Ten oz Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 6 minutes ago, Unitive_Mystic said: Half of the world's population is vitamin D deficient, but they have doctors, vitamin supplements, and antibiotics. Half the world population lives on less than 2 euros a day. They absolutely do not all have those things. 7 minutes ago, Unitive_Mystic said: In the beginning people will have cars. And that is how they would relocate. And people would only relocate if it would be necessary. Which in alot of situations it would. People wouldn't use sunscreen, sunglasses, lenin clothing and skin cancer treatment and vitamin supplaments if they didn't have to. I think that you might think that people with white skin living in southern lattitude would be fine without modern conveniences. History would say otherwise. People from the Netherlands and England have been living in places like Africa and India several hundreds of years. Long before cars and commercially available sunscreen. They did things like wore hats and kept to the shade much as possible. Sun exposure doesn't limit where people can live. It never has.
Unitive_Mystic Posted June 24, 2018 Author Posted June 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Half the world population lives on less than 2 euros a day. They absolutely do not all have those things. People from the Netherlands and England have been living in places like Africa and India several hundreds of years. Long before cars and commercially available sunscreen. They did things like wore hats and kept to the shade much as possible. Sun exposure doesn't limit where people can live. It never has. Lots of people today are homebound, have an indoor occupation, and alot of people with dark skin live in northern latitudes so it doesnt surprise me to see so many people vitamin D deficient. That doesn't make D deficiency harmless and in a collapsed society, it would be even more harmful (because of the importance of immunity to sickness and the preservation of energy) White people have been living in southern climates for hundreds of years. They used brimmed hats, linen clothing, natural sunscreen, long beards and hair. These methods are good but alot of times they were inefficient or made you even hotter outside, still had prematurely aged skin and a higher skin cancer risk. Still better off in their natural habitat. Let's change the situation and say that civilization wasn't collapsed yet and we all had a warning. Then, would you think that we should relocate to areas we can live as naturally as possible while we could?
Ten oz Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 33 minutes ago, Unitive_Mystic said: Let's change the situation and say that civilization wasn't collapsed yet and we all had a warning. Then, would you think that we should relocate to areas we can live as naturally as possible while we could? Humans can live in nearly all environments. Being set back a generation or 2 wouldn't change that.
Ken Fabian Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) Unitive Mystic - I don't see any obvious mechanism or motivation that would induce the kind of preferential migration patterns you suggest - ie would send pale skinned people to high latitudes and dark skinned people to the equatorial regions - they wouldn't know that would be a long term solution or even any kind of solution, even if they have the means. Getting sunburned can prompt changes to behaviour - make hats or other kinds of clothing (especially parents doing so for vulnerable youngsters), have shade in and around camps, change time of day for some activities - but I doubt migration would occur to people as a rational response; within walking distance there would be no apparent differences in sun exposure except by changes to vegetation or perhaps deep valleys vs highlands rather than latitude. It's clearly possible for populations to do well enough for other reasons that sun exposure or vitamin D deficiencies is not going to stop them. Migrations tend to either be motivated by belief that the destination offers opportunities, or motivated by desperate need and will lack clear direction. Raised levels of dangerous cancers later in life may or may not be understood as being related to sun exposure, but I don't see that we can assume they would know that or know that North/South migration would help - and, all things considered probably won't. Rather than migration changing what mix of skin types in different geographic/climatic regions the real mechanism that looks most relevant would be evolutionary - but we then need to assume that civilisation and long distance travel doesn't arise again over evolutionary time frames and I doubt that would be the case. Assuming it doesn't it is certainly possible that some populations would divide across skin colour lines and intermarriage would be uncommon but the notion that pale skins belong on one side of an imaginary line and all the rest (the "one drop" rule) on the other has always been false. To me it looks like the easiest way to a permanent solution to vulnerability to sun exposure in pale skinned people in hot and sunny climates/dark skinned in sun poor climates would be intermarriage (gene flow), not migration, and this is very likely to happen, even with racist, isolationist societies given enough time; ie those that 'successfully' prevented intermarriage would be less fit than populations that allow or encourage it. Given that the genetics for more melanin rich skins has already evolved, gene flow can introduce it rapidly (in evolutionary terms) to populations that don't have it, and vice versa. No need to migrate. Edited June 25, 2018 by Ken Fabian
Unitive_Mystic Posted June 25, 2018 Author Posted June 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: Unitive Mystic - I don't see any obvious mechanism or motivation that would induce the kind of preferential migration patterns you suggest - ie would send pale skinned people to high latitudes and dark skinned people to the equatorial regions - they wouldn't know that would be a long term solution or even any kind of solution, even if they have the means. Getting sunburned can prompt changes to behaviour - make hats or other kinds of clothing (especially parents doing so for vulnerable youngsters), have shade in and around camps, change time of day for some activities - but I doubt migration would occur to people as a rational response; within walking distance there would be no apparent differences in sun exposure except by changes to vegetation or perhaps deep valleys vs highlands rather than latitude. It's clearly possible for populations to do well enough for other reasons that sun exposure or vitamin D deficiencies is not going to stop them. Migrations tend to either be motivated by belief that the destination offers opportunities, or motivated by desperate need and will lack clear direction. Raised levels of dangerous cancers later in life may or may not be understood as being related to sun exposure, but I don't see that we can assume they would know that or know that North/South migration would help - and, all things considered probably won't. Rather than migration changing what mix of skin types in different geographic/climatic regions the real mechanism that looks most relevant would be evolutionary - but we then need to assume that civilisation and long distance travel doesn't arise again over evolutionary time frames and I doubt that would be the case. It is certainly possible that some populations would divide across skin colour lines and intermarriage would be uncommon but the notion that pale skins belong on one side of an imaginary line and all the rest (the "one drop" rule) on the other has always been false. To me it looks like the easiest way to a permanent solution to vulnerability to sun exposure in pale skinned people in hot and sunny climates/dark skinned in sun poor climates would be intermarriage (gene flow), not migration, and this is very likely to happen, even with racist, isolationist societies given enough time. Given that the genetics for more melanin rich skins has already evolved, gene flow can introduce it rapidly (in evolutionary terms) to populations that don't have it, and vice versa. So you essentially agree that pale and dark skined people will congregate in some populations? The alternative to migration in such a situation would be intermarriage, of course. However that is highly unlikely, because when it comes to physical attraction people, especailly males, they tend to be attracted to people that look like them. Male might be attracted to the most subtle things that are actually a similarity. For an example a person with colored eyes might find a female with colored eyes more attractive than a browned eyed female. According to research reported in the July 2010 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, we are attracted to people who resemble our parents or ourselves. this would also include skin color. So by looking at society as a whole, the majority of people will probably marry those who are within their own race. So I am not sure if light skinned people will choose to do that instead of traveling to a coniferous forest, dicideous forest, or a northern mountain range. Perhaps some people will choose to intermarriage but most might choose to migrate. I personally know people that would choose to migrate and I think more people will choose to if they find it necessary. Do you agree? Why or why not? 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: Humans can live in nearly all environments. Being set back a generation or 2 wouldn't change that. If that was the case everybody would be the same color. People that prepare for these disastrous events know to stock up on vitamin D because the point in that survival situation is to be as healthy as possible. "Stocking up on multivitamins, Vitamin-C, etc., is an important additional “to-do” on a prepper’s list. As modern life as we know it falls further into decline, you need to stay as healthy as possible in case the SHTF." "The point is, you should recognize that you will probably not be eating as well as you’ve been accustomed to, and there may be a need for vitamins in your preps." Health would be more important to us in a survival situation, especially if we have to live as natural as possible. And moving to our natural habitat would be a step to take in order to do that.
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 4 hours ago, Unitive_Mystic said: So you essentially agree that pale and dark skined people will congregate in some populations? No more than is currently the case. 4 hours ago, Unitive_Mystic said: If that was the case everybody would be the same color. Hundreds of thousands of years ago the only mode of transportation was ones feet. As previously mentioned migration came with many dangers and unknowns. Groups of humans being isolated from each other wasn't a social choice. Soon as better modes of transportation we're developed humans established global relationships. I think you are seriously misreading history. 4 hours ago, Unitive_Mystic said: So by looking at society as a whole, the majority of people will probably marry those who are within their own race. And yet entire populations of people throughout Central and South America are essentially bi-racial going back to the error of your initial post which identified Mexico as a race. Additionally Neanderthal and denisovan DNA is present in billions of people. Humans are a mixed bag and have been for millenia. Your picking and choosing of social norms isn't consistent. You are imagining some apocalyptic situation where all technology and knowledge is lost to the point where people migrate based on skin tone (which has never happened in history) yet still strictly follow loosely held societal norms. It doesn't make any sense.
swansont Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 8 hours ago, Unitive_Mystic said: People that prepare for these disastrous events know to stock up on vitamin D because the point in that survival situation is to be as healthy as possible. There's a huge gap between "be as healthy as possible" and "you are going to die" If you back a few hundred years, most of the population was malnourished in some way. They still survived. Humans have gotten taller over recent generations because of better nutrition, especially as children. But if you don't get your recommended dose of a particular vitamin one day, you don't immediately keel over. 1
StringJunky Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, swansont said: There's a huge gap between "be as healthy as possible" and "you are going to die" If you back a few hundred years, most of the population was malnourished in some way. They still survived. Humans have gotten taller over recent generations because of better nutrition, especially as children. But if you don't get your recommended dose of a particular vitamin one day, you don't immediately keel over. It most likely would have kicked-in in middle age with a generally weaker skeleton, which probably affected their strength/usefulness/longevity in pre-modern times. Modern medicine and relative affluence mitigates it now in first world societies with mobility devices and social care. Edited June 25, 2018 by StringJunky
swansont Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Just now, StringJunky said: It most likely would have kicked-in in middle age with a generally weaker skeleton, which probably affected their strength/usefulness/longevity in pre-modern times. Modern medicine and relative affluence mitigates it now in first world societies. Which means no direct effect on reproduction, so any evolutionary pressure (which is the focus of the OP) is second order or lower. We've had agriculture for more than 10k years, and modern medicine and agriculture for less than 150, with minimal evolutionary effect. It doesn't seem reasonable that a loss of technological capability would be a big deal, evolutionarily speaking. If you have a cataclysm of some sort a lot of people my die, but from an evolutionary standpoint it's not a big deal. If our population was cut in half that takes us back 50 years, give or take. Not a lot of evolutionary change in 2 generations.
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 42 minutes ago, StringJunky said: It most likely would have kicked-in in middle age with a generally weaker skeleton, which probably affected their strength/usefulness/longevity in pre-modern times. Modern medicine and relative affluence mitigates it now in first world societies with mobility devices and social care. If civilization fell and no one was around to maintain Nuclear power plants, chemical storage facilities, and etc the remaining people would have much bigger problems than optimal Vitamin D levels. I think the OP is simply searching for a scientific reason to say races shouldn't be living together.
Unitive_Mystic Posted June 25, 2018 Author Posted June 25, 2018 40 minutes ago, Ten oz said: If civilization fell and no one was around to maintain Nuclear power plants, chemical storage facilities, and etc the remaining people would have much bigger problems than optimal Vitamin D levels. I think the OP is simply searching for a scientific reason to say races shouldn't be living together. I am searching for a premise to a situation of civilization collapse. Where would humans have the most garaunteed survival? Together or apart? It doesn't matter either way. I just don't understand why vitamin D deficiency is being looked at as harmless. Yes, people will have other problems besides vitamin D deficiency, but vitamin D deficiency will be one of them.
Scott of the Antares Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 I think vitamin D deficiency would come around 5Oth on a list of human concerns for post-civilisation requirements. 1
StringJunky Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: Which means no direct effect on reproduction, so any evolutionary pressure (which is the focus of the OP) is second order or lower. We've had agriculture for more than 10k years, and modern medicine and agriculture for less than 150, with minimal evolutionary effect. It doesn't seem reasonable that a loss of technological capability would be a big deal, evolutionarily speaking. If you have a cataclysm of some sort a lot of people my die, but from an evolutionary standpoint it's not a big deal. If our population was cut in half that takes us back 50 years, give or take. Not a lot of evolutionary change in 2 generations. I forgot about ricketts. that causes deformities of the long bones in particular. This is a childhood condition. that would have an effect on fecundity. Edited June 25, 2018 by StringJunky
dimreepr Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 17 hours ago, Sensei said: Collapse of civilization does not necessarily means immediate lost of knowledge. Knowledge will be the most valuable thing you can have. 4 I think it does, most of what we know about how to survive depends on supermarkets and I grew up on a farm. But even if I was an expert in self-sufficiency there's, at least, 1,000,000 who have no idea and would be starving, I might survive but its a million to one chance. Although it wouldn't affect the Maasai.
Unitive_Mystic Posted June 25, 2018 Author Posted June 25, 2018 46 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said: I think vitamin D deficiency would come around 5Oth on a list of human concerns for post-civilisation requirements. In the beginning it would be. But once the smart ones have a homestead somewhere in the country they probably would rather have proper amounts of vitamin D. Especailly because soap would be scarce and fighting of illnesses would be very important. Also you would probably be using more energy than you has to in modern civilization.
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Even peopt less effecient at producing Vitamin D in northern areas are still able to do so. Rather than 20 minutes outside each day in the sun perhaps they'd need an hour. The issue of vitamin D in a world post civilization is being greatly overstated by the OP.
StringJunky Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Even peopt less effecient at producing Vitamin D in northern areas are still able to do so. Rather than 20 minutes outside each day in the sun perhaps they'd need an hour. The issue of vitamin D in a world post civilization is being greatly overstated by the OP. The sun's not on a light-switch. There are such things as cloudy days and very short days in northern lattitudes. From about October to April in the UK, there is insufficient sunlight for adequate vitamin D production, even if every day was cloudless. The further north, the worse it gets. Edited June 25, 2018 by StringJunky
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, StringJunky said: The sun's not on a light-switch. There are such things as cloudy days and very short days in northern lattitudes. From about October to April in the UK, there is insufficient sunlight for adequate vitamin D production, even if every day was cloudless. The further north, the worse it gets. And yet 7.5 million black people live in the UK.
swansont Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, StringJunky said: I forgot about ricketts. that causes deformities of the long bones in particular. This is a childhood condition. that would have an effect on fecundity. And other diseases. My point is that humans have previously survived these challenges. We didn't evolve past getting rickets, so there is no new evolutionary pressure here.
StringJunky Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said: And yet 7.5 million black people live in the UK. Do we know their health status due to lack of it? All we can say is that they are alive 3 minutes ago, swansont said: And other diseases. My point is that humans have previously survived these challenges. We didn't evolve past getting rickets, so there is no new evolutionary pressure here. OK.
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, StringJunky said: Do we know their health status due to lack of it? All we can say is that they are alive Mortality rates for different groups in the UK are fairly consistent across all groups. So we at least know they live as long as is to be expected for humans in the UK. Quote The life expectancy of White Scottish males at birth was 74.7 years (95% CI 74.6 to 74.8), similar to Mixed Background (73.0; 70.2 to 75.8) and White Irish (75.0; 74.0 to 75.9), but shorter than Indian (80.9; 78.4 to 83.4), Pakistani (79.3; 76.9 to 81.6), Chinese (79.0; 76.5 to 81.5), Other White British (78.9; 78.6 to 79.2) and Other White (77.2; 76.4 to 78.1). The life expectancy of White Scottish females was 79.4 years (79.3 to 79.5), similar to mixed background (79.3; 76.6 to 82.0), but shorter than Pakistani (84.6; 82.0 to 87.3), Chinese (83.4; 81.1 to 85.7), Indian (83.3; 80.7 to 85.9), Other White British (82.6; 82.3 to 82.9), other White (82.0; 81.3 to 82.8) and White Irish (81; 80.2 to 81.8). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136685/
StringJunky Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 19 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Mortality rates for different groups in the UK are fairly consistent across all groups. So we at least know they live as long as is to be expected for humans in the UK. What about overall health. No one said it's a mortal illness.
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 47 minutes ago, StringJunky said: What about overall health. No one said it's a mortal illness. Life long unhealthy people don't typical live long as healthy people do. If you are aware of a study showing that people with darker skin in the UK have health issues which significantly impact their lives please provide it.
StringJunky Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Life long unhealthy people don't typical live long as healthy people do. If you are aware of a study showing that people with darker skin in the UK have health issues which significantly impact their lives please provide it. As I said earlier: Quote Do we know their health status due to lack of it? All we can say is that they are alive The situation is unknown but needs to be known.
Ten oz Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 18 minutes ago, StringJunky said: The situation is unknown but needs to be known. From everything I have read it is recommended by health officials that everyone in the UK take a vitamin supplement with people over 65yrs of age, child, pregnant women, and darker skinned people being at greater risk low levels. Nearly everything I have seen lists spending more time outside with skin exposing as a solution to the problem along with things like eating eggs or fatty fish. I have found nothing which indicates separate guidelines for darker skinned people or eluded to a more systemic problem for darker skinned people. In this case I think the lack of evidence, despite years of data collection, tells us enough answer the OP's question.
Recommended Posts