On "Progressiveness" - Active and Passive Adaptation

[Agrippa]

On "Progressiveness" - Active and Passive Adaptation
I already started various threads on that topic now, one of the latest - simple and concise is this:
Comparison of Archemorphic (primitive), Paedomorphic (infantile) and Neomorphic (progressive) Types:
Comparing archemorphic, paedomorphic and neomorphic types
I tried to explain the reasons for this differences in various articles as well, but now I want to show the bigger picture and connect it to established basic rules of evolution - which I already did, but will do here again:
Interesting is this thread about Lynn's theories too:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36758
And this thread about Veblen:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=352292
As are various threads about Rushton.
What is active and what is passive adaptation - its a different way of responding to demands in a specific context, Lynn already spoke about it, but its very important so I will go into detail:

Evolution is a theory of life
Life: an autonomous agent, "a self-reproducing system able to perform at least one thermodynamic work cycle" (S. A. Kauffman, 2000, Investigations; Oxford University Press, New York). The system thus self-reproduces as a collective enterprise of interacting molecules, and carries out work on its own behalf through metabolism in a cycle in which chemical reactions that require energy are coupled with reactions that produce energy. "Life is an expected, emergent property of complex chemical reaction networks" (Kauffman, 2000).
Characteristics of life (but not unique to life): metabolism, replication, growth, interaction, activity, competition, cooperation, feedback, adaptation, evolution.

Adaptation
Adaptation: a feature or attribute that confers a survival or reproductive advantage to its bearer; also the process resulting in this benefit.
Criteria for recognition of adaptation in living and fossil organisms: trait must be heritable (through genes, culture, imitation). There must be identifiable agency that links possession of trait with a bearer's performance in survival or reproduction; attribute must be demonstrated to have the function that confers the benefit.
Adaptation as hypothesis: adaptations are testable hypotheses of a bearer's environment. There is thus a close parallel between adaptation and the scientific method.

and

Characteristics and realm of adaptations
Adaptations must work, whether or not they are truthful hypotheses.
Adaptation is a universal condition in all parts of an economic system, thus including all life forms and their parts.
This is so because all living things compete for locally limiting resources; and all living things are the products of unbroken lines of descent that extend back to the origin of life, meaning that successive members of these lines have faced all kinds of challenges and opportunities successfully.
Adaptation is to current conditions; insofar as these conditions remain similar, adaptation provides an adequate hypothesis of the future.
Adaptations are often of a very general nature, applicable under a rather wide variety of circumstances.
There are two broad classes of adaptation: passive and active, or resistance and response.
Adaptations are never perfect; there are tradeoffs, incompatibilities, insufficient information; and limitations imposed by structural, chemical, and biological factors (see below).

Measuring adaptation
Energy (or work): a means of exchange, a measure by which resources are quantified; formally equivalent to money.
Power: energy per unit time; measures performance (fitness, productivity, profit, influence).
Efficiency and effectiveness: efficiency (energy output vs. energy input) is desirable for living things that gain less (or lose more) during competition than winners; effectiveness (or performance) is not the same thing as efficiency.
Passive and active adaptation: passive adaptations (toxicity, armor, large size) effective when available power is low; active adaptations (speed, aggression, venom) made possible by, and confer, greater power.

Types of selection
Stabilizing selection: maintaining the status quo.
Directional selection: selection resulting in directional change.
Sexual selection: selection resulting from mate choice.
Selection at different levels in the genetic hierarchy.
Limits and constraints to adaptation
Insufficient variation: without variation there is no selection.
Too much variation: the result is chaos.
Constructional, biomechanical, developmental constraints: some adaptive pathways more easily followed than others; an already successful pattern of development is difficult to change because most changes are damaging, hence novel characters are often added or deleted but not inserted; many evolutionary changes involve subtle changes in timing of events in development.
Ecological constraints: the tradeoff principle; insufficient material or energy resources, or resources supplied unpredictably; enemies constrain what can be achieved adaptively by victims.

The role of enemies in evolution: escalation and the top-down view
Escalation: enemies affect the characteristics, distribution, and behavior of victims; enemies are ubiquitous, and adaptation to enemies is rarely perfect, so improvement is almost always possible in principle.
Types of enemies: predators, parasites, members of the same species, others who exploit or interfere with the same resources.
Resources over which living things compete: soil minerals, food, water, light, shelters, status, mates; humans and human groups also compete for market share, fuel, and many other conditions and commodities.
Enemies tend to control the directions of evolution because they have greater per-capita or collective power than their victims.
Coevolution: reciprocal evolution; this occurs, is usually a special case of escalation, most involves highly specialized relationships such as those between some specialized parasites and their unique hosts.

Opportunity: a bottom-up view of evolution
Opportunity: conditions enabling populations to grow and expand, implying surplus of production to sustain consumers.
Components of opportunity: increasing temperatures (making many phenotypes feasible that would be unattainable in the cold); increasing rate of supply and predictability of supply of food, raw materials, energy.
The role of extrinsic triggers: extinctions, tectonic events, warmer climates, spread of warm conditions, rising sea levels all provide good conditions for evolutionary innovation and increased diversity of life.
The evolution of regulation: top-down and bottom-up views combined. Consumers often stabilize, increase, and make more reliable rates of resource supply, and control directions of evolution.
The role of incumbency: incumbents prevent many adaptive pathways from being taken, but their removal does not automatically enable survivors to replace those incumbents.
The role of competition: competition is a necessary condition for the evolution of performance-enhancing novelties.
Examples of minor and major innovation: multicellular organization, social organization, eukaryotic cell, photosynthesis, biomineralization, leaves, internal fertilization, plant-animal partnerships, transitions from sea to land and vice versa, endothermy, bipedal locomotion, flight, labral teeth in snails, pollination by animals, immune systems, brains, vision.

http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~gel4/
If looking at human features:

While pigmentation is purely a passive adaptation to environmental demands, intelligence has a more general utility which may aid survival in a wide diversity of environmental conditions, and even enable the organism to respond to rapid changes in the environment -- something that passive adaption may actually hamper rather than facilitate.

http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36758
My comment:
http://forum.skadi.net/showpost.php?...1&postcount=10
Thats exactly the difference between adaptation I usually name progressive or just regional. Progressive features are under a much greater number of circumstances advantageous, not necessarily always though, whereas pure regional or niche adaptation is just for a certain time and context positive - might be even one sided and lead to overspecialisation and extinction on the long run.
The base for progressive developments (investment in the general performance level of individuals) is usually in those regions, which were first influenced by the Ice Age, and by constant weather change (seasons) secondly. Especially the changing conditions, high demands, but at the same time sufficient nutritional base was the road to success. Practically all progressive types came up or at least had roots, lived for a longer time, in a dry, temperate, or moderately cold environment.
I tried to point to some of the spots and main racial types of progressive development in this map:

Red circles: Progressive Europid secondary centres (were respective subtypes or important progressive populations might have their centres and are still strong).
Yellow circles: Progressive Mongoloid (including Indianid) secondary centres.
Blue circles: Borealised, cold specialised but otherwise rather progressive forms of Eurasians.
Blue line: Border of the area in which higher percentages of relatively progressive individuals naturally exist(ed).
Thin green line: Primary areas for borealisation after and partly during the last Ice Age.
Light Green (Andid) and Ethiopian circle, semi-progressive to progressive group centres.
Dark Green circles: Centres of infantilisation and reduction in the tropical forests and in groups living in unfavourable conditions.
Pink: Centres of primitive characteristics, similar to the oldest sapiens stratum - if combined with dark green both is visible, archemorphic and paedomorphic characteristics.
Infantilisation-Reduction is a passive way of dealing with pressure, one sided saving, whereas progressive tendencies are the active response to it, to finally "deal with the problem" from a higher level.
Examples for passive and active biological and cultural adaptations:
Problem:
Too cold - loss of energy and heat

Response:
passive - more subcutaneous fat, shorter extremities, longer-broader trunk, saving of energy, moving less, overall reduction in size.
active - getting bigger, more muscles, bigger brain, more intelligent, better protection-clothing, better social interactions in the group, group strategies, successful hunting and intelligent use of other sources = more energy available.
Problem:
Too much UV-rays, danger of skin cell damage and probably problematic for fol-acid production in pregnant women.
Response:
passive - increased melanin production, stronger pigmentation.
active - use of artificial protection, clothing, pastes etc.
Problem:
Pressure from other groups:
Response:
passive - At best defensive, trying to stay in strongholds. Finally retreating into unfavourable areas or total subordination.
active - developing a counter strategy, learning from the enemy, using the own strengths, finally switching over to counterattacks.
The progressive line is the line of the generalist actively adapting Hominisation, whereas infantilisation is the passive way out of unfavourable conditions, which lead to even more downgrading of the subject.
Unfortunately, if comparing the situation both inside and between world groups, the progressive elements are being reduced, are being used by the current Liberalcapitalistic system, their abilities and will, for short term oriented profits whereas the less evolved or aberrating groups are increasing both inside groups and worldwide.
Thats especially obvious if comparing the map from above with the regional population growth.



Obviously the regions worse for human development were and are partly less favourable for cultural and economic, especially modern development, though thats a generalisation.
Important post on that:
Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective

Obviously we see in this "double retarded" areas with a less socially disciplined culture as well, beside the biological and general economic-cultural retardation the highest birth rates. They are least infected by Liberalcapitalism since they mostly lack the structures necessary for getting fully indoctrinated and re-educated by it. For that are some basic, higher structures and levels necessary.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I tried to point to some of the spots and main racial types of progressive development in this map:

Red circles: Progressive Europid secondary centres (were respective subtypes or important progressive populations might have their centres and are still strong).
Yellow circles: Progressive Mongoloid (including Indianid) secondary centres.
Blue circles: Borealised, cold specialised but otherwise rather progressive forms of Eurasians.
Blue line: Border of the area in which higher percentages of relatively progressive individuals naturally exist(ed).
Thin green line: Primary areas for borealisation after and partly during the last Ice Age.
Light Green (Andid) and Ethiopian circle, semi-progressive to progressive group centres.
Dark Green circles: Centres of infantilisation and reduction in the tropical forests and in groups living in unfavourable conditions.
Pink: Centres of primitive characteristics, similar to the oldest sapiens stratum - if combined with dark green both is visible, archemorphic and paedomorphic characteristics.

And what about West Africa : progressive, primitive or infantilisation centre ?

[Galaico]

Very interesting map Agrippa, I'll add it to my "Agrippa's diagrams" folder .

According to the red dots representing Europid progrssive types, would these be in each area:
Spain - Atlanto-Mediterranid?
Britain - Atlantid/North-Atlantid?
Southern Scandinavia - Faelid and Scando-Nordid?
Poland (?) & Baltic States - West Baltid and East-Nordid?
Balkans (?) - Dinarid?
North Africa - Berberid?
Caucasus - Armenoid and Mtebid?
Arabia - Arabid?
Iran - Iranid?
Pakistan & North India - Nordindid & Irano-Afghan?
Central India - Indid?

Are these the peak types of the Europid race?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Galaico

Very interesting map Agrippa, I'll add it to my "Agrippa's diagrams" folder .

According to the red dots representing Europid progrssive types, would these be in each area:
Spain - Atlanto-Mediterranid?
Britain - Atlantid/North-Atlantid?
Southern Scandinavia - Faelid and Scando-Nordid?
Poland (?) & Baltic States - West Baltid and East-Nordid?
Balkans (?) - Dinarid?
North Africa - Berberid?
Caucasus - Armenoid and Mtebid?
Arabia - Arabid?
Iran - Iranid?
Pakistan & North India - Nordindid & Irano-Afghan?
Central India - Indid?

Are these the peak types of the Europid race?

You are right with your suggestions. Those are the progressive and dominant forms for the respective regions. Aalways generalised: Atlantomediterranids for the West-Southwest, Nordid-Cromagnoid for Northern-Central and Eastern Europe, Dinarid and Pontid for South Eastern Europe, Mtebid-Pontid for the Caucasus, Berberid for North Africa, Aethiopids for Eastafrica, Iranid (Northern) and Arabid (Southern) Near East, Nordindid for India, Sinid for Eastasia, Silvids and Pacifids (before colonisation) for America.
Finally, if you compare this groups with each other, you see certain similarities, and of course local-specialised differences. But finally, this progressive groups are the leading elements of the regions in question. The other types are just a weaker form of them or suboptimal specialisations in a direct comparison. They can be progressive too, but they dont reach the niveau of the peak types for the region in question.

And what about West Africa : progressive, primitive or infantilisation centre ?

Well, compare with this:
Comparing archemorphic, paedomorphic and neomorphic types

[Ariets]

By reading Alekseeva book ("Geography of human races" - I really highly recomend it Its really good) I started to think that racial types are just result of adaptation to living conditions, climate, diet and type of air in area where people live.

And if we talk about "racial progression" (with what I agree to you, as well as to Stołyhwo and the other anthropolist which have write about such thing) we can say that colder area's are "not best" place to make an progressive humanoid forms because of adaptation to the climate like flattering of face and becoming highly brachycranial (better keep warm f.e.). In colder areas is also hareder for "good" food, other things are also chemical elements in soil like Si, Fe, Al, P and Ca.

So whats best for a racial progression ? A moderate climate I guess?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Ariets

By reading Alekseeva book ("Geography of human races" - I really highly recomend it Its really good) I started to think that racial types are just result of adaptation to living conditions, climate, diet and type of air in area where people live.

And if we talk about "racial progression" (with what I agree to you, as well as to Stołyhwo and the other anthropolist which have write about such thing) we can say that colder area's are "not best" place to make an progressive humanoid forms because of adaptation to the climate like flattering of face and becoming highly brachycranial (better keep warm f.e.). In colder areas is also hareder for "good" food, other things are also chemical elements in soil like Si, Fe, Al, P and Ca.

So whats best for a racial progression ? A moderate climate I guess?

You said it yourself:

I started to think that racial types are just result of adaptation to living conditions, climate, diet and type of air in area where people live.

Thats correct. You just have to think about it twice. Because you can "conserve a species to death", or "overspecialise it to death" if it gets too one sided.

Too extreme climates are rarely good, but it depends much more on the conditions. F.e. if a people lives in a desert, but there are many oasis and they have large herds, the option to fish and trade and the main selection is that for a versatile type which can go over huge distances, care for his herd, defend his herd, property, territory and kin etc., you will have a good type of humans.

On the other hand, the worst what can happen are humans with a very conservative material culture which main challenge is nature alone and who have to conserve, to save energy all the time.

The best selection is one for performance types with a good compromise of cost vs. benefit calculations.

Hominisation was so far, and hopefully will be in the future, a more generalised adaptation with just a limited number of focal points and so far, all overspecialised forms, just adapted to a limited living space with their basic specialisation, were swept away by more progressive and versatile forms from the centres.

There are biodynamic centres of mankind which are characterised by a potential of supplying large groups of humans, giving them a decent life, but also a strong competition for the best places and the dominance in this area, in a fight of small to medium groups for the better living spaces.

Such biodynamic centres could move, but the most important ones so far were in Europe, Middle East, India and East Asia, with the first three being Europoid. And its not by chance that those areas, with a more moderate climate and long rivers, the fluvial areas and steppes are such hotspots for biological and cultural development in prehistoric times, brought up the more influential higher cultures.

So the "progress" of a race or species was so far a byproduct of evolution by chance, under conditions which favourable for a more general and promising development on the long run, and of course the human special case.

[Menydh]

Though I'm usually skeptic of Agrippa's theories, I'll admit that the on that map the division of The Americas is food for thought.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Though I'm usually skeptic of Agrippa's theories, I'll admit that the on that map the division of The Americas is food for thought.

In theory there would be the right climate in the South of America, South Africa, Southern Australia and New Zealand too. But as you can see on the climate maps
Human races - climate adaptation?
Racial Specialisations and Climatic Zones

those are rather isolated and smaller areas which weren't united to a "biological and cultural highway" like in Eurasia. There was no place for the positive dynamic like in Eurasia, so the more progressive elements were rather immigrants from the centres (like the more progressive Indianids and Polynesids) which just evolved on there, but had already an improved status when they came.

[Ariets]

Hm.. I think I know all right what you Agripps mean in a progressivness of mankind , and still I agree with you. Thanks.

Btw. Why do you think that steep forehead is a unprogressive feature if I can ask?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Ariets

Hm.. I think I know all right what you Agripps mean in a progressivness of mankind , and still I agree with you. Thanks.

Btw. Why do you think that steep forehead is a unprogressive feature if I can ask?

Thats not determined by this trait in itself, but it occurence in combination with other traits. So we might argue that it could be a progressive trait, even in males, but so far it isnt, because it mostly appears together with typically infantile stigmata and an "unbalanced context". Today most mature grown males in particular have a rather sloping forehead. There are exceptions from that rule.

It is, in general, a paemorphic, so at least Neotenic trait, but if being racially infantile or not, depends, as explained, on the context, like its the case for other traits too.

F.e. large eyes are no negative trait neither, though they can occure more often in primitives as well as infantiles, but I would count them as distinctly primitive or infantile primarily in cases in which the other traits are going in the same direction.

Like it is with pathological syndromes, one symptome doesnt have to make the disease, but the combination of symptoms does.

[Ariets]

But most other non-sapiens waren't with steep forehead but rather with sloping . And I'd say that steep forehead is pretty common among East Nordids, Pontids and West Baltids and all for me are progressive.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Ariets

But most other non-sapiens waren't with steep forehead but rather with sloping . And I'd say that steep forehead is pretty common among East Nordids, Pontids and West Baltids and all for me are progressive.

As I said, on its own it can be progressive indeed, but worldwide a really steep, not even slightly sloping forehead is usually a feature of infantiles. Also distinguish a high from a steep forehead. From what I saw, the types you mentioned have in the male sex a higher, but usually not steep-vaulted forehead.