I've always admired the plasticity of the human body.
Even now as the western diet oozes its way across the globe, populations still maintain amazing physical distinctions. It reminds me of Darwin's finches, but with people: Pacific Islanders are robust, Mayans short, and the Dutch are freakishly tall. Instead of a local food source dictating the shape of a beak, social and environmental factors have affected the physical manifestations of race.
Where entire cultures have taken thousands of years to evolve, individuals can demonstrate remarkable plasticity over the course of several months. But it's not just as simple as Jared; all that fat fuck had to do was walk to the store and eat a sandwich.
Think of yourself as a library book. Fiction or non. You were written to convey a story, recount history, or to aid in repairing Volkswagens. Call it genetic typing, will of the Creator, whatever. Based on your fundamental premise, you are going to be placed in a predetermined location. Though you may be a trashy romance novel with aspirations of a sex manual, it doesn't change the fact that you are never landing in the Dewey decimal 600's.
If you were born as the Volkswagen repair guide, you are probably stuck on a narrow shelf of car repair manuals, bookending with Audi down at the other end. Sorry, but there just isn't anywhere for you to go. However, if you were born as a text on Eastern Orthodox expressions of cuisine and culture in the inner-Moldavian belt, you have leeway in your lateral expression. You may be placed in the 200's and bear the outward resemblance of a religious text, but also be able to resemble social sciences (300) or even history and geography (900).
Let's push the numbers analogy a bit, and find out which are really the most meaningful. I weigh in at a solid 210. I have weighed just around 210 since college. I bookended 195 after a camping trip and 225 after a protein-filled powerlifting kick. But for the most part, a solid 210. The number stayed the same, the difference was the particular goal.
Fine, that would put me little better that a Volkswagen manual.
But wait. I have moonlighted for that same period as musclehead, distance runner, fat stinkin' drunk, and triathlete. My weight rarely changed, but my abilities did. I recently turned a 21 minute 5k. This was just a few months away from finally benching my body weight. After my kayak camping trip I looked wicked ripped awesome, less so after training in the pool to swim a mile straight, though I was probably healthier.
The obvious parallel. At various times of my past couple years, I could be mistaken for a couple different kinds of athlete. A couch potato too. My bookends reflected much more than simply my body mass.
So is it a blessing, or a curse, to be only marginally talented at a variety of athletic skills? I count beer pong, surfing, running, swimming, biking, looking awesome with my shirt off, and throwing stuff at other stuff as things I am Ok at, but could be better. The problem is that I've reached the endgame at each one, and don't think there is room for improvement.
I credit motivation for what I have been able to achieve. But we are no longer exactly like Darwin's finches. Pacific Islanders traveled hundreds to thousands of miles in open canoes to establish new colonies throughout micronesia. Large girth, and the accompanying fat reserves and low metabolism allowed them to survive the ordeal. So much so, that ingrained into their culture is an acceptance of robustness as a sign of good health. Combined with a lack of significant emigration or immigration, such physical traits are still intact.
The same mostly holds true for the other examples. The Dutch tend to be so freakin' tall because of biological relationships between body mass and cold weather, augmented by good diet. Mayans, those that we have records of, are thought to have been shorter as a result of famine and persecution by the Spanish conquistadors (modern Mayans immigrating to the US have grown 4" taller on average than their 'native' ancestors, based on better nutrition).
I can't help but wonder if the reverse is true today. For example, I am a hodgepodge of German, Czech, and Slovak interbreeding that found a home in America. I would really like to think that in the great melting pot, the most plastic of the offspring had the greatest chance of success, and in Darwinistic fashion went on to produce offspring with the best chance at a brighter future. Only, instead of success tied to the ability to weather famine or spear a fish, success was based on the ability to do at least marginally well at all of what was required.
Whether this was tied to the new world, or a modernizing Eurpope is inconsequential. I can't help but wonder if an immigrant farmer from an isolated Slovakian village (Eastern Europe, for the geographically crippled) marrying an industrialized and efficeint German could produce a 'supercrop' of offspring better suited to a myriad of tasks in a changing world?
Even though it is becoming less and less politically correct to tie a singualr country to a physical style, I believe the evidence is there. While a nature vs. nurture argument is not called for, genetic evidence exists for emotional and psychological traits. Why cannot these be mostly tied to a culture? The best example I can think of is soccer, with its long history and worldwide appeal. Until recently, where players have been bought, sold, and shifted internationally, there have been distinct styles based on regionism, if not nationalism.
The British style plays long clears and headers, as soggy English weather makes a short passing game untenable. The Germans are meticulous strategizers. The Brazilians use quick moves and individual 'samba on grass" to out-athlete opponents. Etc.
It may be hard for our egalitarian society to imagine, but there existed a time when cultures did mostly specific tasks, and were subject to definitive environmental factors. Selection led to different cultural groups (which often evolved into their own countries, principalities, or semi-autonomous tribal regions) taking on different physical expressions. If not for the artificiality of political boundaries enforced by happenstance superiority of a given European army, it might hold more obvious truth.
Regardless, our common Eurpean ancestors mixed (for Caucasions, anyway). Specific traits may have been softened, but offspring were better suited to face the challenges of a new world. Sure, I can't win first at any individual event, but I can camoflage to a number of necessary things. I would like to think that my failure and achievement at such sporting events owes itself to a different mix of Darwinsim, when being able to blend into the needs of a new culture ensured future success. Not just the ability to procreate, but to feed and house progeny after the fact. Such properly reared children wouldn't be bookended merely as day laborer, mason, or farmer. Instead they would have the ability to compete for any number of positions in the new world.
Plasticity, it would seem, might be an environmentally influenced response. It was first a result of circumstance, due to the result of modernization and a shrinking world. Cultures interbred on scales not really seen before. The best adept at specialization within their former niche roles lost ground to those who were able to adapt to a variety of opportunistic labor. The successful might need to draw on a variety of physical attributes, from more than a unique singular ability.
Darwin's finches evolved into specialization, driven by differing beak shapes in response the availability of foodstuffs at each isolated island in the archipelago. Success in our modern human society has driven us instead towards generalization: the ability to gather, hunt or otherwise produce food is no longer central to advancement. And it is here that plasticity can reap the greatest rewards.
No comments:
Post a Comment