Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Are humans evolving faster?"

11 Comments -

1 – 11 of 11
Anonymous Old Atlantic said...

If fertility is at or below replacement how does evolution continue?

12/10/07, 2:16 PM

Anonymous New Atlantic said...

Old Atlantic, in answer to your question, the old are replaced by the new.

12/10/07, 2:24 PM

Anonymous David said...

It has been obvious to me for some time that "evolution" occurs in as little time as over the course of a few generations.

A good marker is a family - one of those dynasty, rise-and-fall families with which our literature (and nation) was once replete. In some families, the smart ones don't have kids; while the ne'er-do-wells, the weaker types, do - or even miscegnate. We like to focus on similarities twixt grandson and grandfather; but the dissimilarities can often be striking. Not only in terms of skull shape and general looks, but also in propensities. (Grandpa was healthy as a horse and worked like a dog; while grandson is a sickly degenerate.) A family can go bad genetically very quickly. Multiply this by 1000 familes, one million families, etc. The people who successfully breed now would never have successfully bred in certain earlier times, and vice-versa: this has to have an almost immediate impact. What would Europe have looked like in 2050 A.D. had all those white Europeans not died in the World Wars? Does anyone want to say this has nothing to do with evolution, with artificial selection?

12/10/07, 2:35 PM

Anonymous chrysoperil said...

But remember Gould's demon, sitting in the neck to ensure that no mutations got to the brain:

This column can be summarized in a single phrase, a motto if you will: Human equality is a contingent fact of history. Equality is not given a priori; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios for human history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude). They didn't happen.

http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0425.htm

No, they did happen and still are happening. Even there he admits the odds were 1 in 101 that it would "just work out that way."

12/10/07, 3:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The deep ecology types that the rest of the left hate absolutely are the only ones that have any solution for how to transition the leftist tradition without abjuring reality. I think once things get past the Watson prophecy point the entire left is going to have to convert to a domesticated version of deep ecology or else dry up.

12/10/07, 4:19 PM

Anonymous Henry Canaday said...

As Holmes said, "the game's afoot, Watson."

I guess I wonder too whether the last 50 years been different in several respects. Continental peoples of the world have begun to reconnect, due to war, trade, modern communication and transport, as well as emigration and immigration, so these peoples are less isolated than they were for 40,000 years. Most nations are moving, even if at dramatically different paces, toward a common economic system, with something like a free market tempered by government. And higher living standards, nutrition and health have greatly reduced the penalties for being genetically disadvantaged for survival.

The big puzzle is mating choices and child-bearing habits. I think we are too much in the midst of these to really understand them. Where are they going, and what does that mean?

In any case, I would give the old blind Puritan some credit:

"Som natural tears they drop'd, but wip'd them soon;
The World was all before them, where to choose
Thir place of rest, and Providence thir guide;
They hand in hand with wandring steps and slow,
through Eden took thir solitarie way."

12/10/07, 4:49 PM

Blogger Mary Pat said...

We are those mutants, indeed.

It will be interesting to see the impact of genetic engineering on the germ line in humans, if that ever becomes economically feasible on a large scale.

I would think people would want to squelch any mutations that come, without regards to what those mutations do. Just the old tried-and-true genes for my family, thanks.

Of course, there would be plenty of populations where no direct genetic tinkering goes on, and my second guess would be that this group of people would have much higher fertility rates than those who engineer their children to have the "right" set of genes... and that first group will just fade away.

12/11/07, 3:11 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A huge number of Swedes moved to the USA -- and I would assume that more men left Sweden than women, and that the men who left were more aggressive and adventurous, on average, than the ones who stayed behind.

I would NOT call this "genetic evolution." The "wild Swede/Viking" genes have ended up in North America, and "nice Swede" genes have been left behind in Sweden. This is why the USA has a relatively high crime rate -- the "bad boys" from overpopulated countries are more likely to come here than the "nice boys."

12/11/07, 12:03 PM

Blogger Ron Guhname said...

"He suspects milk drinking gave lactose-tolerant Indo-European speakers more energy, allowing them to conquer a large area."

Milk, it does a body good! Turns out my mom was right, but she should have told me that drinking my milk will make me a great conqueror!

12/11/07, 2:52 PM

Anonymous Reticent Man said...

It's great that there are studies to prove this, because obviously we need them. But this has always seemed like common sense to me.

If you think hard (and rationally) about the differences between different races from different places and the way that they've changed and adapted just in the last several centuries it's impossible not to come to this conclusion.

The fact that we need a study to prove it just illuminates the quantity of thinking that fits under the two qualifications at the beginning of my previous sentence.

12/12/07, 12:39 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My opinion is that this is dysgenics with a twist. It's not purely "stupid" or "defective" people outreproducing the rest. It is the rather attractive, outgoing, and slightly below average cognitively outreproducing the rest. Consider the many intelligent, not-so-attractive professionals who are unattached and childless. My recollection might be off a bit here - months ago The New York Times had an article showing that people are much more physically robust than ancestors from many decades ago. That could be a historical aberration, of course.

12/17/07, 6:00 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL