

Humans continue to evolve - CWuestefeld
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55844/

======
ars
The implications of this, is that we are selecting for early births, with no
regard at all to how long we will live.

Normally long life means you can take care of the offspring, but since
offspring will survive even if you don't, this aspect is not selected for.

The implications of this are not good, because we are selecting for the traits
least desirable in modern society.

People who delay births, and thereby demonstrate health later in life have far
fewer children than those who give birth early.

Additionally there is an unfortunate trend for people to delay children until
their "career" is settled. Which means that people with simple careers (manual
labor and the like) have far more children than those who's careers take
longer (and are presumably more intelligent), and it's those more complex jobs
that are in demand right now.

~~~
Retric
There has been a fair amount of research that suggests over some point having
more money results in more kids. There seems to be a dip when you have some
but not enough with spikes at low and high levels of income.

An interesting take on this:
[http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?...](http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483)

------
tokenadult
"Ever since Charles Darwin, a prevailing attitude among medical practitioners
has been that evolution does not operate in humans because modern medicine and
culture have greatly leveled the playing field by homogenizing survival
rates."

I call baloney on this. Where's the citation of anyone saying that?

------
teeja
The ongoing financial meltdown (not to mention Warming) argues against that
assertion.

Our _rationalization_ skills are evolving though. We now know _many_ more
people to point our fingers at.

