New Findings on Neanderthal Admixture ( East Asians vs. Europeans )

[Anthro-inclined]

New study shows that East Asians Carry a higher percentage Neanderthal admixture than Europeans. The new study came out less than a month ago and found that East Asians carried on average a 40% higher degree of admixture from Neanderthals when compared to Europeans. Theories are circulating as to why this is the case, my personal opinion and that of a few other amateurs, is that East Asians have experienced much lower genetic flow between Africa causing a slight isolation and in turn allowing for a greater preservation of their admixture, while Europeans did not experience such an isolation. The theory put forward by the study opts for a differing conclusion. Their belief is that rather than one single admixture event in the Middle east c.70000-50000 YBP, that some event must have occurred after the separation of East Asians and Europeans, in turn postulating multiple regions of Neanderthal mixing.
The study also came out with some other findings, including a relatively significant admixture in the Maasai, proving some sub Saharan/Sahelian populations experienced Neanderthal gene flow.

Here are a few links to the study and a couple of opinion pieces.
Full Study:http://www.genetics.org/content/earl....full.pdf+html
Dienekes:http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2013/02/...-ancestry.html
Misc Sources:http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2013/02...thal-than.html
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index...ans-did.80626/

[Anthro-inclined]

Few more links:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111031154119.htm
www.topix.com/forum/afam/T8AKNG52QO8SQ5QIU
First link is a year old and dosent have to do with the thread topic, but gives a rundown of the neanderthal/ denisovan admixture. The latter is just another article on the new study. Also heres a link on the possibility of cloning a neanderthal, and if it is ethical, just some extra food for thought.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130306-neanderthal-genome-extinction-cloning-hominid-science/
Also feel free to give input on either.

[nordicwarrior]

This is an excellent find Anthro... I like this study for entirely selfish reasons (because it strengthens two of my opinions):

1. It helps prove Neanderthal was not so dumb afterall. The slightly higher I.Q. associated with Asian haplotypes vs. Western and/or African haplotypes is of course controversial, but most realize East Asians do tend be an intelligent group. Could this increase in cognitive ability be due to increased exposure to Neanderthal genetics?

2. It's one more straw on the Recent Out of Africa camel's back. If you read carefully, this study postulates a second later mixing of Neanderthal in Asia that happened outside of the European/Neanderthal combination(s).

On a somewhat related note, Melanesia is going to hold some fascinating surprises genetically speaking in my opinion (with a higher Neanderthal and Denisovan percentages). I first knew this population held on to a powerful combination of DNA when I watched them construct 100 ft. towers made out of branches-- and then jump off head first with only vines wrapped around their feet. Hybrid vigor theory? Me thinks it's a possiblity...

[Anthro-inclined]

This is an excellent find Anthro... I like this study for entirely selfish reasons (because it strengthens two of my opinions):

1. It helps prove Neanderthal was not so dumb afterall. The slightly higher I.Q. associated with Asian haplotypes vs. Western and/or African haplotypes is of course controversial, but most realize East Asians do tend be an intelligent group. Could this increase in cognitive ability be due to increased exposure to Neanderthal genetics?

2. It's one more straw on the Recent Out of Africa camel's back. If you read carefully, this study postulates a second later mixing of Neanderthal in Asia that happened outside of the European/Neanderthal mixing.

On a somewhat related note, Melanesia is going to hold some fascinating surprises genetically speaking in my opinion. I knew this population held on to a powerful combination of DNA when I first watched them construct 100 ft. towers made out of branches and then jumped off head first attached only to vines wrapped their feet. Hybrid vigor theory? I think it's a possiblity...

Thank you, I came across the study yesterday and figured it would be of interest to the Forum. Interesting points about the percieved greater intelligence in East Asians, i dont know how much of a little contribution( less than 2%) would effect their intelligence, but it is possible. Your point about taking away from the Out of Africa theory is also up for debate, I still think that because of the low Neanderthal frequency overall, that there must have only been one mixing event in the middle east and not many all across Eurasia
, however the study does side with you on this one so i see validity in your statement. I guess one way to prove your theory is if they could find a distinct difference in the specific admixture when compared to Europeans, i hope that you are right on this, because as much as I believe in the Recent African Origin Theory, a multiregional one would be much more interesting in Anthropological terms.
Also, I to have seen the cultural practice of the Melanesians that you described, very interesting that you bring it up, what do you think this cultural practice has in correlation to their Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors?

[nordicwarrior]

...Also, I to have seen the cultural practice of the Melanesians that you described, very interesting that you bring it up, what do you think this cultural practice has in correlation to their Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors?

Mainly that these extra "layers" of contribution may give the resulting groups different orientations/perceptions/methods of calculating and processing information from other more commonly found populations (common being a relative term-- common to Europe and North America).

[LeBrok]

1. It helps prove Neanderthal was not so dumb afterall. The slightly higher I.Q. associated with Asian haplotypes vs. Western and/or

I'm sorry nordicfoyer, but I have to pour this bucket with cold water on wise Neanderthal hypothesis. I'm not saying they were dumbdumbs, but they didn't contributed much to our intelligence either. There is a reason why Neanderthals were stuck in same stone age development for good 600k years, and it was us Homo Sapience who finally pushed it forward. I'm also not saying that people of stone age were much smarter than Neanderthals. Basically they were as smart as their environment required from them.

The true intelligence push came with herding and farming, the food production skills of our contemporary people. These changes influenced development of new skills. We produced so much that we needed to find new systems to control our livestock. We needed to start counting the sheep and cows, begs with wheat and measure our fields for next year crops. Plan when to plant crops, when to harvest and invent the calendar. The invention of money was simply genius but it also pushed the rest of us to get acquainted with arithmetic, to save money, pay taxes or charge interest, and work harder and harder.
To make my point even clearer, I would say that our intelligence and set of skills is adequate and grew together with our gradual development through 10k years of farming to today's technological civilization. We have changed the environment but we also genetically adapted to fit in it and use it even better, more efficient. That's why we fit in our world quite well. We learn, we work, we have kids, homes, cars, vacations, etc.
Now tell me how well pure hunter-gatherers, like Perrier Indians or Australian Aborigines, fit our industrial/production civilization? Should we say "With great difficulty"?
Don't take me wrong. I really want them to fit and feel good in it as I do, and wish them well, but they have missed 10k years of farming to really enjoy it. ( PS. let's not pick too much through little details, I was talking in general/statistical therms)

[nordicwarrior]

I agree with much of what you're saying Lebrok-- my idea revolves around the push forward in intelligence resulting from the neanderthal and sapien mixing DNA. The resulting stock benefited very much from hybrid theory.

It's the "Hey, you put your chocolate in my peanut butter-- no, you put your peanut butter in my chocolate" scenerio. The end result is the delicious Reeses' Peanut Butter cup of human evolution, where the end result is better than both halves.

But one on one, I think pre-mix Neanderthal was as intelligent as homo sapien. Homo Sapien probably did have a large advantage in tribal organization and also sheer numbers would come into play. I see parallels between Neanderthal/Homo Sapien and haplogroups I and R (esp. R1b) actually.

[nordicwarrior]

If they don't have Reese's in Europe, my above point won't make much sense.

But the Australian Aborigines and Perrier Indians wouldn't be immune to hybrid vigor-- no group is. I detest this person's politics, but a prime example of hybrid vigor in real life is Obama. His Kenyan father and his Kansas mother (for now we will say Kansas, but her origins could fill another few threads) produced an off spring more intelligent and successful than either parent.

So one day an Australian Aborigine may mate with a North Korean business man or waitress from Sweden, and their child might cure cancer or figure out cold fusion. Not all of their children would be geniuses, but there might be one that combines the best attributes of each side.

Could the majority of modern man be a successful blending of Neanderthal's larger brain pan and Homo Sapien's quicker firing synapses?

**EDIT** And please remember Lebrok, h. sapiens right out of Africa did not bring us agriculture. The resulting mix of Neanderthal/Homo Sapien did.

Pre-mix Neanderthal did have controlled fire, boat travel, and artwork before ROA Homo Sapien. The peanut butter cup post mix children brought farming, cities, airplanes, and taxes. They could have skipped the taxes though.

[LeBrok]

If they don't have Reese's in Europe, my above point won't make much sense.

But the Australian Aborigines and Perrier Indians wouldn't be immune to hybrid vigor-- no group is. I detest this person's politics, but a prime example of hybrid vigor in real life is Obama. His Kenyan father and his Kansas mother (for now we will say Kansas, but her origins could fill another few threads) produced an off spring more intelligent and successful than either parent.

So one day an Australian Aborigine may mate with a North Korean business man or waitress from Sweden, and their child might cure cancer or figure out cold fusion. Not all of their children would be geniuses, but there might be one that combines the best attributes of each side.

I believe, this is what is going to happen for the whole human kind. Mixing and more mixing.

Pre-mix Neanderthal did have controlled fire, boat travel, and artwork before ROA Homo Sapien. The peanut butter cup post mix children brought farming, cities, airplanes, and taxes. They could have skipped the taxes though.

Looking at percentage of genes inherited from both, it looks more like peanut butter in chocolate scenario. But there is no doubt that the mix was successful and completely replaced pure breads from before the contact, with exceptions of sub Saharan Africa.

[nordicwarrior]

Looking at percentage of genes inherited from both, it looks more like peanut butter in chocolate scenario. But there is no doubt that the mix was successful and completely replaced pure breads from before the contact, with exceptions of sub Saharan Africa.

Exactly. But the mixing of Africa is happening now. The report mentions the Maasai showing traces of Neanderthal admixture, there's the R1b in Chad, and the Boers in South Africa. And with China and the U.S. competing for it's resources, both empires will be moving populations into Africa and further mixing is sure to occur.

[Anthro-inclined]

The true intelligence push came with herding and farming, the food production skills of our contemporary people. These changes influenced development of new skills. We produced so much that we needed to find new systems to control our livestock. We needed to start counting the sheep and cows, begs with wheat and measure our fields for next year crops. Plan when to plant crops, when to harvest and invent the calendar. The invention of money was simply genius but it also pushed the rest of us to get acquainted with arithmetic, to save money, pay taxes or charge interest, and work harder and harder.
To make my point even clearer, I would say that our intelligence and set of skills is adequate and grew together with our gradual development through 10k years of farming to today's technological civilization. We have changed the environment but we also genetically adapted to fit in it and use it even better, more efficient. That's why we fit in our world quite well. We learn, we work, we have kids, homes, cars, vacations, etc.

I disagree with this, recent studies have shown that a sedentary/ agricultural lifestyle have actually decreased overall intelligence in humans, this can be observed in our decreasing cranial capacity, since the paleolithic. Living a lifestyle like our paleolithic ancestors, required much more forethought, reasoning, savvy and many more attributes that are lacking in many people today. Also the lifestyle allowed for an increased rate of natural selection, if you were stupid you wouldn't live long, where as today people with sub par intelligence are carried along by our system. Also here are a few studies/ articles to corroborate my claims.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/15/...-to-be-dumber/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...g-their-smarts
http://naturalsociety.com/leading-ge...wly-declining/

Now tell me how well pure hunter-gatherers, like Perrier Indians or Australian Aborigines, fit our industrial/production civilization? Should we say "With great difficulty"?
Don't take me wrong. I really want them to fit and feel good in it as I do, and wish them well, but they have missed 10k years of farming to really enjoy it. ( PS. let's not pick too much through little details, I was talking in general/statistical therms)

This dosent make much sense to me, just because their ancestors lived a different lifestyle dosent mean they have any trouble adapting to a new one, the problem is systematic discrimination and the exploitation of these people and their former lands. I see you are from Alberta so you should know of this, with the extraction of oil from former native lands, and their consequent death from air born toxins such as arsenic, it seems to me that intelligence dosent play a role in this injustice.

[kamani]

I wouldn't underestimate the abilities of primitive hunter-gatherer societies. There is a lot of skills that modern man has evolved out of due to lack of use. Who knows what physical capabilities the primitive people still have not lost.

[LeBrok]

I disagree with this, recent studies have shown that a sedentary/ agricultural lifestyle have actually decreased overall intelligence in humans, this can be observed in our decreasing cranial capacity, since the paleolithic.

Ah, the size, the size. Is it possible that our brain got more efficient? Doesn't nature strive for efficiency in environment of limited resources?

Somehow bigger brains couldn't get them out off caves, and somehow smaller brains started farming and have build civilizations. It's got to be a reason why.

This dosent make much sense to me, just because their ancestors lived a different lifestyle dosent mean they have any trouble adapting to a new one, the problem is systematic discrimination and the exploitation of these people and their former lands. I see you are from Alberta so you should know of this, with the extraction of oil from former native lands, and their consequent death from air born toxins such as arsenic, it seems to me that intelligence dosent play a role in this injustice.

Feel free finding any explanation why pure hunter-gatherers have trouble adapting to western way of life. But don't forget to look at other end of adaptation spectrum. Have a look at Jewish community, which was prosecuted, discriminated and killed around the world for millenniums, and in spite of all this they could quickly adapt and end up on top of economic, political and educational ladder in every country around the globe, including new world, USA and Canada. I wonder if you have explanation for their success? You wouldn't say that they went through less misery than Natives did, would you?
You can also have a look at east and south asia, which were previously treated with similar disrespect by colonial powers, and see how they found themselves adapting to western civilization, production, education, science, etc.

Here is why it works this way.
In hunter-gatherer group, men go hunting, bring home bacon, and all the spoils are shared equally among group members, same goes with what women bring. Individual skills and smarts don't count much. The best hunter and the nerd will get same amount of calories, therefore equal chance of surviving and gene transmission to next generation.
In farming this is reversed. Everybody gets own field or herd and works for themselves and closest family. Individual success in planing, hard working and producing food has strong and immediate evolutionary influence over next generation.

PS. When I see Chinese or Japanese, I see nations of workaholics It is very likely that they have longest farming traditions on this planet, therefore strongest genetic adaptation to it.

[Nobody1]

I think one must also always consider the weather. If a tribe shifts from hunter&gatherer society and becomes sedentary and starts to farm, the climate is upmost important. If a climate only allows for a crop to be harvested ONCE a year (unlike rice: 3x a year) than the tribe should better make sure its a good harvest in order for the Humans and Animals to make it to the next harvest. But thats were trade comes into play. Extensive trade routes (contacts with other civs./exchange of goods and ideas) are exactly what kept Humanity progress.
from the Amber road to the Silk road to the trade routes (via sea) to India and the New World etc. etc. Hunters&Gatherers dont impress me, semi nomadic herdsmen on the other hand like the Huns & Mongols that domesticated the horse and overran the world (from Beijing to Baghdad and the Golden Horde in Europe) are very impressive societies.

[Anthro-inclined]

Ah, the size, the size. Is it possible that our brain got more efficient? Doesn't nature strive for efficiency in environment of limited resources?

Somehow bigger brains couldn't get them out off caves, and somehow smaller brains started farming and have build civilizations. It's got to be a reason why.

Cranial size was not my only point, in fact none of the articles mentioned it, this was just a personal theory, to offer some tangible evidence. We cannot know why our brains are shrinking could be efficiency or that we are getting dumber, you decide. The main points are the simplification of our daily lives, when we live an agricultural lifestyle, and that natural selection is slow if not stopped altogether, because the less intellectuality endowed can survive with much greater ease.

Feel free finding any explanation why pure hunter-gatherers have trouble adapting to western way of life. But don't forget to look at other end of adaptation spectrum. Have a look at Jewish community, which was prosecuted, discriminated and killed around the world for millenniums, and in spite of all this they could quickly adapt and end up on top of economic, political and educational ladder in every country around the globe, including new world, USA and Canada. I wonder if you have explanation for their success? You wouldn't say that they went through less misery than Natives did, would you?
You can also have a look at east and south asia, which were previously treated with similar disrespect by colonial powers, and see how they found themselves adapting to western civilization, production, education, science, etc.

Here is why it works this way.
In hunter-gatherer group, men go hunting, bring home bacon, and all the spoils are shared equally among group members, same goes with what women bring. Individual skills and smarts don't count much. The best hunter and the nerd will get same amount of calories, therefore equal chance of surviving and gene transmission to next generation.
In farming this is reversed. Everybody gets own field or herd and works for themselves and closest family. Individual success in planing, hard working and producing food has strong and immediate evolutionary influence over next generation.

PS. When I see Chinese or Japanese, I see nations of workaholics It is very likely that they have longest farming traditions on this planet, therefore strongest genetic adaptation to it.

Then explain to me why non hunter gatherer societies are in the same situations. Not all pre Colombian native Americans foraged, in fact a good percentage subsisted off agriculture. Examples are the Navajo, Cherokee, Iroquois, Eastern Algic peoples, Aztecs, Maya, Seminole and i could go on for while. So where are these people now, well according to you they should be living great lives like us in the main cities, but no, they are either a dead people, wiped from existence or they live on reservations in desolate poverty. So i don't see how this theory holds up maybe i missed something. Also the reason for the sucess of the Chinese and Japanese, was
their ability to hold off western colonial powers for a long period of time, see the seclusion policy instituted by tokugawa and the chinese monarchy during the colonial period. this is where the root of the far easts sucess begins from.

[LeBrok]

Cranial size was not my only point, in fact none of the articles mentioned it, this was just a personal theory, to offer some tangible evidence. We cannot know why our brains are shrinking could be efficiency or that we are getting dumber, you decide. The main points are the simplification of our daily lives, when we live an agricultural lifestyle, and that natural selection is slow if not stopped altogether, because the less intellectuality endowed can survive with much greater ease.

I have reversed understanding of ancient lifestyles. I would claim that life of farmers got more complicated, not simplified. There were many more things to think about, consider and more work to be done. In a matter of fact, farming took people out of their natural elements of cave life and hunting, which they enjoyed for million of years, and got really really used to it, even on genetic level. Archaeology can attest how big the change was, because first time in human history we can see injuries or wear and tier on human bones due to hard repetitive work. And it is not only farming, but other occupations were created at the same time. New social structures, classes, trades, faster technical innovations, domestication of animals, first cities, wood and stone buildings, textiles, money, privet property, new weapons, alcohol, use of animals for work, etc. All of this and we even didn't get to last 5k years.
The point is that environment got really complicated for our farmer ancestors, and higher complexity of it indicates that more brain power is needed to understand, to fit, in short to live a normal life in it.

Also it is worth mentioning that farming drastically increased population density, perhaps by factor of 10, at least in areas great for farming. By simple mathematical logic we can quickly deduct that genetic mutation factor jumped by same amount. This, and likewise natural selection gave a bigger edge to more skillful farmers, who quickly overpopulated, the ones who couldn't give up their hunter's lifestyle, or hated hard day of work on a farm.

Then explain to me why non hunter gatherer societies are in the same situations. Not all pre Colombian native Americans foraged, in fact a good percentage subsisted off agriculture. Examples are the Navajo, Cherokee, Iroquois, Eastern Algic peoples, Aztecs, Maya, Seminole and i could go on for while. So where are these people now, well according to you they should be living great lives like us in the main cities, but no, they are either a dead people, wiped from existence or they live on reservations in desolate poverty.

Have you been to Mexico? You can see natives, descendants of Aztec farmers, living in cities and also running their cities and a country. They've lived in cities or villages and had civilization before Europeans "discovered" them. I never said that all Native Americans are hunter-gatherers. I said Prairie Indians, especially from northern parts of America are pure hunter gatherers, so are Australian Aborigines. These are the peoples having most of problems adapting to our way of life. Look at all natives of Americas, the more agriculturalist they were, the easier was for them to switch. Is it a coincidence?

they live on reservations in desolate poverty.

That's exactly my point. 20,000 a head in government help per year, free houses, free education, no taxes, they can make money on their natural resources (wood, oil, gas, etc), they can run casinos, and still are in poverty? You seriously think they fit into western world?
Well, we know they don't, but for me it is mostly a mater of genetic predispositions to environment.

So i don't see how this theory holds up maybe i missed something. Also the reason for the sucess of the Chinese and Japanese, was
their ability to hold off western colonial powers for a long period of time, see the seclusion policy instituted by tokugawa and the chinese monarchy during the colonial period. this is where the root of the far easts sucess begins from.

All the Asian countries with long traditions of intensive agriculturalism are doing good, regardless of colonial past or not, wars, pogroms or slavery. Some are just delayed due to unfortunate romance with socialism or dictatorships like China, India, not mentioning N Korea.

[Anthro-inclined]

I have reversed understanding of ancient lifestyles. I would claim that life of farmers got more complicated, not simplified. There were many more things to think about, consider and more work to be done. In a matter of fact, farming took people out of their natural elements of cave life and hunting, which they enjoyed for million of years, and got really really used to it, even on genetic level. Archaeology can attest how big the change was, because first time in human history we can see injuries or wear and tier on human bones due to hard repetitive work.

How strenuous the work was has little effect on developing higher intelligence capacities, what effect intelligence is the variety of challenges you encounter on a daily basis, while granted that these new farmers encountered many challenges, they still followed a routine. Where as a hunter gatherer is presented with a new challenge, that requires a new way of thinking everyday. Also if we are getting in to archeology, Nearly every Neanderthal recovered has been found to have traumatic injuries, as a result of their harsh lifestyle, this is the same for paleolithic humans, i don't even know how you can can compare the physical activity that pre agricultural peoples faced compared to farmers.

And it is not only farming, but other occupations were created at the same time. New social structures, classes, trades, faster technical innovations, domestication of animals, first cities, wood and stone buildings, textiles, money, privet property, new weapons, alcohol, use of animals for work, etc. All of this and we even didn't get to last 5k years.The point is that environment got really complicated for our farmer ancestors, and higher complexity of it indicates that more brain power is needed to understand, to fit, in short to live a normal life in it.

You want to know what a complex shift in an environment is, try an Ice Age. Living through one of those requires you to change every bit of how you do anything in your life, and the vast majority of people die, leaving only the most physically/ intellectually endowed left, hunter gatherers lived through a countless number of these. Somehow I feel following a trade based economy pales in comparison.

Have you been to Mexico? You can see natives, descendants of Aztec farmers, living in cities and also running their cities and a country. They've lived in cities or villages and had civilization before Europeans "discovered" them. I never said that all Native Americans are hunter-gatherers. I said Prairie Indians, especially from northern parts of America are pure hunter gatherers, so are Australian Aborigines. These are the peoples having most of problems adapting to our way of life. Look at all natives of Americas, the more agriculturalist they were, the easier was for them to switch. Is it a coincidence?

You picked one group out my extensive list of agricultural tribes and said they live great lives. Great argument, your theory is holding up well. Don't know if you have ever heard of the conquest of Mexico by the Spanish, but lets just say that the Aztecs in the valley of Mexico declined 80% after it. Also don't know if you've ever heard whats going on down in Guatemala with the genocide of the Maya but here is a link which you probably wont read, cause you have decided you are already an expert on Central America.
http://www.hmh.org/la_Genocide_Guatemala.shtml

That's exactly my point. 20,000 a head in government help per year, free houses, free education, no taxes, they can make money on their natural resources (wood, oil, gas, etc), they can run casinos, and still are in poverty? You seriously think they fit into western world?
Well, we know they don't, but for me it is mostly a mater of genetic predispositions to environment.

You have little to know knowledge of what indigenous people have faced and still face to this very, and quite frankly i don't want to continue a discussion with someone so ignorant on this topic. They don't pay taxes is the most ignorant argument that i hear on a daily basis, they still pay all the taxes you and I pay, the only exemption is on personal property. They choose to remain independent of Canada because this is the only way they can preserve their culture. you receive free education to they also have to pay for post secondary, only some post secondary schools offer scholarships, and finally they have no other choice but to build casinos and sell off their land and resources because there is no other way to have viable economy with what land they have left, the rest of what was theirs was taken over the last 400 years and now Canada uses as its economy, and you live off it.

All the Asian countries with long traditions of intensive agriculturalism are doing good, regardless of colonial past or not, wars, pogroms or slavery. Some are just delayed due to unfortunate romance with socialism or dictatorships like China, India, not mentioning N Korea.

Lmfao Phillipines, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, youre going to tell me these countries are doing just as good as Japan or China, They have some of the smallest GDP's in the world and nearly everybody lives in abject poverty. These countries were in desolate poverty long before Socialism also.

[LeBrok]

How strenuous the work was has little effect on developing higher intelligence capacities, what effect intelligence is the variety of challenges you encounter on a daily basis,while granted that these new farmers encountered many challenges, they still followed a routine.

I gave you a list, not complete, of new concepts (not small adjustments), the game changers, farming brought to societies, which required logical brain functions to understand and successfully implement in everyday life.
"New social structures, classes, trades, faster technical innovations, domestication of animals, first cities, wood and stone buildings, textiles, money, privet property, new weapons, use of animals for work" Feel free to add the the list.

Where as a hunter gatherer is presented with a new challenge, that requires a new way of thinking everyday.

What new challenges for new way of thinking, examples?

Nearly every Neanderthal recovered has been found to have traumatic injuries, as a result of their harsh lifestyle, this is the same for paleolithic humans, i don't even know how you can can compare the physical activity that pre agricultural peoples faced compared to farmers.

Go to Amazon jungle and observe natives in their fairly pure environment, then go to primitive farming community (maybe Peru) and do the same. You will see the difference I'm talking about. If you know farming just from romanticized Hollywood movies, or today's Canadian farms, you are for a big surprise.

You want to know what a complex shift in an environment is, try an Ice Age. Living through one of those requires you to change every bit of how you do anything in your life, and the vast majority of people die, leaving only the most physically/ intellectually endowed left,

Is this why Neanderthals died?
Actually Ice Age is the standard. The warm period, we live right now in, is the short lasted evenement, about 10% of the length of Ice age. Neanderthals should have been more adapted for living in cold, and yet they died out during Glacial Maximum, but H.Sapience with smaller brains didn't.

You picked one group out my extensive list of agricultural tribes and said they live great lives. Great argument, your theory is holding up well. Don't know if you have ever heard of the conquest of Mexico by the Spanish, but lets just say that the Aztecs in the valley of Mexico declined 80% after it.

Due to new infectious diseases. What that has to do with farming?

Also don't know if you've ever heard whats going on down in Guatemala with the genocide of the Maya but here is a link which you probably wont read, cause you have decided you are already an expert on Central America.

Again, what slaughter of people have to do with farming? Is this your point that hunter-gatherer have easier life?
What about Jews, you never answered? 6 million killed not long ago, and they're still successful. I'm sure if they are put in reserve they would do much better than our Prairie Indians. So what does make the difference? If my hypothesis about farming is wrong, give me a valid alternative one please.

You have little to know knowledge of what indigenous people have faced and still face to this very

Don't make me start on my life story, or story of my ancestors. Life in the past wasn't easy for many, and Natives are nothing special in this regard. Shit happened to all of us. Now they have opportunity to take mater in their own hands and do something. The problem is doing something. Want a job, go where job is, or start farming on reserve. You don't like it, take a bow and go hunting and dance around fire. If Alberta was in Europe there would be 100 million people living here, instead there is only 3. I'm sure there is enough room and animals to hunt for few thousand Natives. Just be true to yourself, and you'll have my support.

exemption is on personal property.

Do you mean "personal income"? Or give me an example of personal property tax. For your information, casino on Tsu Tina reserve by Calgary perates as charity, so what taxes we are talking about? Natives on reserves don't pay income taxes, I'm not sure about GST. Please enlighten me.
Please, also explain to people of Europe and the world, how you can live in poverty with 20k a year (family of 5, 100,000 dollars a year) with no taxes if you farm or do other work on reserve land and are eligible for all the income, and you still live in poverty???!!!

They choose to remain independent of Canada because this is the only way they can preserve their culture.

really? this is how you preserve culture? What about inter-tribal wars, it was part of culture too. What about making cloths from animal skins instead of buying Chinese stuff. You want all of this? Don't forget to live in teepees. It would be great to cut Canadian budget deficit. Just be honest to yourself.

you receive free education to they also have to pay for post secondary, only some post secondary schools offer scholarships, and finally they have no other choice but to build casinos and sell off their land and resources because there is no other way to have viable economy with what land they have left, the rest of what was theirs was taken over the last 400 years and now Canada uses as its economy, and you live off it.

Oh, for god sake, take my job and give me the land. I know how to farm or grow beef. Maybe I have the genes for it. Was't it the point of the discussion?

Lmfao Phillipines, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, oure going to tell me these countries are doing just as good as Japan or China, They have some of the smallest GDP's in the world and nearly everybody lives in abject poverty. These countries were in desolate poverty long before Socialism also.

Are you sure there was extensive agriculturalism, for thousands of years, in all if these countries? Due to climatic conditions not every country could engage in extensive farming. For example Africa mostly sucks as farmlands, vast amount of Australia, and even Canadian prairies till 20th century when North Hemisphere warmed up somewhat and white farmers could expend from East Canada. There was still a hiccup with farming in 30s due to dry decade, known as Dirty Thirties.

Do you think that 10k years of farming didn't have any genetic influence for peoples that adopted it?

[Anthro-inclined]

I gave you a list, not complete, of new concepts (not small adjustments), the game changers, farming brought to societies, which required logical brain functions to understand and successfully implement in everyday life.
"New social structures, classes, trades, faster technical innovations, domestication of animals, first cities, wood and stone buildings, textiles, money, privet property, new weapons, use of animals for work" Feel free to add the the list.
What new challenges for new way of thinking, examples?

stone tool production was an activity most commonly practiced, work also involved creating specialized tools like fishing nets and hooks and bone harpoons ,another activity that aided in intelligence was long-distance running as in persistence hunting, a method still practiced by some hunter-gatherer groups in modern times, was likely the driving evolutionary force leading to the evolution of certain human characteristics here is a link to the theory.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...man_revisited/
Collecting seafood, eggs, nuts, and fruits, sounds easy but is an activity that requires much knowledge of your environment, an example is the Cree who scavenged the Seneca root. All of which would have to be revised if there is a shift in climate or culture, requiring a new way of thinking. And of course hunting, a task that requires forethought, reasoning and constant creativity in order to keep catching prey.

Go to Amazon jungle and observe natives in their fairly pure environment, then go to primitive farming community (maybe Peru) and do the same. You will see the difference I'm talking about. If you know farming just from romanticized Hollywood movies, or today's Canadian farms, you are for a big surprise.

I referenced that these early farmers had a tough existence in my last post, but nothing compared to a hunter gatherer, examples being that the homicide rate among tribes was 30%, and hunting big game was extremely dangerous not to mention physically strenuous, i cant imagine any farm work coming close to hunting a herd of buffalo or taking down a mammoth.Actually most tribes in the amazon are semi agricultural, in that they cannot practice a full fledged farming system because most of the land isn't suitable for it, most of their subsistence comes form hunting and gathering.

Is this why Neanderthals died?
Actually Ice Age is the standard. The warm period, we live right now in, is the short lasted evenement, about 10% of the length of Ice age. Neanderthals should have been more adapted for living in cold, and yet they died out during Glacial Maximum, but H.Sapience with smaller brains didn't.

Ok thanks for the lesson, ill elaborate on my last post. Today if an ice age were to come we would be able to fair through it reasonably well, and most of this is because of tech advents all stemming from the agricultural revolution, where as a hunter gatherer would not be able to coast through such an event and only the fittest and smartest would survive. While less would live through it future generations would benefit because these great genes would pass on, where as today the lesser specimens among us can survive with relative ease and continue to pass on our less than adequate genes.

Due to new infectious diseases. What that has to do with farming?

Not all died from disease, others died from a number of causes, most of which was because of the Spaniards and not their germs. It dosent have anything to do with farming, just pointing out they didn't fit in as well as you had said.

Again, what slaughter of people have to do with farming? Is this your point that hunter-gatherer have easier life?
What about Jews, you never answered? 6 million killed not long ago, and they're still successful. I'm sure if they are put in reserve they would do much better than our Prairie Indians. So what does make the difference? If my hypothesis about farming is wrong, give me a valid alternative one please.

Can you give me one or two straight forward questions, you are bouncing all over the place, and your grammar and vocabulary makes it even harder to understand. Please reiterate.

Don't make me start on my life story, or story of my ancestors. Life in the past wasn't easy for many, and Natives are nothing special in this regard. Shit happened to all of us. Now they have opportunity to take mater in their own hands and do something. The problem is doing something. Want a job, go where job is, or start farming on reserve. You don't like it, take a bow and go hunting and dance around fire. If Alberta was in Europe there would be 100 million people living here, instead there is only 3. I'm sure there is enough room and animals to hunt for few thousand Natives. Just be true to yourself, and you'll have my support.

Fair enough, most of us have had a tough go of it. The difference is that once one person leaves the reserve, the whole culture takes a blow, most reserves only consist of a couple thousand people, and they carry a distinct language, history and way of life, once one person leaves the reserve in pursuit of greater opportunity, a piece of that entire culture is gone. You can always go back to whatever western European country your for bearers came from, to find out about your culture and the essence of who you are, but when only a couple thousand people live on a reserve, in poverty, with huge amounts of people moving from the reserve into the big cities, who knows if your people will still be in existence in the next 50 years.

Do you mean "personal income"? Or give me an example of personal property tax. For your information, casino on Tsu Tina reserve by Calgary perates as charity, so what taxes we are talking about? Natives on reserves don't pay income taxes, I'm not sure about GST. Please enlighten me.
Please, also explain to people of Europe and the world, how you can live in poverty with 20k a year (family of 5, 100,000 dollars a year) with no taxes if you farm or do other work on reserve land and are eligible for all the income, and you still live in poverty???!!!

If your interested in Indian affairs then i suggest you purchase a book on Canadian history, however heres a link that should satisfy same of your questions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/faqs.html

really? this is how you preserve culture? What about inter-tribal wars, it was part of culture too. What about making cloths from animal skins instead of buying Chinese stuff. You want all of this? Don't forget to live in teepees. It would be great to cut Canadian budget deficit. Just be honest to yourself.

This quote just demonstrates your ignorance of aboriginal cultures, as i said above there is much more to a culture then what you are stating. The Language the History of the People, all of these are what makes aboriginal peoples cultures, it isn't just dancing around a fire, like everybody thinks.

Oh, for god sake, take my job and give me the land. I know how to farm or grow beef. Maybe I have the genes for it. Was't it the point of the discussion?

You got the land buddy! Remember when they ripped it from the hands of Riel, Dumont, Poundmaker, Big Bear and the rest of them. Oh you want the rest of it? You guys just keep taking and taking.

Are you sure there was extensive agriculturalism, for thousands of years, in all if these countries? Due to climatic conditions not every country could engage in extensive farming. For example Africa mostly sucks as farmlands, vast amount of Australia, and even Canadian prairies till 20th century when North Hemisphere warmed up somewhat and white farmers could expend from East Canada. There was still a hiccup with farming in 30s due to dry decade, known as Dirty Thirties.

Do you think that 10k years of farming didn't have any genetic influence for peoples that adopted it?

Papua New guinea developed agriculture independently over 9000 years ago, Southeast asia has practiced agriculture for over 6000 years and the Phillipines for over 5000 years, this is longer than most European countries, so i don't know what else you want to hear.
Finally i do believe farming has had an effect on our genetics, never said i didn't, however i believe that it has had an adverse effect on our intelligence capacities unlike you. Did you seriously forget the debate topic?

[LeBrok]

stone tool production was an activity most commonly practiced, work also involved creating specialized tools like fishing nets and hooks and bone harpoons ,another activity that aided in intelligence was long-distance running as in persistence hunting, a method still practiced by some hunter-gatherer groups in modern times, was likely the driving evolutionary force leading to the evolution of certain human characteristics here is a link to the theory.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...man_revisited/
Collecting seafood, eggs, nuts, and fruits, sounds easy but is an activity that requires much knowledge of your environment, an example is the Cree who scavenged the Seneca root. All of which would have to be revised if there is a shift in climate or culture, requiring a new way of thinking. And of course hunting, a task that requires forethought, reasoning and constant creativity in order to keep catching prey.

Good points, I was thinking about hunter-gatherer society in terms of last thousands of years before farming, the time of transition. As you pointed, they have undeniably invented many things and new concepts like: man made fire, living in caves, tools made of stone, bones and wood (or their combination, stone on a stick like a hammer or a spear), religion, skin made cloths, tents, cooked food, musical instruments.
I was hoping though, that you are going to notice the scale of time, the monumental paradigm shift, the acceleration of invention of new concepts the farming brought. You see, it took H-Gatherers a million years or so to come up with their inventions. It took only 5k years for Farmers (we can even disregard last 5k years) to invent much more extensive list of new concepts, a long list of completely new ideas. To emphasizes my point even more, I should add to my previous list other novel ideas of farmers like wheel, use of clay for pots and bricks, use of metal, irrigation of fields, writing, not mentioning many new technics in new occupations they've created.
For simplicity of argument let's assume that both groups invented same number of new concepts. It still would leave us with the huge difference in time scale, 5k years versus a million. It means that Farmers came up with their inventions 200 times faster than H-Gatherers! This is really huge shift.

How can you explain this explosion of new inventions, when you assumed that smaller brains of modern humans meant less intelligence?

,another activity that aided in intelligence was long-distance running as in persistence hunting

How does running add to intelligence, except more oxygen flow? Besides it is hardly a new idea, a new concept. We had ran before, only later we started to run a lot and long distances. It is only a change within existing concept.
Perhaps the novel idea was that there is food at the end of a long run. But not running itself.
To know who we were in the past, it is enough to observe little boys playing. Mostly they run around in little groups and play wars. Also our most popular sports are group sports. Football is nothing more than two groups of men (hunters), running a lot, to achieve common goal, to win against other group of men. This is how we do civilized wars against other cities or countries.
We can't escape our past. We are the product of our ancestors life style and environment.

I referenced that these early farmers had a tough existence in my last post, but nothing compared to a hunter gatherer, examples being that the homicide rate among tribes was 30%, and hunting big game was extremely dangerous not to mention physically strenuous, i cant imagine any farm work coming close to hunting a herd of buffalo or taking down a mammoth.Actually most tribes in the amazon are semi agricultural, in that they cannot practice a full fledged farming system because most of the land isn't suitable for it, most of their subsistence comes form hunting and gathering.
Ok thanks for the lesson, ill elaborate on my last post. Today if an ice age were to come we would be able to fair through it reasonably well, and most of this is because of tech advents all stemming from the agricultural revolution, where as a hunter gatherer would not be able to coast through such an event and only the fittest and smartest would survive. While less would live through it future generations would benefit because these great genes would pass on, where as today the lesser specimens among us can survive with relative ease and continue to pass on our less than adequate genes.

I've never questioned how dangerous hunter-gatherers' life was. I'm talking about very different lifestyles and consequences of adaptation to them. It has to be a reason why farmers didn't want to switch to Native's life style, and also it has to be a reason why Natives in general don't want to accept farming way of life.

Obviously farming was beneficial in increased food access therefore survival of early adopters. Whenever conditions were suitable for farming population grew 10 or 100 fold compared to H_Gatherers. My point from post one, was about tremendous shift in lifestyle of folks adapting to farming. According to natural selection this obviously had to effect gene selection to fit farming lifestyle even better with time. Do you deny it?

One of best farming lands are in east Asia. This is no coinsurance that China was always stronger and most influential in this region even if only by sheer number of inhabitants their land supported From all ancient records, and archaeology, we know that this part of our planet was always most populated of all. It makes sense, because south China can have 2 growing seasons a year, where in Europe we could have only one. From this two top agricultural regions, I would pick east China as the most genetically adapted to farming. Farming demands a lot of work, the daily grind. Getting up early in the morning and feeding animals. Seeding fields takes weeks, long repetitive motions hours after hours. So is taking care of it, watering, plowing, harvesting thrashing, milling, and food making of animals, cooking for big families from scratch few times a day, taking care of buildings and fences. Hauling surplus to the market, and paying taxes to the landlords and churches. Unfortunately for today's city dwellers it is so hard to imagine how labour intensive life is on simple farms.

Now be a judge and observe for yourself how different peoples work, which is not difficult in Canada, and you should be able to guess their heritage. Keep in mind that these are general observation of populations and not characteristics of individuals. Observing one person and generalizing one observation over whole population gives misleading results.

[Anthro-inclined]

Good points, I was thinking about hunter-gatherer society in terms of last thousands of years before farming, the time of transition. As you pointed, they have undeniably invented many things and new concepts like: man made fire, living in caves, tools made of stone, bones and wood (or their combination, stone on a stick like a hammer or a spear), religion, skin made cloths, tents, cooked food, musical instruments.
I was hoping though, that you are going to notice the scale of time, the monumental paradigm shift, the acceleration of invention of new concepts the farming brought. You see, it took H-Gatherers a million years or so to come up with their inventions. It took only 5k years for Farmers (we can even disregard last 5k years) to invent much more extensive list of new concepts, a long list of completely new ideas. To emphasizes my point even more, I should add to my previous list other novel ideas of farmers like wheel, use of clay for pots and bricks, use of metal, irrigation of fields, writing, not mentioning many new technics in new occupations they've created.For simplicity of argument let's assume that both groups invented same number of new concepts. It still would leave us with the huge difference in time scale, 5k years versus a million. It means that Farmers came up with their inventions 200 times faster than H-Gatherers! This is really huge shift.

What you're missing is that once a hunter society made a new invention, it would not stay the same for the rest of time, things like stone tools, harpoons, other various weapons, traps, boats and other numerous inventions would change constantly not just over millenniums, the changes became very frequent especially after the move out of Africa because peoples constantly were moving into new environments and settings that required new modifications to help them survive, and these changes would have to come at a very rapid rate, id guess at least every other generation.
And you see its with these migrations and constant changing circumstances that tested these hunters, a farmer experiences a couple of changes in climate every year or maybe some dire event also, but they are staying in one spot, so over the generations these activities become routine, and the challenge is lessened for the following generations. Also without the challenge of constantly adapting, and with the settled life, one can make more specific modifications to their lives, without having to worry to much about survival, this is why we see so many more technological advent after the revolution.

How can you explain this explosion of new inventions, when you assumed that smaller brains of modern humans meant less intelligence?

If you went back in time and retrieved a hunter gatherer, brought him back to the present and asked him to do algebra, he could obviously not do it. Sure by today's standards hunter gatherers are not "smart", but because them and their ancestors faced such challenging, and varying circumstances it is my belief that they would have a much greater capacity to learn algebra than most people. The reason that we seem to be smarter than our hunter ancestors is purely superficial, as we have widespread education, and much more sedentary lives than they did, allowing for more time to think about things other than our immediate survival.

How does running add to intelligence, except more oxygen flow? Besides it is hardly a new idea, a new concept. We had ran before, only later we started to run a lot and long distances. It is only a change within existing concept.
Perhaps the novel idea was that there is food at the end of a long run. But not running itself.
To know who we were in the past, it is enough to observe little boys playing. Mostly they run around in little groups and play wars. Also our most popular sports are group sports. Football is nothing more than two groups of men (hunters), running a lot, to achieve common goal, to win against other group of men. This is how we do civilized wars against other cities or countries.
We can't escape our past. We are the product of our ancestors life style and environment.

Again this is a theory, if you have not read the article i have provided please do this time
http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...man_revisited/
You don't have to agree with it, it is simply a professional opinion on how hunting shaped who we are, it dosent have much to do with intellectual capacities, but one can make correlations, its purely up to you to decide if its valid.

I've never questioned how dangerous hunter-gatherers' life was. I'm talking about very different lifestyles and consequences of adaptation to them. It has to be a reason why farmers didn't want to switch to Native's life style, and also it has to be a reason why Natives in general don't want to accept farming way of life.

Your question can be answered in one simple response, most people don't enjoy change. Even making simple changes in your daily life is a bit of a nuisance, like eating healthier or reading more books, and when one considers such a massive change as switching your entire way of subsistence, its exponentially harder for one to do that. The reason why your austrailian aborgines and Perrier Indians didn't pick up farming isn't because they are genetically predisposed to like hunting more than you or i, its because with the technology at their disposal and infertile environment around them, it just makes more sense to hunt than have to deal with terrible crop yields.

Obviously farming was beneficial in increased food access therefore survival of early adopters. Whenever conditions were suitable for farming population grew 10 or 100 fold compared to H_Gatherers. My point from post one, was about tremendous shift in lifestyle of folks adapting to farming. According to natural selection this obviously had to effect gene selection to fit farming lifestyle even better with time. Do you deny it?

Sure i believe farming has had an effect on our genes, ive said this over and over, but i dont think that just because you dont have any farmers in your bloodline means that you would function worse in our modern society, the first farmers in western europe were hunter gatherers as were all who adopted the lifstyle, but they still managed to carry on a different subsistence and pass their genes. Its absurd to think that natives are in poverty because their genes have determined it to be, if you know anything of Canadian demographics you'd see that Aboriginals are the fastest growing ethnic group.

One of best farming lands are in east Asia. This is no coinsurance that China was always stronger and most influential in this region even if only by sheer number of inhabitants their land supported From all ancient records, and archaeology, we know that this part of our planet was always most populated of all. It makes sense, because south China can have 2 growing seasons a year, where in Europe we could have only one. From this two top agricultural regions, I would pick east China as the most genetically adapted to farming. Farming demands a lot of work, the daily grind. Getting up early in the morning and feeding animals. Seeding fields takes weeks, long repetitive motions hours after hours. So is taking care of it, watering, plowing, harvesting thrashing, milling, and food making of animals, cooking for big families from scratch few times a day, taking care of buildings and fences. Hauling surplus to the market, and paying taxes to the landlords and churches. Unfortunately for today's city dwellers it is so hard to imagine how labour intensive life is on simple farms.
Now be a judge and observe for yourself how different peoples work, which is not difficult in Canada, and you should be able to guess their heritage. Keep in mind that these are general observation of populations and not characteristics of individuals. Observing one person and generalizing one observation over whole population gives misleading results.

I'm not sure if your correlating this point to the argument, can you give a clear claim on it.

[LeBrok]

What you're missing is that once a hunter society made a new invention, it would not stay the same for the rest of time, things like stone tools, harpoons, other various weapons, traps, boats and other numerous inventions would change constantly not just over millenniums, the changes became very frequent especially after the move out of Africa because peoples constantly were moving into new environments and settings that required new modifications to help them survive, and these changes would have to come at a very rapid rate, id guess at least every other generation.
And you see its with these migrations and constant changing circumstances that tested these hunters, a farmer experiences a couple of changes in climate every year or maybe some dire event also, but they are staying in one spot, so over the generations these activities become routine, and the challenge is lessened for the following generations. Also without the challenge of constantly adapting, and with the settled life, one can make more specific modifications to their lives, without having to worry to much about survival, this is why we see so many more technological advent after the revolution.

Are you kidding me?! Are you saying that making modification to existing concepts takes as much intellect as inventing completely new ones? For example you equal an ingenious invention of making a hook and line for fishing, to making a a bigger hook for a bigger fish, the modification. Or according to your logic, invention of money doesn't count much more than its modification, like making money of different metals. It's ridiculous.
Besides, your argument is not valid, because farmers had to modify their crops and animals, and adapt their technics to changing environment too, to same degree as hunter-gatherers. Where do you think they've planted their corps, in greenhouses?

If you went back in time and retrieved a hunter gatherer, brought him back to the present and asked him to do algebra, he could obviously not do it. Sure by today's standards hunter gatherers are not "smart", but because them and their ancestors faced such challenging, and varying circumstances it is my belief that they would have a much greater capacity to learn algebra than most people.

Complete scientific fallacy. What has algebra to do with making a better coat for cold weather, or running after animal? All the math they needed is to count to 20 or so. Bigger numbers where inconsequential in their lives.
Algebra was only needed later in civilization, for counting money, keeping records, building bridges and pyramids, etc.

Again this is a theory, if you have not read the article i have provided please do this time
http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...man_revisited/
You don't have to agree with it, it is simply a professional opinion on how hunting shaped who we are, it dosent have much to do with intellectual capacities, but one can make correlations, its purely up to you to decide if its valid.

You also said:

another activity that aided in intelligence was long-distance running as in persistence hunting

I'm glad you change your mind.

The reason why your austrailian aborgines and Perrier Indians didn't pick up farming isn't because they are genetically predisposed to like hunting more than you or i, its because with the technology at their disposal and infertile environment around them, it just makes more sense to hunt than have to deal with terrible crop yields.

Good, we know why they didn't embrace farming in the past. The question is why they don't do farming right now, at least beef herding on reserves (seams not complicated), when it is so easier with new technologies?



Scientific Fact:

Sure i believe farming has had an effect on our genes, ive said this over and over,

Supposition:

but i dont think that just because you dont have any farmers in your bloodline means that you would function worse in our modern society,

Proof: (or denial)

Its absurd to think that natives are in poverty because their genes have determined it to be,

Same way why nerd doesn't fit the popularity contest in high school.
It is not a matter of poverty, or making Natives poor, or doing all of this on purpose to them. They just don't fit, therefore they cannot be as successful in this new environment. At least not to the degree of people who do this for millenia.

It is simple like this, and if this was understood, proper government programs, laws and help could be formulated to help Natives to do better, or who chooses should be left alone to embrace traditional way of life, diet included. Canada is huge and empty enough to accommodate it all.



Why the heck did you go there?!

if you know anything of Canadian demographics you'd see that Aboriginals are the fastest growing ethnic group.

We all know they drink way too much, they don't use contraceptives, and guess what? You have sex, you have a kid or two. Repeat this process many times in your life, and you have many kids.
Alcohol is a major cause of Native poverty.
This brings an occasion to point another gene European frames have but not Natives. They have a gene which help with alcohol digestion . Why? Because Europeans have lived with alcohol for few thousands of years already. That's why we fit better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance


Knowing and talking about differences shouldn't be scary, improper or evoking bad emotions. Knowing the differences should help us understand each other better, to give us knowledge to building right systems, which fit human nature, and not force human nature to fit system. Otherwise we'll be stuck in this status quo forever, bitching and blaming each other for all miseries.
Obviously the old ways don't work.

[Anthro-inclined]

Are you kidding me?! Are you saying that making modification to existing concepts takes as much intellect as inventing completely new ones? For example you equal an ingenious invention of making a hook and line for fishing, to making a a bigger hook for a bigger fish, the modification. Or according to your logic, invention of money doesn't count much more than its modification, like making money of different metals. It's ridiculous.

With the sedentary life of farming, and less stress put on survival, one has a lot more time to think of more abstract things, this is why the inventions seem so much more ingenious in the post paleolithic. Try thinking up algebra while tracking a herd, because you haven't eaten in days, it wont work. Nobody needs algebra at that point in time, but a new type of spear or piece of clothing is necessary and quite ingenious considering all the circumstances that you face. Farmers experienced less urgency, and remained sedentary and had a greater abundance of food and a permanent settlement while paleo peoples had to worry about tracking herds and other H&G activities which were no longer necessary with farming.Farmers also had a life that allowed an invention like money to make life easier, and while very ingenious, it was developed along with more free time.

Besides, your argument is not valid, because farmers had to modify their crops and animals, and adapt their technics to changing environment too, to same degree as hunter-gatherers. Where do you think they've planted their corps, in greenhouses?

No wrong, not nearly as hard as a hunter, sure there is climate change, but if your in the same spot for generations not as much changes in your environment compared to a migrating people such as hunters gatherers, of course the conditions were harder for early farmers, compared to their contemporaries, but they never experienced an ice age like i said before, it is much harder to adapt to many extremes that the paleolithic had, compared to making a new sickle on your temperate patch of land, which was much easier to do when you didn't have to constantly track a herd of animals.

Complete scientific fallacy. What has algebra to do with making a better coat for cold weather, or running after animal? All the math they needed is to count to 20 or so. Bigger numbers where inconsequential in their lives.

You clearly have a problem spotting my train of thought, i was trying to give an example of what we value as intelligent in our day and age, obviously they couldn't count or read, but this has nothing to due with their capacity to learn to do so. My god did you even read my statement, you are a terrible reader.

Algebra was only needed later in civilization, for counting money, keeping records, building bridges and pyramids, etc.

Your missing the point, i know they didn't need it, im using algebra as a standard of learning, for god sake do i need to spell out everything for you, you seem to misread everything i write, are you 14, why do you keep doing this.

Good, we know why they didn't embrace farming in the past. The question is why they don't do farming right now, at least beef herding on reserves (seams not complicated), when it is so easier with new technologies?

Wrong they do, barely any indigenous people in Canada or Australia subsist off hunting anymore, the Inuit live in the arctic and subsist mainly off processed foods because there is no possibility of agriculture there, and those who don't live in the cities hunt mainly but there is no current technology that can provide agriculture in the arctic, all other indigenous peoples in Canada farm or they get subsistence from other areas, hunting is usually a cultural practice.

Same way why nerd doesn't fit the popularity contest in high school.
It is not a matter of poverty, or making Natives poor, or doing all of this on purpose to them. They just don't fit, therefore they cannot be as successful in this new environment. At least not to the degree of people who do this for millenia.

Did you not fit in in high school, is this why you're so resentful, or have you even gotten to high school yet, your knowledge of history seems to suggest otherwise, because i constantly have to correct you.

It is simple like this, and if this was understood, proper government programs, laws and help could be formulated to help Natives to do better, or who chooses should be left alone to embrace traditional way of life, diet included. Canada is huge and empty enough to accommodate it all.

Yes completely agree with you, the law is structured against natives, and has been for Canada's entire existence, John a MacDonald's entire political career was dedicated to decimating the cree and metis people, and the government has built off him ever since. Youre right Canada is a country with the capability to help natives, why they don't do it is because they are built off a foundation of killing them.

We all know they drink way too much, they don't use contraceptives, and guess what? You have sex, you have a kid or two. Repeat this process many times in your life, and you have many kids.
Alcohol is a major cause of Native poverty.
This brings an occasion to point another gene European frames have but not Natives. They have a gene which help with alcohol digestion . Why? Because Europeans have lived with alcohol for few thousands of years already. That's why we fit better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance


Knowing and talking about differences shouldn't be scary, improper or evoking bad emotions. Knowing the differences should help us understand each other better, to give us knowledge to building right systems, which fit human nature, and not force human nature to fit system. Otherwise we'll be stuck in this status quo forever, bitching and blaming each other for all miseries.
Obviously the old ways don't work.

It is clear to me that i cannot change your opinion, i believe that all races have the capacity to achieve as much as one another when born in equal circumstance, regardless of these petty gene predispositions you speak of. If you believe that 400 years of conquest and the genocide of a people, has nothing to do with how they function in todays society, then you choose to ignore it. It is much easier for you to place blame on the people themselves, rather than the ones who you feel closer to. If you feel guilt or shame, then don't, but don't deny these people the effect of their history. They watched their men killed, their women raped, and their land soiled and enclosed upon them, all within the last few centuries. Their blood stains the ground upon which you and i walk. The government resents them because they cry out for justice, but all the prime minister sees is a people who wont die. In the end when the blow is finished being dealt and the aftermath apparent, the persistence of these people will be seen, and you will be proven wrong, for they were stronger than anyone had thought.
We Shall Remain.

[LeBrok]

With the sedentary life of farming, and less stress put on survival, one has a lot more time to think of more abstract things, this is why the inventions seem so much more ingenious in the post paleolithic. Try thinking up algebra while tracking a herd, because you haven't eaten in days, it wont work. Nobody needs algebra at that point in time, but a new type of spear or piece of clothing is necessary and quite ingenious considering all the circumstances that you face. Farmers experienced less urgency, and remained sedentary and had a greater abundance of food and a permanent settlement while paleo peoples had to worry about tracking herds and other H&G activities which were no longer necessary with farming.Farmers also had a life that allowed an invention like money to make life easier, and while very ingenious, it was developed along with more free time.
No wrong, not nearly as hard as a hunter, sure there is climate change, but if your in the same spot for generations not as much changes in your environment compared to a migrating people such as hunters gatherers, of course the conditions were harder for early farmers, compared to their contemporaries, but they never experienced an ice age like i said before, it is much harder to adapt to many extremes that the paleolithic had, compared to making a new sickle on your temperate patch of land, which was much easier to do when you didn't have to constantly track a herd of animals.

You are confusing word "sedentary" with sitting and doing nothing. Once again, go to the simple farm and see how hard people work. Otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.
Tell me, how many Native agricultural civilizations collapsed in Americas due to adverse weather conditions, especially prolonged droughts? With your affinity to archaeology, or maybe even a degree, you should know that.
Somehow you've chosen to omit archaeological knowledge about this side of farming, because it didn't fit your premise, or dare we say, agenda.

You clearly have a problem spotting my train of thought, i was trying to give an example of what we value as intelligent in our day and age, obviously they couldn't count or read, but this has nothing to due with their capacity to learn to do so. My god did you even read my statement, you are a terrible reader.

I've read and I know your train of thoughts. My conclusion is that your observation skills are not great, and pattern recognition effected to much by your emotions on this subject.

Your missing the point, i know they didn't need it, im using algebra as a standard of learning, for god sake do i need to spell out everything for you, you seem to misread everything i write, are you 14, why do you keep doing this.

Not nice. Instead of coming up with better examples and argumentation, you've chosen to attack a person instead.

Wrong they do, barely any indigenous people in Canada or Australia subsist off hunting anymore, the Inuit live in the arctic and subsist mainly off processed foods because there is no possibility of agriculture there, and those who don't live in the cities hunt mainly but there is no current technology that can provide agriculture in the arctic, all other indigenous peoples in Canada farm or they get subsistence from other areas, hunting is usually a cultural practice.

I've asked you why they don't farm and you answered that they don't hunt.

Did you not fit in in high school, is this why you're so resentful, or have you even gotten to high school yet, your knowledge of history seems to suggest otherwise, because i constantly have to correct you.

Again, you are attacking a person. This is against Eupedia rules. Don't do it again.

Yes completely agree with you, the law is structured against natives, and has been for Canada's entire existence, John a MacDonald's entire political career was dedicated to decimating the cree and metis people, and the government has built off him ever since. Youre right Canada is a country with the capability to help natives, why they don't do it is because they are built off a foundation of killing them.

You didn't understand me then. Nobody wants to harm natives purposely these days. Actually they are treated above the law as some sort of extraordinary citizens. For example, couple of months ago due to Idle No More Acton few natives stopped traffic on one bridge in the middle of Calgary, for a day. And guess what, they've broke law and nobody was arrested for this. Obviously they carry around some sort of immunity these days.
As I've argued before, today's pro native polices are more harmful than helpful and they divide Canada more than ever. Thanks to skewed understanding of causes of native's apathy, alcoholism or other adaptations or lack of them.

It is clear to me that i cannot change your opinion,

Try well argumented points, extensive examples or scientific research.

i believe that all races have the capacity to achieve as much as one another when born in equal circumstance, regardless of these petty gene predispositions you speak of.

That's the point of view doing biggest disservice to natives.
To make it more interested, your belief was exactly my premise, which I was taught in schools too, and my starting point of analyzing causes of native poverty problem in Canada. My conclusions are often against my nature of total equality for all. If I was god I would create all people of same abilities and predisposition. But instead, we are products of long line of ancestors evolved in different environments. My heart goes for true equality, but my logic points to real life patterns of differences.
And no, I'm not immune from changing my mind, and already did on this subject.

If you believe that 400 years of conquest and the genocide of a people, has nothing to do with how they function in todays society, then you choose to ignore it. It is much easier for you to place blame on the people themselves, rather than the ones who you feel closer to.

Exactly! Looking inside and starting fixing problem from yourself is the way to go.

If you feel guilt or shame, then don't, but don't deny these people the effect of their history.

Constantly playing a victim is the worse way to go. My people moved and were moved too many times to remember, and were killed and persecuted by neighbors. Heck, the huge part of European history is about killing, pushing, enslaving each other.
But finally we decided to shake hands (at least most so far) with our neighbors, forgiven the sins, and concentrated on building common future. And look, today's Europe is a prime example that it is much better way to go.
What I can't understand is why you feel that natives are unique in this department, and keeping bringing it up? Can't you escape this vicious circle?

They watched their men killed, their women raped, and their land soiled and enclosed upon them, all within the last few centuries. Their blood stains the ground upon which you and i walk. The government resents them because they cry out for justice, but all the prime minister sees is a people who wont die. In the end when the blow is finished being dealt and the aftermath apparent, the persistence of these people will be seen, and you will be proven wrong, for they were stronger than anyone had thought.
We Shall Remain.

Your argument (same as mine from yeas ago) makes sense till you learn about history of Jewish communities around the globe. There is probably no nation on this planet who went through so much persecution, intimidation, genocides, discrimination, etc. I'm sure you can sympathize with this, because this is comparable with suffering of Canadian Natives, together with losing their own land.
Extremely interesting is the fact how different economic outcomes these two groups represent, in spite of going through similar persecutions and victimization century after century.

What is your explanation for it? Keep in mind that nobody helped the Jews in any way. Their success is their own doing.
Can you tell me why, Jews as ethnic group, are always on top of economic and educational ladder in every country on this planet, although they faced similar persecutions as Canadian Natives?

[Anthro-inclined]

I have taken a couple days off from this debate because i believe i was getting to emotionally attached to it for personal reasons, it was wrong of me to do so, and i had misinterpreted some of your arguments as personal attacks, so i had in turn committed them myself, that was wrong, , they had nothing to do with the debate and were out of line, certainly. while, i still wish to continue this debate as i believe there is more to argue about.

You are confusing word "sedentary" with sitting and doing nothing. Once again, go to the simple farm and see how hard people work. Otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.

Once again many experts agree that a hunter gatherer lifestyle is much more strenuous, observe the Chukchi people, or San bushman, and i am sure if you learn about them enough you will see they are they live some of the most active lives in today's world, and this is with current technological advents that have allowed for an easier hunt.

Tell me, how many Native agricultural civilizations collapsed in Americas due to adverse weather conditions, especially prolonged droughts? With your affinity to archaeology, or maybe even a degree, you should know that.
Somehow you've chosen to omit archaeological knowledge about this side of farming, because it didn't fit your premise, or dare we say, agenda.

A civilization is different from a small group of agricultural people, when speaking of sophisticated cultural, political,ethnic etc. society, most Anthropologists consider its origins much later than farming, probably around 2000 to 4000 BC, a sophisticated civilization is a much larger entity and takes a lot more structure to maintain, where as a small group who do not live in such sophisticated society can be so durable, and long lasting.

I've read and I know your train of thoughts. My conclusion is that your observation skills are not great, and pattern recognition effected to much by your emotions on this subject.

Seriously i know you misread what i said, maybe it was to complex to relate for you, or it was worded poorly.

I've asked you why they don't farm and you answered that they don't hunt.

I have stated why these societies cant farm just a few posts back. Maybe you don't understand, that most of our earth is consisted of inarable land, this is why we cannot farm everywhere. Canada has very little arable land particularly as you go toward to north, and this is why we don't boast large populations like the US or Europe (which have much arable land). Australia is in the same boat as us, and therefore only has 23 million people living around its most arable land, the eastern shore. They cannot farm because crops wont grow. Las Vegas, is an example of the effort and resources it takes to build a city on a stretch of land that is unaccepting of agriculture.

You didn't understand me then. Nobody wants to harm natives purposely these days. Actually they are treated above the law as some sort of extraordinary citizens. For example, couple of months ago due to Idle No More Acton few natives stopped traffic on one bridge in the middle of Calgary, for a day. And guess what, they've broke law and nobody was arrested for this. Obviously they carry around some sort of immunity these days.
As I've argued before, today's pro native polices are more harmful than helpful and they divide Canada more than ever. Thanks to skewed understanding of causes of native's apathy, alcoholism or other adaptations or lack of them.

Regardless of alcohol consumption, there problems that are caused directly because of the capitalist system, and our government. Lets use the biggest example, Alberta. Right now the tar sands are being extracted from by various companies, of which are drilling on native lands. What the companies do is dangle money in front of tribes, and get one to bite. The one that takes the money and allows for extraction, does it out of desperation to try and build an economically viable reserve. The other refuses the tainted money, and abides by their ancestors. The result is both tribes end up having people dying of diseases caused by arsenic and other chemicals released from the extraction. The Harper government is also violating treaty rights and giving companies the right to extract on lands without the consent of its respective tribe.
Other than hunting i don't think natives are exempt any more than you are to civil disobedience laws, unless committed on a reserve. I believe that you are allowed to protest peacefully, this is a democracy, and if these people weren't arrested it is either because Calgary police were sympathetic to their cause, a cause you do not understand, or they could not arrest them under the law, of which would apply to you to.

Try well argumented points, extensive examples or scientific research.

I have given you points, you refuse to egknowledge them, i have given you articles and studies, you refuse to read them (you have given none by the way), and i have even corrected on your historic and anthropological claims, but choose not to listen or respond. Maybe you just have trouble accepting things other than your own views, i cannot help that.

Constantly playing a victim is the worse way to go. My people moved and were moved too many times to remember, and were killed and persecuted by neighbors. Heck, the huge part of European history is about killing, pushing, enslaving each other.
But finally we decided to shake hands (at least most so far) with our neighbors, forgiven the sins, and concentrated on building common future. And look, today's Europe is a prime example that it is much better way to go.

You underestimate their history, and current situation, i am pretty sure you yourself have never experienced such strife. It wasn't just the death and destruction, it was the rate of which it occurred, and by the end they were left with nothing to salvage. I believe that native cultures will return to prominence, if they continue to fight, but the fact is we as a country can either be with them or in opposition its your choice.
This isn't playing victim, it is giving you facts, this is why the situation exists.

Your argument (same as mine from yeas ago) makes sense till you learn about history of Jewish communities around the globe. There is probably no nation on this planet who went through so much persecution, intimidation, genocides, discrimination, etc. I'm sure you can sympathize with this, because this is comparable with suffering of Canadian Natives, together with losing their own land.
Extremely interesting is the fact how different economic outcomes these two groups represent, in spite of going through similar persecutions and victimization century after century.

I have shown that other countries and ethnic groups with deep agricultural roots, have not fared well into the modern day. I cant see why one ethnic group can trump all others.
this is my theory on Jewish success. The most successful Jews by far, were the Ashkenazim, the rest did not fare well over the years. My theory on why the Ashkenazim are the most prominent today, is simply they were in economically viable locations at the right time. They ventured from the Mid East during the medieval age, and came to Germany, at this point Europe was on its way to over taking the Middle East as a world power, after the turn of the 20th century, they ventured to the US, also a time when this country was becoming the world power. It seems to me that despite the persecution, they remained in places where they could always prosper.

What is your explanation for it? Keep in mind that nobody helped the Jews in any way. Their success is their own doing.

Maybe you would like to retract this statement. Israel was given to the Jews after World War II by the UN, if this isn't compensation than what is.

Can you tell me why, Jews as ethnic group, are always on top of economic and educational ladder in every country on this planet, although they faced similar persecutions as Canadian Natives?

Other than in privileged countries this isn't the case, they aren't, most live in abject poverty, and are persecuted, in many countries, hence the mass immigrations to Israel. this is the case in many impoverished countries, another point to back my theory on why the Ashkenazim are the most successful.