E. O. Wilson has a new book out, The Origins of Creativity. Did you know about it? Honestly totally surprised. Wilson’s been retired for a while now, so his profile isn’t as high as it was. He’s 88, so you got to give it to him that he can keep cranking this stuff out.
The New Yorker introduced me to Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. This is a topic that I’m interested in, but I’m not sure I disagree with the author at all, so I doubt I’d get much out of it for the time invested.
Basically, I agree with the proposition that for the average human being quality of life was probably somewhat better before agriculture, until the past few hundred years when innovation increased productivity and the demographic transition kicked in.
Will be at ASHG meeting Tuesday night until Saturday morning. Going to be at the Helix session on Wednesday and probably man their booth for an hour.
This year seems a little light on evolutionary genomics. Perhaps the methods posters will be good though.
Wolf Puppies Are Adorable. Then Comes the Call of the Wild. Basically, it looks like there are some genetically based behavioral differences which makes dogs amenable to being pets and wolves not so much.
Na-Dene populations descend from the Paleo-Eskimo migration into America. Not entirely surprised, but kind of nails it down for good. One thing to remember is that New World and Old World were not totally isolated before the arrival of the Norse and later Iberians. For example, the Asian War Complex shows up in northwest North America 1,300 years ago.
The Decline of the Midwest’s Public Universities Threatens to Wreck Its Most Vibrant Economies. I think it is important to remember that economics is a means, not an ends. There is plenty of evidence that conservatives in the USA see academia as hostile to them and inimical to its values. On a thread where Alice Dreger asserted the importance of truth as the ultimate goal of an academic, one scientist unironically wondered how they could make their research further social justice goals.
So yes, many people who are going to try and defund academia understand that might not be optimal for economic growth. But if they believe that they’re funding their own cultural and political elimination, they don’t care.
An Alternate Universe of Shopping, in Ohio. Another story about the transformation of retail. One thing that is curious and strange to me is the evolution of the idea and perception of the mall over the past 25 years. Back in the 1980s malls were modernist shrines to the apogee of American capitalism. Today they seem mass-market and declasse. Part of it is that you don’t want to be a member of a club that everyone can join.
California Fires Leave Many Homeless Where Housing Was Already Scarce. This is horrible on so many levels.
An Unexpectedly Complex Architecture for Skin Pigmentation in Africans.
Over at Brown Pundits I wrote Race is not just skin color. I didn’t post it here because frankly it just seemed a silly thing to even have to explain.
Variation and functional impact of Neanderthal ancestry in Western Asia .
A few weeks ago over at Secular Right I wrote Why Trump could murder someone and people would still support him.
1977–2017: A Retrospective. Peter Turchin reminds us that for Russians the 1990s were horrible.
This graph from Planet Money blew up for me a bit on sci-twitter. The thing is that it’s easy to talk about racial and sexual diversity (or lack thereof) because it’s visible. On the other hand, people from less affluent backgrounds may not want to advertise that, so many are unaware of the implicit class assumptions that many people make:
So yes, many people who are going to try and defund academia understand that might not be optimal for economic growth.
STEM academics may lean slightly left politically, but nobody on the right really cares about their politics. Instead, it is the humanities that should be worried about being defunded. It isn’t that hard to shut down the really nutty parts of academia while leaving the economically beneficial parts.
i think this is right. otoh these institutions aren’t always as easy to pull apart modularly as you might think. at least on the time-scales we’re talking about. my friends who are science professors are not very optimistic about this sort of selective redaction.
“my friends who are science professors are not very optimistic about this sort of selective redaction.”
I am not optimistic about anything, but, it would be the easiest thing in the world to shut down the liberal arts faculties and leave the colleges of engineering, business, and nursing standing.
“I’m From Pharaoh and Here to Help: Agriculture flourished due to ancient rulers’ greed: Knowing when farmers’ crops were ripe provided ‘one-stop shopping’ for tax collectors. Felipe Fernández-Armesto reviews ‘Against the Grain’ by James C. Scott.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-from-pharaoh-and-here-to-help-1507763379
The “Asian War Complex” link doesn’t work.
Unrelatedly, some of your posts on Secular Right don’t seem to load for me either. I can read them on the main page but if I click on the post itself the result is blank. This happens consistently with those posts and hard refresh doesn’t help. No idea what’s going on.
“Basically, I agree with the proposition that for the average human being quality of life was probably somewhat better before agriculture”
I am skeptical of that proposition.
I read (and enjoyed) “Champlain’s Dream” by David Hackett Fischer. I recall being quite affected by the description of the abject misery of the Indian Tribes at the end of winter.
Settled peoples can accumulate resources against adversity. And, their lives can be made more pleasant by art, music and religion.
I continue to believe that settlement, and civilization have displaced hunting-gathering for good and sufficient reasons. I also believe that the myth of the noble savage is pernicious in almost every dimension.
I agree with the proposition that for the average human being quality of life was probably somewhat better before agriculture
It’s really mind-boggling to think about the fact that since the dawn of agriculture until relatively recently, the desires, ambitions, and appetites of very small numbers of elites drove human organization and, indeed, history.
these institutions aren’t always as easy to pull apart modularly as you might think.
I agree. One look at who runs these universities and who their patrons are in the society at large (or, among elites, more specifically) should disabuse one of the notion that one can easily separate the wheat from the chaff at universities. They are not engineers and scientists.
Settled peoples can accumulate resources against adversity. And, their lives can be made more pleasant by art, music and religion.
1. Settled people HAVE TO accumulate to survive, because they can’t simply move on to the next area of abundance. Agriculture makes high density possible, but I completely agree with Mr. Khan that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was likely far more pleasant FOR THE AVERAGE PEOPLE. So long as the density is low, it requires very little work. And what work there is, e.g. hunting, it is pleasurable unlike back-breaking agricultural labor.
2. Hunter-gatherers have religion too. As for art and music, these were not things that ordinary people could enjoy for much of human history.
3. Don’t forget that hunter-gatherers have freedom, which the vast majority of agricultural population did not enjoy.
I continue to believe that settlement, and civilization have displaced hunting-gathering for good and sufficient reasons.
Good? Maybe. These reasons, in the main, were likely not for the benefit of the average man.
I also believe that the myth of the noble savage is pernicious in almost every dimension.
The savage was noble, because he was free and perhaps more honest. Of course savages were, well, more savage, that is to say, more violent and warlike, but for some, warring was and is more enjoyable than “art and music” – hunting people can be the most exciting thing, ever. More so than even the likes of food and sex. And where art and music have died, war will be with us still.
I read (and enjoyed) “Champlain’s Dream” by David Hackett Fischer. I recall being quite affected by the description of the abject misery of the Indian Tribes at the end of winter.
the new world is not a good comparison. because the farming mode of production experienced land surplus there was almost never any famine as you would understand it in the old world. by the time malthusian limit was approaching industrial revolution + demographic transition + productivity gains made it irrelevant.
“The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly be called free and equal. In all the accounts we have of them, and, indeed, of most other savage nations, the women are represented as much more completely in a state of slavery to the men than the poor are to the rich in civilized countries…. In estimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fix our eyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of a hundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chances have been in his favour and many efforts have failed ere this fortunate being was produced…. I should compare the warriors in the prime of life with the gentlemen, and the women, children, and aged, with the lower classes of the community in civilized states.” – Malthus, over-generalizing but pretty accurate.
The idea that foraging is so leisurely is based on what – Bushmen? The delayed-return foragers in Canada, at least, worked their asses off at the busy times, which was most of the year. In fact not a whole lot different from farming. And there was famine. Everything has its cycles or annual variations, and sometimes the low points coincide.
i’m pretty sure malthus is wrong about sex/gender relations. gender egalitarianism is a modern construct but in HG & nomadic people seem to have more complementarity in role so that women don’t become as commoditized. even in cases like arabs the domination by men was more of a feature of the city and sedentary groups. female bedouins were poets and engaged in polyandrous marriages (the tuareg had more gender egalitarianism until recently for similar reasons as the nomadic arabs).
(the mongols were well attested to give women roles of prominence similar to late republican and early imperial rome).
(I thought I had posted a slightly different version of this Sunday evening. If deleted for length, please let me know — perhaps by email — so that I know to avoid this problem in the future. Thx).
The length of this too long comment reflects the degree of my confusion about what I am discussing: were I less confused it would be much shorter. I am hoping for some clarity. Let me begin with 2 quotations, 1 from a recent post and 1 from a piece by Zimmer that relates to that & another post.
****
The big topline result is that there’s a lot of extant variation within Africans, and much of it is very old, pre-dating modern humans by hundreds of thousands of years, implying long-term balancing selection to maintain polymorphism. source: RK, here
****
These genes are shared across the globe, it turns out; one of them, for example, lightens skin in both Europeans and hunter-gatherers in Botswana. The gene variants were present in humanity’s distant ancestors, even before our species evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago. The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums …
A variant for light skin — found in both Europeans and the San hunter-gatherers of Botswana — arose roughly 900,000 years ago, for example.
Even before there were Homo sapiens, then, our distant forebears had a mix of genes for light and dark skin. Some populations may have been dark-skinned and others light-skinned; or maybe they were all the same color, produced by a blend of variants.
Neanderthals split off from our own ancestors an estimated 600,000 years ago, spreading across Europe and eastern Asia. While they became extinct about 40,000 years ago, some of their DNA has survived.
These hominins inherited the same combination of variants determining skin color, Dr. Tishkoff and her colleagues also discovered. It’s possible that some populations of Neanderthals, too, were light-skinned, and others dark-skinned…
The new genetic evidence supports this explanation, but adds unexpected complexity. The dark-skinned people of southern India, Australia and New Guinea, for example, did not independently evolve their color simply because evolution favored it.
They inherited the ancestral dark variants Dr. Tishkoff’s team found in Africans. “They had to be introduced from an African population,” said Dr. Tishkoff.
Yet the same is true for some genes that produce light skin in Asia and Europe. They also originated in Africa and were carried from the continent by migrants.
source: Carl Zimmer in the NYT
****
I am trying to get a handle on what this implies for hypotheses about the origins of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMS), i.e., stories the experts tell (both themselves and the rest of us) about how AMSs came to be and to be the only humans on the planet. To isolate where my confusion lies, I present a potted recent history of these stories.
1) Before widespread analysis of archaic human DNA, there were 2 predominant views of the origins of AMHs: Out of Africa (OOA) which was the all but consensus among informed students of the matter, and the multiregional hypothesis, closely associated with
MilpoffWolpoff. According to the OOA, sometime about 100-200 millennia ago, humans in the Ethiopian highlands experienced a genetic mutation, perhaps several, probably related to spoken language. These are thought likely to have minimally involved changes in the larynx, as well, perhaps, as changes in brain structure that allowed humans and their societies/bands to take advantage of the laryngeal changes. These mutations increased the relative fitness of individuals who had them so much that they drove homo species that lacked them to extinction, first in Africa and then in the rest of the eastern hemisphere (there being no members of Homo erectus in the new world). According to the multi-regional hypothesis, there was sufficient gene flow between neighboring populations of Homo erectus throughout the eastern hemisphere that the entire species evolved together: as I recall its being expressed, almost a teleological view of the origins of AMHs as Homo erectus populations evolved toward a common goal, AMHs.2) With the discovery and analysis of archaic human DNA in fossils and the development & improvement of techniques for inferring evolutionary history from the genomes of modern populations, a modified OOA, or partial synthesis of the 2 views, took shape. Here, AMHs from Africa met and mated with other human populations in the Eurasian land mass — Neanderthals & Denisovans — exchanging genes. These other populations still disappeared, as in the original OOA, presumably for much the same reason as in the original version of OOA, but they left their traces in later AMHs. Presumably the same thing happened in Africa with contemporaneous non-AMH populations, likely somewhat earlier than with the Neanderthals & Denisovans, since they were geographically closer to the original AMHs and would have come into contact with them much earlier. However, because this type of analysis has focused on developed countries — it’s easier for researchers to gather genetic material nearby than far away, e.g., Africa, which is largely not economically advanced/modern — the evidence is not yet in for Africa.
3) More recently, I have read that a specific African daughter species of Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, is thought to be the ancestor of AMH, Neanderthals & Denisovans. Based on the first quote at the top of this comment, it would seem that either the original AMHs shared the extant variation within Africans, much of it … very old, pre-dating modern humans or that they absorbed it from other homo populations as they spread across that continent. Either way, according to the second quote above, it appears that this variation must have been pretty well distributed throughout African AMH populations before one or two groups left Africa for points north and east. Is this a correct inference from these results? Have I overlooked anything? If it is a correct inference, then it would seem that the multi-regional hypothesis, while maybe not so correct for the entire old world, is not such a bad approximation for Africa itself. Or perhaps, the ancient variation in skin color was so adaptive that AMH populations absorbed and kept it as they swapped genes with other early humans within Africa. Do we know whether there was similar variation among early humans outside of Africa? Was it similar in degree and structure to that within Africa? Do we know what happened to it – did AMHs absorb it from non-African populations as they spread, or did it disappear in favor of the variation from Africa?
Is there a length limit on comments? I’ve tried (twice) posting a lengthy one reflecting confusion about implications of the recent findings of ancient structure with respect to skin color for hypotheses about the origin and spread of AMHs, and it is not appearing.
Thax
it looks like spam to it. i’ve pushed it through above.
EO Wilson publishing at 88 is impressive, but Nirad Choudhry published his screed about the decline of Western civilization in his 100th year https://www.amazon.com/Three-Horsemen-Apocalypse-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0195648579
What’s up with the rakigarhi paper? Davidski keeps hinting obliquely that it is being delayed for political reasons.
Illinois defunded its colleges by failing to pass a budget and thus defunded everything. The Courts intervened to order payment of things required by federal law, and colleges were left out, as were things like addiction counseling and mental health services.
The interesting part to me was than when a budget was passed and the public universities sought a reliable funding mechanism going forward, the concession given was to admit more Illinois residents and fewer foreigners. I do not recall hearing this complaint voiced in newspapers or political speeches, but the flagship campus of the U of I had become the college with the largest Chinese student population in the U.S., and parents wee complaining that Illinoisans were being encouraged to go to neighboring public universities. I infer that lawmakers, most of whom are Democrats, complained about it privately in the context of asking how the colleges are benefiting the state. See the Wisconsin Idea.
The other possibility I’ve seen discussed is that the ability to rely upon Chinese nationals to pay full freight is a bubble that is about to burst as more Chinese will study in China.
What’s up with the rakigarhi paper? Davidski keeps hinting obliquely that it is being delayed for political reasons.
i don’t know if it’s politics. but i wouldn’t be surprised if it goes into 2018. my contacts in indian press keep being next about “next month.” it’s strange.
there are very strong political pressures in india to present a certain narrative, and if it doesn’t fit that narrative i can see someone slow-footing this as much as possible.
Yep. Hard to do science in an illiberal society.
Latest eurogenes post says that Harvard will publish a paper with some harrapan data. Thank God for American higher ed.
Razib a couple of months ago you wrote about the genetic similarity between Minoans and Myceneans. What do you think this implies about Linear A?
I’m not sure this applies generally – I don’t think many would describe the USSR as a liberal society, but it did make advances in the hard sciences. Indeed, it was probably easier to do physics and chemistry than biology or any social science, since these fields would under pressure to conform to Marxist doctrine (e.g. Lysenko).
Saw Blade Runner: 2049 IMAX. Unbelievable CGI and Roger Deakins will win best cinematography for this. Ryan Gosling has some amazing scenes with his AI girlfriend (who could transform into anything) but there was tension between them over how “human” either one of them was. Which made me think: maybe one thing that makes humans special is that they *don’t* change. Most people are who they are and don’t change much. Is that part of what we intuitively think of as making us human and thus, “special”? Reminded me of the scene in “Her” where Joaquin Phoenix realizes his AI girlfriend is dating more than 6,000 other people (because she can learn and conform to what they want.) Maybe it’s better that we can’t do that.
The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly be called free and equal.
Don’t forget that several of the North American Indians were agriculturalists or practiced mixed economy. On top of that, others lived in settled villages (for example, the English colonists in New England were able to destroy the Pequots as a nation and a persistent threat in the 17th Century by destroying their fortified villages and dispersing the population).
in HG & nomadic people seem to have more complementarity in role so that women don’t become as commoditized.
Women were still “commoditized” – daughters were traded for bride-prices. But, to me, the more salient difference was their level of freedom compared to those of settled agricultural civilizations where women were frequently cloistered and worked/birthed to death. And they couldn’t exactly run off – even if successful, they were likely to perish in exile in the wilderness. Among hunter-gatherers and nomads (and semi-nomads), women could run off and survive (and perhaps even join another band or clan). So likely there was a much greater incentive for men to grant greater autonomy and good treatment to their womenfolk.
the mongols were well attested to give women roles of prominence similar to late republican and early imperial rome.
You add horses to the above equation, and the calculus tilts further in favor of feminine autonomy/good treatment. I think it’s well-known that the Mongols weren’t only horse-riding semi-nomads (e.g. Scythians) to shock their settled, agricultural neighbors with the relatively egalitarian treatment they afforded their womenfolk. People forget, for example, that even (or particularly) upper crust Athenian women were virtual prisoners in the houses of their fathers and then those of their husbands.
Samuel Moyn’s review of James C. Scott was also interesting
https://www.thenation.com/article/barbarian-virtues/
@Twinkie
I would think the majority of the North American population (even north of Mexico) were agriculturalists. No livestock beyond dogs and turkeys though (I wonder how much of a difference that made from the Old World Neolithic). However, gender relations don’t seem to have been systematically different between foragers and farmers, as far as I know (not an expert).
Asking this elsewhere too, but does anyone know anything about DNA preservation? My mom is going to pass in the next day or two and I was thinking of looking into something like Securigene, though I need to see what options they have other than a blood sample (leukemia and a bone marrow transplant mean her blood is all the donors or the cancer).
Anyone know anything about this? How much they preserve and how well? Enough to get a high coverage full genome at some point?
Just looking to preserve at least something of what makes her unique and special.
Re: defunding a cultural threat, I’d suggest if the economies of the Mid West tanks the culture will tank with it and people will flee.
“This graph from Planet Money blew up for me a bit on sci-twitter. The thing is that it’s easy to talk about racial and sexual diversity (or lack thereof) because it’s visible. On the other hand, people from less affluent backgrounds may not want to advertise that, so many are unaware of the implicit class assumptions that many people make:”
I’m surprised no one in this thread has brought this up yet. The disconnect between researchers and healthcare practitioners/engineers/tech was striking.