The Role of Human Culture In Natural Selection

gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "... for the last 20,000 years or so, people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution. The force is human culture, broadly defined as any learned behavior, including technology. The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role. Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures, since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine. Because of this buffering action, culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, in the distant past. Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light. Although it does shield people from other forces, culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection. People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes, like new diets. And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces, 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution.'"

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[magarity]

The people conducting that study were completely confused:
 
  The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people
 
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.

social evolution

[johnrpenner]

the nobel prize winner, john eccles - brain neurologist considers the known/experienceable world to actually be comprised of three 'worlds' -- i) that of matter, ii) that of states of consciousness, and iii) objective knowledge -- 'the sum total of human culture':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)#Philosophy [wikipedia.org]

there is not only an evolution of the physical human form, but also an evolution in the states of consciousness mankind has achieved in order to attain to the states of consciousness which prevail in order to, for example make scientific and logical judgements -- evolution of consciousness, and its consequences must be taken be taken into account, because all that you see as the effects of HUIMANS -- cities, bridges, buildings -- is all due to a change in the consditions of consciousness that humans have developed.

in fact, the social organization may be more important than the material organization. there are enough physical resources and technological expertise on this planet to feed every woman, child and man on this planet -- given that we are adequately socially organized -- this is not yet the case, so war and poverty are not necessarily a lack-of-resources issue -- but a social one.

2cents from toronto island
jrp

Re:conservatives don't pay

[Attila Dimedici]

You really should get out in the real world some time. Study after study has shown the conservatives donate more money to charity than liberals on a per capita basis and as a percentage of income. Liberals are happy to "help" people with other people's money. Conservatives are happy to help people with their own resources.
I won't bother arguing with the rest of your post because it is full of a stereotypical understanding of what people believe and want. Like I said get out in the real world sometime and look at the facts.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[wurble]

No offense, but I'm in the position to know the financial dealings of some tens of thousands of wealthy individuals, and I can tell you flatly and honestly that the primary purpose of the vast majority of those "donations" is to dodge taxes. The majority of such donations are to "foundations" which are run by agents who answer directly to the person who "donated" their funds. Such foundations need only use a small fraction of their donations on actual charitable work. In most cases, the work done is very questionably charitable to begin with.

Don't let actual charitable individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet fool you. Wealthy people by and large donate because there is a net gain in it for them.

I would urge you to especially look into information about Charitable Remainder Trusts.

new American Scientist article about diet

[peter303]

Primates evolved trichomatic eyes to find fruit better. Most mammals are dichromatic. Now humans eat more meat, cooked food, more starch from grains and more dairy from cattle. Each diet change affected the genes [americanscientist.org]. One could argue the next stage- hyper nutrition and processed food- selecting against humans with metabolic disease like diabetes, obesity, and bad hearts. This was very interesting article.

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[c6gunner]

Huh? The number 100 has continued to rise? :P

Smartass :)

On the off chance that you're serious - and for those who aren't aware - IQ tests are re-normalized periodically in order to keep 100 as the average. In other words, if a person today and a person 30 years ago took the exact same IQ test and got the exact same answers, the person writing it today would receive a lower score. So yes, the average IQ does keep getting higher, even though it stays at 100 :)

Check here for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect [wikipedia.org]

Re:Religious Neanderthals

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No it isn't. Standard deviation is around 15.

Re:conservatives don't pay

[Attila Dimedici]

Do a search for the book "Who Really Cares". There are several other sources, but that is the one most thoroughly researched. I have seen blogs "debunking" the book, but I have never seen anybody do any thorough research that contradicts his conclusions.