Using the terminology of children turning out slightly "better" in cities in the context of height is slightly distasteful, even though it is societally quite prevalent. Height is an arbitrary physical trait, much like race. Who cares who turns out taller? Discounting malnutrition, there are no health benefits to being taller. There are of course social advantages, but the same can be said for race too. When will we begin addressing heightism in the same respect as other obviously unimportant phenotypic differences?
Malnutrition is the thing to worry about. Or perhaps toxins. We know that people don't grow to their full possible genetic height due to such things, and it seems natural to wonder if there are any other unrealized effects when they fail to reach their full possible height.
Well on one hand, shorter people tend to live longer, and tend to have better health in old age. Additionally, people who eat less also tend to live longer and healthier lives. There might be a tradeoff when it comes to our height and health, like what's proposed by the antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis.
Why does it matter if they reach their full possible height, barring health complications? At least 80% of height is genetic so creating a value system based upon something that has no bearing on a person's qualities, aesthetic or psychological, is of no importance. Always substitute race for height and see how the line of argument sounds. The only difference is that one trait is generally culturally acceptable to disparage while the other is not.
> does it matter if they reach their full possible height
What you’re asking is the implied question. Is the shift due to changing demographics? Or is it evidence of malnutrition, that city kids are not reaching their genetic optima?
At a population level, ceteris paribus and longitudinally, height is a health indicator. Individually or comparatively it’s useless.
It’s these reductionist arguments that lose the forest for the trees.
If we see a clear health disparity between two groups who should otherwise have equal outcomes, then it implies there’s possibly something in the environment of one group that’s negatively effecting them. And therefore could possibly have other side effects we’re not privy too.
You say height is of no importance, but a majority of women[0][1] would disagree, and men below average height would also disagree. Perhaps our evolutionary signals point to something other than “a social construct” for choosing height in mates. Wild thought.
1 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/online-dating-investing-match-t... (quote of note: “A former Bumble product manager says that a majority of women on the platform tend to set a floor of 6 feet for men, which would limit their candidate pool to about 15% of the population.“)
The majority of women, especially before we began to actually combat racism, would also agree that being white is preferable, as would black men who were subjected to the results of living in a racist society. We currently live in a heightist society so naturally being taller is perceived as better. The crux of the issues is that it shouldn't be considered better. It's a totally inconsequential trait.
> The crux of the issues is that it shouldn't be considered better. It's a totally inconsequential trait.
They physical advantages of height are very apparent and simple to understand. Even animals recognize the larger you are the safer you are (generally). How is that inconsequential?
Confused how one can come to that conclusion. If violence is not a trait in a modern society, how big people are should be of no consequence. Back in times of the caveman this was an extremely important trait because violence was an aspect of daily life that had real utility. Now, people can go their entire lives never having been in a fight.
In fact I would argue having an arms race for ever bigger humans is antisocial and detrimental... just the carbon footprint aspects alone is a good reason to discourage that. The extra stress on our food system. Bigger cars, airplanes, fuel, etc... as opposed to women dig it and you can beat people up. Really?
I'm not implying anything about the biological racial differences between humans. When I say racism, I'm talking about people of colour who experience prejudice based on the colour of their skin which is indisputable.
It's an indicator for overall health, and more specifically for health during childhood. When indicators for health go down it's important to study them. A child who is taller is not necessarily better than one who is shorter, but a child who didn't catch a serious growth-stunting disease is definitely better off than if they had, assuming the disease had other effects.
Back when polio was common you could tell what areas had been hit the hardest and in which year by looking at average height in school photos. My grandfather had oddly short legs but a long torso because of a very mild bout of polio as a child. This is important not because he was shorter than he might have been, but because more serious cases of polio can cause paralysis, permanently malformed legs, and death. Height in this case is a proxy for worse things.
Height discrimination may actually be due to its usefulness as a proxy for genetic damage and disease load during mate selection. The same thing that causes people to unfairly discriminate makes it useful for studying population changes.
You misread the headline. People outside cities are taller.
Also, taller people are healthier (admittedly only indirectly because of their height). It’s not just a comment on health. Height is a social advantage.
That being said, the article is a gross oversimplification. The top comment accurately points out a lack of control for even ethnicity (which would completely explain the difference in height in the US).
My point doesn't relate to whether rural or urban children become taller. Height is largely genetic, and discounting malnutrition it has no bearing on a person's health. Shorter people actually live longer on average.
Social advantages based on arbitrary phenotypic traits should not be encouraged. White people generally have social advantages given the fact that racism exists.
> Height is largely genetic, and discounting malnutrition it has no bearing on a person's health.
But nutrition is what's being measured here. People from poorer countries are on-average shorter, and that is largely driven by diet, although childhood illness is also a factor.
The issue isn't height really, it's that people are having their growth stunted. They did not reach the height they would have if they'd gotten better food, better sanitation, etc.
That's a good corroboration of my point that height being a positive characteristic is largely cultural/societal and of no true importance as it relates to a person's worth.
Fair enough, I was mostly responding to you shoehorning the white thing in there, again, being white in China/Japan isn't a social advantage, because of racism. So we can just table it at "racism" exists and is bad and should be actively discouraged, how about that?
To me, that's even further evidence that both race and height are totally inconsequential. That fact that these things can bestow social advantages is no reason to view either of them in a positive light.
Racism is certainly bad and should be discouraged. Somewhat controversially, apparently, so should heightism.
How is that valuable in a modern society that outlaws violence of that nature?
Or it is simply that you can physically intimidate people to get an upper hand in situations where such an upper-hand shouldn't be given... just because. How noble. What a useful and admirable trait to encourage.
I do not make the rules, but I do have to play by them. Even in the most “modern” societies, ask women how often they have felt their relative physical weakness used against them.
Because laws don’t do you much good when there is nobody around to enforce them. Relying on others to ensure your own life is fine, but being able to defend oneself has obvious advantages.
Even if no one is around, if you are assaulted, you can file a report and the assailant can go to jail - because by definition, they are now a criminal.
There is that deterrent in place, that social constract. Sure it can be violated, but your argument is along a similar line of folks who advocate for open carry.
Highly context-dependant. You don't see too many dwarf NBA stars, for example. "The fight does not always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift. But that is the way to bet."
I think we can ignore the outlier of basketball players playing at the highest level. We could also point to CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and their races but that shouldn't lead us to make judgements about which phenotype is better.
Again, substitute the "socially beneficial" arbitrary trait of height for race and ask yourself if that sounds acceptable. Should people opt for white children simply because racism exists? Should people opt for tall children because heightism exists? How do you make the distinction in your own mind?
Sure, some forms of intelligence or other personal qualities could be opted for when choosing a mate. Should inconsequential physical traits such as race and height? You tell me. Or at least explain the distinction between the two as you see it.
I cannot agree with your premise of those physical traits being inconsequential.
For example, there is lots of construction and heavy equipment type work that require strong wrists and forearms, and if you are not born with them, then you are not going to be able to do those jobs.
Even race (or whatever classification of tribal affiliation you want) is consequential. Some people have very curly hair (for example black peoples), and it takes a lot more work to maintain. Some races have higher risk of heart disease/cholesterol problems. Some people’s skin is so lacking in melanin that they get sunburn on a cloudy day.
The premise isn't exactly that people shouldn't select for traits that they desire, rather that it is irresponsible for journalism and other forms of media to make allusions to height being a positive trait.
If people want to make judgements about a person's worth based on their racist or heightist tendencies that's their prerogative, but we have seen with racism that negatively portraying people of colour only serves to propagate negative stereotype beyond that which is "innate". It is clearly equivalent for height, given the many examples people provide of height not providing societal advantages in certain other cultures. It's by and large a cultural phenomenon, not biological.
Is it really that preposterous to expect the media not to mischaracterise people born with an arbitrary genetic trait as lesser individuals?
