[ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 91, Issue 2

Keith Henson hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Sat Apr 2 17:41:36 UTC 2011

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:00 AM,  Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:

> Il 01/04/2011 6.17, Kelly Anderson ha scritto:
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Mirco Romanato
>> <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:


>>> We can add to this that humans are able to move in other places, if
>>> local conditions are unfriendly. And they are able of assortative
>>> mating. These possibilities can, alone, make up for the difference
>>> in selective pressure.
>> Agreed. Thus the selective pressure on humans has been fairly low
>> over time, which was my point.
> I don't think so.

> The poor were able to become a

self sustaining [to clarify]

> class only in the last two centuries
> because before they near always died with few or no offspring. And they
> were supplanted by the less accomplished (but better than them)
> offspring of the middle class.

As Clark notes, "downward social mobility."

> In this way, in 20 generations (say the double of the time the foxes
> needed to be culled) the people in England was selecting for middle
> class traits and culling the poor (and partially the noble) out of the
> breeding stock.

I don't think the noble lost anything like the poor, who for
generation after generation, died with few offspring.

It doesn't take really intense breeding if it is over a long time.
And in fact the selection in the UK was fairly intense from the
numbers Clark found analyzing probated wills.

Kelly, I really recommend reading Clark's research paper, Genetically
capitalist.  Or his book or both.

Mirco has a solid understanding of the situation.

There are substantial differences in populations because of different
past selection pressures.  It's not politically correct to say so of



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list