Message from @Miniature Menace
Discord ID: 607086835264520204
Maybe some of it. But almost certainly not all of it. But then, if we're talking about specific regions which experienced dramatic demographic shifts from high violence populations, it's more likely that it was genetic.
So total calorie intake has been a consistent survival factor unlike the vaugaries of law.
For instance, taking 60,000 Somalis and putting them into a Midwestern town.
that calorie intake factor would have to presume the alternative from a specific food source is lethal starvation, or malnutrition to the point of primary or secondary infertility
Taking 60K Somalis and putting them into a midwest town was clearly a mistake. I was talking about evolution not culture. Don't change the subject.
Are somalis genetically identical to the dutch descended natives?
It was malnutrition or lack of estrus historically. Again caloric intake has been a major concern for human populations up until very recently.
You'd probably be surprised how little calories is survivable. And how many sources there are in many environments.
Especially if you're not surrounded by a concrete jungle, and are supporting a relatively small population.
And yes, starvation was a big concern. But milk wasn't the only food source, nor was it free of costs.
Kek. If you studied you would know you are arguing against gene-culture co-evolution as lactase persistence is the best case for it.
What exactly *are* you arguing? I'm just making the case that lactase persistence isn't a universally critical point of survival. Because it isn't.
It is not universally critical it only occurred a few places. It is however the best case study for gene-culture co-evolution and hence provides a baseline for where we can theorize that such evolution has occured.
There's also, as far as I can tell, no aggressive selection mechanism for its *elimination*
Specifically lactase persistence only occurs in pastoral cultures.
What is the argument then? Is it based on how quickly the trait proliferated in pastoral cultures?
In order to evaluate how typical this is, and whether it represents the absolute range of the transformation/adoption of traits, we'd need some kind of metric of how much more often people who weren't lactose tolerant *died* before reproducing. Or their relative fertility and mortality rates.
Do we have those?
Faulk is theorizing gene-culture co-evolution. To validate that hypothesis we must consider meotic drive in that context. The case of lactase persistence is a very high drive over a very short period. Faulk's hypothesis meets **neither** of those standards.
Comparing a single food source to the entire economy? And you're saying that a single food source should win out as the more exceptional selective pressure?
Because that's what Faulk is arguing. That the economic pressures selected for people who were, shockingly, more effective at navigating market systems for their benefit. So, traits like delayed gratification, long term planning, and anticipating the demands of others, would be very useful, and the subset of the population who exhibited those traits would stand to benefit more significantly from virtually every industry involved in that market.
Even assuming that over this period of time, all that happened is that the distribution of traits moved from an aggregate which just barely couldn't sustain a decentral market economy, to one which just barely could, this would have a tremendous impact.
Furthermore taking into account the active role the church often played in condemning and discouraging certain activities.
Hell, even the aggressive policing against consanguinity among commoners certainly played a role.
There's also the factor of manorialism, and how the lords would administrate their peasants and serfs, favoring certain characteristics, and hard work. And this would be done for generations.
@Miniature Menace
They're not even making the black Genocide subtle any more
@Jym I couldn't find the term "meotic", did you mean "meiotic"? I'm not being a smartass, just curious 😄
I’m still waiting for the day when the real alt right starts endorsing the democrats
For once they’d actually serve a use
We need Richard Spencer to get airtime on cnn and totally support them
There's legit a segment from Morrakiu, the dude who does "The Merchant Minute" where he argues, ironically, for supporting certain Liberal policies, because they result in conclusions that benefit the alt-right. It's called "agreeing with Liberals for all the wrong reasons"
It's not really a sincere argument most of the time, but rather an illustration of how much liberal policies actually fuck over liberal constituents more than if the far right won.
the left will never really be convinced by this argument, not only because it comes from evil right wingers, but because their definition of victory is pretty much just defined by how miserable they can make those they don't like, while extracting gibs from them
even if it makes them miserable, also
Anything that is not a gay space communist utopia is evil
was trying to find the song he did
but ended up finding this