View Single Post
Old 07-21-2021, 07:58 AM   #21
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by St.Regis View Post
Is this conjecture or do you have credible sources for this statement about genetics? And what is your definition of "thrive"?
Look into any modern research into human genetics and environment and the interactions are pretty clear. It's become so clear and accepted that one can no longer talk about what a gene does without also considering the environment in which that gene is expressed. There is no "nature vs nurture." That's a fallacy. They are completely interdependent.

As for any other species, I think it's pretty common sense. Take away the environmental conditions which it fundamentally needs, and compare it to conditions which are more favorable, and on average it won't be as healthy, grow as well or live as long. There will, of course, be exceptions and over time if environmental conditions shift enough a species will either adapt or go extinct, but the outcome of that is completely random chance based on millions of years of pre-existing adaptations.

Thriving isn't a fixed, rigorous scientific definition, but rather in my mind a moving scale that we would use to assess against others.




Way, way, way on another scale from what is discussed here but one only needs to look at education and environment of people with disabilities such a cerebral palsy, autism, down syndrome, etc... where in the past the life outcome was poor and the solution was to put people like this in facilities and isolate them from the rest of society. Now, and especially with peoples with autism, we know that even small changes in environment can help them "thrive" and live what we would consider more fulfilling lives. This is a classic example of a poor environment and an incorrect assumption of genetic predisposition limiting the potential of human individuals.

Last edited by montcalm; 07-21-2021 at 08:47 AM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote