Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How We Get Tall

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: How We Get Tall

#31

Post by NIL8 »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #3

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on human health. And the fact that the article says we are taller now than we have ever been in history, which is patently not true, casts a serious level of doubt on the article. 1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our...

According to your article, the size of our brains has also decreased over the years. I would assume that this would also decrease our processing power and overall brain function. Interesting.

Re: How We Get Tall

#32

Post by marcosdumay »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #3

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on human health. And the fact that the article says we are taller now than we have ever been in history, which is patently not true, casts a serious level of doubt on the article. 1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our...

Those are different phenomena. The fast growth we experienced at the last centuries isn't related to genetic changes.

Re: How We Get Tall

#33

Post by muyuu »

crusso wrote: post #29
Dewie wrote: post #23

> John Komlos, an economic historian who has studied height extensively, thinks we Americans lost our height advantage because of poorer overall healthcare and nutrition compared to Europe. Our social shortcomings, he believes, are literally making us come up short. "lost our height advantage". These kinds of articles always seem to boil down to "why has America fallen from grace/stopped being #1?".

With an added hammer pounding for European-style healthcare, which is mentioned three or four times while considering American immigration influx from "shorter" populations is a throwaway word at the end of the article.

I also find the "taller is better" a bit unscientific. So, 10, 20 ft tall is better?

Re: How We Get Tall

#34

Post by graeme »

ama729 wrote: post #20
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #3

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on human health. And the fact that the article says we are taller now than we have ever been in history, which is patently not true, casts a serious level of doubt on the article. 1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our...

> We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1] Yes we do, there are a number of countries where the average height is close to 183 cm (average in your article, though there are no citations given for that fact): The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, ... In the Dinaric Alps, it even reach 186 cm, so in fact we ARE taller today[1]. But another article[2] with actual sources point to an 176…

Re: health the linked article said that worse diet led to shorter height.

Here's a longer discussions (cited by 178):

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...

Re: How We Get Tall

#35

Post by graeme »

crusso wrote: post #28
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #3

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on human health. And the fact that the article says we are taller now than we have ever been in history, which is patently not true, casts a serious level of doubt on the article. 1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our...

but it came at a terrible price on human health That statement doesn't make sense. It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space. Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".

"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain.

The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited:

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...

Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people within that culture, which let them dominate other cultures.

Re: How We Get Tall

#36

Post by graeme »

frozenport wrote: post #26
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #3

We still haven't reached the average height we were 40000 years ago[1]. Agriculture allowed us to feed many more people, but it came at a terrible price on human health. And the fact that the article says we are taller now than we have ever been in history, which is patently not true, casts a serious level of doubt on the article. 1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-have-we-changed-since-our...

>>came at a terrible price on human health http://www.thelazycaveman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cav...

See this chart on historical life expectancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy...

Early 20th century was also 30 years. Ancient Rome was 20-30.

These expectancies were low chiefly because of high infant mortality. A life expectancy of "two days" really drags down your average.

Average life expectancy is not a good measure for everyday arguments. Paleolithic average life expectancy was actually quite high relative to the historical periods that followed.

Re: How We Get Tall

#37

Post by crusso »

graeme wrote: post #35
crusso wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it came at a terrible price on human health That statement doesn't make sense. It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space. Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".

"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain. The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited: http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne... Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported…

"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain

I have a great deal of knowledge in the domain of the English language. "Health" can mean a lot of different things. Support of the survival and dominance of a species is a great indicator that the diet is "healthy".

flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people

All you have to do is to refer to modern organizations like the WHO to know that supporting life for a lot of people is a great deal of the meaning of "health".

[edit: clarity]

Re: How We Get Tall

#39

Post by Spooky23 »

graeme wrote: post #35
crusso wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it came at a terrible price on human health That statement doesn't make sense. It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space. Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".

"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain. The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited: http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne... Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported…

That's a weird point of view. If we continued to hunt and gather and didn't develop agriculture, we'd be extinct or like any other common animal.

In my mind, existing is healthy than not existing.

Re: How We Get Tall

#40

Post by Sharlin »

Spooky23 wrote: post #39
graeme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain. The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited: http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne... Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported…

That's a weird point of view. If we continued to hunt and gather and didn't develop agriculture, we'd be extinct or like any other common animal. In my mind, existing is healthy than not existing.

This is not about some value-laden speculation whether the humankind "should" have stayed hunter-gatherers or not (as if that sort of a question makes any sense whatsoever). It's about a simple question of facts: Were individual subsistence farmers on average less healthful than hunter-gatherers? The evidence seems to indicate that yes, they were.
Post reply on HN