Slashdot Mirror
Hobbits' Brains Shrank Due To Remote Home
Hugh Pickens writes "The 'hobbits,' dubbed homo floresiensis, caused a worldwide sensation when they were discovered five years ago, when some scientists claimed that the 18,000-year-old human-like fossils found on the Indonesian island of Flores represented an entirely new species. Now researchers at the Natural History Museum in London believe that the creatures' small brains could have developed to reduce the creatures' energy needs, crucial for surviving in an isolated area with limited resources. 'It could be that H. floresiensis' skull is that of a Homo erectus that has become dwarfed from living on an island, rather than being an abnormal individual or separately-evolved species, as has been suggested,' says palaeontologist Eleanor Weston. 'Looking at pygmy hippos in Madagascar, which possess exceptionally small brains for their size, suggests that the same could be true for H. floresiensis, and the result of being isolated on the island.' Although the phenomenon of dwarfism on islands is well recognized in large mammals, an accompanying reduction in brain size has never been clearly demonstrated before."
How does "some researchers believe" equate to "clearly demonstrated"? I think whoever wrote that blurb has experienced brain shrinkage!
They don't mean that evolution was looking forward. They are talking to laymen and then getting it reported by a news report so by the end it will get simplified. What they mean is that selective pressure due to critical energy needs favored successively smaller brained individuals who were more able to effectively survive and have fertile offspring. Over the course of many generations, this led to small brains. Everyone understood what they meant when they said that. There's no good reason to nitpick about an attempt to give a short explanation to laypeople.
Not only are you a racist, but you're clearly an uneducated one as well. Africa is the most genetically diverse area in the world. Making the sorts of sweeping statements you did, regardless of whether they're racist or not, indicates that you actually have no fucking clue about human evolution.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Still seems silly to me, when you start renaming actual medical conditions just for fear of hurting the emotions of someone even worse off. Should we also stop calling autism autism, just because someone even more autistic out there could feel unhappy about it? Should we stop calling asthma asthma, just because some people are even more crippled by it?
The real insulting part in your example would be your using that term as an inherent insult, instead of a medical condition. _That_ is what ends up annoying those who genuinely have that condition.
But when you get to the point of actually using the euphemisms even for the actual disease, something tells me that you're missing the whole point.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Why not? Island dwarfism and island gigantism are well know phenomena, even if we don't really understand why they happen.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
I strongly object to the term "retards".
By treating the term retard as offensive, you are only feeding into its offensiveness. Retard means slow. If retard has any negative connotation at all, it is because being mentally slow is something that is inherently undesirable, and no matter what window dressing you do to it, the window dressing will always become an insult.
If you had any depth to you, you would be more focused on trying to emphasize to as many people as possible that being a retard is not something worthy of being hated or abused. The word retard is not harmful at all, and it never will be. It is how people react to people who are retarded. When you focus on something as shallow as a word, you are hurting retards worldwide by misdirecting public attention from their cause.
The 'Hobbits' are retards. And so are you for getting butthurt over the word retard.
Insects are pretty diverse. None of them are very big. Not much variation in number of legs either.
Thus it would appear that diverse doesn't mean "covers the entire scale on every possible variable". Therefore it does not at all refute GPs post.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Look at Japan. It has a tiny fraction of the natural resources of Africa. Yet, the Japanese people created the 2nd-richest nation on the planet.
My history may be way off but:
Didn't the Japanese move there recently (evolutionary timescale) from the mainland? There wouldn't be enough time for evolution to make an equivalent difference. Modern (same timescale) cultures can offset a lack in resources easily. After overcoming that hurdle, a small land mass can be a blessing for a country's development. One example is how much better their connectivity is because they don't need to span a country the size of the US.
Are both ends of the spectrum the best for a country's development? US = huge = tons of resources, japan = small = needs less resources. (I realize that there might be a lower limit to this, making this not work for tiny countries. There are also other factors that have led to Japan's success)