Height is NOT genetic - UK's drastic drop in height due to austerity, poor diet

[shucknchuck]

@ursidae

If you look at Ireland’s IQ you’ll find it’s significantly lower than England. Unfortunately, the map I used, lumps the UK’s IQ results together, so, I imagine Scotland is sandbagging England-proper’s IQ, and England should look more like Finland or Higher, with Scotland more comparable to Ireland…

Average IQ in Europe by country (map)

When we speak about IQ, it is important to understand that the common idea that IQ measures your "innate" or "genetic" intelligence is a complete misconception. A trained brain is able to solve

jakubmarian.com

I believe that post-protestant reformation Europe lost the virtues of the siesta, and their rest and lifestyle values that ensures peace and tranquility. I don’t believe in the jacobin and English puritan work ethics, which devalued family time and rest. I believe the balance is usually (maybe always) in the middle. I don’t believe in ethnically predetermined iq’s; I do believe in culturally related iq’s.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Though I do agree, with height being controlled in part by the dietary habits of a persons childhood, and teens, I think the height drop we’re seeing in these averages nowadays is due to demographic change by much more genetically shorter or more malnourished people (who then have kids that have these same “hunger patterns” active in their genes and cells). We can call them broadly “Eastern Peoples”, North Africa, the Near East, and many of Englands ex-foreign colonies. And they are generally slightly shorter to much shorter, ethnically or because of diet insufficiency.

Any height decrease in the US in the last 25 years can be seen to be mostly due to Meso-American immigration, unless the studies control for race.

I do think height is controlled by total amount of carbs and protein and calcium you eat though, man I wish I had bulked up as a teenager. I’m not short by based on siblings heights I perhaps may have been a few inches taller.

The English race as a whole doesn’t seem to be particularly tall though. Considering their dominance I think a few inches is overrated. For instance the Scandinavians are a few inches taller on average yet they never had an empire, though they were explorers.

There’s definitely some genes controlling height that has an effect but if you’re in the general range it doesn’t really give you that many advantages.

In general it seems that an inch of height will give you about 5-6lbs on average. Weight is the biggest thing in fighting, besides skill, and then height.

Anything above 5’8 as a men is physically good for fighting physically, in terms of dealing with likely opponents.

I can also sense that humans are getting shorter- tall does not equal = good. being a Lanklet probably has some effects biologically speaking that are bad in certain ways.

The average height of all US presidents is 5’11. The average height of a bunch of F500 CEO’s was 6ft. These are averages though, not medians, but still it probably means something.

I think height is a cope now, to an extent. I think In the deep past of ancient human history, height was good and the more equals the better, but I think we’re entering into a world now where there’s less of a pressure on height, and other factors are becoming more important. I mean, considering a majority of the country got a mystery-injection, it’s obvious that other selection pressures are becoming salient - would you rather gain 4 inches, but you got the Gates shot? I wouldn’t.

New genetic pressures are becoming important.

If you want your kids to be taller though, make them bulk since childhood. Give them an easy way to snack and eat all day.

 

[lvysaur]

Freedom in hell is not better than servitude in heaven — Your Assertions notwithstanding.

You said max potential. Max potential means the rich get even richer and work their workers with higher productivity.

I believe you. It might be genetic or diet related. But it still doesn't explain the polar bear/siberian tiger, in general all animals that have a cold-environment adapted counterpart.

Yes it does. Cold climates are wilder and less human-settled than warm climates. Warm climates have bigger animals and biomass.

The human biomass of India is 1.4 Billion, the biomass of an equivalent land parcel in Siberia is 0.01 Billion people.
The largest elephant-like species was native to Southeast Asia and India, hunted to extinction 30,000 years ago.
The largest ape was native to Southeast Asia and Southern China.

Humans from Africa/India/etc have been hunting and outcompeting animals for 100,000+ years, filling their continents to the brim
Humans in Siberia and Europe have only been doing so for a shorter time, and with lower population densities, meaning not to completion. They also had a burst of warmth 15,000 years ago (boling alerod) which allowed greater biomass (and thus size), some of which still persists to this day.

Samoans are wider, stouter, more muscular, and physically stronger than Europeans. The average midday temperature in Samoa is 87 F, in Europe it's more like 50F.

Certain Australians have some of the thinnest limbs seen on earth, even though the heat index there is far cooler than Samoa, and equivalent to Italy or Spain.

Neither height NOR robustness has anything to do with temperatures. They have to do with nutrition, both present-day nutrition (which helps reach genetic potential) and ancestral nutrition (which sets the genetic potential that is possible). Europeans today are tall because they are rich, they were all 5'5" or shorter just a few centuries ago. Europe is also not a cold place today, the winters are similar to Tennessee or other parts of the Southern USA.

The fish in America were much bigger 100 years ago. Because humans were not competing for their nutrients/hunting them intensively

 

[shucknchuck]

You said max potential. Max potential means the rich get even richer and work their workers with higher productivity.

Excuse me, but you assumed that when I said “max potential,” it meant, “the rich get even richer and work their workers with higher productivity.”
———

Maybe I owe you a little explanation for what I meant prior

Begging the question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[EustaceBagge]

Yes it does. Cold climates are wilder and less human-settled than warm climates. Warm climates have bigger animals and biomass.

The human biomass of India is 1.4 Billion, the biomass of an equivalent land parcel in Siberia is 0.01 Billion people.
The largest elephant-like species was native to Southeast Asia and India, hunted to extinction 30,000 years ago.
The largest ape was native to Southeast Asia and Southern China.

Humans from Africa/India/etc have been hunting and outcompeting animals for 100,000+ years, filling their continents to the brim
Humans in Siberia and Europe have only been doing so for a shorter time, and with lower population densities, meaning not to completion. They also had a burst of warmth 15,000 years ago (boling alerod) which allowed greater biomass (and thus size), some of which still persists to this day.

Samoans are wider, stouter, more muscular, and physically stronger than Europeans. The average midday temperature in Samoa is 87 F, in Europe it's more like 50F.

Certain Australians have some of the thinnest limbs seen on earth, even though the heat index there is far cooler than Samoa, and equivalent to Italy or Spain.

Neither height NOR robustness has anything to do with temperatures. They have to do with nutrition, both present-day nutrition (which helps reach genetic potential) and ancestral nutrition (which sets the genetic potential that is possible). Europeans today are tall because they are rich, they were all 5'5" or shorter just a few centuries ago. Europe is also not a cold place today, the winters are similar to Tennessee or other parts of the Southern USA.

The fish in America were much bigger 100 years ago. Because humans were not competing for their nutrients/hunting them intensively

This is all very interesting and I was just thinking about tropical climates and how diverse and dangerous the animals there are, so you must have a point. I was just comparing polar bears to grizzly bears but food scarcity thanks to human competition may indeed play a part.