Do wars have any effect on the gene pool?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
In Paraguay there were ten women for every man, iirc

It was only a nightmare.
It was only a dream,
But it bothered me all through the night.
Ten women were fighting
To make love to me,
And the ugly one kept winning the fight.

[VetLegion]

Why does everyone in Paraguay speak guarani now?

[LordShiva]

Because they all drink guarana

[Barnabas]

Because native american mothers passed the language to the children, so they gre up bilingual, speaking spanish with the father, and guarani with the mother

[Proteus_MST]

I think large modern wars (like WW2) have the effect to act as a bottleneck for genetikc diversity because pf the high number of people dying before they can give their genes to the next generation.

I doubt that they will have any evolutionary effect (like "those who are brave are less/more likely to survive") as the survival of the soldiers depends rather on luck and on equipment than on their genes.

(or they might even have a negative effect if the armed forces have any minimum requirements for joining them as this means that those people who don´t meet these minimum standards [and therefore probably have a worse genetic setup than those who join] stay at home and have a higher chance for survival and therefore probably get a woman they wouldn´t have gotten without the war [as this woman without the war probably would have married one of the soldiers that died in combat])

[Barnabas]

It should be remembered that there are times and places in history, in which those who go to war are the "elite" while the farmers, peasants, remain safe in the countryside.
And times and places in which the elite remains safe in the cities, and it is the poor who are sent to fight in the war.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Wars for sure can have an effect on the gene pool, but the war has to be huge and completely devastating

A good example is the war that Paraguay lost to an alliance of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay

Most of the male population of Paraguay was killed, over 90 %, to the point that for decades poligamy was common just because there were so many women and so few men.

A result of that, is that Paraguay is the only american country where almost the whole population speaks an amerindian language (guarani), but what is funny is that full blooded amerindians unlike in Bolivia, Peru or Guatemala, are very very few, almost all Paraguayans are mestizos, and more on the european side.
Which makes it a unique case.

Paraguayans would look very different today if they hadnt had that war

I also remember reading that without Napoleon killing hundreds of thousands of the best french soldiers, the french would be one inch and a half taller nowadays

I remember hearing about that, like ratios of 100:1 or something.

JM

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Because native american mothers passed the language to the children, so they gre up bilingual, speaking spanish with the father, and guarani with the mother

Why did this happen in Paraguay but not elsewhere?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Dauphin - it would depend on the nature of a given war. In the Am Civ War, for ex, the cowards either avoided army service, deserted, or hung back in battle. Courage (and unit loyalty) probably led you to die, rather than live, and efficiency in combat probably didnt protect you much (though it enabled you to kill more of the other side before you died)

For infantry in WW2 combat efficiency probably did protect you. But based on what ive read in Ambrose, it had less to do with native intelligence than with experience. Replacement troops tended to die quickly, but those who survived through luck tended to get good at survival.

Ah, you made the mistake of thinking I was a) being serious and b) might have a logic to my comments.

I would say that the effect of war, in an evolutionary sense, would be most felt due to the spoils of war, and passing on of familial genes. By familial genes, I mean that even if you die in war your sacrifice helps your family/tribe/state to live on or thrive.

I say this because I would think most largescale, and hence most gene selective events, throughout human history have been where groups of people gain much or lose much in terms of land and resources (spoils of war). Oftentimes entire peoples have been wiped out and replaced due to migration, but one would presume there would usually be physical conflict due to it. Think of the European invasion of the Americas, the Germanic/Scandinavian invasion of Britain, etc. In circumstances where the native population is not moved on, and is merely occupied, those in control would have better resources, more property, education and so forth and presumably better survival odds and more procreation via illegitimate children.

In these scenarios technology and size of population has been the real driving force in who wins such confrontation, and so I do not believe that there is a major genetic effect for positive or negative selection of belligerence, per se*. A 'genetically' belligerent but technologically inferior people would be wiped out quickly by a 'genetically' peaceful but technologically advanced people for example. Swap the technology around and the beligerrant peoples would wipe out the peaceful peoples.

* Arguments can be made that the prevalence of rape during war is a genetically induced activity, given the circumstance rape is quite a useful way to pass on your genes.

[Lord Avalon]

I would point out that war does not necessarily prevent a soldier from passing on his genes. He can get married and get his wife pregnant before going off to war. (I'm thinking WWII and the draft. Nowadays with the US having an all-volunteer army, lots of soldiers, men & women, already had families.)

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
In Paraguay there were ten women for every man, iirc

And I'm just finding out NOW?!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
In Paraguay there were ten women for every man, iirc

is it still like that? if so, I'm going.

[Dis]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Oh cmon now, we live in a time when genetic explanations for EVERYTHING are in fashion. Someone wanted to do a "Bell Curve" on war and courage could get away with it - bigger problems would be a working quantifiable definition of "courage", and measuring the whole pop before and after a war. And seperating out other effects of war.

Maybe first you could try demonstrating that courage IS, in fact, genetically determined? My guess is that rather than a "courage" gene, youd find genes for ADD, for Bipolar, for risktaking behaviour in general, that would be strongly related to behaviour associated with "courage".

The problem with my theory is women are generally spared in wars. Though lots did die in ww2. Women have courage too you know. . So the women are still available to pass on any strong traits.

This could change if we ever get to the point where women play a significant role in combat and face a total war situation with heavy casualties.

[Ned]

We should also consider how wars actually spread genes. When Rome conquered, it took a lot of slaves and sold them back into Italy and other provinces. This had to have a long term effect within the Empire.

As well, Romans themselves spread throughout the Empire by colonization.

Now consider next the new world. Europeans and Africans live side-by side in the Americas in various mixtures. As well, the US is considered a melting pot for a variety of reasons.

Wars and conquest are the very essence of genetic dynamism.

[Heresson]

rapes & occasional contacts of local peasant women with passing army...