Live data from Hacker News

How We Get Tall

theatlantic.com

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: How We Get Tall

#41
post #20

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…

Comparing a world wide average with a relatively tiny sub population is hardly reasonable. Otherwise we could just look at the average height of NBA players and say that's a reasonable proxy for the US average height.

Re: How We Get Tall

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should have also been reading about faulty generalization :P

Maybe so, but it's hard for me to turn it around and accuse them of being wrong; older chinese really are short. Compare the traditional anime depiction of the elderly: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MiniatureSeniorCi...

Oh, I just got what you meant. I read something completely different, please disregard.

Re: How We Get Tall

#43

When we compare individuals within homogenous populations, taller people actually live shorter lives and have higher rates of cancer and heart disease: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

Small dogs live longer than big dogs. It's the same in all mammals. Within a species the smaller individuals tend to have a higher metabolic rate, weight adjusted, and live longer.

Re: How We Get Tall

#44
post #33
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There certainly seems to a popular opinion/belief that tallness is inherently good; describing a person as tall seems to often be a compliment (at least for men). But I'm not sure that is the case for this article. It seems to be saying that overall tallness in a general population might indicate that the people of the population have had a good childhood, on average, with regards to nutrition and such. But, if you have two people from the same population (in this case, countries), one being tall and the other one short, their stature is probably more attributable to their genes. You can't really say that one has had a healthier upbringing; they might have had an equally healthy upbringing, but they have different genes, which is (according to them) the biggest deciding factor for adult stature. If one of them is 5% taller, how can you know, without any more information, that that 5% isn't all because of genes? In fact, maybe the shorter person has had a healthy upbringing and, so to speak, achieved his full stature potential, while the taller person has had a relatively bad childhood and not really met his tallness potential with regards to his genetic make-up.

Re: How We Get Tall

#45
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read the above-linked article. I saw a lot of assumption based upon weak links and correlation with assumed causation.

For example, height decreased post agriculture. Did that mean that agriculture didn't allow people to grow as tall, or did agriculture decrease selective pressure on being big?

Anthropology is not as rigorous as math, physics, chemistry, or even economics. Anyone talking condescendingly about things that are "well accepted within anthropology" from 10k or 100k years ago are way overselling the discipline.

Re: How We Get Tall

#46
This article is a fantastic example of un-science presented as narrative. Conflicting hypotheses about what causes height increase are presented as fact with no citations and little attention paid to the paradox. This reminds me of virtually every article I've read on population trends for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, gun violence ... and what frustrates me is I think the authors and editors don't realize what complete nonsense this is.

Re: How We Get Tall

#47
post #41
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Comparing a world wide average with a relatively tiny sub population is hardly reasonable. Otherwise we could just look at the average height of NBA players and say that's a reasonable proxy for the US average height.

Cro-magnon specifically refer to early human living in Europe, seems fair to make the comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

Re: How We Get Tall

#48
I'm seeing the usual comments about life expectancy and IQ here, so I had better respond to both issues.

First of all, and I encourage readers to follow the links for more details, today we have longer life expectancies at birth, at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages than ever before.[1] Whatever it is that we are eating these days, so far our diets aren't undermining the steady long-term trend of increasing life expectancy at ALL ages all over the developed world. An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[2] tells the story of the steady improvements in prevention and treatment that have reduced all-cause mortality and morbidity for Americans and for most people in the developed countries. I have been stunned to realize I now have several aunts and uncles who are past the age of 90 and still living independently and in reasonably good health. A couple years ago I was shopping for a birthday present for my own mother, now more than 80 years old, and I found multiple birthday cards for 80th and 90th birthday cards for sale at the bookstore where I was shopping. Lots of people are living a long time now.

But don't just take my anecdotes as evidence. Check what professional demographers write about the issue in peer-reviewed journal articles and say about the issue in press interviews. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[3] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."[4]

There are also comments here about human brain size and human cognitive ability. First of all, it is entirely clear that human cognitive ability as gauged by "g-loaded" IQ tests has been rising for the last century.[5] That's over a time span that doesn't include any noteworthy increase in brain size and is surely a result of environmental factors. The general trend of hominin evolution over millions of years is a general increase in brain size and a general rise in signs of intelligent behavior like skillfully made tools and visual art, but there is not a completely linear relationship between brain size found in fossils (which are a very limited sample of early hominin specimens) and signs of cultural advancement.[6] Cultural innovation can now be transmitted culturally all over the world, so that a small number of innovators can change the material resources and improve the lifestyles of most of humankind. You may not need to be smart enough to invent anything, because you are already smart enough to use most new inventions, wherever they come from.

[1] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_...

[3] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2...

[4] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity....

[5] http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/about-us/directory/beyond...

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_h...

[6] http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/13/from-nean...

Re: How We Get Tall

#49
post #47
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing a world wide average with a relatively tiny sub population is hardly reasonable. Otherwise we could just look at the average height of NBA players and say that's a reasonable proxy for the US average height.

Cro-magnon specifically refer to early human living in Europe, seems fair to make the comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

Edit: Perhaps if you wanted to compare the average for all of Europe to estimates of European Early Modern Humans that might be reasonable, however that's not what you did.

They where discovered in Europe, but the current theory is they did not originate in Europe note the direct link from that Wikipedia page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magno...

"The term "Cro-Magnon" soon came to be used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe. ... However, analyses based on more current data[8] concerning the migrations of early humans have contributed to a refined definition of this expression. Current scientific literature prefers the term "European Early Modern Humans" (or EEMH), instead of "Cro-Magnon". The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen is the Grotta del Cavallo tooth dated in 2011 to at least 43,000 years old."

Note: "the term 'Cro-Magnon,' which has no formal taxonomic status" current evidence suggests they where effectively genetically identical to modern humans. Their diet was simply better leading to larger growth vs any significant DNA differences.

Re: How We Get Tall

#50

This article is a fantastic example of un-science presented as narrative. Conflicting hypotheses about what causes height increase are presented as fact with no citations and little attention paid to the paradox. This reminds me of virtually every article I've read on population trends for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, gun violence ... and what frustrates me is I think the authors and editors don't realize what c…

Yep, I was expecting a bit better from the Atlantic. This article shed no new light on the topic.
Post reply on HN