It's always interesting to see how the press office paints these things as historic eureka moments. These results, while fascinating, are basically in line with what we call Behavioral Ecology and more specifically, Human Behavioral Ecology. The latter has emerged as a pretty strong framework in the past few years. This sort of support is nice to see (and there's been a decent bit of buzz about this particular paper!), but it's evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
> It's always interesting to see how the press office paints these things as historic eureka moments. These results, while fascinating, are basically in line with what we call Behavioral Ecology and more specifically, Human Behavioral Ecology. The latter has emerged as a pretty strong framework in the past few years. This sort of support is nice to see (and there's been a decent bit of buzz about this particular paper!), but it's evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
It's almost like Man finally accepted that it is part of Nature, isn't?
It's sad, as Biologists we wasted so much time memorizing archaic data, experimental designs, mechanisms often based on the observations (Evolution and inheritance via genetics) of aristocrats who dropped out of Society (Darwin) or Monks (Mendel) with no real formal 'scientific education' instead of going out and falling in love with Nature and trying to utilize it's methods into our 21st calamity and increase it's use cases.
Irony and reminder of Man's infinite folly when it comes to Nature: Father of modern theory of Evolution (Charles Darwin) also practiced incest.
> Irony and reminder of Man's infinite folly when it comes to Nature: Father of modern theory of Evolution (Charles Darwin) also practiced incest.
That is a non sequitur. The article is same constraint lead to same outcomes. Humans as we know don't forage. If we did, there would be a Great extinction of edible species, followed by a famine.
Darwin had no hard proof inbreeding is a problem. We do now. He acted rationally based on his data.
1. Foraging Behavior
====================
1.1 Meat diet
1.2 Fish diet
1.3 Food storage
1.4 Day range
1.5 Migratory distance
2. Reproductive Behavior
========================
2.1 Age at first reproduction
2.2 Polygyny
2.3 Patrilocality
2.4 Exogamy
2.5 Divorce
3. Social Behavior
==================
3.1 Paternal care
3.2 Population density
3.3 Group size
3.4 Distribution range
3.5 Social classes
> For example, when obtaining food, there are environments where humans get a significant proportion of their calories from hunting. In these locations it was shown there are much larger proportions of carnivorous mammals and birds than elsewhere.
I would have expected that the hunting-niche filled up, so that it was rather anti-correlated. One species eats more meat another eats less.
For sexual behavior, I suppose I could see the geography (how big island in particular - is that where they find these "human populations who obtain most of their food by foraging in the environment where they live") playing a part. If people have to travel by water to find a mate that could change things.
I recently moved to a very dangerous place from one of the safest places in America. I've noticed changes in my behavior, and also the behavior of those around me.
There is almost a palpable brackish area where trust meets distrust.
I've always been a resilient cooperator, so I hope I can withstand the waves that are washing over me.
Some people adapt to their surroundings, and others blunder blindly forward in spite of any danger. If the ones pushing the boundary of safety to reap great rewards do well, others will emulate them.
If that fruit is poisoned though, the ones watching will be more cautious.
Are you the type of person who will cut down the strange fruit, and build a future of trust, safety, and dignity for all? I hope I am.
So, if we want to influence human behaviour in the modern world (first child at 20 or 30? Is aggression linked to desire / see to hunt?) can we take the lessons here and apply them to urban design?
Short answer: No. You should always be wary of trying to apply evolutionary models to achieve specific real-world goals. Given the past history here, I'll go out on a limb and say that it's always a mistake.
Even if it was the right choice, these sorts of things have a dizzying array of unintuitive results and even the academics involved are still working out a lot of the implications. In particular, we don't have a good understanding of how applicable these results (and the wider predictions of HBE) are to non-foraging human societies.
I think we do know of plenty of anti-patterns (ie concrete monstrosities, lack of local walkable amenities) so urban planning is still a Good Thing. If done right.
It seems to me that changing the environment to manipulate human behaviour ultimately creates stress (in a very literal sense), which is likely to undermine the goal.
Not necessarily - the change might be to make an environment that's less stressful to humans (e.g. humans might like an environment where they can see what's coming and avoid being ambushed).
Interesting, but is it surprising? I would expect most species to adapt to surroundings, and if something works well for one, then surely there is a large chance it may work for other species too?
Perhaps a sustainable ecosystem is more likely to thrive if those at the top follow the same model patterns of interaction.
.. and perhaps, the fact that there's an evolutionary biological precident suggests that we were in step with a sustainable model for longer than we've been out of step.
It's an analysis of observational data. It doesn't have to be surprising. Anyway it's nice to get a confirmation of something we might have only suspected before.
I would actually be surprised if humans would not adapt to the environment just like any other animal. Why should we be special and any different in the first place?
