@Shiftant That is, 15% of skeletal muscle is composed of type-II fibers vs. 85%. Ecologically, I'm still surprised Amerindians are like this, considering they are some of temporally closest to actual hunter gathering!
https://t.co/xOcfwLgbFJ
@Shiftant It's pretty well known atp that SSAs have more type-II fibers. The range of the distribution for type-II fibers is like 15-85%. I don't know how much the instantaneous force output varies from 15% to 85%, but I can imagine a ~5x difference probably has real consequences
๐ฏ๐ตtied , great performance, but they lost nearly every header duel. they should recruit some big siberians, mongolians or north chinese. can still be an 'asian' team at least
@CsfHighlan97034 Is it just me or are afrikaners a little darker sometimes? It's weird because they still look extremely germanic, but some are darkly pigmented. Could be normal variation I suppose.
@Tim_NS1@Steve_Sailer@danyscht yeah i should've been specific and said forwards. they're still all broadly west eurasian/europid, which if you believe that europeans have better fast twitch profiles than amerindians, doesn't change much since finding a fast 6'5 is probably incredibly rarer in MX than EU.
@Steve_Sailer@danyscht Possible but if that were true I think you'd expect better performance from Chile & Peru, Chile's ok but Peru is not. Northern Mexicans r partly descended from hunter-gatherers, not farmers. Probably a pop that's only 25-35% amerindian produces more elite sprinters at the margin
@Steve_Sailer@danyscht people are saying height, but i doubt it's that, b/c ceteris paribus, shorter leg = faster acceleration, that's why most defenders are taller and strikers taller than 6'2 are really rare. it's probably lack of some minimum threshold of fast twitch muscle fibers more than anything
A closed human population needs about 500 women of reproductive age (15-45) to remain biologically viable in the medium run. That number is not what drives a population to zero: sub-replacement fertility does that on its own. The 500-floor mark is the point of no return: the size below which the gene pool is too narrow to recover, even if fertility later bounces back.
In a hypothetical scenario where Thailand maintains its total fertility rate (TFR) at the 2025 level of 0.87 and has no immigration, its population of women of reproductive age would fall below 500, entering the extinction-risk zone, around the year 2445.
We can play with the numbers a bit (extending the fertile-age window, for example, or lowering the floor through medical advances), but the message holds. Any population that remains below replacement eventually goes extinct.
I make this point because when I write statements of the form โwith its current TFR, country A will have a population of X in the year 2200,โ I hear the reply โwe can live with that.โ That reply misreads the year-2200 population as a new stationary point. No, it is just a snapshot of a population still in decline. Sub-replacement fertility has no resting place above zero.
Now, one can legitimately argue that as the population falls, the TFR will rise again, perhaps due to cheaper housing or the selection of groups with higher fertility. (The โmore natural resources per capitaโ story I trust least: the demographic transition broke the old Malthusian link between abundance and fertility, so in modern conditions the sign runs the other way.) These are possible mechanisms, and we can discuss another day whether, given the current evidence, they will be enough to get back to replacement (my two cents: I have run some quantitative simulations, and the answer is likely โnoโ).
I only want to force everyone to accept the realities of demographic accounting. If you tell me โwe can live with that,โ you are asking me to buy two separate claims: 1) that we can go from population X to 0.05X without a major social breakdown, and 2) that we will not only avoid that breakdown but also bring the TFR back to replacement by the time we reach 0.05X.
@kojimaicmatters "population collapse" is like marxist economics / rent control for certain rw-adjacent rationalists. like no matter how much you tell them, they think they can just somehow outwit natural laws.
@RokoMijic@ArtemisConsort >the principled solution is to have VCs claim the lifetime of income of kids that are born?
Statements uttered by the deranged.
How is that any different from slavery? There are too many people, just accept it.