Achsjullllyallyyyyiu, humans also do a form of Selective breeding voluntarily and it’s why families that tend to live in a more rural farming type communities tend to naturally be larger. We breed for what our families job is going to be.
This is not really what I’m talking about, making more people so you can make them work on the fields is kinda different from breeding dogs with inhumanely short snouts for aesthetic purposes, or making gargantuan dogs capable of 1v1ing a tiger so they’ll protect your livestock
All I’m saying is the Human race is very adaptable and we have changed a lot since drawing on cave walls.
Culturally, yes, physically, a little bit, psychologically, no. Our minds are still optimized for the savannah, and not the office, factory, or farm. Cultural adaptations, in the form of religion and etiquette, which we patch in after birth are what fill the gaps and make us actually capable of thriving in such a foreign environment to what our biology is made for.
It’s not just a numbers game. In the 1800s around farming communities it was not uncommon for a man to marry and have children with a woman due solely to the size of her father. Because stronger kids meant better workers. Very similar to how we bred cattle dogs to be better workers.
I come from a place where we breed dogs to do their jobs better not to look cute. I can’t speak on the whole designer dog scene short snouts are dumb
Also I’m glad we can joke and actually have a conversation about this without things getting angry. It’s a world of difference from Reddit.
It’s not just a numbers game. In the 1800s around farming communities it was not uncommon for a man to marry and have children with a woman due solely to the size of her father. Because stronger kids meant better workers. Very similar to how we bred cattle dogs to be better workers.
This is true, and it is true that the standards change depending on what type of society you’re in. For example, in pastoralist societies women went after men who were strong and displayed risk-taking behavior because that kind of behavior is what got you ahead in a pastoralist society, while in parts of Asia, some genes which are known to correlate with ADHD (commonly known to cause greater impulsivity and risk taking behavior) are exceedingly rare because rice cultivating societies do not mesh well with impulsive risk-takers, so those people just never got laid.
That being said, I don’t believe the rate of biological adaptation as a result of sexual selection was ever really fast enough for modern humans to qualify as truly adapted for the societies they lived in. All the stuff we just talked about above is barely just the beginning of the adaptations we’d need to be suited for an agricultural society, let alone an industrial or digital one. The main adaptations were in the form of social constructs like etiquette and religion, as well as technologies designed to make things more comfortable, and of course, drugs, all of which made people more easily capable of coping with their unnatural habitats.
short snouts are dumb
we in agreement here
Also I’m glad we can joke and actually have a conversation about this without things getting angry. It’s a world of difference from Reddit.
Depends on which community, the politics community on whichever instance it was is just as not worth using as it was on Reddit
This is not really what I’m talking about, making more people so you can make them work on the fields is kinda different from breeding dogs with inhumanely short snouts for aesthetic purposes, or making gargantuan dogs capable of 1v1ing a tiger so they’ll protect your livestock
Culturally, yes, physically, a little bit, psychologically, no. Our minds are still optimized for the savannah, and not the office, factory, or farm. Cultural adaptations, in the form of religion and etiquette, which we patch in after birth are what fill the gaps and make us actually capable of thriving in such a foreign environment to what our biology is made for.
It’s not just a numbers game. In the 1800s around farming communities it was not uncommon for a man to marry and have children with a woman due solely to the size of her father. Because stronger kids meant better workers. Very similar to how we bred cattle dogs to be better workers.
I come from a place where we breed dogs to do their jobs better not to look cute. I can’t speak on the whole designer dog scene short snouts are dumb
Also I’m glad we can joke and actually have a conversation about this without things getting angry. It’s a world of difference from Reddit.
This is true, and it is true that the standards change depending on what type of society you’re in. For example, in pastoralist societies women went after men who were strong and displayed risk-taking behavior because that kind of behavior is what got you ahead in a pastoralist society, while in parts of Asia, some genes which are known to correlate with ADHD (commonly known to cause greater impulsivity and risk taking behavior) are exceedingly rare because rice cultivating societies do not mesh well with impulsive risk-takers, so those people just never got laid.
That being said, I don’t believe the rate of biological adaptation as a result of sexual selection was ever really fast enough for modern humans to qualify as truly adapted for the societies they lived in. All the stuff we just talked about above is barely just the beginning of the adaptations we’d need to be suited for an agricultural society, let alone an industrial or digital one. The main adaptations were in the form of social constructs like etiquette and religion, as well as technologies designed to make things more comfortable, and of course, drugs, all of which made people more easily capable of coping with their unnatural habitats.
we in agreement here
Depends on which community, the politics community on whichever instance it was is just as not worth using as it was on Reddit