"He'd once read that as late as 1914 sons of English members of the House of Lords were a full five inches taller at eighteen than people from the bottom of the social pyramid...though they'd attributed it to genetics back in Edwardian England, rather than nutrition." (p. 144)
Not being scientifically well informed, I had to check on whether they would have called it "genetics" back then but they would have. The term was coined in 1905.
The molecular basis of heredity was discovered in 1953. See also The Fiction/Science Fiction Interface. I remembered something relevant from Poul Anderson's There Will Be Time and was able to find it on the blog instead of having to go to the bookshelf upstairs.
That is as much as I can manage this evening. Tomorrow maybe: gym, Zen and booking a train journey to meet a Buddhist friend from Birmingham at a mid-way point next week.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I relocated my Andersonian, Tolkienian, and Stirlingian collections from a different floor of my house to a much more convenient location near my computer. Which makes it much easier for me to look up stuff.
Ad astra! Sean
It was nutrition, though -- lots of meat protein, lots of milk and milk products. At that, the situation was bettern in 1914 than it had been the mid-Victorian period, because refrigerated ships were bringing in meat and dairy products, and bread was a hell of a lot cheaper than it had been before Canadian and Australian and US wheat came in.
To be fair, the British continued free trade in agricultural products, even though landowners were very influential there. The European countries almost all levied customs duties on agricultural products. Of course, they had more peasants.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Because, after about 1850, nutrition began to really improve for all classes of people in the UK, not just for the wealthiest? And I think it was the repeal of the Corn Laws, abolishing customs duties on agricultural imports, which made it so much cheaper to import wheat and meat products.
Ad astra! Sean
Kind of related to the Stirling books currently being discussed.
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/663
Yeah, except MA was a -practical- Stoic... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
A very practical Stoic! Far better than most of the current crop of bunglers we have now in the UK/US. Which is not surprising, because most intellectuals are not much good when it comes to managing things as messy and chaotic as politics. I recall how Flandry made a similar observation in THE PLAGUE OF MASTERS, commenting that the "scientific mentality" was useless when it came to politics.
But Marcus Aurelius was a rare exception.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yes, if you read his "Meditations" he was intensely practical, as well as a dedicated Stoic. And had a very realistic view of human nature, as an Emperor would meet it.
Note that the first farmers -- and farmers mostly until the more advanced 19th century areas -- were shorter than hunter-gatherers.
Until the invention of farming, the ability to digest vegetable foods was a 'fallback' for must hunter-gatherers, to tide them over bad times. Mostly they ate a high-meat diet.
There are genetic differences in potential height -- the San and Congo-basin pygmies are naturally short.
But for most of the rest of the human race males are pushing six feet, and women about 5-6 inches shorter, if they're well-nourished with plenty of protein.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absoutely! Marcus Aurelius had no tom fool illusions about human beings, as this bit from the beginning of MEDITATIONS 2 makes plain: "Begin the morning by saying to thyself: I shall meet with the busybody, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by means of their ignorance of what is good and evil." I might have argued with the Emperor that he didn't quite go far enough: some people are bad not because they are ignorant but because they chose to be bad. But that's my Catholicism speaking!
Wise rulers need to have no illusions about themselves and all other humans.
Anderson touched on that, about how, for a long time hunter/gatherers ate better and were healthier than farmers.
If the "Hobbits" of Flores has survived they too might have been included those naturally short humans.
Correct, more and better food is pushing up the average height of men and women. Thanks to demonized and maligned free enterprise economics.
Ad astra! Sean
Yeah, some people are just bad. If you've had any contact with the criminal courts, you get a lesson in that! I did.
The ones who get caught repeatedly are rock-stupid, too, or very unlucky. My solution to the problem of repeat offenders would be immediate execution on the second felony conviction.
OTOH, crime is going down as the population ages. Young bad men get hopped on testosterone.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I believe you! I recall how you told us of how a thug nearly murdered you when you were a boy. And the lawyer you were once apprenticed to was corrupt.
I agree most criminals who get arrested over and over are stupid/unlucky. While I sympathize for those who are frustrated over obstinate repeat offenders, I would hesitate about executing second time felony convicts. Because there are degrees in guilt and the harm done by different types of felonies.
I agree, felons released from prison after doing 15, 20, 25, or more years are less likely to go back to bad old ways. Not all, however.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: they'll do bad things. But not the -same- bad things. Beating people up and taking their wallets... less frequently.
People rarely change much morally after their late teens and early twenties. Sometimes, but not often.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Correct, many elderly ex-cons are all too likely to still do bad things, just not the more physically strenuous crimes.
It usually takes a religious conversion to really change people after their late teen/early twenties. Not always in good ways.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment