Q. Valerius Priscus
Full Member
The primitive peoples are pushed to the wall, and the overlords are Alpine broadheads -G.Taylor 1931
Posts: 107
|
Post by Q. Valerius Priscus on Aug 31, 2005 16:14:03 GMT -5
The African Proto-Humans were tall, long-legged, specialised for hunting in the savannah really. The most progressive types are shorter but not as short as the dwarfed Negritos and Pygmies who are clearly rather too short in a negative way. Very tall people are really overspecialised like the tall Negroes and the Nordids and suffer from many diseases, unfortunately. Modern medicine and sanitation has allowed many weaklings to reproduce and produce more weaklings of their own that survive into adulthood. Is it surprising that the head index has dropped and height has increased in the 1900s? 'Findings based on millions of deaths suggest that shorter, smaller bodies have lower death rates and fewer diet-related chronic diseases, especially past middle age. Shorter people also appear to have longer average lifespans. The authors suggest that the differences in longevity between the sexes is due to their height differences because men average about 8.0% taller than women and have a 7.9% lower life expectancy at birth. Animal experiments also show that smaller animals within the same species generally live longer.' johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/height_longevity_samaras_2003.html'Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain the temporal trends in head shape. It may be due to natural selection (Henneberg et al., 1978). Bielicki and Welon (1964) showed that long-headed individuals have lower life expectancy than others, while Olivier (1979) suggested dolichocephalic is more susceptible to death from tuberculosis, plague, and small pox.' American Journal of Human Biology Volume 13, Issue 5 , Pages 626 - 634 SO tall and long-headed individuals live shorter lives.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 31, 2005 16:18:01 GMT -5
Its true that progressive leptomorphics have certain problems to live in a mass society with not enough hygiene, many diseases and bad conditions of living. They are made to survive by thinking and acting bold and changing the environment, not for living in dirt and hunger. In dirt and hunger reduced, fat, short legged-brachycephalised and frugal-compliant types have better chances - especially because they are less risk taking too (not as often soldiers, mercenaries, pioneers etc.) and get earlier and more children on average.
Its true that leptomorphics are more sensible if its about diseases like Tuberculosis. You are right. Unter healthy conditions Europid leptomorphics live longer and are less prone towards civilisatory diseases. Thanks for the citations.
I mentioned such things already in the thread about brachycephalisation...
|
|
Q. Valerius Priscus
Full Member
The primitive peoples are pushed to the wall, and the overlords are Alpine broadheads -G.Taylor 1931
Posts: 107
|
Post by Q. Valerius Priscus on Aug 31, 2005 16:32:17 GMT -5
Its true that progressive leptomorphics have certain problems to live in a mass society with not enough hygiene, many diseases and bad conditions of living. Modern society is the absolute best in terms of hygiene and medicine and 'progressive' leptomorphics are thriving. In hard earlier times, when the population lived in the countryside when the Plague decimated entire nations, then the hardier, stronger, more potent race-types survived, the Alpish types. To-day, good health services, and sanitation is allowing the long-heads to survive and reproduce. Just look at the German nation. When it was 90% Nordid and long-headed it was primitive and uncultured. When it became brachycephalised it brought forth geniuses like Beethoven, Kant, and Schopenhauer. To-day it is being dolichocephalised and really unimportant in the world stage. The Chinese Orientals are now rising, and they are more brachycephalous than the degenerating Whites. Only a pro-Alpish policy will reverse racial degeneration in Europa.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 31, 2005 16:42:39 GMT -5
Leptomorphic-progressive types formed culture and infantilised people bred faster in the dirty urban and rural areas afterwards when structures were already established, because they are the better mass type, can survive such physical stress better, but their efficiency is lower.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Aug 31, 2005 16:49:37 GMT -5
Now there is reason to be happy about my shortiness.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 31, 2005 18:11:10 GMT -5
Leptomorphic-progressive types formed culture and infantilised people bred faster in the dirty urban and rural areas afterwards when structures were already established, because they are the better mass type, can survive such physical stress better, but their efficiency is lower. Can you give a chronology of this supposed breeding of infantilised people?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Aug 31, 2005 18:23:30 GMT -5
SO tall and long-headed individuals live shorter lives. Living long lifes is not a favourable evolutionary trait. After fertility period the individual is more a burden to his offspring than anything else. Actually man is "programmed" to live much less than he is doing now; his long life span is very counterproductive, evolutionwise. Instead of posting Darwing pics to point out his Alpish beard, try to read his writings.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 31, 2005 18:27:02 GMT -5
Living long lives is not a favourable evolutionary trait. After fertility period the individual is more a burden to his offspring than anything else. You should read about the grandmother theory. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3501046.stm
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Aug 31, 2005 18:37:46 GMT -5
"Dr Mirkka Lahdenpera, said: "Although grandmother effects alone are suggested to be insufficient to account for the evolution of the menopause, our results suggest that they can be sufficient to account for the evolution of the substantially prolonged post-reproductive lifespan observed in humans."
Interesting. But I can hardly see how menopause, that triggers a reduction of estrogen production that has only bad effects on the life of the woman, and actually looks like a winding up of the organism, can be seen as something that "evoled to give women a long life span". It seems more likely that women managed to survive their menopause. Then this doesn't explain why men keep living till they are eighty too.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 31, 2005 18:44:16 GMT -5
Leptomorphic-progressive types formed culture and infantilised people bred faster in the dirty urban and rural areas afterwards when structures were already established, because they are the better mass type, can survive such physical stress better, but their efficiency is lower. Can you give a chronology of this supposed breeding of infantilised people? Whats really important is to distinguish balanced from imbalanced Neoteny! Because balanced keeping of Neotenic features was always an important factor of human evolution. The difference is if the whole body type and personality is affected too and we see no better brain development at the same time, even on the contrary, a reduction of the brain volume as well (f.e. from Mesolithicum to medieval farmers in Central Europe). That are the results of self domestication, negative selection and poor living conditions which lead, similar to Homo floriensis though not comparable if its about the grade of course, to degeneration. It depends on the region in question, you see the infantilisation in Southward expanding Mongoloid rice farmers, in Central European farmers beginning already in the lake dwelling culture, with a first height in Roman times, going back again during the time of the Barbarian invasion with again more mobile-active lifestyle (whats better if its about health too oftentimes, because sedentary life was a hygienic problem before modernity) and an extreme height in the medieval age f.e. in Bavaria and Bohemia with extreme brachycephalisation and partly infantilisation (Alpinisation in France, Bavaria and Bohemia mostly from 11th-17th century f.e.). This trend was going on in modern times. In the Slavic area the Lappoid elements were first mostly absorbed but came into the genpool and spread on a very low level. When sedentary poor farmer life style became dominant in certain regions Baltisation took place which produced something intermediary between generalised Nordics (Eastnordid and Eastcromagnid) and Lappoids = Eastbaltid. This happened in many regions it began about 12-13th century, in some others a little bit earlier, in many later. In the thread about the losses of the WW's I posted some links to Skadi threads in which more infos are included and some pictures as well (f.e. of Neolithic skulls, brachycranisation graph, leptomorphics in Central Europe mostly Nordid - face morph, Keltic skulls of elite warriors from cairns etc... Its quite typical that you find in all of Europe mostly skull types of the same robust meso-dolichocaphalic kind in the elite cairns.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 31, 2005 18:51:29 GMT -5
Grandmothers could help their own children - it was better caring for the children and grandchildren she had in a certain age than losing energy+life for even more children. Its more important from the point of reproductive success to get the children and grandchildren which are there through than just making even more ones. It might one reason why Eurasians get older than SSA on average too btw. However, this has nothing to do with infantilisation because infantiles dont live longer necessarily and the latest phase of life people can reach nowadays, most women didnt reach in the past anyway...thats like it is with animals in zoos, they can have a prolonged life span beyond their life span in nature as well...rather an effect of self-domestication and improved conditions.
As for the infantiles, they are no type for k-selection but more r-selection oriented, because as I said they are earlier fertile and get more children on average. There was a good study made on Ukrainian sedentary farmers and herder-warriors in prehistoric times, both population lived in the same area but the herders were taller, more robust boned, had longer legs and less children, whereas the farmers had a higher death rate but simply reproduced more often and significantly shorter legs and smaller head dimension too btw. Sedentary farmer selection is in general rather contraselective, especially if there are no other selective factors than coping with "daily farmer life, hunger and diseases" - its one of the worst selective regimes for humans with the exception of modern urban life without measures against contraselection and degeneration.
Its well known that schizothymes react more often psychosomatic btw whereas some calm and rather compliant zyklothymes have less stress in life, reach of course less too and take less risks. So the character which is not very efficient for the society is good for the survival of the individual sometimes. Its like it is with people of higher intelligence and education getting almost no children in the modern liberal society with foreign mass integration, emancipation, pressure on the job market, individualistic lifestyle, Hedonism and consumption as dominant elements and negative ideological influences. Everything is working against the survival of the best elements Europe produced in the past 10 millennia...
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 31, 2005 18:56:13 GMT -5
Interesting. But I can hardly see how menopause, that triggers a reduction of estrogen production that has only bad effects on the life of the woman, and actually looks like a winding up of the organism, can be seen as something that "evoled to give women a long life span". It seems more likely that women managed to survive their menopause. Then this doesn't explain why men keep living till they are eighty too. If you read the article, you will see that women who lived much longer past their reproductive age had more descendants than other women. This means that longevity in women is correlated with genetic fitness, as such women are able to pass on their genes to more descendnats. Hence, rather than being a "burden" on their offspring, long-lived women are actually more genetically fit. Also, the additional longevity of men is not a problem at all, since men are able to reproduce well into advanced age.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 31, 2005 19:14:32 GMT -5
I already agreed with you but want to add that this is of course only true if there are many children already there and the women are still more or less healthy in "old age" (old then and now is not the same anyway). Many people which dont understand which is meant think of people in Europe in their nursing home or with Alzheimer now, but of course that was usually not the case. We speak about active, vital women in the age of about 50 able to help raising children, still collecting food and keeping up the tradition and learning the younger women some techniques etc. When they became sick, they usually died quite fast and many groups were constantly on the move anyway. Today there is a real half-life of knowledge, and most things old people can say to their grandchildren are no longer that important, at least if arguing from the economical point of view. But again, the time when such things evolved was just really, really different from what modern life in the Western world is now..
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Sept 1, 2005 1:30:59 GMT -5
Now there is reason to be happy about my shortiness. I'm not happy, my daughter will be very tall.
|
|
Q. Valerius Priscus
Full Member
The primitive peoples are pushed to the wall, and the overlords are Alpine broadheads -G.Taylor 1931
Posts: 107
|
Post by Q. Valerius Priscus on Sept 1, 2005 3:24:32 GMT -5
(Alpinisation in France, Bavaria and Bohemia mostly from 11th-17th century f.e.). Seven centuries of racial progress starting from primitive medieval dolichoid brutes and ending at superior advanced European civilisation.
|
|