| 18-07-2011, 09:16 | #31 |
|
Moderator
![]() |
Thanks. Now I get you
|
|
|
| Thanks from: |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
| 23-09-2011, 19:41 | #33 |
|
Moderator
![]() |
The ozone layer, or lack of.
|
|
|
| 25-09-2011, 14:48 | #34 |
|
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pale Blue Dot.
Posts: 10,484
|
For one thing people have a much better life expectancy nowadays and vulnerability is often related to aging. Most importantly though is the simple fact skin cancer was known about back in the past and there is far more awareness and better diagnosis of it nowadays. Plus, the population of this planet is now huge.
|
|
|
| 26-09-2011, 16:21 | #35 | |
|
Registered User
![]() |
Quote:
They deal with the evolution of man, the behavioural traits we developed and the one's we maintain to this day. "The Human Zoo" is another which compares our ancestors communities with today's cities, although I haven't read it. |
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
| 01-03-2012, 23:31 | #37 |
|
Registered User
![]() |
When we talk of the natural habitat of animals it comes down to whether they got there by themselves and do they thrive there?
Where did humans go? Everywhere. Where do humans thrive? Most places, some more than others. Basically it comes down to how adaptable we are. In animals we have species such as house sparrows which have basically been able to colonise much of the world thanks to humans expanding the steppes (arable agriculture). Adaptations occur in humans as well as animals and we can see them quite visibly. But human adaptation is probably stunted by our best adaptation of all, our brains. If we colonised much of Europe and Asia without furs or clothes to keep warm we wouldn't have been able to until we'd evolved thicker hair, basically fur to keep warm. Perhaps a relic of a move towards this can be seen in very hairy people. Originally humans would have been adapted to the Savannah in Africa. Our bodies are tall and straight, perfect for loosing heat and tall so that we can see far (think about meerkats standing up to see predators). We have no specialist adaptations, we're generic and so long the other most adaptable of animals we can fit in almost anywhere. Being omnivores instead of herbivores or carnivores was probably important too. |
|
|
| 04-03-2012, 23:04 | #38 |
|
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nothing in life has any business being perfect
Posts: 26,570
Mod: Ladies Lounge Mods, Ladies' Lounge Private, Sex & Sexuality, The Ladies' Lounge, Watches & Timepieces
|
Eh yea we do and we're not. Pale/dark skin is a specialist adaptation. Things like blue eyes/blonde hair are local sexually selected specialist adaptations. As is environmentally selected body shape. And other things. Inuit folks have significantly more capillaries in their faces and hands compared to other populations as a local adaptation. That's before we get onto things like food. EG Europeans on average are better at metabolising lactose alcohol and gluten than say native Australians. Our immune systems vary by population too. Genetic remnants of other archaic humans vary depending on population. We're not by any means "generic" though on the surface may at first glance appear to be. It's one of things that made and makes us all so adaptable.
|
|
|