Acne & Evolution
-
- Posts: 73
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47
Acne & Evolution
Just wondering if anybody ever thought or read anything about acne in evolutionary terms.
Here are some examples of theories:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14975524
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 463755.ece
http://jenapincott.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -get-acne/
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 367692657X
Here are some examples of theories:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14975524
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 463755.ece
http://jenapincott.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -get-acne/
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 367692657X
Re: Acne & Evolution
Well unless other animals in the wild develop acne I think it's highly unlikely that we 'evolved' acne for an everyday use, while it may have been a way to help with excess hormone-related problems or something occasionally, I think it would be more like 1 or 2 bumps and only very rarely in a purely natural, best-food situation. Everything that isn't or wasn't a best-food situation hadn't of been adapted to by us so.. maybe it would be more accurate to say the skins flexibility to deal with toxin removal has evolved, but the cause/result in acne is unnatural just like a ugly healing wound on a lions leg. Both are 'natural' but not 'naturally evolved for' except for survival, and keep in mind the leg wound healing on a lions leg didn't evolve for wounds specifically, just as our skin didn't evolve for acne specifically, but rather to keep bad things out, and keep good things in, in both situations.
Re: Acne & Evolution
panacea wrote:while it may have been a way to help with excess hormone-related problems or something occasionally, I think it would be more like 1 or 2 bumps and only very rarely in a purely natural, best-food situation.
did you read the links?
you mean not optimally evolved for? and where did you get this opinion from?panacea wrote:Both are 'natural' but not 'naturally evolved for' except for survival
what does that have to do with anything?panacea wrote:and keep in mind the leg wound healing on a lions leg didn't evolve for wounds specifically, just as our skin didn't evolve for acne specifically, but rather to keep bad things out, and keep good things in, in both situations.
Re: Acne & Evolution
I've quickly read the articles, and so far:
1. It's a nice theory and my knowledge is too limited to immediately refute it, but it still seems the Wai theory is far more likely.
2. Interesting read about the monkies, but the acne conclusion seems quite far-fetched to me.
3. Is actually about the first article
4. I can't see anywhere what good acne would be, only sebum and the glands.
1. It's a nice theory and my knowledge is too limited to immediately refute it, but it still seems the Wai theory is far more likely.
2. Interesting read about the monkies, but the acne conclusion seems quite far-fetched to me.
3. Is actually about the first article
4. I can't see anywhere what good acne would be, only sebum and the glands.
Re: Acne & Evolution
What I was trying to get across is that acne falls into the same category as moles and such, yes I realize they are not the same thing, but they are our simply our skins 'defection' because of an imbalance in the body, whether it be of domestic or foreign imbalances (too many hormones, too many viruses, etc). A better theory would be our brains evolved an inherent social screening complex for mating behaviour etc, our bodies wouldn't have evolved to feed the brains social complex though. The only possible basis for that argument would be that if people who had or didn't have acne were considered better, their bodily systems would be reproduced so it would be more common, but never a feature for anything other than social status. Like saying we evolved moles because they were socially valuable is ridiculous too, even though they could be in some places at some point. Now if you take our faces for example, then we have a definite area in our brain dedicated just to seeing detail on faces for facial recognition. To other animals or to even other races, peoples faces are hard to see detail in memory, because they don't have a brain area dedicated to that. (It's not actually their own race, but whatever race they are around when they are growing up and developing that brain region). Any way, you could say our faces evolved to be more symetrical or whatever because it was more pleasing to our eyes, and therefore we mated with more symetrical faced people than unsymetrical (beauty vs ugliness), but it's really easy to see that if someone produced more acne at certain times, more snot at certain times, more period blood at certain times, or more moles or something, these wouldn't be effective basis's for people to define mating screenings or what have you.
I mean, if we use the reasoning like in those articles, then you could argue that teenage girls feel pain at menstruation or whatever to 'keep them from getting pregnant when their bodies are ready' at a young age, until they grow a pain tolerance to it, I mean come on. Wild humans don't have the acne problems of the modern era, or the menstrual pains, because they didn't have so many un-evolved for, toxic substances from food, air, and water coming into their orifices at all times.
But if that isn't enough to dispell this theory, then just take a look at what happens to boys at this age. I don't care if girls back then had as much acne as they do now, at that time for boys hormones are giving them hardons like crazy, and everything looks like fun to fornicate. Acne definitely wouldn't have stopped them, and they would have been able to overpower the girls even more easily because of the increase of aggression hormones.
I mean, if we use the reasoning like in those articles, then you could argue that teenage girls feel pain at menstruation or whatever to 'keep them from getting pregnant when their bodies are ready' at a young age, until they grow a pain tolerance to it, I mean come on. Wild humans don't have the acne problems of the modern era, or the menstrual pains, because they didn't have so many un-evolved for, toxic substances from food, air, and water coming into their orifices at all times.
But if that isn't enough to dispell this theory, then just take a look at what happens to boys at this age. I don't care if girls back then had as much acne as they do now, at that time for boys hormones are giving them hardons like crazy, and everything looks like fun to fornicate. Acne definitely wouldn't have stopped them, and they would have been able to overpower the girls even more easily because of the increase of aggression hormones.
Re: Acne & Evolution
I admit some of the claims seem ridiculous, lol. But it seems like acne is just too random of a disease (i.e. harmless but psychologically traumatizing) and too widespread (especially in developed societies, where it's effects have the most value) to be dismissed as some huge kind of flaw without looking at the way nature operates.Oscar wrote:I've quickly read the articles, and so far:
My response to oscar also fits your whole reply as well. and moles arent as widespread a problem as acne.panacea wrote:What I was trying to get across is that acne falls into the same category as moles and such, yes I realize they are not the same thing, but they are our simply our skins 'defection' because of an imbalance in the body, whether it be of domestic or foreign imbalances (too many hormones, too many viruses, etc). A better theory would be our brains evolved an inherent social screening complex for mating behaviour etc, our bodies wouldn't have evolved to feed the brains social complex though. The only possible basis for that argument would be that if people who had or didn't have acne were considered better, their bodily systems would be reproduced so it would be more common, but never a feature for anything other than social status. Like saying we evolved moles because they were socially valuable is ridiculous too, even though they could be in some places at some point. Now if you take our faces for example, then we have a definite area in our brain dedicated just to seeing detail on faces for facial recognition. To other animals or to even other races, peoples faces are hard to see detail in memory, because they don't have a brain area dedicated to that. (It's not actually their own race, but whatever race they are around when they are growing up and developing that brain region). Any way, you could say our faces evolved to be more symetrical or whatever because it was more pleasing to our eyes, and therefore we mated with more symetrical faced people than unsymetrical (beauty vs ugliness),
really?panacea wrote:but it's really easy to see that if someone produced more acne at certain times, more snot at certain times, more period blood at certain times, or more moles or something, these wouldn't be effective basis's for people to define mating screenings or what have you.
Or maybe they weren't in societies where it would prove significant?panacea wrote:I mean, if we use the reasoning like in those articles, then you could argue that teenage girls feel pain at menstruation or whatever to 'keep them from getting pregnant when their bodies are ready' at a young age, until they grow a pain tolerance to it, I mean come on. Wild humans don't have the acne problems of the modern era, or the menstrual pains, because they didn't have so many un-evolved for, toxic substances from food, air, and water coming into their orifices at all times.
Maybe that's why it's more prevalent in civilized societies where rape isnt really tolerated or practiced as the main form of mating? Also, acne isn't just repulsive to potential mates, it is also psychologically damaging and emotionally traumatizing. Just ask some teenage kids with pizza faces what they would like to do. I doubt going on a date with the opposite sex or socializing is going to be anywhere on that list, no matter how high that sex drive is.panacea wrote:But if that isn't enough to dispell this theory, then just take a look at what happens to boys at this age. I don't care if girls back then had as much acne as they do now, at that time for boys hormones are giving them hardons like crazy, and everything looks like fun to fornicate. Acne definitely wouldn't have stopped them, and they would have been able to overpower the girls even more easily because of the increase of aggression hormones.
Re: Acne & Evolution
Well so far the Wai idea of acne being caused by food and/or hormonal influence seems to be correct, and for me that seems far more logical and less far-fetched than any of the posed theories.
I find that a more interesting theory is that one of nature's population control mechanisms might be homosexuality.
I find that a more interesting theory is that one of nature's population control mechanisms might be homosexuality.
Re: Acne & Evolution
If it were that wouldn't negate the validity of these theories at all.Oscar wrote:Well so far the Wai idea of acne being caused by food and/or hormonal influence seems to be correct
Well it's not doing a very good job with that. The birth rate needs to be dropped to like -20% for the next 1000 yrs. to eliminate overpopulation.Oscar wrote:I find that a more interesting theory is that one of nature's population control mechanisms might be homosexuality.
Re: Acne & Evolution
I guess I wasn't clear enough about this:
I said that because all of those things are not reliable - evolution takes a very very long time, no matter the customs of some societies or whatever, people aren't going to develop acne to deter mating, especially since there's no reason to deter mating. If there was a reason to deter mating, something that's actually logical would develop, but not evolutionarily, but socially. Because the deterrent for mating is not always constant over a long long time. For example, if it WAS, then teenage girls would simply not start menstruating until later.but it's really easy to see that if someone produced more acne at certain times, more snot at certain times, more period blood at certain times, or more moles or something, these wouldn't be effective basis's for people to define mating screenings or what have you.
I don't get this at all, you're saying we developed acne to deter rape lol? You have to keep in mind waxed shaved girls with pretty bikinis didn't happen while 99.9999% of what our bodies are now evolved from. That means some acne (which wasnt even as bad as it is now because of noncooked food) wasnt much of an issue except for hormone fluctuations, and societies views would have been completely different for 'attraction'. Probably things like being able to bear children, having strength, and being proportional were more important back then than the modern view that girls have to look like goddesses, and remember we haven't evolved the past two thousand years to get acne, because it just doesn't happen that fast across continents. (for anyone reading - it's actually not a disease as he calls it, because it's a normal bodily function for the skin to expel toxins when other systems are overloaded, the reason it's wide spread is because cooked food is widespread, unripe foods are widespread too, and living conditions are unnatural, that doesn't make cooked food OR acne a disease (although cookedfood is a disease-trigger))Maybe that's why it's more prevalent in civilized societies where rape isnt really tolerated or practiced as the main form of mating? Also, acne isn't just repulsive to potential mates, it is also psychologically damaging and emotionally traumatizing. Just ask some teenage kids with pizza faces what they would like to do. I doubt going on a date with the opposite sex or socializing is going to be anywhere on that list, no matter how high that sex drive is.
Re: Acne & Evolution
Ok so you don't agree with the Wai theory?B-Rad wrote:If it were that wouldn't negate the validity of these theories at all.
In my opinion there are theories that are more likely or less likely. If these theories would be true, then acne would be an evolutionary, and thus genetic disorder. This would mean acne would be impossible to cure by something as the Wai diet. I think the results show otherwise.
Where did you get that notion?B-Rad wrote:Well it's not doing a very good job with that. The birth rate needs to be dropped to like -20% for the next 1000 yrs. to eliminate overpopulation.
Re: Acne & Evolution
I agree the world is overpopulated with humans but not because the world couldn't sustain this many humans, just because the world can't sustain this many 'type' of humans with this 'type' of destructive behaviour... we're doing more harm than good obviously, but it could of course be turned around in that, we could someday harness the suns energy and actually 'create' more than what we 'consume'... Still, population has to stop exponentially expanding at some point... Unless we can live on another planet, which doesn't seem very plausible right now. I think it would be *much* better to have government limit births than have other countries wage massive destructive wars killing millions or billions because there isn't enough resources to go around at that time. Just my opinion, no matter what future families 'feel'. In fact it would all be solved instantly if each couple was limited to one child, unless you had twins or triplets in the same birth, and that if you seperated you couldn't have another child. Divorce would go down, families would try to work together and take things more seriously before getting knocked up/married, etc. No you couldn't make a baseball team from your bedroom, but financially that's not a good idea anyway, and of course if the child dies let's say of an accident before the age of 30, then you should be allowed to have another, bla bla bla. This way 2 people (couple) > 1 baby means population will drop, intelligence will increase, the world becomes more habitable. Easy.
Re: Acne & Evolution
Hmm, theoretically speaking, I agree with you. But there is no way people in western societies would accept this. They're way too concerned about their freedom of choice etc.I agree the world is overpopulated with humans but not because the world couldn't sustain this many humans, just because the world can't sustain this many 'type' of humans with this 'type' of destructive behaviour... we're doing more harm than good obviously, but it could of course be turned around in that, we could someday harness the suns energy and actually 'create' more than what we 'consume'... Still, population has to stop exponentially expanding at some point... Unless we can live on another planet, which doesn't seem very plausible right now. I think it would be *much* better to have government limit births than have other countries wage massive destructive wars killing millions or billions because there isn't enough resources to go around at that time. Just my opinion, no matter what future families 'feel'. In fact it would all be solved instantly if each couple was limited to one child, unless you had twins or triplets in the same birth, and that if you seperated you couldn't have another child. Divorce would go down, families would try to work together and take things more seriously before getting knocked up/married, etc. No you couldn't make a baseball team from your bedroom, but financially that's not a good idea anyway, and of course if the child dies let's say of an accident before the age of 30, then you should be allowed to have another, bla bla bla. This way 2 people (couple) > 1 baby means population will drop, intelligence will increase, the world becomes more habitable. Easy.
And there would arise another problem I think; child murder. The proposition you make that parents can have another child when theirs dies, is a very risky one, I think.
Re: Acne & Evolution
I don't agree. We need a society change rather than population control by force. Money and the power hungry elite are the main source of destructive behavior.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
-- interview with Hermann Göring at the Neuremberg Trials
Getting rid of money, or at least the intermediate step of returning to the classic use of money as a transfer tool, a free market, without fractional banking and government manipulation, would already be a big step towards a better future.
Btw, decreasing the world population will only play into the hands of those power hungry elite. Less people means more control.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
-- interview with Hermann Göring at the Neuremberg Trials
Getting rid of money, or at least the intermediate step of returning to the classic use of money as a transfer tool, a free market, without fractional banking and government manipulation, would already be a big step towards a better future.
Btw, decreasing the world population will only play into the hands of those power hungry elite. Less people means more control.
Re: Acne & Evolution
While I agree with you Oscar completely before the last sentence, you have to remember that before governments people waged war for food, better land, etc not always because of greed but it's what any animal would do when starved/etc. First what would happen is internal 'wars', like chaos in the streets for food/etc, then governments would have to wage a new kind of war, one to keep internal things at peace while taking from others. When all governments start this vicious cycle the weakest link will either die of starvation, or fight back, and then the next in line will be the weakest link until the weakest link is a country with a WMD or advanced weapons. You can't say that the motivations of wars before overpopulation will be the motivations of wars during overpopulation, if your children were starving and you didn't want to risk your life attacking your neighbor for their food you would be cheering your government on to take over the rich farmland of some other country, or whatever. But yes, while I agree that powerful people are greedy, I also propose that there will always be individuals who exploit whatever they can, and a better approach to trying to squish the cockroaches is to prevent them from breeding, by making more intelligent (more-community-aware rather than greedy) offspring, slowing overpopulation and social chaos down, and of course informing the young selective offspring about the government elite instead of having 5 ravenous kids all becoming sheeple, like is happening now. Also, the more sheeple the more power for the elite because the few and far between aware individuals crys are drowned by the crowd that's being entertained by the colloseum. Fewer, more informed individuals would be a very bad thing for the powers that be. I'm not a government supporter by any means, I think things like taxes need to be abolished and on and on. I think government should be transformed into an entity that carries out the motives of what the entire community Would do if they didn't have selfish needs as a priority. Obviously, John and Jane Doe aren't going to put 30% of their earnings into developing and advancing sun-harnessing technological systems in a lab somewhere on the other side of the country in a government facility, while Bob and Marie Thompson next door keep the 30% and repaint their house, get a bunch of toys for the kids, and a new car. That's why governments should use the money that comes mandatorily from all people to do such things, because you can't trust in the motives of the whole. Instead what's happening is the government is paying out to the greedy elite, all because there is a need for greed in the first place. Just 10 to 20 years of the research-system I just spoke of and the population control system, there would be no need to be greedy, you wouldn't have to 'worry' for your happiness, you wouldn't need ferraris and 10 vacation houses, and 99% of people wouldn't even wanna think about it, because they would have fulfilling jobs (all the 'evil' unsatisfying and consuming jobs would be weeded out by creation-jobs, because creation jobs would make more wealth), have time to care for their one child (generally), and just overall less stress, crime, yada yada.
In a nutshell the entire problem can be attributed to this:
Greed is economically encouraged, and rewarded, Instantly.
Long-term innovation for upping the standard of living is not encouraged, and those who invest in it immediately 'lose out' compared to the ones that hoard wealth or exploit it.
Population control + Government intervention to push 'green' tech advancement + 10-20 years time = Solution.
I realize the baby boomer generation and the generations before me in general (I'm 20 years old) view this as outrageous here in the U.S. or Europe and stuff, but trust me I am right there with people my age, in my college classes 70% of the females all have children, or are pregnant, or have multiple children. They aren't ready for it, and to top it all off the school-standards are even worse in future years than past years. I was more intellectually challenged in k-8th grade than I have been ever since. Highschool was solely to keep me off the streets doing drugs, and now that doesn't even work any more. Community college is basically a sham except for transfer credit to a major school for niche programs, which basically means nothing except 'getting you in' anyway. So while it still makes economical sense to go to college, it doesn't help your intelligence any more than the occasional reading in the right places on the internet would do. That means it's not working, people are becoming more sheepleish, getting knocked up or knocking others up. Population control is needed but not solely, education will also have to be reworked for things to finally 'work'. No one has all the answers and despite what many believe the elite aren't at a huge advantage they are just the product of the whole. They didn't go out of their way and do something 'amazing', it was lain on a platter for them, just like with Hitler. He wasn't some incredibly smart guy, he was just allowed to be too powerful, because of flaws in that society.
In a nutshell the entire problem can be attributed to this:
Greed is economically encouraged, and rewarded, Instantly.
Long-term innovation for upping the standard of living is not encouraged, and those who invest in it immediately 'lose out' compared to the ones that hoard wealth or exploit it.
Population control + Government intervention to push 'green' tech advancement + 10-20 years time = Solution.
I realize the baby boomer generation and the generations before me in general (I'm 20 years old) view this as outrageous here in the U.S. or Europe and stuff, but trust me I am right there with people my age, in my college classes 70% of the females all have children, or are pregnant, or have multiple children. They aren't ready for it, and to top it all off the school-standards are even worse in future years than past years. I was more intellectually challenged in k-8th grade than I have been ever since. Highschool was solely to keep me off the streets doing drugs, and now that doesn't even work any more. Community college is basically a sham except for transfer credit to a major school for niche programs, which basically means nothing except 'getting you in' anyway. So while it still makes economical sense to go to college, it doesn't help your intelligence any more than the occasional reading in the right places on the internet would do. That means it's not working, people are becoming more sheepleish, getting knocked up or knocking others up. Population control is needed but not solely, education will also have to be reworked for things to finally 'work'. No one has all the answers and despite what many believe the elite aren't at a huge advantage they are just the product of the whole. They didn't go out of their way and do something 'amazing', it was lain on a platter for them, just like with Hitler. He wasn't some incredibly smart guy, he was just allowed to be too powerful, because of flaws in that society.
Re: Acne & Evolution
I understand your position completely. It sounds logical, and it is largely what the intelligent population thinks. Yet things have happened and continue to happen that do not agree with that view. There is a lot to find about it on the internet, although (as you know) there's a lot of disinformation or plain crap out there as well.
E-book about how money works: http://www.mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf (to save time you can also watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia# ... YZM58dulPE)
Video about the monetary system and people control: Zeitgeist: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ I'm of the opinion that the first section of the movie, the one about Jesus, isn't correct...it has been debunked. The addendum (also) handles about a resource economy.
Although I do not like Alex Jones and have my doubts with many of his conclusions, I have to agree this video affirms what I've gathered from, in my opinion, more reliable sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU (Fall of the Republic)
Let me know what you think.
E-book about how money works: http://www.mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf (to save time you can also watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia# ... YZM58dulPE)
Video about the monetary system and people control: Zeitgeist: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ I'm of the opinion that the first section of the movie, the one about Jesus, isn't correct...it has been debunked. The addendum (also) handles about a resource economy.
Although I do not like Alex Jones and have my doubts with many of his conclusions, I have to agree this video affirms what I've gathered from, in my opinion, more reliable sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU (Fall of the Republic)
Let me know what you think.