tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post1577569482114659588..comments2024-03-10T04:29:20.044-04:00Comments on Mad Genius Club: Human NatureSarah A. Hoythttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17478124095732219352noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-17179488892700898042009-08-22T14:49:21.071-04:002009-08-22T14:49:21.071-04:00I think the first anatomically modern humans are a...I think the first anatomically modern humans are about 120K years ago. But behaviorally, taking widespread art and frequent tech innovation, we're only about 35,000 years old. <br /><br />During that period we've evolved from Hunter-Gatherers to farmers to city dwellers. Our skeletons may not have changed much, but I suspect our genetic makeup has shifted drastically. Different diet (not wholly adapted to yet)and germ loads unheard of in isolated societies of a few dozen people are changing us.<br /><br />We're very much a work in progress. Some times, like right now, I wonder if we aren't heading in the wrong direction, but things change. Right now, most of the Western Civs are undergoing population contraction, with immigration from other cultures so high the original culture could be lost, with the gene mixture common to Europe following.<br /><br />Anton, I find the studies of identical twins raised apart fascinating. Being hardwired for a large range of things influences an amazing number of preferences, but it doesn't control us, nor dictate our actions or futures.<br /><br />It does put us in a box that is hard to escape. But we escape regularly. Taking male-female bonding, for instance. It's a hardwired preference, yet the divorce rate is sky high, ditto second third and fourth marriages. Our society is starting to look like serial polygamy, rather than the monogamous ideal of former generations. We are programmed to like kids. But as a society we satisfy this craving with one or two children, possibly step children, adopted or foster kids. Or cats and dogs. <br /><br />This is a profound escape from the boxes of both genes and society. <br /><br />But think about this as an evolutionary force. Whatever component of "wants children" is genetic is increasing in percentage as the sub-population as a whole looses numbers. People with weak "wants children" genes are removing themselves from the gene pool.<br /><br />MataPamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-64602260013485123832009-08-22T13:42:06.433-04:002009-08-22T13:42:06.433-04:00Dear Kate
Neanderthals and humans diverged around...Dear Kate<br /><br />Neanderthals and humans diverged around 370 th yrs bp, ie, before humans became us. They were the European hominid and we were African. Molecular evidence currently suggest little or no interbreeding occured after this date.<br /><br />There appears to be one important significant difference between Neanderthals and people. Neanderthal technology did not progress all that much and they do not seem to have embraced fashion. Their arts are individual one off unlike the sweeps of artistic development you find with people.<br /><br />They may not have been as creative as us.John Lambsheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598696442104566164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-90469705429972698812009-08-22T13:14:24.483-04:002009-08-22T13:14:24.483-04:00The human genotype is a bit of a mess. It shows ev...The human genotype is a bit of a mess. It shows evidence of severe bottlenecking with all modern humans descended from a few thousand African individuals. The Toba super-volcano is the prime candidate.<br /><br />This has all sorts of consequences: (i) We are riddled with nasty recessives so inbreeding is quickly dangerous, (ii) we have little genetic variation compared to similar species, and (iii) most human genetic variability is found in Africa. <br /><br />Two Kenyan from the same village will probably have a higher genetic variability between themn than a Scot and a Japanese.<br /><br />Our basic behaviour patterns were formed when we moved out of forests onto the grasslands about 5m yrs bp. Our social interaction behaviour is primarily from the last 250,000 years, at least 200,000 of which was spent on the grasslands of Africa.<br /><br />In the last 10,000 yrs, living in dense societies has put us under enormous evolutionary pressure through poor food and disease. We are all the survivors of the plagues. We still can't cure virus or prion based disease and our antibiotics and anti-parasite drugs are losing their potency. The next food limitation period in human society is likely to see some devastating plagues - and so it goes.<br /><br />Mr Darwin ain't finished with us yet!John Lambsheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598696442104566164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-53708223387469505732009-08-22T12:07:19.736-04:002009-08-22T12:07:19.736-04:00Of course, that gets us into the territory of tryi...Of course, that gets us into the territory of trying to define what a species is, again.<br /><br />In Homo Sapiens Nova, this is almost a matter of prejudice until enough changes have accumulated for infertility between groups.<br /><br />In SF we used to have spontaneous mutations. Now we get genetic engineering. <br /><br />Fantasy runs several ways. Magic Humans vs Mundanes. Elves, Dwarfs and Orcs (who frequently can interbreed with humans.) And the Werewolf and Vampire sorts, elevated to their new status one by one, rather than evolving, depending on which mythos one follows. <br /><br />But you are correct, in the need to have believable societies. The alteration of the male-female basic breeding and family unit norm requires explanation. <br /><br />The "males have more power/superior social status/control than females" is another norm that is often violated in both SF and fantasy. In SF, it is believable as an extrapolation of western culture and technological warfare. In fantasy it is occasionally shown as the result of magic; Humans evolving with less of a power bias due to women also being able to use magic. Kate Elliott's Crown of Stars series did a good job of this. <br /><br />I have a great deal of trouble with stories that seem to think that only a lack of training keeps women from being men's equals in sword fighting. But human sexual dimorphism is real. A woman at the far end of the size scale, with good training can probably hold her own against some underfed, untrained peasants with clubs. The noble next door will kick her ass. I can almost manage enough suspension of belief to accept a small percentage of women being able to hold their own. <br /><br />But a society the developed as a Homo Sapiens Equalus evolved would be profoundly different than ours.<br /><br />Once one posits a major difference, a species split in Homo Sap, one is nearly required to make social changes as well. Can we use animal models to try and make believable societies? The long dependency of the human offspring is going to make that tough.<br /><br />How about when the magic, or the increase in womens size, strength and speed, is a recent development? How would a medieval society change as this happened? A modern society? Most likely by using fashion to keep women unable to be physically dominant, IMO.<br /><br />What would the results be, of a profound change with not enough time to evolve a fix? What problems would we see, and how would society change to control the problems?<br /><br />MataPamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-84064049701870448902009-08-22T11:54:43.291-04:002009-08-22T11:54:43.291-04:00Actually, Anton, I'm inclined to disagree that...Actually, Anton, I'm inclined to disagree that behavior is as deterministic as you say, or that evolution is going to be 'drowned out'.<br /><br />On the evolution front, there's already evidence of differing evolutionary paths. The poster child for this is lactose intolerance - the human 'default' appears to be typical of most mammals. Once weaned, milk is no longer a food source. Cultures where domesticated cattle have been around for generations have a much lower rate of lactose intolerance - the 'normal' didn't survive when the most consistent nutrient source was milk.<br /><br />Other evidence suggests that hyperstimulative environments are generating different evolutionary paths than more normal environments. Plus it's possible to argue that humanity has already split into multiple species - the biologists haven't resolved the question of whether you've got a species divide when two populations <i>don't</i> breed or when they <i>can't</i> breed. I had a fascinating discussion with a biologist and an evolutionary theorist on this topic at the Denver WorldCon and essentially, the jury's out. To take it to it's simplest, no-one's sure if pekes and great danes are different species because while they probably won't breed naturally, a peke <i>can</i> fertilize a great dane, and the pups are going to be pretty damn weird but they'll still be able to have puppies themselves.<br /><br />On the human front, consider the likelihood of a typical Westerner marrying someone from any of the isolated African tribes, and the potential issues that could arise from that (IIRC - Dave can correct me if I go wrong - there are a whole lot more different blood types in the African tribes, and some of them are incompatible with some of the normal-to-us A/B/AB/O +/- settings)<br /><br />Culture... from what I've seen it's only determinative if you <i>stay</i> in the same culture and refuse to consider other choices. Yes, changing the way you think is bloody difficult. It's also very much possible, and for those of us afflicted with certain neurological issues, essential. <br /><br />For example, I do not think, feel or react the same way I did when I arrived in the US not quite 7 years ago. I look at what I was then and what I am now, and apart from the poundage that seems to want to love me and stay with me foreveraneveramen, I see a lot of improvement (in the sense that I can deal with the usual crap that life throws at me)<br /><br />I'd argue that the urge to reproduce <i>is</i> genetic, but like most genetic behavioral cues, can be overridden. Another personal example: I have enough genetic bombs in my family line that it would be a very bad idea for me to have kids. I don't want kids and I'm pretty sure I'd be a dreadful parent. That doesn't stop me getting the instinctive "want baby" whenever I see one or hear one crying.<br /><br />All of which, of course, goes towards making a potential other society much more interesting. <br /><br />And - on the question of how human is human - would a neanderthal cloned from a frozen one and raised by sapiens parents in a sapiens culture - any culture - be human? My answer is 'yes'. Wouldn't that be a fun book?Kate Paulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02034983693134240754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-65938242072046510292009-08-22T11:46:22.363-04:002009-08-22T11:46:22.363-04:00It is a misconception that evolution no longer has...It is a misconception that evolution no longer has an impact on our species. We all struggle to survive from one hour to the next. Success is simply about passing on your genes, nothing else. <br /><br />Everything it genetically preprogrammed as expressed through environmental history. My point was a more subtle one. Some types of human are highly plastic whereas others are more fixed. This should be considered when inventing human societies.<br /><br />JohnJohn Lambsheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598696442104566164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-13032559601479221362009-08-22T07:30:46.797-04:002009-08-22T07:30:46.797-04:00FWIW I'm all for the gays! How people live the...FWIW I'm all for the gays! How people live their life is their own business, so long as it isn't hurting anybody else. Strongly in favour of the legal recognition of gay civil partnerships, but not so much on gay marriage. But that's just because I don't approve of marriage in general.<br /><br />I think you argued yourself into a circle up there, and honestly, dabbling in the whole homosexuality issue is a mine-field.<br /><br />You're saying behaviour is fundamentally pre-programmed by our genetics, affected by our environmental upbringing, and unchangeable once it's established.<br /><br />How depressing is that?<br /><br />You may as well argue that there's a God and we're all born with original sin.<br /><br />I'm not even touching on the questions arising from saying that homosexuality is genetic, and so is our fundamental urge to reproduce. I don't feel the urge to partake in either, TYVM. <br /><br />"Society" has superseded genetic programming a long time ago. That's why we're unlikely to evolve as a species. "Improvements" get drowned out, diluted, by the mass of extant humanity which doesn't have to compete to survive. See the movie Idiocracy.<br /><br />Sorry for busting your chops, but it's a subject I find quite fascinating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com