I wonder how birth control methods play into this. Are the strong (e.g. affluent) more likely to use them?
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 11:15 PM Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me rephrase it so that the point I wanted to make is maybe more clear. > > I conjure that today in the developed world evolution by means of natural > selection is at most very weak. Although I don't think it's zero I only > argue for the case that it is at least significantly weaker than a long > time ago. > > Why? > In the developed world today the conditions are not very conducive for > natural selection. If there is a mutation making an individual slightly > more fit for the environment, there is no mechanism for that person to have > more descendents, so a crucial component of natural selection is missing. > There is no correlation between having genes making you more fit for the > environment and the number of descendants you have, so the genes making a > person more fit for the environment do not spread through the population. > I'm excluding the harm we do to the environment, but humanity is kind > towards those with traits making them less fit for the environment. We care > for the weak, we allow them to have as many descendents as the strong. I > think this is unique for all species since life began. > > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 23:46, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure I did much better in finding (with trivial effort) relevant >> data but: >> >> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/ >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility >> >> provide some framing. It seems in the present/industrial societies, the >> correlation is inverse >> >> *"Development is the best **contraceptive >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive>**." - *Karan Singh >> >> I was shocked that our (USA) Rnaught had dropped to 2.06 in 1940. My >> father was 1 of 2 but my mother was 1 of 5 (all born in the 20s). I was >> skooled by my betters in the equal rights movement that it was not until >> oral contraception (circa 1960) that fertility/reproduction rates dropped. >> The chart above suggests (acutely) otherwise. I'm assuming my grandparents >> must have relied on (male) barrier methods *or* they had just enough >> Calvinist in them (which they did by my 60's ideals) to rely on abstinence? >> >> In all cases, I think the number of generations implied even by the last >> 2000 years might not be enough to obtain significant change? Or is >> speciation more of a punctuated equilibrium event with abrupt environmental >> changes (including migration to new landscapes) are what drive rapid change >> by selection? Or gradualism? Or both: >> >> https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium >> >> - Steve >> On 4/24/21 3:10 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >> >> >> *" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich >> man? " * >> Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? >> >> It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful >> raising of many children in the past. >> My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively >> expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily >> from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is >> true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing. >> >> >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >>> >>> Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten >>> children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few. >>> >>> Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? >>> Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the >>> rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the >>> balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming >>> significant levels of monogamy). Nutrition and health care (and >>> stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth >>> and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 >>> on average? >>> >>> The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of >>> descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for >>> natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved. >>> >>> Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some >>> genetic feature? Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood >>> nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I >>> think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good? >>> >>> I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been >>> selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that >>> got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive >>> fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth). >>> e.g Genghis hisself >>> <http://malyarchuk-bor.narod.ru/olderfiles/1/RJG_3_07.pdf> >>> >>> Today however, genetic differences between people have very >>> small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are >>> very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is >>> happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? >>> But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, >>> humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not >>> already some filthy rich people doing it in secret. >>> >>> With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone >>> is/has/will". The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning >>> prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by >>> broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy. >>> >>> >>> https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/ >>> >>> https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php >>> >>> and we DO have the Raëlians <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism> >>> and Clonaid. <http://www.clonaid.com/> >>> >>> https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/ >>> >>> >>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/ >>> >>> my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> DaveW - >>>> >>>> I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the >>>> many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout >>>> history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic >>>> drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest >>>> taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes. >>>> >>>> The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have >>>> happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the >>>> reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the >>>> most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans... The >>>> time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of >>>> years, not tens or hundreds of thousands. That alone suggests to me that >>>> we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution". The divergence of >>>> traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands >>>> of years as well. From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we >>>> probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many >>>> generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits. >>>> >>>> As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, >>>> it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become >>>> acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", >>>> much less evolution by natural selection. >>>> >>>> >>>> And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2 >>>> >>>> Who knew we had come this far from Dolly >>>> <https://dolly.roslin.ed.ac.uk/facts/the-life-of-dolly/index.html>? >>>> >>>> Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild >>>> things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes >>>> afoot? I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting >>>> relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we >>>> are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, >>>> colorful birds, ... in particular). >>>> >>>> For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high >>>> mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so >>>> while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, >>>> Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the >>>> order of decades. >>>> >>>> I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or >>>> *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think >>>> (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon. A very specific >>>> (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure. >>>> >>>> In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of >>>> human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to >>>> maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and >>>> other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with >>>> metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge... but how many generations >>>> of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other >>>> populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that >>>> survival trait? And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances >>>> of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT >>>> creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just >>>> moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?) >>>> >>>> I'm definitely not going to depend on it! >>>> >>>> - Steve >>>> On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please see attached. It’s short. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick Thompson >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On >>>> Behalf Of *Merle Lefkoff >>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM >>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dave, I found this in Wikipedia: "The social brain hypothesis was >>>> proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Dunbar>, who argues that human >>>> intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological >>>> problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and >>>> complex social groups." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Can human beings evolve? >>>> >>>> Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial >>>> Revolution. (population genetics) >>>> >>>> Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored >>>> moth was easy prey. >>>> Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be >>>> covered in soot, turning them dark. >>>> Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895. >>>> >>>> Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a >>>> similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot >>>> food? >>>> >>>> Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their >>>> lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than >>>> adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle? >>>> >>>> davew >>>> >>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >>>> Center for Emergent Diplomacy >>>> emergentdiplomacy.org >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >>>> >>>> >>>> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >>>> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >>>> >>>> twitter: @merle110 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> >>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> >>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
