Low population worlds and genetic bottlenecks

[G'Naakbusters]

I would remove all reference to the idea of "genetic health", "damaged genes" etc. this is explicitly a eugenicist framework. But otherwise, sort of. The first thing is that mutation rates in mammals (and all large animals tbh) are extrewemely low, and so that's basically a non-factor here. Second, again, it really takes a very high level of isolation to produce a real population bottleneck, sigtrygg's reference to mountain people in particular, this idea was essentially fabricated by eugenicists, the virginia state eugenics program is particularly notable here, to support their agenda there. There's a number of things behind this, the main one is that these people were viewed as backwards because they were essentially subsistence farmers and this is considered a moral failure, but also there was a relatively high incidence of chronic injury because of a lack of access to medicine, with race mixing, anti-irish sentiment, and resistance to government intrusion being additional factors, always good things to declare yourself in opposition to lmao. Anyway, these places were not actually isolated enough to produce a measurable level of differentiation. Third, this type of narrative leads to the massive over estimation by lay people of the effect of population bottlenecks, often its like "X population is 3 times more likely to have Y weird disease, and we think it's because of genes!!" But the actual frequencies of these things are like 1 in 10k and 3 in 10k respectively, and the genetic link is derived from one paper where a correlational link with pretty low predictive power was found. Anyway that's all I want to respond to in detail, though I will say that that last bit really puts an ignorant colonial mindset on display, and that "genetic distinctions in populations" are mostly made up and people are right to be suspicious of people that say things like that because 99% of them are doing race science, intentionally or not.

Great post, thanks.

I supposed that was what you meant, that the popular idea of "small population equals inherent problems genetically" is incorrect.

"Genetic distinctions in populations being mostly made up" is not a statement that makes much sense to me. I'm quite aware that humans have a very low genetic diversity compared to most species, but respectfully I think this is a case of ideology creeping into the conclusion -- just because "racial blocs" don't exist genetically and are social inventions, it is still undeniably the case that you can track genetic traits and they will cluster within geographically and ethnically distinct populations. That's unavoidable. As we all know, there are diseases and vulnerabilities that are tied to particular genes and express only within certain populations, at least so long as those populations haven't yet largely intermarried (and many humans are tribal, so remain within rather closed groups).

Overall -- and if this is wrong so be it, you'd know better than I -- I tend to suspect that you're representative of a common attitude which, I would argue, is born of hypersensitivity to any perceived racism that ironically makes you more hung up on it than anyone else. Few people actually think that reference to "race" actually denotes some hard-and-fast distinction genetically, it's shorthand categorization for clusters of genetic and phenological traits, and the more isolated and/or self-engaged a given geographic population is, the more those traits will be associated with that population. Unless you're claiming that the general rule of "palest people in the northern reaches, darkest people in the tropics" is a social construct. Prior to large-scale migration, people in different parts of the world have different features and different expressed traits (different immune systems and the like too, hence the depopulation of the Americas). In the modern age, really the only people who are hung up on "race" are the ones who like to decry it, and who respond to every use of a potentially charged word with the assumption of damaging baggage.

It comes across as "I mustn't ever, *ever*, suggest any sort of relationship between concepts like health, genes, race because in the past those intersections have been used for harm and so it's all cursed ground." Which in my opinion causes more harm than good, and prevents the very sort of useful discussion that we're having now.

I'm curious, how would you discuss genetic illness if not in terms of "genetic health" or "damaged genes"? I have an autoimmune disease, so is it wrong to talk about the health of, or damage to, my immune system? Or is it okay there, but not about genes, and if so why is that if not because of sensitivity to certain ideologies that base harmful and erroneous agendas on these ideas? I keep coming up against the suspicion that it's not any real *scientific* objection but a refusal to engage with certain terms and ideas simply because they've been used for ill in the past.

Sigtrygg didn't mention "mountain people". He's talking about certain populations in the UK, probably those of particular East African descent, I might be wrong). I'm afraid I see this as more evidence that you're not relating to what others think or say but to your own hang-ups.

resistance to government intrusion... always good things to declare yourself in opposition to

Governments are often the ones pushing the things you're decrying. In America, it was the state that deliberately pushed those ideologies to cripple the non-Anglo communities...

 

[G'Naakbusters]

Also hey don't blame me, it's the weird eugenics apologia crew that brought up the more modern stuff.

"I didn't say those things. Anyway, here I am blatantly saying it again. Which I didn't do."

Anyway I know it's so hard for you to be called racist, I'll try to do better in the future ok?

Snide.

This is what I'm talking about.

No real interest in discussion, only in puritan moralising.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I'm not talking about mountain people. I am talking about a "community" in the UK that has a high incidence of genetic medical conditions due to their cultural views insisting on marriage between cousins.
I care not for race because the issue is nothing to do with race.
I care not for religion because the issue is nothing to do with the religion they follow.
I care not for political view because DNA has no political views.

It is all d to do with data, medical follow up, research - you know, science. Before science was weaponised.

The data and medical evidence shows their cultural practice of common close cousin marriage produces genetic issues due to such a small population intermarrying. Sadly they receive no help and their babies keep dying or being born with defects and all because well meaning racists call it racist to discuss such things.

I also do not care one jot about academic types who are meant to be intelligent and educated allowing their political views to blind them from reality.

Ok I will not delete but try to make it less offensive since i want to discuss evidence and data not "feelings".

 

[Sigtrygg]

It's not moralizing puritanism to point out to someone that the things they're saying are transparently false to anyone with an understanding of genetics and population dynamics that goes beyond highschool biology class lmao

Also hey don't blame me, it's the weird eugenics apologia crew that brought up the more modern stuff. Anyway I know it's so hard for you to be called racist, I'll try to do better in the future ok?

Again , you explain the ONS data and medical corroboration as racist eugenics - it isn't.

In fact it is racist to not point out the issue and do something about it.

 

[G'Naakbusters]

This is what it all boils down to, though, isn't it? The cause of my initial objection and complaint.

A certain worldview that colours any and all discussion of potentially sensitive issues through their reliance on moralizing aggression twinned with avoidance, based on the notion that because a tool was ill-used in the past, that tool is now taboo and cursed and can't be picked up -- and that anyone doing so is a villain to be railed against, regardless of what they're doing with the tool and regardless of their awareness (often more nuanced than that of the attacker!) of how that tool has been historically misused.

It's particularly a shame because the non-ideological, non-political points, about popular misconceptions related to small populations and genetics, are interesting, useful and important ones. Well worth being made, and with authority. But they are lost under the presentation, because that presentation carries a cultural baggage (we'll call it, "American puritanism") that assumes the immorality of others, the necessity of aggression, and the notion that you deal with an evil by nuking the entire site from orbit, just to be sure.

EDIT: There's a general preoccupation with this culture of "what is said" in surface terms over what is *meant*. It's why they regularly find words that have been used as derogatory labels -- retarded, gypsy, etc. -- and declare that these are now Bad Words, tainted and unfit for any use; the fact that they have been applied as derogatory labels means *the word itself* is not only tainted but carries all the harmful baggage associated with the use of such a word as an attack or slur. It thus no longer has a neutral or legitimate meaning, it is A Bad, used by people who are themselves Bads by virtue of using it. The same with concepts. It cannot be allowed for the notion of genetic distinctions to exist, because the concept itself now carries the power of past abuses. Now, that's not too much of a problem in this case, since, yes, human genetic diversity is very low due to several past bottlenecks, so all human ethnicities and populations are basically the same. Saying "race isn't actually a thing, scientifically speaking" has the benefit of being true, so all's well. But so many of these topics will involve wading through controversies and dangers, and all too often the impression given is not that of an effort to navigate the most helpful path but of shoring up one's credentials against accusations of moral impurity.

Wingsday, you clearly have relevant and important things to say regarding how this tool should be used. I'm acknowledging the authority of most of your actual points, after all. But when a conclusion carries the impression of ideology it is likely to be resisted, even if it's true. And when it comes down to "option A might be suspect in some areas because of the long history of politically-charged pseudoscience" Vs "option B is definitely suspect because it reads as blatantly based in doctrine", people will go with A.

 

[wingsday]

"ideology is when someone has a robust understanding of how people's cultural biases creep into their views and actions, and attempts to act upon this in their work, just looking at the data is when you use pop science to do eugenics apologia" get me out of here lmao

Also I think it's funny that yr out here trying to "facts don't care about ur feelings" me right after I told you that something is not supported by the corpus of population genetics and your response was "yeah, well I feel like it is, so what about that"

 

[G'Naakbusters]

And the point is lost.

Your understanding of "cultural biases creeping into views and actions" doesn't seem very robust to me, since you completely resist the notion that these biases underpin the entirety of your behaviour here.

I've outlined what some of those biases are. Assumption of others' immorality or ignorance; assumption of one's own righteousness; the favouring of aggression and/or dismissal over engagement; the pursuit of hegemony over cooperation; a noticeable capacity for avoidance of one's own actions, e.g. "I didn't say the thing I said or do the thing I did".

It's practically a textbook case of the culture in question.

Laugh your posterior off all you want. It's a defensive measure to ensure that you don't have to take seriously the idea that Those Other People are *their own people*, not whatever projection you've substituted for them (the claim that someone was talking about a population from *your* experience when they were clearly talking about something from theirs is, again, very telling. You're opposing something in your own head, not what's actually in front of you, and that in turn doesn't help alleviate suspicions about the conclusions you reach in academic fields)

I think I've derailed this long enough, so I'll stop here.

Let's all just agree we are inherent sinners and can only be free of sin by embracing doctrine. As much as we *think* we don't want to purge the unclean races (or something), our insistence that we not sleep with our siblings means we do, and much as we think we might examine our own potential for biases, sadly we are all led by the nose and we never do that at all. But luckily the righteous are here to correct us, once they find their detached posteriors that we have, in our wretchedness, caused to shake loose more than once.

(Yes, I'm being snide. Because I'm not immune to poor behaviour when I'm frustrated because, you know, I'm not the fount of righteousness).

 

[Sigtrygg]

"ideology is when someone has a robust understanding of how people's cultural biases creep into their views and actions, and attempts to act upon this in their work, just looking at the data is when you use pop science to do eugenics apologia" get me out of here lmao

Also I think it's funny that yr out here trying to "facts don't care about ur feelings" me right after I told you that something is not supported by the corpus of population genetics and your response was "yeah, well I feel like it is, so what about that"

That's because it is supported by data and facts.
Have you looked at the ONS data?
Have you read the research papers?
I have.
It is not "pop science" which is something I try to avoid, it is hard data and medical scientists doing their job and holier than thou racists saying "you can't say that it's racist" when there is clearly a medical issue that could be prevented are part of the problem not the solution.

 

[Arkathan]

So the ONS is lying? The UK Office of National Statistics. Freely available Government collected data that show a clear ling between genetically based medical issues and "close cousin breeding" community.

You are correct. The cultures who persist in generational close cousin breeding have extra limbs/digits growing where they shouldn't, reduced IQ and an increased propensity for violence when compared to a genetically diverse and healthy culture of the same race. The more they adhere to the practice, the more pronounced the problems become.
The petri dish is in plain view.

 

[Arkathan]

It is not "pop science" which is something I try to avoid, it is hard data and medical scientists doing their job and holier than thou racists saying "you can't say that it's racist" when there is clearly a medical issue that could be prevented are part of the problem not the solution.

There are few things more infuriating to me than the overuse of Lenin's Dog Whistle to shut down RATIONAL discourse.
When you either parrot idiocy or get cancelled for stating things that are proven to be true, there is no talking with that person.
Even though they were needed for the revolution, Lenin would call that type of person a useful idiot. Mao's open government suggestion boxes is an example of what happens to those people when they are no longer useful.