What is Reddit's opinion of
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
19 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Do you deny that the various races experienced different selective pressures over the last few hundred thousand years? If you accept this, do you also accept that evolution also works on humans as well.
BTW here is a book on recent human evolution
So Nigerians aren't representative of African-Americans despite your entire argument being based on race? I agree that these two groups shouldn't be compared, but you're the one who brought up race. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of African-Americans can trace their lineage to West Africa.
Of course intelligence has a base in genetics, but genes mutate all the damn time. And there's now evidence that civilization contributes a significant portion. Take a look at this:
https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429
What I'm trying to get at is that intelligence - as defined by Western academia - may not be distributed evenly across the races, but it's not magic. It is cultivated and it is most definitely not an inherent property of any race, contrary to what racists might believe.
>You stated that the school a student goes to results in similar kinds of students.
Take a look at the usernames.
Environmental factors are surely important. Culture is hard to tease out of other research.
There is some emerging work on how humans have evolved int he past 10,000 years. This book for instance that talks about how humans have been changing.
While this might seem to contradict the consensus in the thread that the "races" are not really races, I don't think its a stretch to acknowledge differing selective pressures in humans across the planet but still note that a) interracial genetic variance is on the same order as variance between races and b) humans are all still one human race.
It is also worth pointing out that the "white race" or the "black race" is not very descriptive. Are Egyptians as "black" as Somalians or Kenyans? Are Spaniards as "white" as Brits or Russians?
Any separation of group populations over enough given time will create differences between the groups.
I believe Civilization also greatly affected our evolution differently and a very good book is written about it here: http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1460732538&sr=8-2&keywords=civilization+evolution
> It would be the I groups that were our genetic fillers; other R groups are just subdivisions of IE.
Hmm, I thought I groups were much smaller in frequency compared to the R. And that the other R groups branched out of IE before IE civilization took off (before IEs even settled the steppe).
Also, have you done any research into Neanderthal mixing? This book seems to suggest that Neanderthal mixing was key to humans civilizing.
- The Bible, The Communist Manifesto, The Art of War, Atlas Shrugged, and The Wealth of Nationa… Doesn't matter what religion/politics/ideology you identify with or don't, too much of the world has been shaped by the ideas in these tracts to not be familiar with them.
Now that those are out of the way, and in no particular order…
The 10,000 Year Explosion… Post-civilization human evolution. Ignore the bits on Neanderthal-Homo sapien inter-breeding, that material is already out of date.
The Signs Surprisingly strong evidence of a simple written language dating back more than 40,000 years that has been staring us in the face for over a century of studying cave drawings.
A Farewell to Alms. Evidence based analysis of the industrial revolution suggesting that there was nothing industrial about its causes. Rather, human BEHAVIORS changed as a result of wholesale population replacement with families that valued triftyness, non-violence, long-term planning, and literacy replacing families that didn't. Based in AMAZINGLY detailed primary evidence... not just a theory.
The Art of War in the Western World Excellent primer on strategy tactics and logistics from 1000BC to the post WWII era.
The Horse, The Wheel, and Language Evidence based reconstruction of eurasian copper age history, and the first technological revolution of the post agricultural world.
Carnage and Culture The cure to "Guns, Germs, and Steel"... evidence based proof that the civilian values of a civilization influence victory and defeat on the battlefield.
>Which makes me wonder why mainstream Western society is so obsessed with finding the environmental factors
sovereign is he who selects the null hypothesis.
And Harris should've Gregory Cochran on his show.
>Scientists have long believed that the "great leap forward" that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunningly original account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilization arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history.
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution
You may find this interesting
https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429
^^^^WHY ^^^^IS ^^^^EVERYBODY ^^^^GIVING ^^^^ANECDOTES ^^^^INSTEAD ^^^^OF ^^^^REAL ^^^^EVIDENCE ^^^^WE ^^^^HAVE ^^^^ABOUT ^^^^HUMAN ^^^^EVOLUTION ^^^^IN ^^^^THE ^^^^MODERN ^^^^ERA ^^^^ARGHHHHHHHHH
Mathematically, the rise of the c-section is allowing for children with larger skulls to survive more often. (childbirth still isn't safe, even in the modern era)
Something I'm too lazy to find the exact source for, but is supported in this book, is the uncontroversial fact that obesity is causing fertility problems and will likely to lead to evolutionary pressure for anti-obesity genes. Even with medical treatment and advanced fertility medication, there's still no avoiding the fact that the obese are far, far more likely to fail to become pregnant. And ironically, obese people are far, far more likely to suffer from complications and death when undergoing medical procedures.
Please don't be misled into believing that Darwinian selection factors no longer apply.
>As for your “race realist” beliefs, the way I see those theories is that they are backwards rationalization of “innate” human capacities based on results of recent history (a time period that accounts as a mere tick on the entire span of human time-line). It also does not take account the effects of disparity in starting points of geography and environment, and different available starting packages offered by said environments.
They're not backwards rationalizations for the results of recent history. Evolution never stopped, different selection pressures have been placed on different lineages of humans ever since they diverged some 40-50k years ago when the group that became our ancestors (all none Africans) marched out of Africa. And the theory of course takes into account varying geography and environments, in fact they were the very driving force behind the evolution of different population traits or averages. Culture and biology are intertwined, they can and in fact have co-evolved with each other throughout our evolutionary history. If you're open to learning more about this, The 10,000 Year Explosion is a good primer on the topic of recent human evolution. It is an easy (even if you have little knowledge on genetics) and succinct read, but is definitely compelling in the theories it puts forth as they are backed up by ample evidence.
>if you want to subscribe to “race-realist” beliefs, then you might as well save the effort and just kowtow to the white man's self-researched “Goldilocks superiority”, and accept your current lot in life as a second/third class worker drone. After all, if “race-realism” is real, then everything as manifested in the status quo is the natural order of things right? Why struggle instead of just accepting the world order? It's yet another comfortable trap of contentment to curl up in after all.
You speak of "subscribing to 'race-realist' beliefs" as if it's some religion one can just choose to follow or not. It's either science or it's not, and if the former, then I have no choice but to "subscribe" to it. For every group of people, there are theories in the race realism framework that would make them uneasy and perhaps feel some sort of immediate revulsion to. But at the end of the day, how one feels about these theories are completely irrelevant, if the research methodologies are sound (which after having read many books and studies on both sides of the debate, I've deemed to be so), then the ensuing results and conclusions must be incorporated into our understanding of the world. Admittedly not all aspects of racial differences are well studied, which is exactly why they should be, science and knowledge in itself is neither good nor evil, morality only comes into play when it's time for their application. And again, just as evolution never stopped at the advent of human cultures, it continues to enact itself even today, and will continue to do so for as long as humans exist. So just because the white man might be the "Goldilocks" currently, doesn't mean Asians cannot become strictly better in every genetic metric that matters via the application of science. So no, understanding race realism does not at all necessitates one to "just accept the world order".
>Empathy could be useful for knowing your enemy, know what makes them tick, and devise how to deal with them. Going beyond that becomes sympathizing with them, a pit of no return where you become their useful idiot.
Yes point taken. But again, I'm not at all advocating for Asians to put their necks out on the line for them right now (or ever if one chooses not to), but rather once our position is secured, why not help the other groups of people? It is the moral thing to do. There's little to be gained from being cruel masters.
>As for morality, I got only one word: Lol. We Asians are family-oriented though, so save that morality for your loved ones.
This ties back to my earlier point that humanity is an extended family. You don't treat all members of your family the same, do you? Of course not, that would be impossible. Some you like more, some you like less. Some you treat better and help out more, others you're simply indifferent to. But at the end of the day, they're still your family members. Barring unforgivable transgressions, you would not usually wish irreversible ills upon any member. And so it goes for me when it comes to humanity.
>Why is it always individuals from the losing side that talks about reconciling with everyone to sing cum bah yah? Why is it that Asians, the most ridiculed race on planet earth, who have the least reason to want to reconcile, have most people among them that want reconciliation?
Hopefully you realize by now that's not the message I was trying to convey. No illusions of pleading and begging the victor for pity and scraps on my end here. The future goal is exactly that, for the future, after we get our own shit taken care of. East Asians are well on their way to reclaiming the throne for the top civilizational center of the world. The dominance of the West over Asia is an aberration through the lens of history.
>You want to change the rules of the game from zero-sum (the way history and nature had operated since inception) to something else? At the very least, you have to be in charge in order to have any chance of changing the rules.
Precisely. This was implicitly stated in my previous comment, guess it wasn't clear enough.
>And all this without even having to look at how all utopian ideals fail to address how to change human nature to make that utopia work.
I don't believe in Utopias, because that implies there is some idealized final destination for society, which goes against science. And yes human nature needs to be changed for the better, it will continue to evolve, just as it has always done so. But if science and technology grants us the choice to direct it to a course that would be beneficial for all of humanity, why not take it?
>then we are eagerly wanting to break bread and seek commonality with white nationalists.
In general, Nationalists (who love their own) are not Supremacists (who hate and oppress others), this applies to nationalists of all races, whether they be Asian, white, brown or black. And if they follow similar core beliefs as those that I outlined, which many do, then they can definitely be reasoned with and made into allies for the common Human Nationalist cause. I'd die for my family, have love my people, and do good for humanity.
>What “unique strengths” would that be? Whites are more adept at leadership? Asians at being mental workhorses? Blacks at being physical workhorses? Latinos at keeping the spaceship decks immaculate?
Lol. Not everyone needs to work or even be on the spaceship. In any case, by the time such efforts become feasible, the state of science and technology (especially wrt automation) would likely be very different from that of today, so it's rather pointless to speculate about it now.
Has anyone else here read The 1000 Year Explosion?
I wanted to see what other people's thought of it.
This is absolute gibberish.
> A species can evolve "negatively," as well.
Not really.
Mutations are completely random. Selection pressures determine which ones are kept, because the ones that aid survival and reproduction get passed on. This means that some genes which are neither helpful nor unhelpful stick around simply because they are not "in the way." Meanwhile, some genes which actually hurt survival are kept simply because they are on the same chromosome as genes that are tremendously helpful. (E.g. Myopia has at least 26 genes associated with it, and it is also believed by some to be more common in people with high intelligence. This has led some researchers to propose that some of the genes responsible for myopia have continued to be passed down because they are located close to genes for high IQ.)
That is how evolution works. You can end up with "negative" traits through random mutation in a single generation, or because "negative" traits get passed down for some reason other than their own effects, or because a trait suddenly becomes "negative" with a change in environment.
But you don't evolve "negatively."
> Consider that several species have gone extinct.
Under natural circumstances, a very small number of species go extinct every year. This occurs because of rapid change in the climate, predation, or some other aspect of the environment that overwhelms the speed of evolutionary adaptation.
Man-made changes have rapidly accelerated the number of extinctions in the world; but that's another issue.
Either way, species do not "negatively" evolve.
> Anatomically speaking, there are very few things that define your race: your skin color and your facial traits are pretty much all there is.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Race affects pretty much all major tissues, including your skin, bones, muscles and neurons.
But really, race is determined by how your genetics "group" with other people; and that's not determined by your facial features or skin color. Images like this were not created by mapping people's noses and skin color.
> This doesn't mean we all evolved the same; it just implies that these attributes didn't evolve at all when humans migrated around the planet and our species likely started that way.
We have actually evolved a tremendous amount since we migrated around the planet. The majority of human differentiation has occurred since then.
Some anthropologists would actually argue that civilization itself accelerated our evolution significantly. See The 10,000 Year Explosion.
> I'm not saying "evolved" like Pokémon to imply that it's positive (nor am I saying it's negative), just to imply that it is part of the African variation of humans.
Which is included in a lot of other traits in which Africans differ from non-Africans.
Your stupidity/scientific ignorance is showing. Evolution didn't suddenly stop when humans left the African continent.
Anyway this is pointless, we're established that you're totally ignorant on this subject. I would, quite literally, bet everything that I own on the premise that you're not a scientist, and have zero background in genetics.
If you wish to actually educate yourself I suggest starting with the the 10,000 year explosion on recent human evolution, and Who We Are and How We Got Here for a general 'primer' on the science of human bio-diversity.
You won't ofc touch either of these books (or indeed, any book on science) because as I said you don't actually care about science, only progressive dogma masquerading as science.
Perhaps you are discussing speciation, and how we know when a population can no longer interbreed with other members of its clade? Sure, this is part of what makes paleontology and paleo-genetics non-trivial. I think however, not impossible; just non-trivial.
We can do cladistic analysis on existing species, which is how we infer e.g. a common ancestor for bears and raccoons. This is obviously easier when fossils, or even DNA, survive. However, even the gaps can tell us something.
Note that we have analyzed DNA of extinct animals, which is how we know about Neanderthal and Denisovian DNA admixtures. Bones (and teeth) can contain and preserve DNA, various substances (tar, amber, even mud) can preserve specimens of DNA for analysis millennia later. We analyze a Danish girl's DNA from her chewing gum from 5000 years ago, we know about the history of plant species from frozen Mammoth stomachs, we know about insect species from those preserved in Amber, we analyze the DNA from Otzi the Ice man (and from all the stuff he was carrying when he fell into the ice and got frozen), etc.
The oldest hominid DNA analyzed is about 400,000 years old, which for purposes of human evolution is quite significant. Sure, if we're looking at trilobyte fossils from 550 Million years ago in the early Cambrian, it is probably difficult to determine if we are looking at a variety or species (although I am not a paleontologist specializing in those, so I don't know.)
Back to the subject at hand though - for hominids, DNA at hand is incredibly useful. Note that there are also subtle clues - fixation rates, mutation rates, the breeder's equation, mDNA vs the rest, and so on which can tell us various things indirectly. You can learn more about some of that from <em>The 10,000 year explosion</em> by Cochrane and Harpending; if you're a starving student you can get it here, otherwise pony up the cash the authors deserve. The book is fascinating, accessible to amateurs, and all together outstanding.
that DNA encoding is what created those values.
https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429
Lol no it hasn't been disproven, that is laughable.
Here is some information on the subject.
Also not all ethnicities have lower Iq than Europeans, East Asians and Ashkenazy Jews have higher IQs.
https://www.amazon.ca/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nTdMY9RI-7E
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lsa_97KIlc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPA9ZnDCc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-tYmyJSVo
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
Evolution made major differences between groups. It's obvious but you are taught it isn't true because of the cultural revolution in the 60s. Any major geneticist will tell you intelligence is 80 percent hereditary.
> I asked what you would call that particular action of telling a woman she is a slut/prostitute for her political views
The process of active defamation manifested physically and condensed in a word that is supposed to be the extreme version of reality and thus not reflective of it, but a grotesque caricature of it, with the sole purpose of hurting one's (usually the recipient) feelings or reputation. In other words - an insult.
As to what purpose you work for by assigning a special categorization towards insults that are based on special categories of human beings, and thus seek to assign a greater underlying implications of them, the end game even tying them "contra UN principles blah blah" and projecting them into forms of "abuse" and "denying sexual liberty" (the emphasize being on liberty, divorced from the negative consequences of it) it seems to even elude you.
Insulting someone isn't shaming them. Shaming takes time, it takes effort, and it must be at least codified in the forms of social norms of particular culture. As to why female promiscuity is considered negative, we will leave that for another time, and I don't think that you would even consider any opinion (let alone fact) no matter how sweetly worded in the favour of vilification of it. Shaming is inherently an action divorced from morality. If you cease with slut shaming (which you can't do that, because women do the majority of it, and good luck trying to change the behaviour of the bearers of the holy XX chromosome pair), you will eventually remove the social check on female promiscuous behaviour. Combined with emergence of men groups which unlike MRA seek to go with the flow of female promiscuity instead of battling social injustices and institutionalized misandry (I love stealing "philosophical" terminology) you will have the recipe for the perfect casual sex culture. Which would not in itself be a problem had we not understand the basic mechanics of how civilization works.
In an sufficiently advanced decaying neoliberal capitalism, equality is a forced meme and one which is enforced to sustain a farce to keep the masses ignorant of the machinations of the bourgeoisie which, unregulated by the state, is in a state of moral decay. In such a system, men and women have no choice but to view each others as "equals" not in just the value they bring to the table, but in both the process and the value of bringing to the table, so to speak. While traditional gender roles force a specialization of both genders, and thus the competition can be only intragender, and not intergender, the standards which "femininity" and "masculinity" are judged by are radically different (and thus the female and the male cannot be equal, but only equivalent) the modern gender roles follow "one size fits all" pattern. Ignoring the fact that evolution did not stop when man (and woman, to satisfy the gurl power crowd with false rhetoric) invented civilization, but rather was accelerated by it, ignoring the fact that men and women are neurologically different, and ignoring the fact that any society that is worthy learning about (e.g. Romans, Greeks, British Empire, etc) was highly patriarchal and keen about the concepts of family, ignoring the fact that dissolution of family unit is the trademark of a decaying we could imagine this system working even under legal inequalities that make institution of marriage even more riskier to men, combing with the actual shaming that is done to not married men, and the fact that they're slowly catching up to that. But we cannot ignore these facts.
The ultimate endgame of a slut positive society, where inhibitions on sexual liberty of a female gender are removed, is the removal of inhibitions on sexual liberty of male gender. Men will understand why women do things they do and why they chose the men they chose. The inherent inequality between male and female sexual strategies and end games (for example "the double standard"), will result in men creating various different intricate strategies to avoid the necessity of marriage (which is going by third wave feminism thingy good, as institutions are tantamount to oppression) ranging from negating their sexual desires through masturbation while denying any other forms of relationship with women (for example, the Japanese herbivore men, or more extreme MGTOW) to the process of cheating the nature and artificially puffing up their value so that they can score with easy women (for example, PUA community). The ultimate irony is that divorced from the protection and obligations of traditional female gender roles, having to compete with men in a system that is increasingly pro their side - this not only being seen in legal inequalities, but the pervading feminism in places feminism should be dead, and failing to compete in certain areas due to evolutionary (oops, an evil biotruth) reasons then complaining about some inherent oppressive force underlying entirety of civilization (think of women in programming for example) men will ultimately approach a nihilistic form of looking at women as a necessary evil to satisfy their primal urges. In other terms, sexual objectification of women is the result of a woman positive society. Essentially, all men will turn to TRP, and when the oppressive atmosphere of political correctness recedes, they will all be a bit more honest about apathy (not hatred, mind you) towards women as autonomous creatures. Men care little for woman's intelligence, and more for her looks. We've been through this before and the only thing that BP offered is "It's a jaded revenge fantasy that they get off on. " of course, without actually being able to prove this.
>tl;dr
If you are contra slut shaming, then you must by default embrace male sexuality as well. Hence, "The Game" which would by conservatives and traditionalists be found as loathsome deceit is by definition a result of slut positive society. Welcome to the TRP community brother.
yes, among other things (selection over past 20k-50k years, larger population size in certain populations over past 10k years leading to more mutations and adaptations, etc.).
I'd highly encourage reading :
http://www.amazon.com/The-000-Year-Explosion-Civilization/dp/0465020429
Cochran was one of the first to hypothesize sapien-neanderthal interbreeding. He touches on several interesting topics in the book.
his blog (WestHunter) is a must read for speculation, comments, etc.
> Can you at least summarize their argument?
Their argument is that in recent human history selection pressures has changed dramatically and that there are many traces of recent human evolution in our DNA. Many of these changes affect our digestive system, caused by a different diet in societies with agriculture, such as the ability to process starch or milk products. They also argue that selection pressure for intelligence was greatly increased in some groups, such as European Jews. The last statement is based on the fact that Jews were only allowed to work in white collar jobs for centuries in a time when success was highly correlated with fertility. They also suggest that the high incidence of genetic diseases affecting neural development in Jews, such as Tay–Sachs disease, might be a consequence not of a population bottleneck, but of this selective pressure.
Popular alternatives to The 10,000 Year Explosion: ...
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
