tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610446610888912275.post1498848706726710847..comments2024-03-20T14:04:18.741-07:00Comments on My Continuing Education: Continuing Evolution of the Human RaceGarethhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03030408024299617701noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610446610888912275.post-60641326346578279812014-08-05T09:18:36.830-07:002014-08-05T09:18:36.830-07:00Hey, Guy. Good to hear from you.
I felt justified...Hey, Guy. Good to hear from you.<br /><br />I felt justified in assuming that social stress was greater in an urban environment because there are just more people. I cited studies of "behavioural sinks" among rats to justify the assumption. Rightly or wrongly.<br /><br />I don't get your point about propaganda and mutation, though. Care to explain?Garethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030408024299617701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610446610888912275.post-13057166402734039552014-08-05T07:12:37.842-07:002014-08-05T07:12:37.842-07:00:-)
Yes, the bold impetuosity of youth.
And now I...:-)<br />Yes, the bold impetuosity of youth. <br />And now I wonder: is such behaviour also contra-indicated by natural selection in an urban environment? Does propaganda have an effect on genetic mutation, or is it a natural urban evolution/developement? This of course assumes that there was less pressure to conform within small non-urban communities. And that is not, I believe, a tenable condition. At least not from my personal experience of small town Canada, anyway.Guy Duperreaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05300018595841442280noreply@blogger.com