Is war counteractive to evolution via natural selection or is the process simply post poned in peace time, and then taken to the extreme in times of war?
Does it really kill off the bravest and strongest or does it take those that are lazy, unfit and unaware (or even just kill at random)?
Im talking about modern warfare btw
>don't know if this is the right board but since Veeky Forums never discusses war i figured Veeky Forums would be better suited to providing some insight
Didn't notice the file name, sorry ameribros
It doesn't really matter considering most periods of high-casualty conflict don't last more than 10 years tops and that's literally nothing on an evolutionary timescale
What about the World Wars, would they have had a significant impact on the genetic stock of Europe?
I read this study:
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org
that in peacetime officers with high fwhr(face-to-width ration, related to testosterone and therefore whoever is the biggest and strongest), were higher ranking, but that in wartime, there were no distinctions based on physicality, and whoever died was completely random. So it would appear, at least according to this study of (finnish?) officers that there's no natural selection during war.
>genetic stock of Europe?
I dunno what you mean. Can you tell if someone is Polish or Romanian just by looking at their genes? There's literally no way to quantify this. Sure there are like a dozen jews left in Poland nowadays but that has nothing to do with genetics.
>Is war counteractive to evolution via natural selection
I do not understand what you mean by this. How can something be counteractive to evolution?
Or do you mean specifically natural selection. I feel it can be natural selection. Only breeding do I see as artificial.
I am personally really interested how contemporary society is a natural environment on its own and is selecting on humans.
Even in ancient and medieval warfare it wouldn't matter how strong or brave you were if you caught dysentery or cholera
Shouldn't ww1 at least have lead to the cucks of the USA signing up to go fighting in Europe?
>no natural selection during war
Not physically perhaps, but maybe there are intellectual traits that these officers posses that earns them the rank in times of war (when their actions actually mean something)
Do you have any similar studies? I'd love to read them
I was referring to their traits, for example are they more prone to cowardice, being overweight, laziness, depression etc
Are they genetically inferior to those that died is what im asking
I mean in that, perhaps the best genes are not the ones that get to return home
The immune system is not above the effects of genetics
I don't know what you mean by this
>no natural selection during war.
Even random selection is a kind of selection. Right?
>it wouldn't matter how strong or brave were
>if you caught dysentery or cholera
Also do not understand, you seem to implying it is only selection when it is about strong or brave. Disease can also be natural selection.
I've self-studied loads of evolutionary biology but I don't trust myself with it, so I hope an actual evolutionary biologist pops ups.
>best genes
Genes can be best at different things right? What u mean with it?
>their traits, for example are they more prone to cowardice, being overweight, laziness, depression etc
These are only partially influenced by genetics, if at all. Obesity and depression I'll grant you but cowardice and laziness are most likely from your upbringing and not your genes.
you cant retroactively say it was wrong for them to die, if they were the superior genome by definition they wouldn't have fought/died/other factor preventing wanted reproduction..
or maybe we are all equals and that is what their genetic coding specifically wanted, no rebreed/minimal etc. you can't say. only accept, explicitly those fighting under voluntary contract, if one was to draw a line in the sand..
Quite obvious things, im sure you've all met someone and noticed that you're stronger, better looking, more confident, healthier, smarter etc.
Some genes are simply superior to others
Im just asking if war eliminates paticularly good genes
What about bravery/aggression?
>Completely artifical action.
>Not even the meme "war for resources" nowadays in the modern world because most of it is political.
>"Natural Selection."
Fucking humanities.
What about evolution of non human animals during war time? With smaller animals you probably could observe some tendencies.
>Im just asking if war eliminates paticularly good genes
I think we would need to back it up with some statistics if you are really interested in this.
I have a feeling that many survivors and deaths in war were due to randomness.
But if I think about it, those who had a mindset of surviving instead of winning might be better off.
Addition:
I've read somewhere that Polish who fought back against Nazi oppressors had higher survival rates as those who didn't.
From ecology I know that deer who fight back against wolves have higher survival rate as those who run away from wolves.
You made an interesting thread by the way.
Artificial action still might lead to the evolution of people, moron. It would fall under natural selection because the idea that those more naturally suited for a particular hostile environment are going to thrive, ie war time. Dip shit.
>if they were the superior genome by definition they wouldn't have fought/died/other factor preventing wanted reproduction.
This is not at all how evolution works. Please read a book or something.
>What about bravery/aggression?
I dunno man I'm not a biologist. I guess testosterone has an effect on aggression but it's a moot point because natural selection takes place over HUGE timescales and not over the course of one or two lifetimes
Russians certainly didn't think so
You know what i mean, i couldn't find the phrase i was looking for
Also
>humans arent natural
I can nit pick too
Interesting but I'll focus on this for now
Birds probably come off the best tbqh
Great reply m8 thanks, ill look into the trend you pointed out as it does seem to make sense
>you made an interesting thread
Thanks again
It kills at random. If it was truly natural selection, Manfred von Richtofen wouldn't have died, Hermann Goering would have.
Nobody calls selective breeding "natural selection."
Fucking humanities.
>because natural selection takes place over HUGE timescales
It is actually not true, but I am careful on this since /an/ gave me a lot of backlash on this.
I base it on the book "Relentless evolution", it had several examples of insects and weeds quickly evolving. Even to the point of new species which /an/ deemed controversial as they got really mad about it.
>This is not at all how evolution works.
individuals make and are responsible for inclusive of all their own choices and decisions at all times. consciousness is in real time a perpetual phenomenom,
its arbitrary to compare yours to another beyond your own benefit (deemed as whatever) and there is no such thing as selflessness, its only ever a cover, to placate to historically standing innitiatives of social of collective guilt, placate this get that etc
evolution in this moment of any decision is as ampethetically relevent and valued as the entirity of all decisions made by all or any part of self or others at all or any part of times past present and eternally in the future
War kills at random, too inconsistently to do permanent damage to a people group unless it's an intentional and focused effort, and it almost never is outside of WWII.
While many strong and brave people did die, many more were still alive to either see victory, or still be alive in defeat.
but I personally do not believe in genetic stock or traits having that great of an effect on war, as modern war is mostly determined by who has the resources, rather than who is the better man. The Germans can claim to be superior all they want, but when Germany only has the resources to churn out 15,000 tanks while the purportedly inferior Russians can produce 35,000+ T-34's alone, genetic stock no longer becomes a factor in the outcome of battles, but rather strategy, firepower, and tactics decide it.
WWII is a bit of an odd duck when it comes to war as a whole tho. Not many wars are fought with the intention to annihilate entire races in mind, but are rather fought for land and geographic positioning. Almost all wars have little to no impact entire demographics as a whole unless it escalates to the scale of the World Wars, which as I said, are pretty unique compared to warfare as a whole.
That's because most insects and plants breed extremely quickly. Humans at most produce one child a year, and each child takes about 12 -14 years to be physically able to reproduce and 25ish years to reach full adulthood.
For comparison, a housefly can lay nearly a thousand eggs a week, and each of her spawn reach adulthood in a week or two. Dandelions produce about 70 seeds every few days during the spring and sometimes fall, and each seed takes 90 days to grow to maturity.
Yes I agree and wanted to put it in my reply but forgot. It was not the reason /an/ got upset tho.
They think that speciation cannot go that fast since there is always breeding between them.
I am not sure if I was being memed by Christfags or that I made a mistake which is perfectly possible.
>"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
War or at least any battle removes those least able to adapt themselves to the conditions presented.
Whether thos conditions are forced upon an individual by their own officers, the equipment they use or the enemy and arms they face is neither here nor there. Those are the conditions to which the individual must be most adaptable to survive.
I never felt that an (partly lucky) long range artillery strike that kills soldiers regardless of their ability and usefulness was proof that war is """natural selection""".
>the strong die while the weak remain
This is litterally the opposite of natural selection.
>This is litterally the opposite of natural selection.
Kek no idiot, natural selection just selects for whatever fits the environment. That can be anything.
On islands some species lose their ability to ward off predators. Of course this has more to do with a lack of selection but it is still a kind of natural selection.
Even if it is random it is a kind of selection. Most insects die because of sheer randomness.
As far as I know, evolution via natural selection is constantly occurring. As long as animals reproduce, evolution via natural selection occurs. I don't think it's possible to "counteract" it.
There will always be "bravest" and "strongest", just like there will always be the "lazy", "unfit", and "unaware" on another part of the spectrum.
No.
Genetics will not save you from disease, starvation and in modern times, artillery and air strikes.
>I am personally really interested how contemporary society is a natural environment on its own and is selecting on humans.
medicine and welfare basically nullify natural selection
Unless you have some biological weapon that only targets people with specific genes, how can war kill only the ones who strongest and most fit?
I mean, it's not like you can program a Howitzer to only drop artillery on Chad Thundercock and his buddies gun nest.
I'm not sure what you mean by natural selection. War is a specific kind of selection unparalleled with anything other as far as I could tell, especially when it comes to modern warfare, where machines and inventions took over, so the parameters of fitness have changed over time.
>Genetics will not save you from disease, starvation and in modern times, artillery and air strikes.
Some people are more vulnerable to disease and starvation as others, I do not agree.
As with airstrikes and artillery it is mostly random so I can agree but even a slightly higher chance of surviving is a kind of natural selection.
I am only skeptical whatever it will have notable genetic effects on the population.
>medicine and welfare basically nullify natural selection
Most people die after having children, sure. And I imagine that the little people that don't have relatives with similar genes. But I am unsure whatever natural selection is completely nullified.
Sexual selection and genetic drift are likely more important, though I am not even that sure if sexual selection leads to anything.
I remain doubtful on this subject unless there is actual research on it. I imagine there are people with a good understanding of evolution here but all we have done as of yet is speculating.
Mate, war is literally an extension of natural selection. A central part of natural selection is the fact that resources are a scarce thing, so individuals must outcompete their fellows to access resources. Most wars are rooted in resource competition. Nations war for the same reasons tribes warred. For resources and a place to live. Even ideological wars have their roots in the survival of the kin group, the kin group just happens to be members of the same ideology. Supporting your ideology helps your genes survive since you expect your ideolotical allies to support you (at a base level of thought).
In short, war is just an extension of any organism fighting for its cut of the pie. It's just at the level of nations since humans have higher thought processes and are a social animal.
Anyway, I have masters degree in evolutionary biology so it colors my perspective of your question differently than others.
>Applying Darwinism to humanity at this stage
evolution in humans at this point is no longer possible, this it.
That's how end most of Veeky Forums threads when uneducated americans joins the discussion.
> Forget about history, sociology and anthropology, we can explain all with muh genes
> Ignore the cultural/social/politic aspects of war and look at muh genes
> look at my transcultural IQ test, it explain all
> lol haplogroups
> muh best genetics
> muh human nature
> muh naturalization of social behavior
> muh social sciences are memes, look at my geeeeeeeneeeeeeeeess
>inb4 you can't use that many "muh X " in a single post
Wtf? The question was about natural selection, if history, sociology and anthropology tie in you can mention that. Why not contribute instead of complain?
You are only right to point out this:
> muh best genetics
Most seem to confuse best genetics with being strong when it can mean numerous things.
The rest of your stuff does not apply or hardly does to this topic but is more a rant about misconceptions in other threads.
I know both hardcore STEMlords and /pol/acks pollute threads with the kind of stuff you mention but I think this thread was kind of okay.
war is a complex social and cultural interaction (logistics, industry, ideology, training, technology)
selection of military personnel is based on complex criterias which have nothing to do with genes but with socialization of the individuals.
Exposition to danger is also highly different from units to another, from grades to another, but has nothing to do with genes
Civil populations are killed for political reasons, not for their genes
this is a common misconception on Veeky Forums that genes determine social behavior.
>genes of cowardice
>genes for strongest
> gene for confidence
> genes for intelligence
this thread is full of shit
But you seem to go for the opposite extreme of saying that everything is nurture instead of a mixture of both nature and nurture.
>which have nothing to do with genes
Not even a bit?
>genes of cowardice
But can individuals not be born to be bold or careful? This is even shown in animals.
>gene for confidence
Agree this has little or nothing to do with genes.
>genes for strongest
Do you disagree some people are born less stronger?
>genes for intelligence
I think we do not have a good enough concept of intelligence so I am not sure. And neuroplasticy shows that brains are changeable.
>Exposition to danger is also highly different from units to another, from grades to another, but has nothing to do with genes
>Civil populations are killed for political reasons, not for their genes
Sure but aren't it genes that potentially survive or not? Whatever it actually changes the genetic makeup is another thing and most likely the genetic makeup will be random, right?
I want to leave this here. Note I haven't read the papers involved so I cannot judge as of yet:
>genes of cowardice
Agree, this is social
>gene for confidence
Social as well
>genes for strongest
> genes for intelligence
Now you've gone full retard
it's bullshit
>mt. sinai hospital
>Rachel Yehuda
>sample size of 32
>can't openly deny it because MUH 6 GORRILION so it's quietly ignored
>>sample size of 32
That is problematic yes, but it doesn't necessary falsify it. Just means more testing should be done. Right?
>define strongest
>define intelligence
>define full retard
your musculature is largely defined by your lifestyle and exercise, only fat americans blame genetics for their obesity
Intelligence is mostly being well educated and able to answer culturaly selected questions.
> but muh genes
You think intellect isn't genetic? Oh my fucking god.
And of COURSE strength is genetic, mother fucker go look at some people on the street. Bone structure, height, testosterone, even the types of muscle fibers you have, it's 80 percent genetic.
> go look at people on the street to confirm my spontaneous anthropology
strong epistemology here
As I said, we can't have a good thread without retards who believe biology can explain social behavior/structure
Yes, you are stronger than the guy besides you who just got shredded by a mortar no one could see coming.
Why even think there is a natural selection with all the comforts and living standarts 21st century gave us?Does a Mk84 bomb selects the one unable to survive?In modern societies we've eradicated natural selection therefore we created a new step in evolution Homo Novus.
Evolution doesn't really work that way, nor that quickly... Nor do enough people actually die in war to really spur it, and far too many breed before they go off to war.
It certainly has a cultural impact though, information and culture have long since supplanted natural evolution. (And once we start genetically engineering ourselves, will do so completely.) Changes to those have a far larger impact on us. The world wars devastated Europe put enough of a dent in the male population, for instance, to give rise to women in the work force, followed by the Women's liberation movements.
Evolution-wise though, the only significant biological change we've had over the past 10,000 years, is that lactose tolerance is slightly more prevalent. (Yes, people are taller and longer lived, but that's due to nutritional changes brought about by technology and culture, not genetic evolution.)
>strongest
Able to lift the most weight
>intelligence
able to handle abstract concepts
>full retard
(you)
>I've only studied liberal arts: the post
Genetics determine your maximum muscle mass and size and your height, retard.
>Intelligence is mostly being well educated and able to answer culturaly selected questions.
Wow, it's like we live in a world built by the west or something
What, you think all people are born equal and then corrupted? Then I've got a bridge to sell you
>lift wheight
>very relevant in clusterfuck war scenario
>abstract concepts
>genetics will help you with that
>you studied liberal arts
>implying you studied anything
>falling to genes define all meme
this thread
We're not talking about war you mong, we're generally talking about how genetics influence strength
>genetics will help you with that
For some stupid people abstract concepts are simply out of their grasp, no matter how they try.
>implying you studied anything
Nice retort reddit, upvoted
>falling to genes define all meme
I never said that, but you feel the need to strawman me for some reason
>We're not talking about war you mong
read the thread
>For some stupid people abstract concepts are simply out of their grasp, no matter how they try.
Some people does not have the education to manipulate complex concepts invented by intellectuals, it is out of their social habitus, they are not limited by biology. Only diseases like down syndrome or alzheimer can limit your brain capacities.
Genetic variations between sane individuals are minors and are erased by the weight of socialization.
Prove me wrong
I know that retards above me are talking about it, but I was responding to a guy that believed strength wasn't genetic.
>Genetic variations between sane individuals are minors and are erased by the weight of socialization
I'm not talking about sanity, I'm talking about genius. It's the reason why Ashkenazis are so smart on average compared to other races, even though they've been oppressed like mad
Idk if I missed the OP's point but I thought he meant that the people who fought in the wars period were perhaps the strongest/smartest of their nation not did natural selection work in the actual battles
I feel like most of you are getting it wrong desu
I feel like the question could be stated
"Are there significant genetic differences between those who fought in x war and those who stayed at home"
I've thought about this before but I'm not sure considering countries that took huge amount of losses like Germany, USSR and Japan in WWII emerged from war and became even stronger
>Ashkénazis are so smart on average compared to other races
>transcultural IQ tests
>"races"
Is this bullshit supposed to prove my point wrong?
Do you know how IQ tests are constructed?
Did you wonder how the abstract concept of "intelligence" is culturally and socially defined?
You need to read more, and when I say "read", I'm not talking about buzzfeed articles or /pol/
Modern war has eliminated a lot of the 'survival of the fittest' from war. Your physique is far less of a factor in terms of being able to kill / be killed, though there are obviously elements of soldiering that require physical fitness.
In large part it's almost arbitrary who lives and dies when it comes to artillery/snipers/etc. You might get a touch of 'some people are better at knowing when an artillery shell is coming' (Junger talks about this in Storm of Steel) but it's not significant.
If anything it favors the people physically unfit enough to not qualify for military service, or the ones that seek non combat roles.
you can't use that many "muh X " in a single post, silly willy
Natural selection is a description of how species are created and transformed through successive generations by the forces of the environment around them. Nothing more. Adapting it to understand other things, particularly in relation to nuanced human sociological phenomena, is pointless and obtuse.
What is up with those idiots who deny war does not select? Even if it is random it is selection.
It could mean that it has no effect on the gene pool or does have effect on the gene pool but only random.
I do not see how randomness means no selection see also picture related.
