
Germs and ancient migrations help explain our world of 'haves' and 'have nots' - anastalaz
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/01/29/how-germs-and-ancient-migration-help-explain-our-world-of-haves-and-have-nots/
======
reader5000
A lot of these debates ignore that evolutionary success is simply defined as
persistence. If population A has 90% infant mortality and lives on $1 day but
has genetic descendants 1000 years from now, then they are evolutionarily
"better" than population B that has <1% infant mortality, lives on $100 day,
and has no genetic descendants 1000 years from now. Declaring one group a
"have" and another group a "have not" is myopic. Literally every group on the
face of the earth at some level believes they are "chosen" and superior to
other groups. The only way to actually tell though is to see which genes are
still geneing 1000 years, 10,000 years, etc into the future. To date it's not
even clear that multicellularity is that great of a branch to be on.

~~~
mar77i
> To date it's not even clear that multicellularity is that great of a branch
> to be on.

Doesn't it hurt to realize your multi-cellular brain came up with this?

Of course you want multi-cellular life. It's the only known answer of nature
capable of particle physics, space exploration and postulating one's bad ideas
on HN.

You shouldn't become that agnostic to your place in the universe, and unless a
couple of much better reasons aren't more obvious to you, at least because
people will think you like insulting yourself, together with your entire
branch of life, that also includes the reader.

~~~
gumby
If the point of a gene is to reproduce itself, the GP's conjecture is likely
correct.

Evolution itself is non-judgemental and has no inherent bias to the
development of spaceflight over, say, a massively distributed system willing
to tolerate huge die offs. They are simply two different approaches (not even
strategies) for dealing with local conditions.

~~~
mar77i
I kind of see the utility in prevailing in the universe can much more be an
active and guided persuasion through us humans (maybe by proxy, through
whatever robotic arks we can come up with), because it can be so much more
effective than a passive and kind of brittle and to me unconvincing process of
post-solar system panspermia.

~~~
gumby
You may have a bias towards humans but nature doesn't care: all the bets are
played in parallel.

In fact by your own preference, the unicellular organisms are more likely to
successfully spread their DNA (as it's "packetized" into a complete organism)
via the surfaces of the robot ships you describe than the multicellular ones
are.

~~~
bilbo0s
Gumby is right here. While it's obviously important to US whether or not we
survive, Mother Nature doesn't care whether we live or die.

As long as the genes keep propagating, she's good.

I think it's healthy for humans to look to their own survival, but I realize
that Mother Nature only cares for the propagation of genes. We should never
confuse the one with the other. We should never start to believe that Mother
Nature has an interest in our survival more than the survival of some other
fish, or alien lifeform far away, or some bacteria, or virus. That could be a
fatal mistake for us.

~~~
mar77i
I see my argument solely as one driven by my own survival instinct.

And as it's nature that biases me towards my species, is it wrong to try live
up to that and build those spaceships?

~~~
gumby
That’s up to you — I also think spaceships are great (and also don’t really
see the point of putting humans in them). We’re all just telling you that
nature doesn’t prefer you or me to the amoeba, nor vice versa.

------
kukx
Environment vs genetics is a minefield for anyone who tries to be objective.
Just say that differences are in 99% shaped by environment and you are fine
and safe for today. However a lie is good for a short time, but really bad for
a long term. Especially if it becomes a base for, let's say, a national
policy.

Also, saying it is mostly environment makes individuals blame others for their
own failures - "I am perfect, the environment is wrong and has to change".

A sad thing is that scientists that study this question get publicly
destroyed.

~~~
tossaccount123
>Just say that differences are in 99% shaped by environment and you are fine

You can find flaws and inconsistencies in their logic easily though. People
have no issue with saying that height is genetic for example. Even racially,
it's ok to say Asians are on average shorter than Africans

But imply intelligence is genetic, and now there are issues. For some reason
we are told that evolution and genetics stop at a human's neck

My question is that if intelligence isn't genetic, why doesn't somebody teach
a dog, or cat, or bacteria how to do quantum mechanics? Surely it's just
environment right?

------
scarface74
Another good read that says something similar.

Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867)

And the documentary based on the book:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgGw8kZnJxE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgGw8kZnJxE)

~~~
chx
It might be a good read but at best its pop science at worst complete bunk
(close to the latter). There was a book about this topic written by an actual
historian much earlier:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Imperialism_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Imperialism_\(book\))
and where Diamond tried to answer very broad questions and his broad answers
break down in detail, Crosby makes similar points but approaches as a
historian, limits his arguments and actually practices proper scholarship.

~~~
trextrex
Out of curiosity, can you explain, or point to some writing about why you
think the theories in the book are close to "complete bunk"?

~~~
simonsarris
[https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-
ste...](https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-
revisited/)

There are also a ton of good critiques on /r/history, /r/askhistorians, and
/r/anthropology. I can't remember which I've read. Ones like this are typical:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8nr7xd/thoug...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8nr7xd/thoughts_on_guns_germs_and_steel_by_jared_diamond/)

~~~
EdwardDiego
That first link entirely ignores that IQ tests have been shown to be
culturally dependent. Likewise for the aptitude tests he conflates them with.

Pretty sure if you wrote an IQ test where your standard population was a group
of people living in a harsh jungle environment, urbanite Westerners would come
off thick as pigshit.

Or an aptitude test for "How good are you at tracking cassowaries without
being disembowelled by them".

I've read good dissections of what's wrong with Diamond's work, that link is
not one of them.

