Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
newscientist.com
Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
1–10 of 75 posts
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#2Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#3How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily?
The modern "underclass" has probably only existed for at most, 100-200 years in various places. That's 3-10 generations with plenty of gene-movement in and out of the group in the meantime.
It seems a bit more plausible to me to argue that humans already have a variety of strategies for reproduction and different circumstances bring out different strategies.
My impression is that in peasant societies, teenage pregnancy is very common and families try to maximize the production of children. However, in hunter-gather societies, which pre-date peasant societies, my vague understanding that is teen-pregnancy is less common and there is less maximization of reproduction since population is often consciously consciously kept in the bounds of the land's productivity.
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#4How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The modern "underclass" has probably only existed for at most, 100-200 years in various places. That's 3-10 generations with plenty of gene-movement in and out of the group in the meantime. It seems a bit more plausible to me to argue that humans alread…
> How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily?
The article doesn't suggest that subgroups have evolved, rather that we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions.
(So basically what you write in the rest of your post agrees with the article. I think!)
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#5How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The modern "underclass" has probably only existed for at most, 100-200 years in various places. That's 3-10 generations with plenty of gene-movement in and out of the group in the meantime. It seems a bit more plausible to me to argue that humans alread…
They're surely positing an evolution of _behaviour_ rather than genetics.
Either way they're approaching it from the wrong angle with the somewhat patronising "underclass" suggestions. A significant proportion of girls having children fairly young is the norm in the developing world and has been the norm in the West for a long time. It's the deliberate decisions of "upper classes" to defer conception/birth until long after becoming sexually active in order to prioritise other goals that's the [unnatural] development. And it's the middle class people opting to have their first children late after achieving their career goals who are the outliers.
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#6How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The modern "underclass" has probably only existed for at most, 100-200 years in various places. That's 3-10 generations with plenty of gene-movement in and out of the group in the meantime. It seems a bit more plausible to me to argue that humans alread…
> How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The article doesn't suggest that subgroups have evolved, rather that we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions. (So basically what you write in the rest of your post agrees with the article. I think!)
Do we even need to hypothesize this as a specialized evolutionary response?
“My life sucks; studying hard and looking for a job will not make it suck less, because even if I get good grades, nobody will hire me; however, if I have a baby, then there will at least be something cute in my immediate environment that loves me” looks like a straightforward chain of logical reasoning to me.
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#7The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor.
It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for the same cost. A few of the poor may be working dangerous jobs, but the vast majority of the poor are simply not working.
When you subject individuals from affluent (or poor, but foreign) backgrounds to US poverty-like conditions, they rarely exhibit the same pathologies. Graduate students earn very little money, but don't become obese. Indian immigrants in Jersey City, which includes guys working at fast food places, don't turn to crime, teen pregnancy [1] or exhibit the poor health that Americans do. That isn't what you'd expect if environment, rather than personal choices, were the driving factor.
[1] They do reproduce fairly early, but this is caused by different pathologies (forcing girls into arranged marriages at an early age) and it occurs even among affluent Indians.
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The article doesn't suggest that subgroups have evolved, rather that we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions. (So basically what you write in the rest of your post agrees with the article. I think!)
Do we even need to hypothesize this as a specialized evolutionary response? “My life sucks; studying hard and looking for a job will not make it suck less, because even if I get good grades, nobody will hire me; however, if I have a baby, then there will at least be something cute in my immediate environment that loves me” looks like a straightforward chain of logical reasoning to me.
Snarky response is that we don't need hypothesises at all anymore, we understand enough of the universe to be rather ok.
But there is value in accepting this theory, which I might add is reasonably well accepted as far as most other mammals. The value is that your chain of logic blames first the people themselves, and feeds back into the aticle's final justification, that is, while such things as increasing education are politically expedient, they don't actually change conditions. Getting this theory widely accepted can do a great deal for changing how governments fight the problems of poverty.
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The article doesn't suggest that subgroups have evolved, rather that we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions. (So basically what you write in the rest of your post agrees with the article. I think!)
Do we even need to hypothesize this as a specialized evolutionary response? “My life sucks; studying hard and looking for a job will not make it suck less, because even if I get good grades, nobody will hire me; however, if I have a baby, then there will at least be something cute in my immediate environment that loves me” looks like a straightforward chain of logical reasoning to me.
It's one factor - there are going to be a whole host of influences.
But remember even cuteness is an evolutionary response. Nature selects for mothers who care for little things with wide eyes and big heads.
If you're interested in evolutionary psychology and the nature-nurture debate I highly recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass
#10The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor. It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for…
You're discounting the argument that the fast lifestyle isn't a response to poverty, but a response to expectations of poverty.
Environment as it affects someone born into poverty without examples of persons who grow out of it, rather than a grad student(really a laughable argument that a grad student is 'poor' considering the value of their education.) or an immigrant to the nation, come to find opportunity...