Megachange : the world in 2050

[Blind groper]

There isn't a high murder rate today but that could change tommorow. I wouldn't trust in this reduction in violence theory. History doesn't happen like a graph in way shape or form.

Actually, in terms of violence, history is acting very nicely like a graph. The trend is long term - going back to tribal hunter/gatherer societies, which have the highest rate of violent death. Check the Pinker video I referenced. It is really interesting.

To Tyrannical

The idea of taming humans is probably incorrect, since we are not changing human genetics. The silver fox experiment, which is a fascinating one, involved breeding restraints, and thus a change in genetics over a number of generations. There is no indication that 'tamer' humans are more reproductively successful, leading to a genetic change. I would suspect the opposite. Less 'tame' males (men acting more aggressively) are generally those with higher testosterone, and many experiments show that physical features caused by high testosterone make men more attractive to women. Thus, less 'tame' males are able to produce more offspring.

The less violent tendencies that humans have been showing over time are related to societal changes, rather than genetic. See Pinker's video, in which he lists the causes of lower levels of violence in human society.

[JimC]

Rum

The only reason it was sustainable is that they already made extinct all those life forms that were vulnerable.

Perhaps a little extreme, it makes the Aborigines sound like the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse...

The slow and ponderous megafauna (a handful of species), and the marsupial lion who depended on them, sure...

After that, vastly fewer extinctions than anything European man has created...

[Blind groper]

Perhaps a little extreme, it makes the Aborigines sound like the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse...

For the more than 100 species of megafauna that went extinct something over 40,000 years ago, that is probably an accurate description.

The thing is that the aborigines have not advanced their technology much beyond that point, and so could not very effectively hunt and kill the animals that escaped the first onslaught. Killing a kangaroo with a boomerang is not easy. It is really, really difficult even with a woomera (spear thrower) and spear, simply because kangaroos do not let people approach.

I am cynical about the idea that indigenous peoples somehow have a love of nature and live in harmony with ecosystems. I believe that people are people, of all races, and if you are hungry you will kill whatever moves, just to fill that gaping need. If you refrain from killing, it is because you are not hungry, or because you are unable to kill. Technologically primitive peoples nearly always are hungry for a big part of the time. But they do not always have the means to kill. Until the coming of the rifle into North America, for example, the native peoples had a hell of a job killing a bison. Or even a bison calf.

[JimC]

Perhaps a little extreme, it makes the Aborigines sound like the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse...

For the more than 100 species of megafauna that went extinct something over 40,000 years ago, that is probably an accurate description.

The thing is that the aborigines have not advanced their technology much beyond that point, and so could not very effectively hunt and kill the animals that escaped the first onslaught. Killing a kangaroo with a boomerang is not easy. It is really, really difficult even with a woomera (spear thrower) and spear, simply because kangaroos do not let people approach.

I am cynical about the idea that indigenous peoples somehow have a love of nature and live in harmony with ecosystems. I believe that people are people, of all races, and if you are hungry you will kill whatever moves, just to fill that gaping need. If you refrain from killing, it is because you are not hungry, or because you are unable to kill. Technologically primitive peoples nearly always are hungry for a big part of the time. But they do not always have the means to kill. Until the coming of the rifle into North America, for example, the native peoples had a hell of a job killing a bison. Or even a bison calf.

I agree with the cynicism to a degree. The connection with nature evidenced by the Aborigines is not a rosy "new-age" bit of woo, but is a hard-won set of knowledge. After the initial expansion into Australia, and the elimination of the easy prey, the aborigines developed a set of cultures (including a complex set of taboo foods, and very restrictive mating practices), that let them live in a relatively sustainable way. I am well aware of their effect on the environment via the "burning-stick", but the speed of their impact on the environment, given low tech levels, was several orders of magnitude lower than our impacts. Not from "high moral motives", I agree...

[Pappa]

Tyrannical , I've no real argument with your poitnt that behavioural traits towards societal cooperation within a civilised* environment could have developed over short timescales. We've seen the same with tolerence to lactose and some other traits that have become widespread since agrarianism spread around the world. I'm just wondering, "What's your point?". Human societies, civilised or not, have always had societal cooperation, social rules, etc., and the traits that go with them that are positively selected for to reinforce them. I don't get what you're trying to make out of these minor behavioural traits that may have been selected for with regards to "civilisation". Other than being self-reinforcing, what do they do?

Earlier you were talkiing about intelligence and Aborigines being sub-human by a certain definition. All of these traits you're talking about regaqrding civilised behavioural traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction in general. Those traits were selected a very long time ago, and all human societies have them. All human groups are extremely similar in those regards. What is know of human history and prehistory show us that humans have been comparatively inteligent creatures with complex social behaviours for a very long time.

What exactly is your point?



* and by that I mean city dwelling.

[Tyrannical]

To Tyrannical

The idea of taming humans is probably incorrect, since we are not changing human genetics. The silver fox experiment, which is a fascinating one, involved breeding restraints, and thus a change in genetics over a number of generations. There is no indication that 'tamer' humans are more reproductively successful, leading to a genetic change. I would suspect the opposite. Less 'tame' males (men acting more aggressively) are generally those with higher testosterone, and many experiments show that physical features caused by high testosterone make men more attractive to women. Thus, less 'tame' males are able to produce more offspring.

The less violent tendencies that humans have been showing over time are related to societal changes, rather than genetic. See Pinker's video, in which he lists the causes of lower levels of violence in human society.

Human society has breeding restraints, but they aren't so obvious until you think about it

Less tame males would under normal circumstances be able to produce more off spring. Except society can put extreme selective pressure against negative behavior through arranged marriages, criminal punishment, or simply execution. Our prisons are full of untamed males that in other times would be executed, or at least the women that unwisely mate with them and have their offspring would be more likely to not survive due to social persecution. Or simply put, the more docile humans team up to eliminate the less tame males that won't play by the rules.

While behavior can be influenced by environment, there is an underlying genetic basis for behavior and that study is called behavioral genetics. It's simple eugenics, eliminate the most violent and stupid from reproducing and over time the average population will become less violent and smarter.

[Tyrannical]

Tyrannical , I've no real argument with your poitnt that behavioural traits towards societal cooperation within a civilised* environment could have developed over short timescales. We've seen the same with tolerence to lactose and some other traits that have become widespread since agrarianism spread around the world. I'm just wondering, "What's your point?". Human societies, civilised or not, have always had societal cooperation, social rules, etc., and the traits that go with them that are positively selected for to reinforce them. I don't get what you're trying to make out of these minor behavioural traits that may have been selected for with regards to "civilisation". Other than being self-reinforcing, what do they do?

Sure, and the type of rules a society has shapes the population through natural selection because behavior is at least in part genetic. People shape their society, and in turn society shapes the people by rewarding those that follow societal norms and punishing those that do not.

What type of society do you want to live in? You need people that have a selected behavioral capacity conducive to that society.

Earlier you were talkiing about intelligence and Aborigines being sub-human by a certain definition. All of these traits you're talking about regaqrding civilised behavioural traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction in general. Those traits were selected a very long time ago, and all human societies have them. All human groups are extremely similar in those regards. What is know of human history and prehistory show us that humans have been comparatively inteligent creatures with complex social behaviours for a very long time.
What exactly is your point?

Perhaps sub-human was a poor choice of word, but calling certain groups not fully modern behaving humans wouldn't be much better. I don't consider their behavior fully modern because of how they failed to develop both socially and technologically.

You claim that:
Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction.
These traits were selected for a very long time ago.
All human groups are extremely similar in those regards.

What evidence do you have to support those claims? I'd think just the opposite.

The Russian fox study (no, not that kind of Russian fox ) is very interesting from a behavior genetics view. It shows that the (similar) genes for dog behavior may have existed before wolves and foxes separated into separate species, and these influenced characteristics can be concentrated in a few dozen generations of selection.

[mistermack]

............

(not a human) .............................................. (not a human)

It is the PC egalitarian crowd that have ignored established science and history.

Like proper trained scientists and historians you mean, with doctorates and professorships, none of whom push the sort of racial theories that you dream up.

They were bred amazingly quickly to enforce the tameability trait over a few dozen generations. I see a similar thing with certain human groups when they first started to become civilized. Behavioral traits were favored that encouraged societal cooperation, and dissenters were exiled or killed.

Perhaps you could let us know WHERE you see all that? Or is it just inside your head?
In reality, societal co-operation is MUCH MUCH stronger in hunter-gatherer society, than city society.

[Pappa]

You claim that:
Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction.
These traits were selected for a very long time ago.
All human groups are extremely similar in those regards.

What evidence do you have to support those claims? I'd think just the opposite.

First, I didn't claim that "Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction." I was saying that specific traits for civilised socialisation have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction, certainly beyond the social traits we already had prior to civilisation.

The claim that traits for inteligence and social interaction were selected for a very long time ago:

Humans have been living in complex social groups (at the tribal level), generating art, making complex tools, etc. for a very long time. Idk if you've ever had a go at making flint tools, bows, spear-throwers, boomerangs, string, nets or anything else at that level of technology, but I can assure you they require a high degree of inteligence, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities. Yes, you can bash a piece of flint and break off a useful temporary cutting edge, but even the Neanderthal hand-axe requires a complex understanding of the materials and how they are likely to behave in response to your actions than most people nowadays are capable of picking up at all easily... and Neanderthal hand-axes are probably the simplest of the flint objects that can be specifically designated as a certain tool type (as opposed to bashed off flakes). Likewise, bowery, it's a difficult skill to master. You need an understanding of the material and how it is likely to behave beforehand, or you'll just make a bow that will break. Ever tried lighting a fire with pyrites? It's hard, you need to prepare all your materials in advance and know how they'll behave.

All these tasks require a level of intelligece, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities on a par with those of behaviourally modern humans.

Regarding selection for living in complex social groups occuring long ago.... I'll just say that the fact we've been doing it for so long is (for me) evidence enough that that selection was occuring for that whole time too.... and we've only been living in civilised societies for a fraction of the time that we weren't.

The claim that All human groups are extremely similar in those regards:

As far as I'm aware, all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory. We all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes (in Europe via the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). Whatever the progression, we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers. Our social groups were probably broadly similar in general (though very different in specifics). I don't see much scope for great differences there, and there are only minor and superficial differences in different human groups now.

[Tyrannical]

............

(not a human) .............................................. (angry duck)

It is the PC egalitarian crowd that have ignored established science and history.

Like proper trained scientists and historians you mean, with doctorates and professorships, none of whom push the sort of racial theories that you dream up.

Well, prior to the 1930's you probably won't find many professors that thought the races were equal.

Since you wanted an example, there was the book "The Testing of Negro Intelligence" by Audrey Shuey, I'll give you an excerpt from a review so you can get the gist of it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 6-0060.pdf

Shuey, Audrey M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Second enlarged edition. New York,
1966. Social Science Press. Pp. xv+ 578. Price $6.50.
TWO THINGS CAN be said at the outset about this book. First, that it is an extremely
thorough and extensive survey of all the evidence derived from the testing of Negroes'
intelligence in the USA from the early years of this century to the present day. Second,
that it provides cold comfort for those who hold views about the innate equality of races,
and attribute observed differences to lack of opportunity and privilege.
Professor Shuey is not presenting a point of view. All she believes in is evidence and
logic, and the sheer weight of evidence she presents is overwhelming and is summed up
on the last page by a magnificent sentence, thirty-three lines long, which begins, "The
remarkable consistency in test results . . .", and ends, "all taken together, inevitably point
to the presence of native differences between Negroes and whites as determined by intelligence
tests".

They were bred amazingly quickly to enforce the tameability trait over a few dozen generations. I see a similar thing with certain human groups when they first started to become civilized. Behavioral traits were favored that encouraged societal cooperation, and dissenters were exiled or killed.

Perhaps you could let us know WHERE you see all that? Or is it just inside your head?
In reality, societal co-operation is MUCH MUCH stronger in hunter-gatherer society, than city society.

I'll dig that out later. I'm gonna go play some video games.

[mistermack]

Well, prior to the 1930's you probably won't find many professors that thought the races were equal.

What on earth has that to do with anything?
There was practically nothing known of human evolution, or genetics at the time.
Quoting the 1930s is just sad.

huey, Audrey M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Second enlarged edition. New York,
1966. Social Science Press. Pp. xv+ 578. Price $6.50.
TWO THINGS CAN be said at the outset about this book. First,

Well, the two things that I would say are 1966, and 1966? !!.
Got anything from this millenium?

In 1966, they didn't even know about Australopithecus.

[Seabass]

Well, prior to the 1930's you probably won't find many professors that thought the races were equal.

What on earth has that to do with anything?
There was practically nothing known of human evolution, or genetics at the time.
Quoting the 1930s is just sad.

huey, Audrey M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Second enlarged edition. New York,
1966. Social Science Press. Pp. xv+ 578. Price $6.50.
TWO THINGS CAN be said at the outset about this book. First,

Well, the two things that I would say are 1966, and 1966? !!.
Got anything from this millenium?

In 1966, they didn't even know about Australopithecus.

Well, he's made it out of the 19th century. At least he's making progress.

[JimC]

Well, prior to the 1930's you probably won't find many professors that thought the races were equal.

What on earth has that to do with anything?
There was practically nothing known of human evolution, or genetics at the time.
Quoting the 1930s is just sad.

huey, Audrey M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Second enlarged edition. New York,
1966. Social Science Press. Pp. xv+ 578. Price $6.50.
TWO THINGS CAN be said at the outset about this book. First,

Well, the two things that I would say are 1966, and 1966? !!.
Got anything from this millenium?

In 1966, they didn't even know about Australopithecus.

Well, he's made it out of the 19th century. At least he's making progress.

Pappa wrote:

As far as I'm aware, all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory. We all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes (in Europe via the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). Whatever the progression, we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers. Our social groups were probably broadly similar in general (though very different in specifics). I don't see much scope for great differences there, and there are only minor and superficial differences in different human groups now.

Agreed. And the differing trajectories of the various groups since then are to do with whether their local biogeography was favourable to certain types of agriculture and animal domestication, plus a certain amount of random chance. Once a particular culture makes it to a certain technological level, and can travel the world, they effectively suppress the chances of other groups of moving beyond the hunter-gatherer stage...

[Tyrannical]

You claim that:
Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction.
These traits were selected for a very long time ago.
All human groups are extremely similar in those regards.

What evidence do you have to support those claims? I'd think just the opposite.

First, I didn't claim that "Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction." I was saying that specific traits for civilised socialisation have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction, certainly beyond the social traits we already had prior to civilisation.

These traits can be tested for, show a high degree of heritability, and there is documented evidence showing racial variations in averages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_p ... ity_traits

In contemporary psychology, the "Big Five" factors (or Five Factor Model; FFM) of personality are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality.

The Big Five framework of personality traits from Costa & McCrae, 1992 has emerged as a robust model for understanding the relationship between personality and various academic behaviors.[1] The Big Five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (common acronyms are OCEAN, NEOAC, or CANOE). Conscientiousness is exemplified by being disciplined, organized, and achievement-oriented. Neuroticism refers to degree of emotional stability, impulse control, and anxiety. Extraversion is displayed through a higher degree of sociability, assertiveness, and talkativeness. Openness is reflected in a strong intellectual curiosity and a preference for novelty and variety. Finally, agreeableness refers to being helpful, cooperative, and sympathetic towards others. The neuroticism factor is sometimes referred by its low pole – "emotional stability". Some disagreement remains about how to interpret the openness factor, which is sometimes called "intellect" rather than openness to experience. Beneath each factor, a cluster of correlated specific traits are found; for example, extraversion includes such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity and positive emotions.

The claim that traits for inteligence and social interaction were selected for a very long time ago:

Humans have been living in complex social groups (at the tribal level), generating art, making complex tools, etc. for a very long time. Idk if you've ever had a go at making flint tools, bows, spear-throwers, boomerangs, string, nets or anything else at that level of technology, but I can assure you they require a high degree of inteligence, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities. Yes, you can bash a piece of flint and break off a useful temporary cutting edge, but even the Neanderthal hand-axe requires a complex understanding of the materials and how they are likely to behave in response to your actions than most people nowadays are capable of picking up at all easily... and Neanderthal hand-axes are probably the simplest of the flint objects that can be specifically designated as a certain tool type (as opposed to bashed off flakes). Likewise, bowery, it's a difficult skill to master. You need an understanding of the material and how it is likely to behave beforehand, or you'll just make a bow that will break. Ever tried lighting a fire with pyrites? It's hard, you need to prepare all your materials in advance and know how they'll behave.

All these tasks require a level of intelligece, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities on a par with those of behaviourally modern humans.

And there are even more difficult skills that were mastered, such as shelter building, farming, metallurgy, astronomy, and animal domestication and these skills required a higher intelligence which was selected for.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushto ... theses.pdf (pg 636)

Evolutionary selection pressures
were different in the hot savanna, where Africans
lived, than in the cold northern regions Europeans
experienced, or the even colder Arctic regions
where East Asians evolved. Thus, the further north
the ancestral populations migrated out of Africa,
the more they encountered the cognitivelydemanding
problems of gathering and storing food,
gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children
successfully during prolonged winters. As
these populations evolved into present-day East
Asians and Europeans, the ecological pressures selected
for larger brains, slower rates of maturation,
and lower levels of sex hormone, and all the
other life-history characteristics.

Regarding selection for living in complex social groups occuring long ago.... I'll just say that the fact we've been doing it for so long is (for me) evidence enough that that selection was occuring for that whole time too.... and we've only been living in civilised societies for a fraction of the time that we weren't.

The claim that All human groups are extremely similar in those regards:

As far as I'm aware, all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory. We all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes (in Europe via the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). Whatever the progression, we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers. Our social groups were probably broadly similar in general (though very different in specifics). I don't see much scope for great differences there, and there are only minor and superficial differences in different human groups now.

Nope, and even the biased anti-racist Jared Diamond noted that wasn't true in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

[Tyrannical]

Well, prior to the 1930's you probably won't find many professors that thought the races were equal.

What on earth has that to do with anything?
There was practically nothing known of human evolution, or genetics at the time.
Quoting the 1930s is just sad.

Oh please, you are just further displaying your ignorance of the subject matter. Francis Galton was very familiar with that concept, having published Hereditary Genius in 1869.

huey, Audrey M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Second enlarged edition. New York,
1966. Social Science Press. Pp. xv+ 578. Price $6.50.
TWO THINGS CAN be said at the outset about this book. First,

Well, the two things that I would say are 1966, and 1966? !!.
Got anything from this millennium?

In 1966, they didn't even know about Australopithecus.

So what if the book came out in 1966? It was a through examination of standardized test scores among other factors over the prior seventy years. There haven't been any marked improvements in adjusted test scores from the 1960's to the current millennium.

What does Australopithecus have to do with anything? It's 3.5M years old and only had a brain a third the size of modern humans. Charles Darwin suspected it's existence a 100 years before it was found.