Survival of the fittest might have actually been survival of the richest​

[finehoe]

Roughly 12,000 years ago, humans started farming commercially. Those with fruitful harvests discovered what it meant to be wealthy. And wealthy men apparently fathered way more babies, according to a new study.

Survival of the fittest might have actually been survival of the richest.

Researchers recently uncovered a sharp decline in genetic diversity in male lineages across the world during the Stone Age. The study's authors hypothesized that material gains made through early agricultural success — a proxy for wealth — gave smaller groups of related men the reproductive upper hand for generations.

"Men who had more wealth and power might have had more to offer to women," said co-author Melissa Wilson Sayres, an Arizona State University professor who studies sex-biased biology. "Their sons and grandsons could have been more successful in the same way."

The semblance of prosperity, therefore, could have been a bigger genetic factor than natural selection, the researchers found. This difference in reproductive rates probably shrank the pool of genetic traits that are passed down from men, Wilson Sayres said, while boosting the mix of female-inherited characteristics.

Ancient mating patterns can show us how social priorities have changed over millennia. Rich people, for example, tend to reproduce less these days. America's birth rate has been declining for years. That could have public health implications: The more genetic diversity  population has, the healthier it is.

"When I think about wealth and culture in modern times, I don't see a lot of wealthy people having large families anymore," she said. "We're affecting ourselves in ways that have never happened before."

The study opens up a number of policy questions about wealth and inequality and how those factors affect which genetic traits are handed down.  The advent of birth control and who can and cannot access contraceptives likely plays a role in this process as well.

Scientists examined DNA samples from blood and saliva samples of 456 men living in seven regions across Africa, Asia and Europe. ("Each of our genomes is a composite of our parents, and our parents' parents, and so on," Wilson Sayres said.) They focused on the Y chromosome, which is passed down through the male lineage, and the mitochondria, cell matter from an offspring's genetic mother.

Computer and statistical modeling showed throughout history two ancient "bottlenecks," or significant decreases in genetic diversity, according to the study, published last week in Genome Research. Migration from Africa drove the first shift, Wilson Sayres said. The rise of agriculture — and a new way for prospective mates to gauge male desirability — likely drove the second. For every 17 women who passed on their DNA, researchers could find genetic evidence of only one male whose lineage stretched to modern times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/18/how-wealth-trumped-natural-selection-and-changed-our-ancestors-sex-lives/?hpid=z4

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

tl;dr

Before, more kids meant more workers to grow the family farm.  In turn teaches sons how to build a company.
Today, more kids means more leeches to suck the family teet.  In turn doesn't want to teach sons how to live off of capital gains income.

[Overstreet]

Might be bad to limit "fitness" to just the body.  Financial fitness is important even today.

[ChriswUfGator]

Short title: Humans are humans. Lol

I agree with the observation that wealthier people have fewer kids, usually 1 or 2. Whats not published, just my own observation, is they have them much later too, usually their late 20s or their 30s. I don't think it's an issue of avoiding anyone sucking the family teat, I think as a general proposition the more educated you are and the more decision making you're used to performing, which you generally learned from the prior generation, not saying anobody's better than anybody else, it's all taught thought processes, the more you tend to consider every factor you can think of. My parents' generation, and to a shrinking extent mine, were all raised by domestic help until old enough to go to boarding school. The kind that lived with you, worked for you for 20 years, and that you'd trust with your life, or at least your kids. Where do you find that anymore? Really you don't.

Now it's all on you, and if you know you don't have time to devote to properly raising 17 kids, then you don't just go ahead and do it anyway and let their resulting behavioral problems be the rest of society's burden. With first generation money all of this pretty much goes out the window, they usually have a whole brood of kids, most of them screwed up. But once you get past that, this is pretty much the deal. People want kids they're proud of, and it's much more of a DIY endeavor these days. I hate to sound like a teabagger when this really isn't political, especially when I'm a flaming liberal, but it really just boils down to setting the goals and objectives you want to see from your kids and exercising self control on when and how many you can handle for that to turn out well.

[thelakelander]

Interesting. My across the tracks, rural (now sprawly) Central Florida family history is completely different. As recent as my Granddad's generation, Davis boys only attended school to 3rd grade and then were needed to help the family sharecrop to put food on the table. Going back to slavery, the farthest I can trace my family history back is to a slave in North Carolina named Shorttail. He had the job of plantation breeder. With that said, my family is huge. My granddad had at 10 or 11 kids (that we know of) for several different women. His parents had 15 and his granddad had at least 12. My dad's generation, grew up during the Civil Rights Movement. They were the first in my family to attend college (HBCUs) on a large scale. So there's never been any "help" or access to boarding schools, private schools, inheritance passed down from previous generations, etc. My dad ended being an accountant for a Fortune 500 paper company. He ended up with 3 kids. My uncle ended up becoming one of the first black attorneys in Central Florida. He ended up with 3 kids as well.

I was taught from the start that life isn't fair and as a black male, I'd have to work twice as hard as everyone else and be twice as observant of the environment/people around me. It is, what it is. With that said, I notice that despite what life hands you, people in my family tend to work hard to achieve what they can and they tend enjoy it and the people in their lives. In some cases, I think the benefit of such a background makes one more street smart and confident during difficult times. Because of that environment, it's not overpowering to survive stretching the dollar to the max during difficult times. When good times do come, its easy to save because you don't place as much value in purchasing expensive things you've already proven in your life that you can live without.

I hope, as time goes on, each generation can build wealth and pass it on to future generations. Combine wealth, hard work ethic and street smarts together and there's no telling what the future may hold. With that said, I do agree with the idea that the better educated and financially well off one is, the less kids they'll likely have. It's quite simple. Different environment and access to resources not available to those who don't have money. At the end of the day, there was a reason why plantation owners didn't want their slaves to know how to read. Once you know better, you do better. Education is key.