BBC Focus Magazine

[scott fairbrass]

have past wars inderd human evolution? I ask because i had a thought that if all the fit and helthy men got sent to ther death whilst the men with disabilities or ailment would b left at home and hence would have more chance of reproduceing and passing on there faulty genes?

[Shadowwolf]

Hindered? No.

Altered, well maybe but the whole trust of society has generally moved humanity from survival of the fittest or selection for best genes. Also it is worth noting that survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the physically fittest, so war would not have been th most salient factor.

[MikeG]

In the past, the losing nation was always occupied by the winners. Let's take Syria as an example. Anybody wondered why there are so many blue eyed, blond haired Syrians. It was subjugated by the Romans for years, and as the strongest and the fittest, they introduced their genes into the losers gene pool. Rape and pillage was the name of the game up until moderns times.

Nowadays, our global culture frowns on this, but as recently as the Yugoslav wars, we heard of rape camps. All moral issues aside, the strongest in this case where the ones whose genes survived. In cases where this doesn't happen, let's say Chechnya, where a huge percentage of males were killed in the fighting against the Russians, the women would be shared amongst the men, to preserve the bloodlines. So a single woman may have multiple spouses. These survivors were the fittest of their kind. Again ensuring that the fittest pass on their genes.

Some armies have strict discipline, which forbid their soldiers from "socializing" with the vanquished. Let's take American soldiers in Afghanistan as our next example. In this case, the women, unable to survive without a male in the household, frequently die of starvation, being unable to work themselves. Their strict religion prevents other unrelated males from helping them, so we can argues that even in these cases, the gene pool is not denigrated.

I'm sure many of you will find these observations shocking, but they are just opinions based on news reports.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Actually MikeG, shocking or not, I think you have made some valid observations there.

[scott fairbrass]

so if any thing it as the opposite effect and helps the looseing sides offspring become a stonger more rounded human beign perhaps?

[M Paul Lloyd]

Quite possibly Scott, and indeed if we look at those countries that have enjoyed the greatest growth and prosperity since World War 2 I can see some precedence for such an idea.

[Shadowwolf]

so if any thing it as the opposite effect and helps the looseing sides offspring become a stonger more rounded human beign perhaps?

I don't know if I'd say that, what makes the victors stronger, better humans?

indeed if we look at those countries that have enjoyed the greatest growth and prosperity since World War 2 I can see some precedence for such an idea.

This had more to do with post-war politics, rebuilding and economics than any other factor, they were certainly not infused with the stronger blood of the victors.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Point taken Mr.S although they do seem to enjoy very good general health into the baragin.

[BrIDo]

Isn't it generally accepted that the average height of a man in Scotland was less after WW1?

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have to admit I have never heard that BriDo but at a guess I would say it was possible if a large proportion of the tall men died in that war?

[MikeG]

Isn't it generally accepted that the average height of a man in Scotland was less after WW1?

If the economy took a particularly hard hit, and good nutrition was scarce, that would be true. A lot of countries were in the same boat after WWII. The Balkans, Japan, China, etc. The current disparity in height between North an South Korea is currently huge, due to the frequent famines the country goes through. I read somewhere that the military in the North just dropped their height requirement again, and the military has first dibs on food and other resources.

[Nails]

There is one small factor not being recognised here; and that is sexual selection.

There could be an abundance of disabled men in a given population but that doesn't mean they would attract more mates or have more offspring....

[MikeG]

There is one small factor not being recognised here; and that is sexual selection.

There could be an abundance of disabled men in a given population but that doesn't mean they would attract more mates or have more offspring....

Good point, at least in our modern times. In other times, when women were almost exclusively dependent on men, that may not have been possible.

[M Paul Lloyd]

In other times, when women were almost exclusively dependent on men.............

I wouldn't like to put money on that Mike. Women can be damned tough you know.

[Colm]

This is just a guess but...

Human evolution has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, organised warfare between modern civilisations has only been going on for a few thousand.
In other words I would say throughout human history up until large civilisations and empires started to form I would say everyone had to participate in the conflict, but they would have been localised affairs.

I would think that human evolution had pretty much done most of what it is like now by the time you could be excluded from a battle because you weren't considered fit enough. I'd think that back in the day it was a case of the more the merrier.