Natural and Optimal Human habitat/habitats?

[Anopsology]

Ive always been into health and healthy living.

Ive been in a phase of studying evolutionary theories for a a few months now and have some questions!

The "Out of Africa Theory" makes sense and I tend to lend towards believing it.

Obviously humans all spread out eventually to places all around the world but

it got me to thinking... are we living in the right place?

All other animals tend to stay in there natural habitat. I mean, the great apes and primates are all still in Africa!

Maybe we should be there still? What would happen to a chimpanzee if you suddenly placed a group of

them in the South American Rainforest... would they survive and thrive? or do only humans have this ability?

SO....

Is there a natural habitat for humans? and is there an optimal habitat?

Obviously living in the Arctic in the dead of winter is not the optimal or natural human habitat.

Do I go back to our early ancestors who might I have lived in the trees in the rainforest to discover our natural habitat?

Do I go back to when we first wandered out of the rainforest and stumbled onto the Savanna in Africa?

Is our natural habitat our optimal habitat?

Does skin color and evolution play a role in what our optimal habitat might now be?

We all tend to want to be in warm conditions (70-85) degrees..

I want to live a harmonious natural life one day! and am wondering about the right location for it!

So my two main questions are the following and I have been pondering them for some time..

Is there a natural human habitat? (African Savanna, Tropical Rainforest, etc)

Is there an OPTIMAL human habitat? (some where we would survive longest and thrive the best)

Edited February 14, 2014 by Anopsology

[chadn737]

No, there is not a natural human habitat. To some extent, humans have evolved for many habitats. In Tibetan peoples, there are strong signals of natural selection in the genome for survival at high altitudes, indicating an example of local adaptation. By this logic then, the Himalayas are the natural habitat of the Tibetans.

 

There have been recent trends to try and live life styles based on our evolutionary history, the idea being that this is the secret for healthy living. Hence the paleo-diet.

 

The problem with this logic is that evolution does not select for long healthy lives or harmonious ones with nature. It selects for reproductive success. Ancient man typically died at a young age. He was plagued by disease, injury, and many maladies. We never evolved to live to 70 or more. One can live a harmonious life anywhere, whether the arctic or an island paradise.

[CharonY]

The premise is faulty. Many animals are migratory, even seasonal. Even if we only limit it to extant great apes (and thus ignoring migration in the past) we have two Pongo species (orangutan) in asia which have adapted to a more arboreal lifestyle than other great apes.

Adapting to new ecological niches and migration are very common occurrences.

 

Edit: aaand crossposted again.

Edited February 14, 2014 by CharonY

[Anopsology]

It just confuses me how we could have evolved in such a small amount of time...

 

I had this idea in my head that there is somewhere where humans are meant to live. All the natural food we are supposed to eat is there

and everything we are trying to do today is to recreate or mimic our natural environment.... and to live in this natural environment

would bring optimal health to a person. I am Caucasian does that mean I am more adapted to living in "Europe" than living in "Africa"

and would it be "optimal" for me to live in europe? I know this sound stupid the way I am stringing my questions together lol.. just been

pondering for a while now... There is nobody who can survive naked in freezing temperatures so I know cold climates are not "optimal"

 

 

So a native African who lives off the land in the Savanna could adapt and thrive just as well and live just as long if he/she were to move directly to Costa Rica?

Going from one climate to another and now eating local vegetation and local seafood, different amounts of sunlight, etc...

Edited February 14, 2014 by Anopsology

[chadn737]

Some adaptations can evolve relatively rapidly. Consider the evolution of lactose tolerance, which arose multiple times with the advent of animal domestication. There are population differences with different frequencies of lactose tolerance and intolerance and these differences coincide with the consumption of milk from domestic animals.

 

Humans have been migrating for many tens of thousands of years. We are true omnivores, whereas many apes have much more specialized or restricted diets. Rather than having evolved to fit a specific niche, you could view humans as having evolved to be generalists, with the ability to adapt to new and changing environments. This is a speculative statement, but humans may have evolved to be adaptable to any environment.

 

It is not the specific environment that drives our health, but our choices. As I stated earlier, man did not evolve to live long healthy lives in harmony with nature. We evolved to survive long enough to ensure reproduction and survival of the next generation. If they did not die in childhood, ancient man died relatively early. If you survived past 15, it is estimated that paleolithic man would live to maybe ~54.

 

We live long healthy lives in part by defying our ancient roots. A steady food supply from agriculture, the specialization of occupation and accumulation of knowledge that enables modern medicine, access to clean water, reduction of violence, etc. In fact, much of the genetic basis of modern disease is probably evolved. Beyond the obvious example of something like sickle cell anemia, consider Type 1 diabetes, which has been hypothesized to be an adaptation in early man to cold.

[Endy0816]

There's some stuff where your ethnicity and skin pigmentation can play a role but personally I feel it is pretty marginal. It isn't like you can't apply your brain to solve the problem instead. You have an issue with sun, grab some sunscreen or put on some clothing.

 

There's less obvious stuff so it can pay to know your own ethnicity and what beneficial actions you can take, but that's about the most you should ever need to worry about.

 

As far as diet goes most of the evidence just points to them going after whatever was the least energy intensive for the amount of energy provided. They were more focused on survival than healthy eating. Generally their lifestyle and the winnowing process at the time are what made them healthier than most of us are today.

[Anopsology]

yes I do believe that our skin tones have something to do with the envioronment we are best suited for.

 

Since a major major part of our evolution happened in the African Savanna does that mean it could be our current optimal habitat, or have we evolved past that?

or does ethnicity play a big role in where your natural habitat is?

 

I just always thought that the great apes our in the natural/optimal habitat right now so why shouldnt

there be a location best for us?

 

in my head there is this theory that there is specific location I should be in and be living in.. with the perfect temperature

and all natural food that my body is supposed to be eating, with the proper amount of sunshine, etc....

 

 

Or did us leaving Africa completely help humans evolve even more?

Is the African Savanna the same as it was in the days of our early ancestors.

[delboy]

The questions you have in mind are not really relevant to evolution surely - human technology (clothing, shelters, sunblock etc) renders them irrelevant. For a caucasian the most healthy amount of sunshine is a limited one, but this might be able to be managed in a hot country depending on lifestyle. Humans evolved in Africa, but lighter skin (and perhaps other adaptations to the cold) evolved further north so those humans were better adapted for more northern climates than to an African climate, but again modern human lifestyle makes it irrelevant. Only some humans left Africa of course, and only those that did had those slight adaptations to a more cold environment.

I should live in a climate that you like the best, and just live healthy wherever you are!

[CharonY]

Also think of invasive species. Being adapted to a certain habitat does not mean that one is unsuccessful in others. In some cases the opposite is true as one may rapidly fill ecological niches. Humans have the ability to transform the environment according to their needs and they can use instruments to a much higher degree than other animals. As such, habitats with more resources that can be transformed to their use (e.g. for agricultural purposes) or have more resources for manufacturing are better suited for humans than where they originally adapted to.

[Anopsology]

Im talking from more of a naturalist standpoint though. Living like a wild human without modern conveniences.. Except for some form of shelter

[overtone]

We can reverse engineer an environment from the premise that most of the technology came later - after most of the physiological adaptation.

 

We have: the environment is warm, tropical, sunny. It is variable and patchy in resource provision, but overall rich if the animal can take advantage of the variety. There are plentiful and reliable sources of fresh water, salt, high protein food including omega 3's caught without weapons and eaten raw, and citric acid (probably folic acid and a couple of others, also). The landscape features edges or ecosystem boundaries - trees/grass, water/land, flat/hilly, etc. - holds both forested and open land, and contains refuge adequate for groups of 50 - 150 hominid primates (cliffs, large trees, "islands" of some kind). The common ground surface is grass, dirt, and/or beach mud/sand (not harsh rock , thorny scrub, desert sand, lava, etc). This landscape and environment covers a large enough area to allow nomadic occupation by many groups of at least 50 each.

 

 

[Anopsology]

interesting...

 

SO we can always re create a man made natural type habitat but... what is the best natural human habitat? Would reverting back to living in the Savanna in Africa have any benefit to health? or the regions where our closest relatives the bonobos lives? All primates seem to live near the equator in a sense... IS there any reason why a human would live better in say Costa Rica than they would in Southern Asia.. I just have trouble seeing how we have evolved to "thrive" in every habitat. I know we can do it. We are intellegent.. we can find a way to live anywhere including the moon... but Im talking OPTIMAL and NATURAL. A habitat best suited for us.. Where we are supposed to be... Just like polar bears are supposed to live in the Arctic and Lions are supposed to live on the African Savanna...

Edited February 17, 2014 by Anopsology

[delboy]

SO we can always re create a man made natural type habitat but... what is the best natural human habitat? Would reverting back to living in the Savanna in Africa have any benefit to health?

 

Not in relation to caucasian skin colour since that is better adapted to a northern (cooler) climate.

Humans evolved to be very adaptable pretty early on - more so than the forest dependent apes. I think you would say that adaptability and a capability to live in a variety of habitats was a natural state for humans. We are a very different animal to a bonobo, and humans evolved to live in a completely different habitat to them.

[chadn737]

Again, I would just like to point out the fallacious reasoning at work that this is any way what is best or optimal for our health. Paleolithic man lived rather short brutal lives. The same is true of other apes. We did not evolve to live long healthy lives and our habitats certainly are not the secret to healthy living and there is no habitat best suited to us.

 

Really, this is the fallacy known as the "appeal to nature"....the idea that what is natural is good and what is unnatural is bad. It is actually due to the unnatural that we live long healthy lives, rather than dying in infancy from disease.

Edited February 17, 2014 by chadn737

[CharonY]

Indeed. Also living in the wild also involved utilizing resources efficiently. Even without technology (and seriously what level of tool use would be deemed "unnatural"?).

Obviously migrating to somewhere where there is more game or more plants to eat would be more beneficial than staying at some place where resources are more limited? As being said but others, the particular viewpoint is a romantic view on naturalism and has as such little to do with actual events in nature. Animals move and spread and they have done it forever. And under the right circumstances adaptive radiation can occur rapidly.

[Delta1212]

The best design to operate in a particular environment is not necessarily equivalent to that environment being the best for the operation of that design.

 

You can, for instance, design the best car for driving in the desert, but it will still probably last longer driving around an indoor track where it doesn't have to worry about heat and sand messing with the mechanics. It may not have to worry about those issues as much as other cars, but that doesn't mean they aren't issues.

 

Likewise, humanity evolved to be able to survive in an environment without a great deal of technology, but technology was developed in the first place because it made it easier to survive.

 

We adapted to our environment and then began adapting our environment to us. Our optimal environment is someplace that hovers around 70 degrees, has some shade to protect against the sun and doesn't overly expose us to precipitation.

 

We've artificially created little micro-environments that replicate our natural optimum better than nature and which we can transplant even into otherwise inhospitable places. Just because we built the environment instead of stumbling upon it by accident doesn't make it less healthy.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Delta1212

[michel123456]

Interesting question.

 

A way to find the answer by changing the question:

What would happen to Human Kind if we all became dumb? What if our intelligence vanishes? What would be our last ecological niche? Or would humanity disappear completely?

[overtone]

Paleolithic man lived rather short brutal lives. The same is true of other apes. We did not evolve to live long healthy lives and our habitats certainly are not the secret to healthy living and there is no habitat best suited to us.

The notion that the environment we are adapted for is maximally healthy for us is not a simple concept, agreed. One cannot naively take "warm, sunny, at the forested ocean mouth of a river draining a savanna highland" as some kind of optimal place for health - for starters, we appear to be built for nomadic foraging and variety of resource itself. Rather than a single best diet or environment, we seem to be built for various and ever-changing combinations and varieties.

 

But it is an error to presume that humans are not built to live longer lives than other apes or mammals of similar size - the age of first reproduction; the rate of reproduction, development, adult metabolism and other physiology; the social structures and every piece of evidence we have from heritage cultures; indicate a evolved prevalence of tribal members significantly older than fifty. The usual "average lifespan" number seriously misleads in this context - there is no indication that paleo - humans aged any faster than modern ones.

 

And that is basically the same, although with perhaps more solid backing, as saying that the dietary regime and environmental circumstances we evolved to match are very likely to be better for our health than others. That's the way to bet, on the way int to the hard data research. We don't need a romantic overlay of some natural Eden to guess, say, that hanging out around shorelines reduces hypertension, or that exclusion of seasonal tree fruits and tree nuts from the dietary regime risks a variety of heatlh problems.

Edited February 17, 2014 by overtone

[Anopsology]

So most agree that there is no healthiest environment/habitat and that we are naturally nomadic and this allowed us to become who we are today?
Is it possible that each specific individual is best suited for a specific location? Instead of me implying that the entire human species is best suited for one place.

 

 

 

just had a random thought though

 

The ability to use shelter protects us from predators, weather, keeps us safe, and allows us to sleep better because of the absence of noise and the fear of predators at night.... Then this in a sense alleviates stress which would allow us to be healthier and live longer..

[chadn737]

The notion that the environment we are adapted for is maximally healthy for us is not a simple concept, agreed. One cannot naively take "warm, sunny, at the forested ocean mouth of a river draining a savanna highland" as some kind of optimal place for health - for starters, we appear to be built for nomadic foraging and variety of resource itself. Rather than a single best diet or environment, we seem to be built for various and ever-changing combinations and varieties.

 

But it is an error to presume that humans are not built to live longer lives than other apes or mammals of similar size - the age of first reproduction; the rate of reproduction, development, adult metabolism and other physiology; the social structures and every piece of evidence we have from heritage cultures; indicate a evolved prevalence of tribal members significantly older than fifty. The usual "average lifespan" number seriously misleads in this context - there is no indication that paleo - humans aged any faster than modern ones.

 

And that is basically the same, although with perhaps more solid backing, as saying that the dietary regime and environmental circumstances we evolved to match are very likely to be better for our health than others. That's the way to bet, on the way int to the hard data research. We don't need a romantic overlay of some natural Eden to guess, say, that hanging out around shorelines reduces hypertension, or that exclusion of seasonal tree fruits and tree nuts from the dietary regime risks a variety of heatlh problems.

 

It is an error to presume that I meant humans should live to the same length as other apes. What I meant by that statement is what the average age relative to what is possible. Of course humans do not age at the same rate as apes, that should be so obvious as to not need specifying. However, modern humans, live far longer today, even when we factor out the overwhelming number that died in childhood in ancient times. Apes in captivity can live far longer on average than those in the wild.

 

However, that does not eliminate the fact that man evolved to live long enough to see successful reproduction and survival of their offspring and not much longer. Notice the key word survival. Human children have a rather long period of dependence upon their parents...many years in fact...before they even reach puberty. So yes, humans will have to live longer normal, but compared to modern standards, the average age of man through the majority of prehistory was still very short. Assuming they were even so lucky to survive past the age of 15, paleolithic man might live to be around 54. The average in modern times, world wide, is over 67. Even higher if we were to consider only westernized nations with all the features of modern life. In the US, that age is well into its 70s. It is highly unlikely that Evolution selected for such long lives, which would explain why our health typically declines so rapidly at such ages.

 

This is supported by the fact that age associated diseases have shown signs of POSiTIVE selection. Most notable of these are alleles associated with Alzheimer's disease, many loci of which appear to have been selected for. Its is likely that through human evolution, people never even lived to an age where alzheimer's would have been a hinderance to fitness.

 

What evidence is there that dietary regimes or environmental circumstances we evolved to are any better at promoting a long and healthy life compared to some modern alternative?

Edited February 18, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

 

 

However, modern humans, live far longer today, even when we factor out the overwhelming number that died in childhood in ancient times.

No we don't. Factor out the trauma and disease deaths, and the paleo folks lived to around 70, 75 (the Old Testament "three score and ten", written thousands of years ago, was what man was assigned as a good life - that's 70 years) and that's pretty much the planetary norm of decent health now. The modern first world medical stuff that keeps the wealthy going past the apparent design life kicks in around then - and there's stuff like Social Security in the US around age 65, etc.

 

The prevalence of violence and trauma in paleo human populations should not be overlooked in this context. Humans had to be healthy, vigorous, to keep up in their fifties and sixties - so they had to be designed to merely live, exist, quite a bit longer.

 

 

 

It is highly unlikely that Evolution selected for such long lives, which would explain why our health typically declines so rapidly at such ages.

 

This is supported by the fact that age associated diseases have shown signs of POSiTIVE selection. Most notable of these are alleles associated with Alzheimer's disease, many loci of which appear to have been selected for

Selection for vigor into one's sixties, which seems to be the evolved state, does not preclude vulnerability to age related diseases primed to kick in after age 70.

 

 

 

However, that does not eliminate the fact that man evolved to live long enough to see successful reproduction and survival of their offspring and not much longer.

And their grandchildren. Unless killed by trauma or specific disease, people were evolutionarily designed to live long enough to see their younger grandchildren reproduce in the paleo societies we know about - hence menopause, among other unusual human features. There's a body of thought that regards the evolution of grandmotherhood as a key species feature - a designed vigorous lifespan of sixty or more, with age related death around 70 or later.

 

Clearly the circumstances in which this was supposed to happen would have to have been conducive to good health.

[chadn737]

No we don't. Factor out the trauma and disease deaths, and the paleo folks lived to around 70, 75 (the Old Testament "three score and ten", written thousands of years ago, was what man was assigned as a good life - that's 70 years) and that's pretty much the planetary norm of decent health now. The modern first world medical stuff that keeps the wealthy going past the apparent design life kicks in around then - and there's stuff like Social Security in the US around age 65, etc.

 

The prevalence of violence and trauma in paleo human populations should not be overlooked in this context. Humans had to be healthy, vigorous, to keep up in their fifties and sixties - so they had to be designed to merely live, exist, quite a bit longer.

 

 

 

Selection for vigor into one's sixties, which seems to be the evolved state, does not preclude vulnerability to age related diseases primed to kick in after age 70.

 

 

 

And their grandchildren. Unless killed by trauma or specific disease, people were evolutionarily designed to live long enough to see their younger grandchildren reproduce in the paleo societies we know about - hence menopause, among other unusual human features. There's a body of thought that regards the evolution of grandmotherhood as a key species feature - a designed vigorous lifespan of sixty or more, with age related death around 70 or later.

 

Clearly the circumstances in which this was supposed to happen would have to have been conducive to good health.

 

 

Factor out the trauma and disease deaths and you have an environment nothing like what ancient man lived in or evolved under. In fact, this only proves my point, that man's ancient and "natural" habitat is not that which is most conducive to a long and healthy life.

 

More to come....but I have meetings and grants due.

[overtone]

 

 

Factor out the trauma and disease deaths and you have an environment nothing like what ancient man lived in or evolved under. In fact, this only proves my point, that man's ancient and "natural" habitat is not that which is most conducive to a long and healthy life

If you consider tens of thousands of years of circumstances such as diet and food/water sources, foraging regime and ecological nature of home range, daily and routine physical activity, climate and weather, vegetation and soil type, social and familial interaction, size of tribe, reproduction and child care and so forth and so on, as without evolutionary significance or major effect, then OK - discussion over.

 

Otherwise: Humans appear to have evolved to live healthy lives of about 70 years, in the right circumstances barring mishap - those circumstances seem to me to be worthy of inquiry. That they probably did not include grass grain, simple carbohydrate, or large mammal meat dietary foundation, long term sedentary residence in a small area, or deprivation of either fresh water or salt; that they probably included lots of daylight activity, sunlight exposure on bare skin, citric acid and folic acid and particular dietary protein composition, and variety in raw food sources apparently from an identifiable set not naturally ubiquitous on the planet, seems to me to suggest lines that this inquiry might take.

Edited February 18, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

If you consider tens of thousands of years of circumstances such as diet and food/water sources, foraging regime and ecological nature of home range, daily and routine physical activity, climate and weather, vegetation and soil type, social and familial interaction, size of tribe, reproduction and child care and so forth and so on, as without evolutionary significance or major effect, then OK - discussion over.

 

Otherwise: Humans appear to have evolved to live healthy lives of about 70 years, in the right circumstances barring mishap - those circumstances seem to me to be worthy of inquiry. That they probably did not include grass grain, simple carbohydrate, or large mammal meat dietary foundation, long term sedentary residence in a small area, or deprivation of either fresh water or salt; that they probably included lots of daylight activity, sunlight exposure on bare skin, citric acid and folic acid and particular dietary protein composition, and variety in raw food sources apparently from an identifiable set not naturally ubiquitous on the planet, seems to me to suggest lines that this inquiry might take.

 

 

I didn't consider them "irrelevant". On the contrary, I am taking into consideration the full conditions under which man evolved, not just the ones that support such blatant romanticizations of prehistoric man.

 

Just because we evolved under certain conditions does not mean that this is what is "optimal" for us. Its the classic appeal to nature fallacy. Many species evolved to run away from predators. That doesn't mean they will live to their full potential under constant threat of predators. On the contrary, remove them, place them in an environment where there are no predators and their life expectancy will go up.

 

Whole populations of humans have evolved means of tolerating debilitating diseases like malaria, ironically with the effect of having other horrible diseases. That doesn't mean that they will survive optimally under malaria rich environments. On the contrary, remove them from that and their life expectancy will go up. Evolution cares about long life only as far as it ensures reproductive success and no further.

 

The age of 70 is rather exceptional when the average age of prehistoric man was 54 (assuming they made it even past 15, otherwise the average was 33). There are many who live well over 100. This does not mean it is evolved, but rather under optimal conditions, which typically are not the ones we evolved under, man can extend his life. The effect of Natural Selection actually declines past the ages most relevant to reproductive success, pretty rapidly in fact. I am well aware of the "grandmother effect", but again, that does not mean we evolved to live to 70, especially when the average age of menopause is 51. You are talking about rather exceptional circumstances...that given the rare condition of not facing disease, starvation, etc...that somebody might live to 70.

 

Furthermore, in many populations there is clear selection for many of the environmental factors you said we are not evolved for. One reason why European populations may have lower incidence of diabetes is that early adoption of agriculture may have relaxed the pressure on low-carbohydrate intake which drives insulin resistance. Lactose tolerance is the canonical example of human evolution towards agricultural dependence.

Edited February 18, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

 

 

Just because we evolved under certain conditions does not mean that this is what is "optimal" for us.

So?

 

Its the classic appeal to nature fallacy.

I label what I'm doing the reasoning from evidence practice.

 

 

Many species evolved to run away from predators. That doesn't mean they will live to their full potential under constant threat of predators. On the contrary, remove them, place them in an environment where there are no predators and their life expectancy will go up.

But place them in an environment where they never run, and their healthy life expectancy may well go back down - how would you bet?

 

Because they evolved to live long heatlhy lives based on frequent running, see? They didn't evolve to get eaten by predators, but to escape them. A good healthy life involves some running, for these species. In our case: also dietary citric acid and certain protein composition, sunshine exposure on bare skin, and the like.

 

You seem to have mistaken the direction of argument.

 

 

 

The age of 70 is rather exceptional when the average age of prehistoric man was 54

Averages that include death by violence mislead in this discussion. Apparently, by the evidence we have, it was not "exceptional" for stone age humans who were not killed by infectious disease or violence to live to around 70, which is about the same age we expect a reasonably rich person not killed by violence or infectious disease to attain comfortably today if they live well - that seems to have been, and approximately be, the evolved healthy lifespan of our species in a well suited environment.

 

 

 

Furthermore, in many populations there is clear selection for many of the environmental factors you said we are not evolved for.

Not "many" - a few, recent, isolated, and notable. These exceptions are good tests of the rule - nobody is claiming that evolution has stopped, for our species, eh?