y ago

>"We are now generally shorter, lighter and smaller boned than our ancestors were 100,000 years ago. The decrease has been gradual but has been most noticeable in the last 10,000 years. However, there has been some slight reversal to this trend in the last few centuries as the average height has started to increase." Interesting, thanks for sharing. Another very interesting fact - brain gets smaller in volume and unlike height, this trend is still not reversed (not sure about weight, though).

ama729 12y ago

> We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1] Yes we do, there are a number of countries where the average height is close to 183 cm (average in your article, though there are no citations given for that fact): The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, ... In the Dinaric Alps, it even reach 186 cm, so in fact we ARE taller today[1]. But another article[2] with actual sources point to an 176.2 cm average, much smaller than today. > but it came at a terrible price on human health [Citation needed] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_ar... [2] http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.h...

graeme 12y ago
Re: health the linked article said that worse diet led to shorter height. Here's a longer discussions (cited by 178): http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...
Retric 12y ago
Comparing a world wide average with a relatively tiny sub population is hardly reasonable. Otherwise we could just look at the average height of NBA players and say that's a reasonable proxy for the US average height.
- ama729 12y ago
  Cro-magnon specifically refer to early human living in Europe, seems fair to make the comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
  - Retric 12y ago
    Edit: Perhaps if you wanted to compare the average for all of Europe to estimates of European Early Modern Humans that might be reasonable, however that's not what you did. They where discovered in Europe, but the current theory is they did not originate in Europe note the direct link from that Wikipedia page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magnon_range_35%2C000_ybp.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magno... "The term "Cro-Magnon" soon came to be used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe. ... However, analyses based on more current data[8] concerning the migrations of early humans have contributed to a refined definition of this expression. Current scientific literature prefers the term "European Early Modern Humans" (or EEMH), instead of "Cro-Magnon". The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen is the Grotta del Cavallo tooth dated in 2011 to at least 43,000 years old." Note: "the term 'Cro-Magnon,' which has no formal taxonomic status" current evidence suggests they where effectively genetically identical to modern humans. Their diet was simply better leading to larger growth vs any significant DNA differences.

frozenport 12y ago

>>came at a terrible price on human health http://www.thelazycaveman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/caveman+cartoon.jpg http://www.thelazycaveman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cav...

graeme 12y ago
See this chart on historical life expectancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy... Early 20th century was also 30 years. Ancient Rome was 20-30. These expectancies were low chiefly because of high infant mortality. A life expectancy of "two days" really drags down your average. Average life expectancy is not a good measure for everyday arguments. Paleolithic average life expectancy was actually quite high relative to the historical periods that followed.

crusso 12y ago

but it came at a terrible price on human health That statement doesn't make sense. It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space. Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".

graeme 12y ago
"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain. The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited: http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne... Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people within that culture, which let them dominate other cultures.
- crusso 12y ago
  "doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain I have a great deal of knowledge in the domain of the English language. "Health" can mean a lot of different things. Support of the survival and dominance of a species is a great indicator that the diet is "healthy". flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people All you have to do is to refer to modern organizations like the WHO to know that supporting life for a lot of people is a great deal of the meaning of "health". [edit: clarity]
- Spooky23 12y ago
  That's a weird point of view. If we continued to hunt and gather and didn't develop agriculture, we'd be extinct or like any other common animal. In my mind, existing is healthy than not existing.
  - Sharlin 12y ago
    This is not about some value-laden speculation whether the humankind "should" have stayed hunter-gatherers or not (as if that sort of a question makes any sense whatsoever). It's about a simple question of facts: Were individual subsistence farmers on average less healthful than hunter-gatherers? The evidence seems to indicate that yes, they were.

NIL8 12y ago

According to your article, the size of our brains has also decreased over the years. I would assume that this would also decrease our processing power and overall brain function. Interesting.

marcosdumay 12y ago

Those are different phenomena. The fast growth we experienced at the last centuries isn't related to genetic changes.