But in a caste system such as India has, you also had downward mobility. A person could lose caste in various ways and sink downwards, especially as conditions were so crowded and harsh the very lowest of castes would probably not have reproduced themselves.
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ "Now is the winter of our discontent...." > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:52:33 -0700 > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Recent human selection > > Being much influenced by the concepts of evolutionary psychology, I > have tended to discount the idea of humans being much shaped by > recent evolution. Exceptions have been accumulating, the taming of > wild foxes in as few as 8 generations, and the acquisition of genes > (a number of them!) for adult lactose tolerance in peoples with a > dairy culture. Yes, you can get serious population average shifts if > the selection pressure is high enough. > > Now Dr. Gregory Clark, in one of those huge efforts that lead to > breakthroughs, has produced a study that makes a strong case for > recent (last few hundred years) and massive changes in population > average psychological traits. It leaves in place that a huge part of > our psychological traits did indeed come out of the stone age, but > adds to that recent and very strong selection pressures on the > population of settled agriculture societies in the "Malthusian trap." > > I came a bit late to this party, Dr. Clark's book _A Farewell to > Alms_ peaked at 17 on Amazon's sales months ago. My copy has not > come yet so I read this paper off his academic web site. > > http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf > > "Genetically Capitalist? The Malthusian Era, Institutions and the > Formation of Modern Preferences." > > There is lots of other material > here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html but > this paper is just stunning because of how much light it shines on a > long list of mysteries. Such as: Why did the modern world grow out > of a small part of Europe and why did it take so long? Why are the > Chinese doing so well compared to say Africa? > > The upshot of his research was that in the Mathusian era in England > people with the personality characteristics to become well off > economically had at least twice as many surviving children as those > in the lower economic classes--who were not replacing > themselves. This, of course, led to "downward social mobility," > where the numerous sons and daughters of the rich tended to be less > well off (on average) than their parents. But over 20 generations > (1200-1800) it did spread the genes for the personality > characteristics for accumulating wealth through the entire population. > > "In the institutional and technological context of these societies, > a new set of human attributes mattered for the only currency > that mattered in the Malthusian era, which was reproductive > success. In this world literacy and numeracy, which were irrelevant > before, were both helpful for economic success in agrarian > pre-industrial economies. Thus since economic success was > linked to reproductive success, facility with numbers and wordswas > pulled along in its wake. Since patience and hard work found > a new reward in a society with large amounts of capital, patience > and hard work were also favored." > > Fascinating work, memes that slot right in to the rest of my > understanding of the world and the people in it. I very strongly > recommend reading this paper at least. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
