Humans are evolved for nature, not cities, say anthropologists | Hacker News Reader

Humans are evolved for nature, not cities, say anthropologists

phys.org

15 pointsDrierCycle8 comments

Humans are the omnibeast, and adapt to just about anything. Humans are also more or less blind to demographics, it has to be exceptionaly low or high population pressure to get them to actualy relocate, and some still exist as huntergatherer nomads, and some likely similar number will live there whole lives inside one ultra densly populated square kilometer. my point is that "laws" or "rules" of humans can only be written lightly, in pencil, with much smudging as proof of an honest attempt to describe our species

That's a rosy picture that doesn't fit the evidence. We adapt to a rather small type of liveable surface here, and we destroy the ecology. Humans are simply under the thumb of evolution, and we're maladaptive.

humans are adapted to greater extreams of environments than any other creature on this planet, bar none.humans live from above the permanent snow line, into harsh deserts, ancient comunities living on boats and barges, stilt houses in the oceans,artic tundras, rain forsets, etc, etc, no other single species does this. facts bub, nothing rosy about it. evolution? maladaptive?, ha!, you get to wrong some more, humans are adaptive, and adaptational abilities are the key to evolutionary success, the main feature of which is diversity in survival strategies.

You're looking at merely the entrance to the ecology, not the long-term, and exits. Evolution covers all aspects, you're cherry picking one. When you know evolution, our culture is probably terminally maladaptive (Boyd/Richerson), so being able to spread to niches beyond normal limits is part of that maladaption, not a successful exploitation of a niche,

this is the paper discussed, open access

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.70094?af=R

The sky is blue, not red, say meteorologists.

The sky is blue, not red, say meteorologists

People thrive better over a longer period of time in small to mid-size towns (proto-cities) with access to some kind of larger productivity center (where they work, or go for leisure). Remote work has made this more efficient, and some people don’t even need to commute.

There need to be more towns, or small cities. But why is there such a lack of development? It’s unconscionable to expect millions of people to live in close proximity. It’s not efficient for consumer activities or investment returns when competition eats up much more of your share than is fairly warranted. You lose out because of lack of advertising than quality of product or innovation.

But more small towns means more of everything—more colleges, more schools, more hospitals, more jobs. We keep producing and educating more and more people, but expect them all to live and work in the same places, which I find aggravating to no end.

If you want to go to Oxford and work for Google, there should be more Oxfords and Googles (satellite campuses or subsidiaries, I don’t care). The monopolists and oligarchs can get their pound of flesh even in this kind of semi-urban model. Where are the new developments? Build them however you like, green small towns with optimized planning. Why not? There’s not enough incentivizing from leadership in public or private sectors, except resources are wasted on speculative engines like crypto miners and cryptocurrencies. What a clown show.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com