Rural children now grow slightly taller than city children in wealthy countries
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
It does not appear they controlled for ethnicity, race or any other measure of genetic stock. Doing so is important in my view. For example, the oft-cited average US male height 5'9 or 5'10", but for white American men it's more like 5'11"
I've done splicing work for several farming co-ops out west that ran fiber to the homestead. Small town of like 200 has GPON to most houses.
The only places I feel have been homogeneous with their rural areas surrounding them, have been some of nordic places like Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and Tallinn.
1 - https://ggwash.org/view/6497/maps-show-racial-divides-in-gre...
Yes, but are they all ethnically skewed in the same way? If the concern is genetic factors, it doesn't really matter if cities have different ethnic demographics than rural areas in all two hundred countries as long as the rural/urban racial skew is different in the different countries.
For example, in the US rural areas may tend to be whiter than urban areas, but in countries that aren't predominantly caucasian, the opposite may be true.
But Tulsa, OK vs the surrounding non-metro counties? I'm less certain without diving into the data.
The median US city size is Naperville, IL at 149,104 people.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Naperville is a suburb of Chicago, and without looking I can confidently tell you that it's more white than Chicago, but less white than a nearby rural area. I will look though: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/chicagocityilli...
Cities in mostly ethnically homogeneous states tend to still have things of value that might draw people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. I'm in Nashville Tennessee and there are far more people of Asian or middle Eastern descent here in the city than there are in the surrounding rural areas, due to the universities and the job opportunities which draw people from out of state.
But if by “a priori” you mean something innate in humans or mathematical, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find that. Or what that really means in this context.
A priori = Beforehand, or before analysis performed. Standard phrasing in research, defines reasonable hypotheses to test.
For example, most americans have a-priori knowledge that rural americans are demographically whiter than urban americans, and could hypothesize global trends.
If that counts as an a priori reason - I’ll take it. In summary: “A priori” is ambiguous here / not a very useful modifier afaict.
In Western countries, yes.
Country Year Urban Ethnic Makeup Rural Ethnic Makeup
-------------- ----- ----------------------------- ------------------------------
United States 1990 73% White, 14% Black, 8% Hispanic | 86% White, 11% Black, 3% Hispanic
2020 57% White, 12% Black, 18% Hispanic | 84% White, 8% Black, 9% Hispanic
United Kingdom 1991 90% White, 4% South Asian, 2% Black | 97% White, <1% South Asian, <1% Black
2011 75% White, 12% South Asian, 6% Black | 97% White, <1% South Asian, <1% Black
South Africa 1991 14% White, 77% Black, 9% Coloured | 15% White, 68% Black, 17% Coloured
2011 14% White, 79% Black, 8% Coloured | 11% White, 77% Black, 11% Coloured
India 1991 69% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 11% Other | 69% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 13% Other
2011 63% Hindu, 17% Muslim, 11% Other | 68% Hindu, 15% Muslim, 13% Other
China 1990 91% Han, 2% Mongolian, 2% Hui | 89% Han, 5% Zhuang, 1% Miao
2020 92% Han, 1% Zhuang, 1% Hui | 88% Han, 6% Zhuang, 1% Miao
Peru 1993 53% Mestizo, 31% Indigenous, 16% White| 73% Indigenous, 23% Mestizo, 4% White
2017 60% Mestizo, 16% Indigenous, 24% White| 74% Indigenous, 21% Mestizo, 4% White> The total 2020 enumerated population of all [331] cities over 100,000 is 96,598,047, representing 29.14% of the United States population (excluding territories)
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...
So, for instance, Greater Los Angeles has more than 18 million people by itself, where your source lists it as under 4 million.
Here are the sources-
US: US Census Bureau
UK: Office for National Statistics
South Africa: Statistics South Africa
India: Census of India
China: National Bureau of Statistics of China
Peru: National Institute of Statistics and InformaticsThe best one that I can think of is the fact that rural children probably spend more time outside engaging in physical activity. Even in the US, I know of high schools where a substantial number of the students are working full-time jobs outside during the summer, in addition to doing outdoors sports and other activities during the school year.
Perhaps tall people are more likely to find work in rural areas and short people's skills are more likely to align with urban environments.
I still wonder if there is something else going on. But feel like instead of a survey of 200 countries it would be more interesting to just focus on one country with a more homogenous genetic population and measure lots of different possibel variables
I think the point is that looking at 200 countries makes the possibility of confounding factors much lower
Or are you suggesting that non-genetic cultural factors could be at play here too? Possibly!
If whatever you wanted to say agrees with this, I agree with it; if it disagrees, I disagree with it.
I don't see cultures mentioned anywhere in the article or the comment you replied to.
If mean that there are no differences in the genes that determine height across populations, that is incorrect. For example, the average male height in Pygmy populations is 5 feet, or about 7 inches lower than Cameroon's Bantu populations who live alongside Pygmies. We know there are genetic differences between Pygmy and Bantu populations that are specifically associated with height, and that average Pygmy height increases along with the percentage of Bantu ancestry (https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/info%3Adoi%2F...). Similarly, differences in height across European populations have been demonstrated to be partly due to differences in the hundreds of genes associated with height (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480734/).
One group in all of humanity happened to have measurable differences in genes affecting height?
How does that explain the many other distinct "Pygmy" groups entirely separate from those in West Africa, such as those in the Philippines, who have genetic differences in growth hormones that cause them to be shorter (https://doi.org/10.1515/JPEM.2002.15.3.269)? "Pygmy" simply refers to one of these many groups, they are genetically and geographically distinct.
Pygmy groups show how absurd the claim that there are no differences in height is, but the same kind of variation has been shown within European groups on a smaller scale (consistent with the greater genetic diversity in Africa than Europe). We know that similar differences in genes that influence height exist, to a less extreme degree, across all populations. For example, males in both the Tutsi and Dinka ethnic groups average nearly 6' tall, despite living in areas where malnutrition is/was widespread and alongside other groups that are much shorter on average.
I'm genuinely curious where you got the idea that there are no genetic differences affecting height between ethnic groups/countries. Researchers have identified genetic markers responsible for the majority of variation in human height among Europeans (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/588020v1), and shown that those markers vary significantly across European groups just as they do in Africa (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480734/).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03622-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/136736a0
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/193488/race-science-about-bi...
https://www.nature.com/articles/153604a0
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674660038
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-res...
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/height...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3180830
Every single variation in "genetic trends" amongst cultures is negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors.
The source of the ideas you're asserting as fact are very dark and extremely thoroughly debunked at this point. Honestly it's kind of shameful to present these 1920s ideas as modern.
Individually yes, genetics contribute to height, but the full range of height genetics exist in every culture.
"The full range of incomes exist in every country, therefore differences in average incomes across countries must be negligible."
You've linked a long list of articles talking about race in America and Brazil, none of which I can see claim that there are no differences in genetic height by ethnic group. One is a book from 1944 that rightly rejects racially discriminatory policies and argues "that experience rather than inborn traits determines standards of social conduct." What part of that supports the idea that the 6' Tutsis or Croats are genetically predisposed to the same height as the Taron who average 4'3?
The MedlinePlus article you linked explicitly says "in some cases, ethnicity plays a role in adult height."
"Race" categories as described by all of your links that I saw ("black"/"white") are crude aggregations of hundreds of ethnic groups. Tutsis and Pygmies are both "African," but at the opposite extremes of human height. Framing the genetics of height in terms of American racial politics makes no sense.
>The source of the ideas you're asserting as fact are very dark and extremely thoroughly debunked at this point. Honestly it's kind of shameful to present these 1920s ideas as modern.
The "source of the ideas" are the peer-reviewed journals of PLoS Genet and Nature Genetics based on landmark genetic research published in 2012 and 2020. As in hundreds of other peer reviewed studies that have identified genetic markers responsible for height and how those markers vary across populations, including articles you yourself linked without apparently reading.
>Every single variation in "genetic trends" amongst cultures is negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors.
Is the vastly higher rate of sickle cell anemia among people of West African descent is either "negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors"? Is it simply Europeans' "environment" that causes them to go bald and get skin cancer at rates dozens of times higher than people of East Asian descent growing up in the same countries?
So no, you have not linked any peer-reviewed study saying what you claim.
Immigrants might also be throwing off the average. They tend to grow taller in North America (not just second generation), again, unsurprisingly because of diet.
India regularly tops air pollution lists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities.... You can’t totally avoid outside air.
Anecdotally I remember hearing of Chinese people moving abroad and having their chronic asthma clear up almost immediately.
However, I doubt you can pick any one specific cause and say it’s definitive.
If we see a clear health disparity between two groups who should otherwise have equal outcomes, then it implies there’s possibly something in the environment of one group that’s negatively effecting them. And therefore could possibly have other side effects we’re not privy too.
You say height is of no importance, but a majority of women[0][1] would disagree, and men below average height would also disagree. Perhaps our evolutionary signals point to something other than “a social construct” for choosing height in mates. Wild thought.
0 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
1 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/online-dating-investing-match-t... (quote of note: “A former Bumble product manager says that a majority of women on the platform tend to set a floor of 6 feet for men, which would limit their candidate pool to about 15% of the population.“)
They physical advantages of height are very apparent and simple to understand. Even animals recognize the larger you are the safer you are (generally). How is that inconsequential?
In fact I would argue having an arms race for ever bigger humans is antisocial and detrimental... just the carbon footprint aspects alone is a good reason to discourage that. The extra stress on our food system. Bigger cars, airplanes, fuel, etc... as opposed to women dig it and you can beat people up. Really?
An individual person’s height isn’t an indicator of health but in aggregate the statistics matter.
I don’t see the analogy with race working in this context.
What you’re asking is the implied question. Is the shift due to changing demographics? Or is it evidence of malnutrition, that city kids are not reaching their genetic optima?
At a population level, ceteris paribus and longitudinally, height is a health indicator. Individually or comparatively it’s useless.
Do you think any part of intelligence or behavior is a physical attribute that can be affected by genes?
For example, there is lots of construction and heavy equipment type work that require strong wrists and forearms, and if you are not born with them, then you are not going to be able to do those jobs.
Even race (or whatever classification of tribal affiliation you want) is consequential. Some people have very curly hair (for example black peoples), and it takes a lot more work to maintain. Some races have higher risk of heart disease/cholesterol problems. Some people’s skin is so lacking in melanin that they get sunburn on a cloudy day.
If people want to make judgements about a person's worth based on their racist or heightist tendencies that's their prerogative, but we have seen with racism that negatively portraying people of colour only serves to propagate negative stereotype beyond that which is "innate". It is clearly equivalent for height, given the many examples people provide of height not providing societal advantages in certain other cultures. It's by and large a cultural phenomenon, not biological.
Is it really that preposterous to expect the media not to mischaracterise people born with an arbitrary genetic trait as lesser individuals?
Also, taller people are healthier (admittedly only indirectly because of their height). It’s not just a comment on health. Height is a social advantage.
That being said, the article is a gross oversimplification. The top comment accurately points out a lack of control for even ethnicity (which would completely explain the difference in height in the US).
Social advantages based on arbitrary phenotypic traits should not be encouraged. White people generally have social advantages given the fact that racism exists.
Racism is certainly bad and should be discouraged. Somewhat controversially, apparently, so should heightism.
Or it is simply that you can physically intimidate people to get an upper hand in situations where such an upper-hand shouldn't be given... just because. How noble. What a useful and admirable trait to encourage.
There is that deterrent in place, that social constract. Sure it can be violated, but your argument is along a similar line of folks who advocate for open carry.
And if you are killed? There is a strong appeal to reducing the likelihood you will die.
But nutrition is what's being measured here. People from poorer countries are on-average shorter, and that is largely driven by diet, although childhood illness is also a factor.
The issue isn't height really, it's that people are having their growth stunted. They did not reach the height they would have if they'd gotten better food, better sanitation, etc.
Back when polio was common you could tell what areas had been hit the hardest and in which year by looking at average height in school photos. My grandfather had oddly short legs but a long torso because of a very mild bout of polio as a child. This is important not because he was shorter than he might have been, but because more serious cases of polio can cause paralysis, permanently malformed legs, and death. Height in this case is a proxy for worse things.
Height discrimination may actually be due to its usefulness as a proxy for genetic damage and disease load during mate selection. The same thing that causes people to unfairly discriminate makes it useful for studying population changes.
Note: I mean real posture correction through exercise and training, not the currrent fad of "devices" that fix your posture for you.
All I can tell you is what helped me:
- Improving my working ergonomics. Specifically, not being hunched over my laptop so often. People talk about great chairs, stand up desks etc, and despite having those things I didn't see much change. I found more of a change by avoiding using my laptop as a laptop unless I was away from my desk. If I'm at my desk, I'm always using an external monitor.
- For exercises I did face pulls, rows, and I made chin tucks a thing I just do sporadically throughout my working week. No gym required.
- Finally, I discovered I had very tight neck and chest muscles and doing stretching exercises for both was helpful.
On the neck and chest stretching I would just suggest taking that kind of thing very slowly, don't overdo it like I did. When I first started with those I ended up in pain because I was overstretching muscles that hadn't been stretched properly in many years (or ever).
What is true is that height increases each (modern first-world) generation
I dare say whomever will rediscover the role sodium phosphate plays in growing bodies when consumption is greatly exceeded -- it is used as a food additive, including some soft drinks. I'm sure many soft drink brands may still use the additive, but at a much reduced rate compared to 70s, 80s and 19990s.
When I grew up, in my locale, there was an epidemic of shorter than would be expected children, some clues were there, slowly it seemed most were very thirsty and actively consuming one brand of softdrink ... as much as I liked it, more than a couple of cups caused my gut to grumble and boil for a bit. During the 90s the formulation changed or was fixed, I know it certainly changed as I no longer suffered as I once did if I happened to consume more than a couple cups in a hour. At the time I had no idea of the cause and wasn't until reading conclusions in a pretty grounded book.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/does-carbonat...
Sodium Phosphate though is added to many foods [1] [2] -- it's something to keep in mind. It's possible due to a learning curve, that the rate applied to soft drinks has been reduced in the US as well, but I'm not privy to that sort of information.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/sodium-phosphate
[2] https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/patient-guide/leaflets/files/56112Pph...
South Americans and Asians are, on average, shorter.
The percentage of non white immigration into those areas is frankly staggering compared to the 100+ years prior.
So yes, those groups did just move into those cities recently.
Find me a big city in the west where white people have even stayed the same in their percentage of population since 1990. I can't find any in the top 100 or so cities in the US on a 30 second search - everything is a decrease.
You made a claim, then got pissy about being asked to cite it, and are now asking me to cite something instead, as if you hadn't just flat out refused to do exactly what you're asking me now to do. The balls on you!
Haha no, that's not how burden of proof works...