Evolving Humans, but to what end?
by tdaxp ~ July 25th, 2007
Humanity, like all species, evolves through changes in the frequency of genetic variants over time. Where there is less diversity — less possible genetic variants to have their frequency varied — there is less evolution. The aboriginies of Austarlia, for example, are dark skinned in spite of living at a mid-lattitute for thousands of years. This does not mean that there is some health advantage to being dark skinned at a mid latitute — quite the opposite! Rather, there simple was not enough diversity in the the population of aborginies to enable evolution over that time frame.
Populations with greater diversity are able to evolve faster for their conditions. Thus, it is slightly horrifying than the region with the worst living conditions (where selection pressures are least like those of the developed world)
The Long War for Africa and Islam
and the region with the highest birthrates:
is also the region with the most genetic diversity: Africa.
Extrapolating from other species, behavioral change from natural selection might occur in human beings in as little as 200 years. We are approximately fifty years into the Declonization of Africa, and the genocidal nightmare that unleasehd.
Forgetting about the actual human cost of this gappish hell, there is still time to be patient. There is time to let a plan work to shrink the gap.
But it must begin soon.
[1]...
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Doesn't this assume (and Curzon's post as well) that individuals are either Gap or Core – you're born one way, and you can never change it? But in addition to efforts to shrink the Gap (whether its do-it-yourself or the SysAdmin force), lots of Gap people Core-ify on their own through immigration. Therefore that genetic diversity will be coming into the Core and doing whatever that does (my science is fuzzy). What would immigration/assimilation's effect on human evolution be – wouldn't it kind of average everything out?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Adrian,
Excellent comment.
“Doesn't this assume (and Curzon's post as well) that individuals are either Gap or Core – you're born one way, and you can never change it?”
I can't speak for Curzon, but I don't. My post doesn't address individuals, other than in a vague way by saying they differ from each other. In particular, I emphasize frequencies of attributes in a population, rather than saying all members of a population are born in some way or that genetics are the only factor determining someone's life.
“lots of Gap people Core-ify on their own through immigration. Therefore that genetic diversity will be coming into the Core”
Yes. I blogged on the Gap brain drain before [1], which is certainly a part of immigration. What this does though is make the remaining population even worse off than before (though presuming the legal system back home is good enough, those that leave can be important bridges for future investment, etc.).
“What would immigration/assimilation's effect on human evolution be – wouldn't it kind of average everything out?”
Given powerful enough selection pressures, it would alter the frequency of traits in the two populations. If we assume an Iranian-level decimitation, for instance, the remnant population will have measurably worse traits while the attracting population while have marginally better traits.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I see – but what about a country like Mexico? I would say they are more Gap than Core (Stratfor gives them their own briefing due to the ongoing collapse of their state) but the Mexican immigrants to the US seem to be a cross-section of society, rather than a brain drain.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Mexicans have the advantage of geographical and cultural nearness — Mexico borders the United States, most industrial towns have a sizable community. Other Latins share in these advantages.
Real entry costs for non-Mexican, non-Latin immigrants are significantly higher, as unskilled immigrants from other countries would face much higher economic and cultural barriers, and then would find Mexicans competing for available jobs.
A similar dynamic explains why most low-skill immigrants to Europe (though there the cultural friction is must higher.)
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Wouldn't Europe provide somewhat of a template? Between the collapsing the western Roman empire, particularly its economy and trade links, and the onset of large scale disease, like the black death, Europe became a cultural and economic backwater.
So, how did Europe climb out of that? There had to be some lasting effects of the Roman knowledge, perhaps at key knowledge nodes, but why can't Africa replicate this over the same several hundred year time period? What is holding it back?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
ElamBend,
Europe took 1300 years and the self-destruction of everyone else to recover from the fall of Rome.
Africa never reached that level of complexity, so waiting for it to happen “again” may well be in vain.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Well, I thought you'd say that. I'd quibble with the notion that everyone else self-destructed before Europe rose, but there is no argument that Sub-Saharan Africa never had an economy and civilization quite as complex as the Greco-Roman one. Some might point to Mali and it's valuation of learning, but basically it was small potatoes.
However, Douglas North, in his book 'Understanding Economic Change' postulated that the economic institutions and norms that were born in northwest Europe were partially a result in the areas isolation and anarchic/feudal situation. The problem with implementing the sysadmin in many parts of Africa isn't just the laying down of order where there is none, but also of smashing the institutions that have grown up around the aid/plunder model of Africa development wherein large parts of some economies work off aid and feed a kleptocratic class, often large, who will resist any change, but do so with the imprimatur of a government, perhaps even an elected government.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
ElamBend,
You're right that developing Africa starts but does not stop with security.
There is a African rentier elite, though it may be a bit much to say they were created by the colonialists.