If you read the papers related to the work it's really not all that clear how much of this is genetic (inherited) evolution or just adaptation from birth to different environmental conditions, i.e. any child born and raised at high altitude might display such adaptations, regardless of parentage.
> "Tibetans (the study sample were Sherpas, an ethnic group that emigrated from Tibet to Nepal ≈500 years ago) who are born and raised at high altitude have higher capillary density in muscles as compared with Andean high-altitude natives, Tibetans born and raised at low altitude, or lowlanders."
> "Are These Functional Adaptations Heritable? To evaluate the hypothesis that natural selection accounts for the functional physiological characteristics of Tibetan highlanders relative to Andean highlanders or of highlanders relative to lowlanders, a primary consideration is the presence of heritable variation in the traits under consideration. However, the genetic underpinnings of these quantitative traits are mostly unknown (with the exception of nitric oxide). These traits are also influenced by individual characteristics, including age and sex."
> "With respect to identifying specific genetic loci contributing to high-altitude functional adaptation, efforts so far have not been successful."
An accurate headline would replace 'are evolving' with 'might be evolving' for this work.
Interestingly enough, the source[0] comparing the andean evolution and the tibetan evolution which are a bit different - which makes this a case of convergent evolution.
TIL the human body for the last billion years does not store oxygen in the mitochondria, despite the wide swings in the oxygen levels in the atmosphere, probably due to its destructive effects. In other words: the air is toxic. We breathe it enough, we die.
Oxygen is the oxadative species that drives our biochemistry. It's a fuel.
Oxygen is highly reactive. It is a fantastic evolutionary gradient as it has tons of free and readily available energy to harness. But of course it's also what also wears us down by putting oxidative stress on our cells, DNA, and molecular biology. It causes all sorts of damage as a byproduct of what it is.
Oxygen is life and death.
The particulates suspended in the air are yet another problem ...
> the andean evolution and the tibetan evolution which are a bit different - which makes this a case of convergent evolution.
Only in function; they're very different in form. The Tibetan suite of adaptations uses more efficient hemoglobin; the Andean suite uses larger amounts of hemoglobin.
This is generally explained as reflecting the much, much, much, much greater age of the Tibetan suite.
There is a third standard example of a suite of high-altitude adaptations in humans, found in Ethiopian highlanders. For whatever reason, it sees almost 100% less discussion.
Probably because people don't think of Africa as having much extended elevation. And by-and-large, the continent is pretty flat (only Australia and Europe-ignoring-the-Alps are flatter).
It's very difficult to find (or even define) a list of non-mountain high points in the world, but "average elevation of country" (which is only unreasonable for a handful of the largest countries) is easier to find, and Ethiopia is only around 19th place in such lists (17th if we exclude Greenland and Antarctica which are not actually countries), not even the highest in Africa.
Isn’t this true of anything in excess? For gases - nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc all have this effect. In fact some states are using nitrogen for executions, although it’s not exactly humane (warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Kenneth_Eugene_Sm...).
There were some viral threads going around for a bit that were focused on this word. It never made sense to me - presumably an LLM that outputs the word delve does so because it learned it from the data it was trained on, meaning delve was already a common word.
I personally have used the word for many years, and have seen it extensively pre-LLM. To me, it’s only a red flag when someone starts producing content that doesn’t match their prior history of writing with a sudden explosion of vocabulary.
As usual, popular science coverage always casts evolution as an active process, and sometimes even an intentional process. But anyone who took high school science would recognize the form of evolution in the article as just a result of some people dying early while everyone else went about their business.
Another interesting aspect of modern human evolution is the fact that brave men have a higher risk of dying in war, extreme sports, etc.
Will male risk behavior be more similar to female risk behavior, 10000 years from now?
Nowadays, the use-case for masculine bravery is more or less obsolete. It had a purpose when there were wild animals roaming around human habitations, but nowadays it may very well trick a man into becoming a war casualty.
Historians of the future might look back on pro-conscription advocates as those who stood in the way of the modern human.
You're discounting the idea that being a brave man still has any reproductive advantage. I doubt very much that a fearful man is as attractive to women as a brave man, even in modern times.
Gotta wonder what happens if aggression is bred out of the population genetics, then the aliens/AI/lost tribes/more isolated countries attack.
As the world moves back to increased nationalism, some cultures are increasingly militaristic while others become keyboard warriors. Over evolutionary time, that could create different enough human subspecies? Maybe we'll see Klingons after all.
I believe that last half of a century of relative peace in the West is the direct result of the "bravest" (whatever that label means here) in two world wars. So that less brave men (and women) could build in peace. Unfortunately the population of brave men mostly recovered and we are ready for the next great war in Europe that will devastate everything.
evolution in humans is about who survives, right? more specifically about who survives before having children who themselves survive with or without their parents
being brave may still be a quality if it's paired with other qualities
10k years is a lot, try predicting what happens in 10 years..
Readit News
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701985104
> "Tibetans (the study sample were Sherpas, an ethnic group that emigrated from Tibet to Nepal ≈500 years ago) who are born and raised at high altitude have higher capillary density in muscles as compared with Andean high-altitude natives, Tibetans born and raised at low altitude, or lowlanders."
> "Are These Functional Adaptations Heritable? To evaluate the hypothesis that natural selection accounts for the functional physiological characteristics of Tibetan highlanders relative to Andean highlanders or of highlanders relative to lowlanders, a primary consideration is the presence of heritable variation in the traits under consideration. However, the genetic underpinnings of these quantitative traits are mostly unknown (with the exception of nitric oxide). These traits are also influenced by individual characteristics, including age and sex."
> "With respect to identifying specific genetic loci contributing to high-altitude functional adaptation, efforts so far have not been successful."
An accurate headline would replace 'are evolving' with 'might be evolving' for this work.
TIL the human body for the last billion years does not store oxygen in the mitochondria, despite the wide swings in the oxygen levels in the atmosphere, probably due to its destructive effects. In other words: the air is toxic. We breathe it enough, we die.
[0] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701985104
Oxygen is the oxadative species that drives our biochemistry. It's a fuel.
Oxygen is highly reactive. It is a fantastic evolutionary gradient as it has tons of free and readily available energy to harness. But of course it's also what also wears us down by putting oxidative stress on our cells, DNA, and molecular biology. It causes all sorts of damage as a byproduct of what it is.
Oxygen is life and death.
The particulates suspended in the air are yet another problem ...
Only in function; they're very different in form. The Tibetan suite of adaptations uses more efficient hemoglobin; the Andean suite uses larger amounts of hemoglobin.
This is generally explained as reflecting the much, much, much, much greater age of the Tibetan suite.
There is a third standard example of a suite of high-altitude adaptations in humans, found in Ethiopian highlanders. For whatever reason, it sees almost 100% less discussion.
Probably because people don't think of Africa as having much extended elevation. And by-and-large, the continent is pretty flat (only Australia and Europe-ignoring-the-Alps are flatter).
It's very difficult to find (or even define) a list of non-mountain high points in the world, but "average elevation of country" (which is only unreasonable for a handful of the largest countries) is easier to find, and Ethiopia is only around 19th place in such lists (17th if we exclude Greenland and Antarctica which are not actually countries), not even the highest in Africa.
Isn’t this true of anything in excess? For gases - nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc all have this effect. In fact some states are using nitrogen for executions, although it’s not exactly humane (warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Kenneth_Eugene_Sm...).
What effect are you talking about? Those gases all have very different, unrelated effects.
> In fact some states are using nitrogen for executions
The nitrogen isn't harmful; the cause of death is the amount of oxygen (zero), not the amount of nitrogen (slightly more than normal).
> although it’s not exactly humane
That's just propaganda. Exceptionally dishonest propaganda. You should be ashamed to repeat it.
Still an interesting article, though!
I personally have used the word for many years, and have seen it extensively pre-LLM. To me, it’s only a red flag when someone starts producing content that doesn’t match their prior history of writing with a sudden explosion of vocabulary.
So, evolution - just framed correctly.
Will male risk behavior be more similar to female risk behavior, 10000 years from now?
Nowadays, the use-case for masculine bravery is more or less obsolete. It had a purpose when there were wild animals roaming around human habitations, but nowadays it may very well trick a man into becoming a war casualty.
Historians of the future might look back on pro-conscription advocates as those who stood in the way of the modern human.
As the world moves back to increased nationalism, some cultures are increasingly militaristic while others become keyboard warriors. Over evolutionary time, that could create different enough human subspecies? Maybe we'll see Klingons after all.
being brave may still be a quality if it's paired with other qualities
10k years is a lot, try predicting what happens in 10 years..
It sounds like you're using a relatively loose definition here. Masculine bravery is not constrained to only the physical realm.