Anthropological Perspective on the Human Life Course [Ch. 13 Jurmain & Kilgore Questions]

1. What is meant by the analogy “Water is to fish as culture is to humans”? Do you think that humans could survive without culture?

        To begin, no, as human culture is that which differentiates people from different species of animals. I think I can speak confidently of the inseparability of humans from tangible culture at least, because it enables people a certain degree of control over elements of the environment.    

         This is most especially the case now if culture is subtracted from human living, now that there is a high dependency on the gizmo and the gadget, and this is the era of convenience where almost everything is up for grabs at the local grocer or hypermart. Or to look at the scenario simply, most of survival is dependent upon the tangible culture such as clothing to maintain body heat in cold locations. Paired with shelter, it is designed to be a mode of adaptation to weather and climate. As for tools, one simple example would be containers to store water instead of having to constantly walk to a source (others will have to stand a trek!). Humans are also obsessed with the multifunctional device, hence the popularity of Swiss Army knives.

2. What are some of the major ways in which human health and life course have changed since the origin of agriculture? Do you think that the transition to agriculture has, in general, been good or bad for human health?

        Good turned bad. Good because it was convenient, but took a bad turn when it came to involve techniques which damaged the environment. The requirement of freshwater resources led to shortage. The usage of pesticides as an apparent threat to health is constantly mentioned. Increases in livestock population are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emitters, as well as the driving reasons behind deforestation --- which meant more land for livestock population expansion. Only time will tell what the effects of GMO foods will do to consumers of the products.

3. Consider the following statement: “In the United States, socioeconomic status is the primary determinant of nutrition and health.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or why not?

         It is logical. One needs money to buy nutritious food or maintain them if growing a garden or keeping animals in an own lot. Dietary supplements and vitamins are also expensive, apparently also the case with assortments of medication and consultations with medical personnel.

4. Do you think that natural selection operates on human behaviors such as parenting and aggression? Provide evidence or examples to support your view.

          On the question of aggression (which has connections with danger and violence), natural selection had an effect on the way humans think (cognition, perception, memory) where the ability to remember a dangerous event that may have resulted in loss of life would be favorably selected if it prevented a person from being caught in a similar situation. Further, aggression is naturally specific in genders, where competition is more male-male (example mentioned in Jurmain is the chimpanzee group). Aggression oftentimes occurs in locations with limited resources, and this reaction would also hold true for humans in present time where wars and riots occur with these causes (same with territorial expansion in the case of colonization, it is all a matter of resources).

         In the case of parenting, it would follow if I subscribe to the Life History Theory and Grandmother Hypothesis. On the first, it maintains that a human’s life cycle is divided into stages where the being has enough energy to for growth, maintenance of life, and reproduction.   

          Certain energy units are allocated per phase, and each phase has a specific amount and not energy invested in one of these processes isn’t available to another. The latter is quite cute, if I may say so freely --- it maintains that nature has placed phase limits as to what age a woman is allowed to give birth and raise children. At the 50 onwards mark, women enter menopause, and the purpose of the menopause to postmenopausal stage is for them to be able to assist in the caring of their offspring’s offspring. I would like to think of this stage as more of the idea of passing on wisdom to children and not the physical act of raising a child (I mean come on! Your parents have graduated from that phase already! Have some shame and raise your own kid!)

5. What evidence is there that humans are still evolving?

       If permitted personal rumination, we can theorize that this evidence would vary upon cultures. If there would be one culture which prioritizes a supermodel-type body, then during pregnancy the child may become malnourished. Keeping the practice may mean more people having that form.
      Darwin Lives! An Excerpt from Time Magazine’s Article on Humans Evolving. According to Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns, women’s fertility is affected by the fact that natural selection of fitter traits no longer being driven by survival. Variations in reproductive success still exist among humans, and therefore some traits related to fertility continue to be shaped by natural selection. Women who have more children are more likely to pass on certain traits to their progeny. Stearn had worked with his team in the examination of the vital statistics of 2 238 postmenopausal women participating in the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked the medical histories of some 14 000 residents of Framingham, Massacheussets since 1948.
      Investigators searched for correlations between women’s physical characteristics--- inclusive of which are the factors of height, weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels--- and the number of offspring produced. According to the findings, it was stout, slightly plump but not obese women who tended to have more children. Stearns explains that women with very low body fat do not ovulate, as did women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Using a sophisticated statistical analysis that controlled for any social or cultural factors that could impact childbearing, researchers determined that these characteristics were passed on genetically from mothers to daughters and granddaughters.
           If these trends were to continue with no cultural changes in the town for the next 10 generations, by 2409 the average Framingham women would be 2cm shorter, 1 kg heavier, have a healthier heart, have her first child five months earlier and enter menopause 10 months later than a woman today. That rate of evolution is slow, but quite similar to that seen in plants and other animals.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html accessed 03/25/2012 @ 1849
hrs.