It would be interesting to repeat the research in St.Petersburg, the siege during the WW2 lasted more than 2 year and there were 642,000 casualties among civilians.
Finally, the researchers merged the results — and found a few methyl groups that were linked both to the famine and to health conditions later in life. “We were able to connect the three dots,” said Dr. Lumey...
And the Dutch famine probably led to many miscarriages and early deaths. It’s possible that the survivors had some genetic variant that made them resilient and gave them a distinctive epigenetic profile not captured in this study.
I had never heard of this famine. I read the article and found myself wondering how this impacts the collective subconscious and the culture as a whole. Probably not in a good way. (That is not a criticism of the Dutch. Please read that compassionately.)
I wish I knew what to do to promote food security in the world. It seems like food security is some fundamental aspect of peace and just making sure people get fed well (both enough and healthily) is one of the best ways to avert all kinds of problems.
Don't forget the history of the Netherlands, where during the 17th century it was the center of the world. You'd be surprised how many colonies the Netherlands had, and some of them have become quite famous (eg. New Zealand), albeit some of their name change (lookup New Amsterdam and New Holland for fun).
Further, the Netherlands is the best prepared country for sea level rises in the world. It's likely they will end up selling the technology they developed domestically, to all the sea-facing cities of the world (assuming sea levels do rise as predicted). It's going to be extremely profitable for them.
I had never heard of this famine. I read the article and found myself wondering how this impacts the collective subconscious and the culture as a whole. Probably not in a good way.
I'm Dutch. Purely anecdotal, of course, but I'd say: "not".
I grew up in the north (struck by the famine) and moved south
(not struck by the famine) half a life ago. I've noticed no differences in attitudes to food, Germans or WWII.
A while ago some German ministry did a survey among populations of neighbouring countries and found that the Dutch liked the Germans the most. Anecdotally I can confirm this, everybody I know likes Germans and Germany. (And loves to point out their lack of a sense of humour)
My dad was born during the famine (on a farm, thankfully) and I never heard him nor my grandma mention it in an other way than as a matter of fact.
I only heard about it through a Wikipedia binge on Audrey Hepburn; she was half-Dutch, spent the war in the Netherlands, and was in her early teens during the famine. It left her with lasting health problems, and her slender "elegant" frame and short height is probably connected with the continued malnourishment of the wartime years.
Regarding how it impacted the Dutch subconscious and culture, I obviously can't say for sure (not being Dutch, nor having lived in that period). But they do have a history of being pretty pragmatic about life in general (including euthanasia - https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n...)
I have no idea if pragmatic is a negative word in your eyes, but it is for many people, who view it as incompatible with traits like idealism and compassion. To me, it is not. I am often interpreted by other people as compassionate and idealistic, yet I view myself as a pragmatist.
So, to my eyes, it is a compliment to say they are pragmatic. It means they are very grounded and very focused on results, unwilling to take a neurotic position of don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.
I have a torturous medical condition. I am very much pro the right to die. I primarily need some means to earn an adequate income online to help me to stay healthy and minimize the torture my body subjects me to. I have mostly not gotten much support for that goal. It seems like a really small thing to ask of the world, to please help me earn a little money online as a way to prevent huge medical expenses and dramatically improve my quality of life. Those requests have often been met with really ugly replies. On Metafilter, someone accused me of panhandling the internet for trying to get feedback on how to monetize my web projects.
Given the incredibly poor track record the world has for helping people like me achieve some kind of reasonable quality of life, I very much resent the general idea that I am not allowed to want to die. For me, death would be an end to enormous suffering, suffering the world mostly can't be arsed to do a damn thing about, even when the request for help is quite small.
If the world in general wants to insist on life, it needs to vastly up its game in so many ways. I don't expect this to happen. So I very much feel that I should have the right to say "I have had enough. I want to be done with my suffering." And so should anyone else with a terrible condition that makes life not worth living.
Insisting we stay alive while the US can't even be bothered to straighten out its healthcare system just strikes me as asshole behavior.
The point is that I don't think euthanasia is a negative.
I didn't assign any ethical value to the word. And if you have a much broader sense of reality to existence than most people, "life or death" is a meaningless term. There is, or there is. There is no other. If you can consider "is", then you "is" :).
And not to encourage current reality behavior that is disapproved of, but I would say that a highly disagreeable situation is a motivation to choose "NEXT".
> I read the article and found myself wondering how this impacts the collective subconscious and the culture as a whole.
As a whole I don't know. But many from the generation of the war have learned to never throw something away. Have something like a day in the week to eat left-overs. And some of their children have learned to do the same. But that has been getting rarer for the last 20 years.
It's hard to tell. The Hongerwinter was entirely due to Nazi retaliation(for a railway strike coordinated by Dutch govt in exile), and not due to environmental conditions, crop failure, etc which could happen again.
I was homeless for 5.7 years and I only got off the street about 5 months ago. While homeless, I sometimes went hungry for short periods, like a day or so, or was short rationed for a week or so. It changed me in terms of how I relate socially.
I don't really know how to describe it, and I don't know that I care to. But that experience influences my view of this article and my thoughts on how that must impact people, how it must negatively impact their ability to ask for what they want, to feel about the social climate and so on.
To my mind, the fact that it was not due to environmental conditions or crop failure makes it psychologically worse. I have a lot of emotional baggage about the world not caring whether or not I ate in recent years, about the callous disregard I experienced as a homeless person, something alien to my social background.
How much worse must that emotional and psychological impact be when it is active malice? When the entire goal is to kill you, slowly and cruelly? You and everyone you know and care about?
The famine, and WW2 in general,had a huge impact in culture.
The Netherlands had been a quiet little village for centuries. It managed to remain neutral in WW1. After the war the Netherlands was one of the countries that pushed relentlessly for both the European Union and NATO.
> The Netherlands had been a quiet little village for centuries.
You must be thinking of another country. A lot can be said about the Netherlands and its predecessors, but it was not a 'quiet little village'. From dominating maritime trade, to waging (a lot of) wars with England, Spain, and France, and its many achievements in science; the past half millennium was quite eventful.
Here in Thailand, there isn’t much of a taboo about wasting food, and nothing compared to Europe. Pop-science theory is that it’s because Thailand has very rarely had any food shortages in its past.
I'm not so certain. The trend pieces that push for large roles for epigenetic effects often have an activist lean to them, from the set of people who want to downplay the role of actual genetics as well as more straightforward environmental effects.
There's often an ulterior motive at play. Modern day lysenkoism.
I actually quoted a portion where they admit to the limitations of what they can determine and that there may be unknown and unknowable factors at play. So I see no reason to throw shade here.
I wouldn't say I'm throwing shade as much as reporting on a real trend to be wary of, unless you disagree that there is a set of activists jumping on epigenetic explanations to further their ideological causes: https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/06/10/epigenetics-lamarcks-re...
I wouldn't know and I don't actually care. I thought this piece was solid in part because it admits to uncertainty. The fact that other groups might use this study for some end of theirs is no reason to cast aspersions on the motives of these scientists.
If you have something more solid and specific than "it's a trend, man!" it would be fine to bring that up. But the essence of prejudice is to make unfounded assumptions about a specific case because of general trends. It is a thing I think is highly corrosive and should be guarded against.
It sounds to me like this piece indicates that the science is new and unproven, not that it is poisoned by ulterior motives of some sort.
I have two sons who see the world through a very different mental framework from me. We often have lively discussions that give both sides. It keeps us aware that life is multidimensional.
The debate about nature vs nurture often loses sight of the fact that, ultimately, the answer is both. Trying to follow a thread and understand it doesn't mean that one thread is the entirety of the fabric of life. But ignoring that thread doesn't work either.
And how is this assertion evidence that epigenetics generally and this study in specific, which posit heritability of various things, is really a diabolical plot to put some activist's evil wolf in sciency sheep's clothing?
I'm generally a fan of Carl Zimmer. I liked his book on parasites quite a bit, but I also think it's important to bring up the context of how epigenetics have been repurposed for ideological battles when they're brought up in highly shared pop science articles.
There are better ways to do that than the framing you have used in this discussion. So, if you plan to keep bringing such things up, I hope you find a better way to do it.
I don't disagree that understanding such contexts or pointing them out has value.
Epigenetic effects through DNA methylation is rather well established, I believe. And then there's actual genetic change during neural development. Also during humoral and cellular immune response. So maybe it's Mendelian dogma that's more problematic.
Are you sure? I remember reading about parents that suffered from a famine had certain genetic effects show up in their grand children. I believe diabetes factored into the story somehow but the details escape me. Sorry.
Interestingly enough, the same famine confirmed gluten as the cause of coeliac disease. Death rates for children with the disease dropped during the famine, as flour was unavailable, and the children relapsed once they were given the first supplies of bread.
Worthwhile, yes, but harder to do. Those countries have less reliable data to work with, and not such a nice sharp cutoff. Here, babies born in the winters of 43-44 and 45-46 can serve as control groups for those born in the winter of 44-45.
The reliability of demographic data across Sub-Sahara Africa is a significant problem for a multitude of research disciplines.
But there's been a host of severe famines since World War II across the Sahel. It is possible that the reliability of birth data would have improved over this period to a degree sufficient to support research techniques.
In fact, there's been research along these lines in SSA already, especially regarding the impact of malnourishment on intellectual development among other factors.
Still, important research that goes to show that famines have generational effects that extend all the way to the genetic level.
No. First, the generations don't match. Children from 1944 would be 36-46 years old in the 70-80s. Now, you may think: "what about their children, could there be a rebound effect?" And that's the other reason: the whole thing that makes the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter so interesting to study is that they have such a clear cut-off point. It's like a natural control group. The increase in height was pervasive in Dutch society, the opposite of that.
The Dutch growth spurt can almost exclusively be attributed to change in diet. IIRC, humans used to be taller before the age of agriculture, and not-so-coincidentally have a much more diverse diet as well. In the 20th century we have basically been recovering to pre-agriculture levels of nutrition quality. Just look at the plots in that article you linked: every nation has increased its median height, not just the Netherlands.
The definition you're showing there is a adjective. The verb form of bare means to uncover, which doesn't make much sense in context: Dutch Genes Still Uncover Scars. Compare with Dutch Genes Still Feature Scars.
There's a note on usage on the page you provided:
> There is considerable confusion between the verbs bear and bare. It may help to remember that the verb bare has only one meaning: "to uncover," as in "bare your shoulders" and "a dog baring its teeth." All other uses of the verb are for bear: "bearing children," "the right to bear arms," "bearing up under the stress/weight," "can't bear the thought," "bear south," "it bears repeating."
That said, I wonder, as a German now these days, how they keep on relating to these events: posts like these, wargames, movies, you name it. Ww2 is being "exploited" every day.
‘Exploited’? The famine happened. Nothing to be done about that. If anything, Germany’s attitude to past atrocities is healthier than most countries; see Japan’s approach to WW2, the UK’s bizarrely rosy popular view of the empire, the US’s tendency to gloss over the role and nature of black chattel slavery... Germany doesn’t go this, generally, and they’re probably better off for it.
As a Dutch man living in Germany I take my hat off for how active, balanced and thorough the Germans deal with the war. They should be an example to other countries.
I’m an American living here, too (in Nürnberg, even!) and I wish my own country could get as honest with ourselves about what our country did to the enslaved Africans and their descendants, and to the Native Americans, and what we’ve failed to do, as Germans are about what their grandparents did and allowed to happen.
A _lot_ happened in direct relation to WW2. It was kind of a big thing... so unsurprisingly there are a lot of things to talk about from the early/mid 1900s that have some relation to that war. That's not exploitation, that's history.
Well, the generation who lived through it is still mostly alive (most were children back then), so that's not going to stop for a couple of decades.
What else are they going to entertain people with? WW1? Too bleak and short. Any American wars post WW2? Too boring and politically incorrect. Anything before WW1, nobody cares. WW2 was awesome if you watch it from a screen.
My German mother grew up in Germany during WW2 and its aftermath. My American father fought in WW2.
For me, this isn't entertainment. More like therapy.
I imagine it is pretty common for people to be fascinated in part out of a need to come to terms with their own past in some way, even when it isn't really recognized as such.
I can understand that viewpoint - for Western (as well as Russian) culture, WW II is the last "big good war", with a clear set-up of good vs. evil.
Later wars are much more filled with controversy: Korea, war in French Indochina, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, not to mention the many smaller conflicts where USA (and others) were involved.
Of course, in reality, WW II also had many many controversies, but particularly for American and British audiences, it is simple to associate "our boys" fighting for the good and the other side being at least almost totally evil.
Such a constellation is suitable for exploitation of the conflict and huge human suffering for entertainment.
(Same applies, from Chinese viewpoint, to Sino-Japanese war, which I in fact see as the actual start of WW II, instead of the more traditional attack against Poland.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad