Civilization causes devolution

The first time that I took an interest in anthropometry was when I was a teenager back in the 90s. I was sitting on a train in Sydney and I was looking at this Tongan guy and thinking - "Jesus Christ Tongans are muscular." I had played some footy against Tongans and I always hated trying to tackle them because they were always so big and muscular. Sure there are exceptions but your typical Tongan looks like a hulk. Even their calf muscles are bulging with muscle. I was particularly impressed by this Tongan on the trains calf muscles. Anyway it got me thinking about why it is that Tongans - and for that matter, all Polys - Tongans, Maoris, Fijians, Samoans etc - are so huge and muscular. I figured that it must be because in Poly society the physical alpha males are the ones that get the girl. This was the first time that I really gave much thought to the topic of anthropometry. I have thought about it a lot since then.

Many throughout history have claimed that environmental factors such as climate explained the different physical qualities of different races. The Romans claimed that the cool climate of Northern Europe was the reason for the fact that the 'barbarians' were physically bigger than the Romans. Edward Gibbon said this in his 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' -

"Its Effects on the Natives
It is difficult to ascertain, and easy to exaggerate, the influence of the climate of ancient Germany over the minds and bodies of the natives. Many writers have supposed, and most have allowed, though, as it should seem, without any adequate proof, that the rigorous cold of the North was favourable to long life and generative vigour, that the women were more fruitful, and the human species more prolific, than in warmer or more temperate climates. We may assert, with greater confidence, that the keen air of Germany formed the large and masculine limbs of the natives, who were, in general, of a more lofty stature than the people of the South, gave them a kind of strength better adapted to violent exertions than to patient labour, and inspired them with constitutional bravery, which is the result of nerves and spirits." - Edward Gibbon/The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

I do not like Edward Gibbon because I consider him to be a Roman propagandist and I believe that a lot of what he says is utterly ridiculous. We can assert with greater confidence that the large and masculine limbs and lofty stature of the Germanic people were formed due to the 'keen air of Germany' can we Edward? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. And they were better adapted to 'violent exertions' than to patient labour? It was the runtish Plebs and slaves that were doing the patient labor in Rome - and they were particularly runtish - especially early on due to how poorly fed they were. But as Edward says - many Roman propagandists claimed that it was the cold air that made Germans so big and scary. I think that Edward read some stuff from Roman propagandist Vitruvius among others. Vitruvius even claimed that the cold air made Germans stupid -

1. Further, it is owing to the rarity of the atmosphere that southern nations, with their keen intelligence due to the heat, are very free and swift in the devising of schemes, while northern nations, being enveloped in a dense atmosphere, and chilled by moisture from the obstructing air, have but a sluggish intelligence. That this is so, we may see from the case of snakes. Their movements are most active in hot weather, when they have got rid of the chill due to moisture, whereas at the winter solstice, and in winter weather, they are chilled by the change of temperature, and rendered torpid and motionless. It is therefore no wonder that man's intelligence is made keener by warm air and duller by cold.

2. But although southern nations have the keenest wits, and are infinitely clever in forming schemes, yet the moment it comes to displaying valour, they succumb because all manliness of spirit is sucked out of them by the sun. On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed readier to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity, but their wits are so slow that they will rush to the charge inconsiderately and inexpertly, thus defeating their own devices. Such being nature's arrangement of the universe, and all these nations being allotted temperaments which are lacking in due moderation, the truly perfect territory, situated under the middle of the heaven, and having on each side the entire extent of the world and its countries, is that which is occupied by the Roman people.

- Vitruvius/The Ten Books of Architecture

So clever these Romans. It was the air that made the Germans big and scary. And so stupid. I guess that Vitrivius never met a big Tongan? And why are so many Sub Saharan Africans so big? Did Vitrivius ever meet a big Zulu?

In my opinion early Roman propagandist Tacitus was closer to the truth than most of the Roman propagandists when he hinted at civilization being an anthropometric factor that could explain the superior physical size and strength of the German people -

"In every home the children go naked and dirty, and develop that strength of limb and tall stature which excite our admiration. Every mother feeds her child at the breast and does not depute the task to maids or nurses. The young master is not distinguished from the slave by any pampering in his upbringing."
- Tacitus/Germania

Tacitus had never actually been to Germania so we do have to take his anti-German remarks with a grain of salt. Of course he would call German children "dirty" but the fact is that Germanic children are never going to get all sweaty and smelly like Roman children - and Roman adults - would from the hot Roman air. (: But the beautiful Germans did wash. Anyway - in modern times we do know that breast is best and the fact that German mothers would breast feed their children themselves - and not pass off any of their responsibilities of being a mother to a maid or nurse is one example of how so-called 'uncivilized' mothers are often better parents than their civilized counterparts. It makes me think of how in African societies something like so-called 'controlled crying' would be considered to be neglect or even child abuse.

This 'controlled crying' is something that has come about due to 'civilized' Roman-like thinking and the fact that being a mother is not the number one priority for so-called 'civilized' females - it is more likely to be themselves. Tacitus claims that German children were not "pampered" but a better word would be that they were not spoiled like a young Patrician kid might be. For a German mother being a good mother was everything and it is wrong for Tacitus to suggest that German children were not well cared for. Sure the German mothers were not raising spoiled little Patricians but we can be certain that the mother-baby bond in Germania was important and strong and that Germanic children were well cared for. This emphasis that Germanic culture had on good mothering and the blood-breast feeding that was part of that may not fully explain the strength of limb and tall stature that so excited the Romans but we may assert with confidence that this contributed to the development of individuals that were well adjusted and well suited to embracing and embodying the famous Germanic Heroism that the Romans admired and envied so very much.

continued -

So Tacitus is circling around the answer by suggesting that civilization is an anthropometric factor that can explain why the Germanic 'barbarian' was physically superior to the Roman - which it certainly is - but he doesnt quite have it.

So like I mentioned before - early Roman Plebs were a bunch of runts. Early Patricians were a lot healthy and better looking physically because not only did Patricians have healthy diets but they also had the time to lift weights so that they could look sexy down at the spas. Plebs on the other hand could barely afford to feed themselves so they had poor diets and they had a lot less time to do things like lift weights because they were doing all of that 'patient labour' that Roman propagandists mention and this left little time or energy for things like lifting weights. Patricians had so much water that they could install a fountain or two and let water run out onto the streets as a sign of wealth - but for early Plebs on the other hand they had to get their water from a public space and cart it back to their tiny crowded living space.

Civilization didnt do much for early Plebs and German barbarians lived much better than them. Pretty much all early Plebs were complete runts until the changes in society like the reforms of Gaius Marius. And even though Patricians may have lived as well as or better than the Germanic people - civilization meant that it was not necessarily the physical alpha male that got the girl - plus the gene pool of the 'noble' Patricians came from a bunch of criminals and pirates and was not exactly the best stock and as we know early on they were only allowed to breed with themselves. So all the good eating and weight lifting could do nothing to improve their gene pool. They certainly did have a lot of time on their hands though for not only lifting weights and hanging out down at the spa - but also for things like book learning and scheming their oh so clever schemes. More and more of them got so clever that they didnt even need to lift weights to get the girl.

So of course as the Empire grew they did achieve food security and standards of living rose and a lot of Plebs got wealthy and the Patricians relaxed the laws on breeding with them. Julius Caesar himself had a Pleb uncle - the Gauis Marius that I mentioned - that brought in important military as well as social reforms - and it was these military reforms that allowed Pleb soldiers to reach their physical potential - and do that 'patient labour' that Roman propagandists like to crow about so much even better. But still the Romans were inferior to the 'uncivilized' and naturally selected Germanic people. Even with all the reforms and increased wealth and rising living standards - civilization made physical attributes less important for breeding and physical attributes less important in relation to offering the security that females seek when they choose a partner to breed with.

What civilization does is it causes physical devolution. Still the Germanic people were physically superior because in their society being a physical alpha was still important in relation to offering the security that females seek when they choose a partner to breed with. Your majority of Gladiators were captured 'barbarians' and Roman women were so turned on and excited by their stature and strength of limb that they would pay good Roman dinar for a small bottle of barbarian sweat to use as an aphrodisiac to splash on their Roman husbands in an attempt to get excited about having sex with them. Many wealthy Patricians would pay large amounts of money to have sex with a barbarian Gladiator. The Germanic barbarians were physically superior to the Romans because civilization had caused the Romans to physically devolve. Plus where did this 'Italian' Roman stock come from anyway? From the civilized Etruscans. The Romans were basically stupid Greeks. Civilized and physically devolved stock that only ever had a limited physical potential due to how devolved it was compared to the uncivilized and naturally selected Germanic stock.

Even Hitler knew that civilization caused physical devolution. You may have heard the myth that Hitler snubbed black American athlete Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games but that myth is about as true as most Roman myths. What actually happened was that Jesse Owens was treated better in Germany than he was in segregated USA. USA didnt even give Jesse Owens a pair of shoes to run in so Germany gave him a pair of Adidas. In Germany Owens was able to use the same bathrooms as everyone else and if he caught a bus he didnt have to sit at the back. And like I said - Hitler did not snub Jesse Owens. What actually happened was that Hitler had been receiving some gold medal winners on the first day of the competition but the Olympic officials told him that he should receive all medal winners or none so he decided to receive none. So on the second day and for the rest of the Olympics Hitler received no medal winners and it was on the second day that Owens won his medals. So if Hitler snubbed Owens he snubbed every medal winner that didnt win a medal on the first day of competition. The story of Hitler snubbing Owens is a lie. It is also a lie that Hitler was embarrassed by Owens because Germany actually won the 1936 Olympics - winning far more medals than any other country. Owens said this about Hitler - “Hitler had a certain time to come to the stadium and a certain time to leave. It happened that he had to leave before the victory ceremony after the 100 meters. But before he left I was on my way to a broadcast and passed his box. He waved at me and I waved back.” See Hitler actually waved at Owens and there was no snub. Jesse Owens didnt feel as though Hitler snubbed him but he said that he was snubbed by the President of USA Franklin Roosevelt - “Hitler didn't snub me—it was [FDR] who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram.” - Jesse Owens.

continued -

It was FDR and segregated USA that snubbed Owens not Hitler. Anyway - even though Hitler didnt snub Jessie Owens - of course he did want a German to beat him because he was a German and all.. What a shock right? This is what Hitler said after seeing Owens win his medals - "People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive’, Hitler said with a shrug; ‘their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future Games.’” - Albert Speer. See Hitler didnt think that it was fair that Africans were able to compete in the Olympics because their bodies were superior to so-called 'civilized' European bodies. Hitler believed that Africans had an animal-like speed and he is on record as saying that he wanted them to be excluded from the 1940 Olympics for that reason - because they were physically superior. Even Hitler knew that civilization causes physical devolution.

And Hitler was correct of course. Look at US sports and how African-Americans dominate them. The NBA, NFL and MLB are all dominated by physically superior African-Americans. African-Americans are only about 16% of the US population yet they dominate US professional sports. Hitler was correct that African-Americans are typically physically superior to Europeans and the reason for it is civilization and the fact that Europeans have been part of civilized society for longer than Africans. It is the same reason for Polys being so physically superior and why the uncivilized Germanic people were physically superior to the civilized Romans.

I could go on and give a lot more examples proving that civilization causes physical devolution but I wouldnt want to bore you guys. But think about it. Im sure you can come up with some examples yourselves. Ok I will give you one more - A scientific study from Italy in 2012 found that the average size of males penes has decreased 10% over the last 50 years. Now what would explain this Italian study do you think? US shock jock Rush Limbaugh was pretty worried about it and he had this to say - "The study's leaders claim to have bona fide research that says the average size of a penis is roughly 10 percent smaller than it was 50 years ago. And the researchers say air pollution is why," - Rush Limbaugh. Hmm. So its not air temperature anymore? Its air pollution? HA! "I don't buy this. I think it's feminism. I think if it's tied to the last 50 years, the average size of a member is 10 percent smaller ... it has to be the feminazis," - Rush Limbaugh. .... So it is female National Socialists that are causing penes to get smaller? I dont think I have ever met a female National Socialist. I think what Rush means is that a feminist is apparently more likely to breed with a guy that is all sensitive and in touch with his feelings rather than some alpha male like Rush Limbaugh. Modern feminists seem pretty in touch with their sexuality to me actually. I think that the more obvious answer here is that a mans credit rating is far more important to a modern female than the size of his penis. Women may care about that stuff for sex but not for marriage because when females are looking for a man to marry what they want is security and in the modern civilized world that means a good job/wealth and a good credit rating - the size of a guys penis is unimportant as far as the men that modern civilized females will choose to breed with. And this is why the scientific Italian study found that penes are 10% smaller than they were 50 years ago. It is civilization that is making penes smaller not deep 'feminists'.

I could go on but I will leave you with this -

"His head was shapely, and so gracefully was it poised upon a perfect neck that I was not surprised by his body that night when he stripped for bed. I have seen many men strip, in gymnasium and training quarters, men of good blood and upbringing, but I have never seen one who stripped to better advantage than this young sot of two-and-twenty, this young god doomed to rack and ruin in four or five short years, and to pass hence without posterity to receive the splendid heritage it was his to bequeath.

"It seemed sacrilege to waste such life, and yet I was forced to confess that he was right in not marrying on four pounds ten in London Town." - Jack London/The People of the Abyss

The good news is that this problem that civilization creates can be solved through the technology that civilization creates. In my opinion it is time to think a lot more seriously about putting more resources into genetic engineering because genetic engineering is the solution to the devolution.

youtu.be...

Double post

Genetics reverting back to where they naturally belong are causing devolution.Mother Nature always finds a way.

a reply to: deknubed

The earth is farther from the sun then it used to be,plants animals,humans were all of larger size,humans have become more ignorant as they used natural resources and were in tune with earths magnetic resonating,true records from history show this

Mother Nature...

Setting things straight since 4 Billion years BC 😎

Still can't hide from The Sun 😃

Civilization creates time for specialized production with the use agriculture.

There is no such thing as devolution. We are currently using different aspects of forced evolution. Currently we are at the beginning of cybernetics for instance. The smartphone being the very beginning.

.....that was a lot of verbiage.... and what did we come away with ? Sweat cologne, big northerners, big Zulu's small smelly romans, small dicks and .....

The one constant.. Taco's and PEZ are good.

Selective breeding perhaps, not out right devolution.

Men and women are physically attracted to each other due to health and ability to breed. If either have the attractive attributes of healthy physique, ability to breed along with intelligence and an ability to provide (regardless of the constraints of social conditioning), those types would be preferred for mating. People naturally select a mate based on the whole package, not just because they only have characteristics that make them wealthy providers. This would likely produce more people in a population that had all these desired attributes, not less.

If this is true, nature would select all the best attributes to ensure survival and create more "alpha" types rather than select out those same characteristics and cause a larger population of "inferior" stock.

a reply to: deknubed

The good news is that this problem that civilization creates can be solved through the technology that civilization creates. In my opinion it is time to think a lot more seriously about putting more resources into genetic engineering because genetic engineering is the solution to the devolution.

Here's a question: Who gets to decide? Who or what (it may be an AI) decides what alterations should be made to humans to prevent or reverse "devolution"? And what alterations are on the table? Higher intelligence? More subservient-type humans who obey their rulers? Don't we already have this? It's called Alphabet Inc.


Your description of "physical devolution" suggests that physical traits of humans are changing, becoming smaller and less relevant (i.e. your comments on penis size). There's no evidence that this is true. Humans are living longer. We're healthier, we're taller. That said, our genes have embedded constraints which prevent physical extremes. It's well known that genetic mutations, whether beneficial or not, affect human functionality. When the mutations are passed on to future generations, it's the evolutionary process at work.

I think your article focuses on the cultural changes throughout history without taking into consideration the impact of adaptation and evolution which are ongoing processes. It may sound trite, but change is inevitable. Human/AI hybidization is already on the table. There are implants to control disease processes and it won't be long before there are implants to control behavior, voluntary or involuntary on the part of the people getting the implants. I don't think we should be advocating unnatural interference in human development. I certainly don't think it's a solution to the problem that you describe.

Women may care about that stuff for sex but not for marriage because when females are looking for a man to marry what they want is security and in the modern civilized world that means a good job/wealth and a good credit rating - the size of a guys penis is unimportant as far as the men that modern civilized females will choose to breed with. And this is why the scientific Italian study found that penes are 10% smaller than they were 50 years ago. It is civilization that is making penes smaller not deep 'feminists'.

Sperm counts have declined over the past 50 years. Scientists don't know why this is occurring nor have they found any definitive "culprits" i.e. plastics, organics, environment, climate change etc. I would add that womens' attitudes towards marriage plays no role in this phenomenon.

Decline in sperm count in European men during the past 50 years
Show all authors
P Sengupta, E Borges, Jr, S Dutta, ...
journals.sagepub.com...

I think we need more insight from the real science to understand phenomenon which can have a large impact on humans on this planet. Before we resort to changing humans artificially, we should understand what constitutes a human and how evolution will naturally advance humanity.

a reply to: Phantom423

It's pretty hard to know what natural is don't you think?

I mean how sure are you we aren't programmed to do exactly what we are doing? Chimps are heading to the stone age maybe this is what life just does? Maybe the next stage of evolution is this and it just simply exists as a possibility in the multiverse.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

It's pretty hard to know what natural is don't you think?

I mean how sure are you we aren't programmed to do exactly what we are doing? Chimps are heading to the stone age maybe this is what life just does? Maybe the next stage of evolution is this and it just simply exists as a possibility in the multiverse.

All we have as scientists is our data. Speculation is fine, but in order to validate those speculations, we need the data. We don't know what evolution has in store for us. We can model what we think might happen. We can use AI to assess what we know and how the past might predict the future. But there are no assurances. We go with what we got - that's it.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

It's pretty hard to know what natural is don't you think?

I mean how sure are you we aren't programmed to do exactly what we are doing? Chimps are heading to the stone age maybe this is what life just does? Maybe the next stage of evolution is this and it just simply exists as a possibility in the multiverse.

All we have as scientists is our data. Speculation is fine, but in order to validate those speculations, we need the data. We don't know what evolution has in store for us. We can model what we think might happen. We can use AI to assess what we know and how the past might predict the future. But there are no assurances. We go with what we got - that's it.

Evolution is a bad way of thinking in terms of most who are not in the field. There are many forms of evolution and they are not linear as far as we know.

There is a force put on biological species on earth most people consider evolution. We dont really understand how it works. Like my hens crowing and growing spurs when I don't have a rooster. There are hormone triggers etc..but evolution is just the observation of most likely a quantum event. Which is entangled with the universe and so on.


I would argue it's impossible to do something unnatural or it wouldn't be possible.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

It's pretty hard to know what natural is don't you think?

I mean how sure are you we aren't programmed to do exactly what we are doing? Chimps are heading to the stone age maybe this is what life just does? Maybe the next stage of evolution is this and it just simply exists as a possibility in the multiverse.

All we have as scientists is our data. Speculation is fine, but in order to validate those speculations, we need the data. We don't know what evolution has in store for us. We can model what we think might happen. We can use AI to assess what we know and how the past might predict the future. But there are no assurances. We go with what we got - that's it.

Evolution is a bad way of thinking in terms of most who are not in the field. There are many forms of evolution and they are not linear as far as we know.

There is a force put on biological species on earth most people consider evolution. We dont really understand how it works. Like my hens crowing and growing spurs when I don't have a rooster. There are hormone triggers etc..but evolution is just the observation of most likely a quantum event. Which is entangled with the universe and so on.


I would argue it's impossible to do something unnatural or it wouldn't be possible.

As I said, scientists work with data. If someone doesn't agree with the data for whatever reason, it's incumbent on them to prove the data is wrong and their data correct. You're asking questions that are hypothetical and may be impossible to prove.

So I don't know what your point is. We have data from direct experiments which give us information about this planet and the organisms that inhabit it. Science doesn't proclaim absolutes. Information holds until additional data either adds to that information or rejects it or modifies in some way.

a reply to: Phantom423

Luckily science is also philosophical particularly the areas that cross with cosmology. This is the actual scientific process. Created by philosophers from descartes to newton.

You start with a hypothesis either from data or from curiosity and then create a way to falsify the theory and test it.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

Luckily science is also philosophical particularly the areas that cross with cosmology. This is the actual scientific process. Created by philosophers from descartes to newton.

You start with a hypothesis either from data or from curiosity and then create a way to falsify the theory and test it.

This is the scientific method as understood by real scientists.




I don't know how philosophy interfaces with cosmology other than it might be fun to discuss over a martini. The process itself must be objective. How your hypothesis develops into theory and then into experimental design etc is straight forward. If your hypothesis includes untestable ideas, then it's not part of science. Philosophy is comprised of opinions - some may be valid, others may not. If it's testable and measurable, then it's science. If it isn't, then it's something else.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

Luckily science is also philosophical particularly the areas that cross with cosmology. This is the actual scientific process. Created by philosophers from descartes to newton.

You start with a hypothesis either from data or from curiosity and then create a way to falsify the theory and test it.

This is the scientific method as understood by real scientists.

I don't know how philosophy interfaces with cosmology other than it might be fun to discuss over a martini. The process itself must be objective. How your hypothesis develops into theory and then into experimental design etc is straight forward. If your hypothesis includes untestable ideas, then it's not part of science. Philosophy is comprised of opinions - some may be valid, others may not. If it's testable and measurable, then it's science. If it isn't, then it's something else.

Not sure if you are just not reading what I said but your chart is exactly the same.

And lol philosophy is literally where science came from. Have you heard of empiricism?

Do you know Hopper's falsifiablility?

It seems you are not exactly sure what science actually is. Perhaps you should look into the teams of people who work at CERN and fermilabs for the experiments or any field of theoretical science....which is where new ideas are tested...like quantum scale evolutionary pattern....or as in the current model multiple dimensions...it comes from math....

Curiosity is what drives real science. Not how to make better cellphones.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

Luckily science is also philosophical particularly the areas that cross with cosmology. This is the actual scientific process. Created by philosophers from descartes to newton.

You start with a hypothesis either from data or from curiosity and then create a way to falsify the theory and test it.

This is the scientific method as understood by real scientists.

I don't know how philosophy interfaces with cosmology other than it might be fun to discuss over a martini. The process itself must be objective. How your hypothesis develops into theory and then into experimental design etc is straight forward. If your hypothesis includes untestable ideas, then it's not part of science. Philosophy is comprised of opinions - some may be valid, others may not. If it's testable and measurable, then it's science. If it isn't, then it's something else.

Not sure if you are just not reading what I said but your chart is exactly the same.

And lol philosophy is literally where science came from. Have you heard of empiricism?

Do you know Hopper's falsifiablility?

It seems you are not exactly sure what science actually is. Perhaps you should look into the teams of people who work at CERN and fermilabs for the experiments or any field of theoretical science....which is where new ideas are tested...like quantum scale evolutionary pattern....or as in the current model multiple dimensions...it comes from math....

Curiosity is what drives real science. Not how to make better cellphones.

I am not implying that imagination isn't important. But more often than not, on this board, people are attempting to mix apples with oranges while stating that they are the same.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. You are, of course, correct that great philosophers were at the start of real science. But remember, it did take technological innovators to run with their ideas and design the instruments that we use today to test and measure things.

A better cellphone still takes a knowledge of the engineering which is essentially the science.
I'm waiting for the cellphone where I don't have to delete all the crap that comes with it like games and links to junk I don't want (I just have a personal aversion to iPhones and the like - I only use it when absolutely necessary).