Gene–culture coevolution

[Peterski]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocultural_anthropology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohistory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-Od8cq5Gk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFku9NgUIkI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8rsb7qILgE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC3zpb3WKAA

"The Fall of the Roman Empire Can Be Explained By Biology":

http://www.historyoftheancientworld.com/2015/05/fall-of-roman-empire-can-be-explained-by-biology-researcher-says/


A pioneering new study of the fate of the Romans and other great civilisations such as the Ancient Greeks pins their collapse not on economic decline or war, as is traditionally held, but on biological causes. Historian and social theorist Dr Jim Penman suggests that the real cause of Rome’s fall in the 5th Century AD can be explained by a mass behavioural change in the population, driven by epigenetics.

[...]

Dr Penman has dubbed his new theory, which sees human social and economic behavior as grounded in biology, ‘biohistory’.

It is detailed in a new book Biohistory: Decline and Fall of the West, released internationally this week through Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

[...]

I also found similar patterns of behaviour in cross-cultural anthropology, and then, finally, in physiology and animal behaviour. From this I concluded that the key to history and the boom-bust cycle of civilisations wasn’t to do with economics or politics, which are actually symptoms rather than causes, but biology.”

[...]

A unique aspect of this theory is that it leads to hypotheses that can be tested in the laboratory. In a seven-year study, researchers at leading Melbourne universities tested how rats behave under mild food restriction, in order to ascertain whether this had any effect on the animals’ offspring. They found a dramatic improvement in maternal behaviour and marked changes in the offspring. These included epigenetic effects, meaning that the function of certain genes was permanently changed. The findings have been published in 10 scientific journals to date, including the respected Behavioral Brain Research, and Physiology and Behavior.

The research was commissioned by Dr Penman. Though the researchers lacked knowledge of the wider theory and its broader implications, their findings were consistent with the assertions and hypotheses that relate to biohistory. The findings of the research are incorporated in the book and support his theory that the fate of civilisations is determined by epigenetics.

[...]

“The character of the Roman people changed during the late Republic and early Empire, becoming less disciplined and hard-working, less innovative and forward-thinking, increasingly averse to military service, and less attached to the institutions of the Republic. These changes were epigenetic in origin and were influenced by greater prosperity, declining respect for authority and religion, and less strict childrearing.

“From a biological and psychological perspective, the Romans became weak. And though an influx of people from the provinces shored up the Empire for many centuries, they too were affected epigenetically. It was this that led eventually led to the fall of their civilisation and the rise of a Dark Age.”

Most disturbingly, Dr Penman sees exactly the same process as taking place in our own age, but at a “far more accelerated rate” because of the West’s greater prosperity. The effects are already being seen in economic stagnation, a growing gap between rich and poor, and a collapsing birth-rate. This provides a note of urgency to the biohistory research, since he believes that only science has the potential to affect this process.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doOXWSXbRCc

[Lucas]

Interesting:)

[Peterski]

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance

[Rethel]

A tak w jednym zdaniu o co chodzi?

[Peterski]

A tak w jednym zdaniu o co chodzi?

There are C and V behaviors, they influence what cultures people create, and cultural practices influence the evolution of these behaviors.

A succesful society needs a good balance between C and V.

[Grab the Gauge]

There are C and V behaviors, they influence what cultures people create, and cultural practices influence the evolution of these behaviors.

A succesful society needs a good balance between C and V.

Thank you for continuing to speak English. People like Rethel who interject in another language are the absolute lowest of the low, I mean like at the cockroach level.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

I want to watch this but don't have the time right now!!!!! Damnnnnn

[Era]

That's one long post, can you explain in one sentence each, what's V and what's C.

[Rethel]

Thank you for continuing to speak English. People like Rethel who interject in another language are the absolute lowest of the low, I mean like at the cockroach level.

Specially for you, Grab, this very
important part which you missed:

"In one sentence: what is going on?"

Now you are happy?

[Peterski]

The first video below also mentions the Mice Utopia Experiment:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4GQV2HkGmY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1GH0QaFSro

[Kamal900]

TA in the nutshell.

[Lessenech]

“The character of the Roman people changed during the late Republic and early Empire, becoming less disciplined and hard-working, less innovative and forward-thinking, increasingly averse to military service, and less attached to the institutions of the Republic. These changes were epigenetic in origin and were influenced by greater prosperity, declining respect for authority and religion, and less strict childrearing.

This is demonstrably false, and it reeks of pro-Catonian bias in historiography as so usual with Anglo-American academia.

Julio-Claudian, Flavian and Nervo-Antonine Rome (what I suppose could be called 'early' Empire) had the highest participation of men in the legion, which allowed Rome to each areas that had hitherto never been even explored like Britannia, the ultra-Rhine Germania or Dacia but to name those off the top of my head. The Late Republic (which I suppose is what you'd call the period starting with the civil war between Marius and Sulla and ending with Augustus winning at Actium), instead had minimal expansion on its part once both Carthage and Macedonia were subdued as competing Mediterranean powers in the III Century BC and rather faced internal strife notably with Spartacus' rebellion.

Except for the Year of the Four Emperors, dynastic transitions were quick and there was no lingering decadent stage, even if they could be brutal like the assassinations of Caligula, Claudius, Nero or Domitian. On the contrary the Late Republic was characterised by the city of Rome having several legions break the Rubicon restriction and occupy the city directly, breaking the legal order, leading to internal strife and mass assassination. The status quo could change rapidly and familiar feuds could hinder the operations of the Senate at times. If you consider just the period following Caesar's death in the idus of May, and the turns and tumbles that Rome had with Anthony, Octavian and Brutus/Cassius shifting their alliances over the course of several years even, you can see how that contrasts with the verticality of the early Empire.

----

The only genetic change that has been discovered in labs so far is the loss of genetic material over time, with the emergence of new material on account of mutation being only theoretical till this day. Devolution happens, evolution doesn't.

[Peterski]

The only genetic change that has been discovered in labs so far is the loss of genetic material over time, with the emergence of new material on account of mutation being only theoretical till this day. Devolution happens, evolution doesn't.

Are you another Rethel? :)

[Lessenech]

Are you another Rethel? :)

I've never spoken to Rethel beyond rebuking his identitarianism, so dunno.

What you have here though is one of the most mediocre metanarratives of history I've ever seen, yet it fits all too well with the spirit of the times. Dating back to at least Vaucanson, Western academia has been for whatever reason obsessed with the idea of treating both humans and reality as large as a quasi-mechanicistic process where everything that happens is simply a repetition, and improvement, or a degradation in the ethereal and sempiternal clockwork that is the universe.

Having finished the article, the theory you are presenting of social history as a result of biological determinism already admits that:

1 - The motivation is entirely subjective from the part of the lead researcher, not because he saw a credible hint at it. Just nerding led him to think he could explain Western history with mimicked equations built over biology.

2 - Openly admits his theory goes against basic common sense, the root of all real human understanding.


"It may go against the common sense, view but my research into biohistory shows..."

3 - His evidence for it is... what exactly? Did he compare the genetic profile of Romans around the days of Zama, and Romans during Carrhae or Alesia to show how the late Republic had degenerated them? His entire empirical substrate is showing that rats in the absence of abundant food tend to develop increased social care, which means.... nothing. Since every prior theory of sociological understanding already accounted for the fact that wealth leads to higher individualism due to the decreased pressure on cooperation.

4 - His own argument doesn't even place the core reason behavioural changes at the hereditarian level (which would be the actual discovery) but even argues that the primary vector of cultural transition was environmental.


"These changes pass from generation to generation, partly through direct inheritance but mainly through experiences in early life, causing changes in temperament which in turn have economic and political effects."

Discovery?

5 - His theory suggests that the peoples who migrated westwards during the Barbarian invasions were also affected by the epigenetical changes and thus had a degraded genetic profile, yet if that was the case, how did the same genetic pool manage to rebuild and outdo Imperial Roman civilization after generations?
Aren't they the descendants of the ruined population after all?
And if the changes are reversible and so descendants who face hardship are cleansed of the inferior genetic inheritance through starvation, couldn't genetics be said to be a symptom of social decline rather than the cause, which you know is the whole point of the 'biohistory' theory? Comfort breeding weakness, social causes leading to human repercussions, not genetic causes

And yes, since you quoted that part of my previous message

6) The appearance of new genetic material or increase in complexity of a genetic profile has yet to be shown to happen in any species. The only thing that has to my knowledge been discovered is that gene expression changes, leading to adaptations, as well as the loss of genetic material which on occasion ends up being useful to the species as they are afterwards lacking the required genetic material to say be affected by a virus or bacteria.
How do you empirically prove what's called 'macroevolution' if so?

[Peterski]

couldn't genetics be said to be a symptom of social decline rather than the cause, which you know is the whole point of the 'biohistory' theory? Comfort breeding weakness, social causes leading to human repercussions, not genetic causes

No it is not the point of this theory. The point of this theory is that culture influences gene expression and gene expression influences culture, so these are mutual influences - not just genetics and epigenetics influencing culture, but also the other way around. It is a two way street.


The appearance of new genetic material or increase in complexity of a genetic profile has yet to be shown to happen in any species. The only thing that has to my knowledge been discovered is that gene expression changes, leading to adaptations, as well as the loss of genetic material which on occasion ends up being useful to the species as they are afterwards lacking the required genetic material to say be affected by a virus or bacteria.
How do you empirically prove what's called 'macroevolution' if so?

No, it has already been shown to happen. Your idea that there is no proof that new mutations emerge is wrong. It has been proven.

[Lessenech]

No, it has already been shown to happen. Your idea that there is no proof that new mutations emerge is wrong. It has been proven.

Link me please?
Happy to be proven wrong if so.

[Peterski]

Link me please?
Happy to be proven wrong if so.

Too many links to post.

But things such as lactose tolerance or blue eyes - among thousands of other things - are relatively new mutations.

[Peterski]

Another confirmation of the gene-culture coevolution theory:

"Genetic and genomic analyses reveal pre-existing cultural differences leading to Neolithization":

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03717-6

"Surprisingly, in all regions, food producers had larger effective population sizes (Ne) than foragers already 20 k years ago, well before the Neolithic revolution. As expected, this difference further increased ~12–10 k years ago, around or just before the onset of food production. Using paleoclimate reconstructions, we show that the early difference in Ne cannot be explained by food producers inhabiting more favorable regions. A number of mechanisms, including ancestral differences in census size, sedentism, exploitation of the natural resources, social stratification or connectivity between groups, might have led to the early differences in Ne detected in our analyses. Irrespective of the specific mechanisms involved, our results provide further evidence that long term cultural differences among populations of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers are likely to have played an important role in the later Neolithization process."

=================

This is important (as it contradicts what Jared Diamond claimed):

"Using paleoclimate reconstructions, we show that the early difference in Ne (effective population sizes) cannot be explained by food producers inhabiting more favorable regions."

[Rethel]

are relatively new mutations.

It depends, if you have right datation, becasue if all
people come from the Flood survivors, then your young
mutation is in the same age as all older :laugh:

Simply, one poputalion got it, others don't, the
same as genes for hair colour or other racial traits.

And this means devolution - becasue final populations, have
smaller genetic diversity than their original population from
which they did splitted out. It is not gaining but losing info.

[Peterski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

[Peterski]

Epigenetics between the generations, we inherit more than just genes:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-07-epigenetics-inherit-genes.html

"We are more than the sum of our genes. Epigenetic mechanisms modulated by environmental cues such as diet, disease or lifestyle take a major role in regulating the DNA by switching genes on and off. It has been long debated if epigenetic modifications accumulated throughout the entire life can cross the border of generations and be inherited to children or even grand children. Now researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg show robust evidence that not only the inherited DNA itself but also the inherited epigenetic instructions contribute in regulating gene expression in the offspring. Moreover, the new insights by the Lab of Nicola Iovino describe for the first time biological consequences of this inherited information. The study proves that mother's epigenetic memory is essential for the development and survival of the new generation. Humans have more than 250 different cell types. They all contain the exact same DNA bases in exactly the same order; however, liver or nerve cells look very different and have different skills. What makes the difference is a process called epigenetics. Epigenetic modifications label specific regions of the DNA to attract or keep away proteins that activate genes. Thus, these modifications create, step by step, the typical patterns of active and inactive DNA sequences for each cell type. Moreover, contrary to the fixed sequence of 'letters' in DNA, epigenetic marks can also change throughout life and in responses to environment or lifestyle. (...)"

[Peterski]

What we are seeing is the decline of Asabiyyah (= social cohesion & solidarity) in the Western World:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Sociology

Asabiyyah (as described in Muqaddimah) is similar to C & V factors from the "Biohistory" theory. We're living in transitional times when Anglos are losing their status as the dominant civilization. A list of dominant Eurasian (and Eurasian offshoot) civilizations according to A. Van Sloan & James Sheehan:

Time of domination (number of years) - civilization:

4300-2700 BC (1600) - Sumerians
2700-1075 BC (1625) - Egyptians
1075-745 BC (330) - Phoenicians
745-612 BC (133) - Assyrians
612-539 BC (73) - Babylonians
539-478 BC (61) - Persians
478-323 BC (155) - Greeks
323-197 BC (126) - Hellenistic
197 BC - 378 AD (575) - Romans
378-467 AD (89) - Gupta India
467-589 AD (122) - Byzantines
589-756 AD (167) - Tang China
756-976 AD (220) - Muslims
976-1071 AD (95) - Byzantines
1071-1294 AD (223) - Song China and Mongol China
1294-1527 AD (233) - Renaissance Italy
1527-1588 AD (61) - Spain
1588-1609 AD (21) - England
1609-1672 AD (63) - Netherlands
1672-1814 AD (142) - France
1814-1830 AD (16) - Austria
1830-1918 AD (88) - Great Britain
1918-2018 AD (100+) - the USA

^^^
The last two centuries have been times of the domination of Anglos (England + its offshoots). Now the Anglo world is in decline, its domination has lasted for a pretty long time anyway.

[revealman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocultural_anthropology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohistory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-Od8cq5Gk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFku9NgUIkI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8rsb7qILgE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC3zpb3WKAA

"The Fall of the Roman Empire Can Be Explained By Biology":

http://www.historyoftheancientworld.com/2015/05/fall-of-roman-empire-can-be-explained-by-biology-researcher-says/




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doOXWSXbRCc

excellent

[ovidiu]

This is good stuff, interesting reads and vids.


What we are seeing is the decline of Asabiyyah (= social cohesion & solidarity) in the Western World:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Sociology

Asabiyyah (as described in Muqaddimah) is similar to C & V factors from the "Biohistory" theory. We're living in transitional times when Anglos are losing their status as the dominant civilization. A list of dominant Eurasian (and Eurasian offshoot) civilizations according to A. Van Sloan & James Sheehan:

Time of domination (number of years) - civilization:

4300-2700 BC (1600) - Sumerians
2700-1075 BC (1625) - Egyptians
1075-745 BC (330) - Phoenicians
745-612 BC (133) - Assyrians
612-539 BC (73) - Babylonians
539-478 BC (61) - Persians
478-323 BC (155) - Greeks
323-197 BC (126) - Hellenistic
197 BC - 378 AD (575) - Romans
378-467 AD (89) - Gupta India
467-589 AD (122) - Byzantines
589-756 AD (167) - Tang China
756-976 AD (220) - Muslims
976-1071 AD (95) - Byzantines
1071-1294 AD (223) - Song China and Mongol China
1294-1527 AD (233) - Renaissance Italy
1527-1588 AD (61) - Spain
1588-1609 AD (21) - England
1609-1672 AD (63) - Netherlands
1672-1814 AD (142) - France
1814-1830 AD (16) - Austria
1830-1918 AD (88) - Great Britain
1918-2018 AD (100+) - the USA

^^^
The last two centuries have been times of the domination of Anglos (England + its offshoots). Now the Anglo world is in decline, its domination has lasted for a pretty long time anyway.

I wouldn't say the US became completely dominant until after WWII, and I don't think England suddenly became supreme after beating the Spanish Armada. But for the sake of breaking it down neatly, I get it. I guess in late antiquity, Gupta India was more powerful than the decaying Roman Empire.

[revealman]

edit

[Peterski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgGLFozNM2o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2xv3XwOVaQ