Technology Advances; Humans Supersize

New York Times: Technology Advances; Humans Supersize

For nearly three decades, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert W. Fogel and a small clutch of colleagues have assiduously researched what the size and shape of the human body say about economic and social changes throughout history, and vice versa. Their research has spawned not only a new branch of historical study but also a provocative theory that technology has sped human evolution in an unprecedented way during the past century.

Next month Cambridge University Press will publish the capstone of this inquiry, “The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition, and Human Development in the Western World Since 1700,” just a few weeks shy of Mr. Fogel’s 85th birthday. The book, which sums up the work of dozens of researchers on one of the most ambitious projects undertaken in economic history, is sure to renew debates over Mr. Fogel’s groundbreaking theories about what some regard as the most significant development in humanity’s long history.

Mr. Fogel and his co-authors, Roderick Floud, Bernard Harris and Sok Chul Hong, maintain that “in most if not quite all parts of the world, the size, shape and longevity of the human body have changed more substantially, and much more rapidly, during the past three centuries than over many previous millennia.” What’s more, they write, this alteration has come about within a time frame that is “minutely short by the standards of Darwinian evolution.”

“The rate of technological and human physiological change in the 20th century has been remarkable,” Mr. Fogel said in an telephone interview from Chicago, where he is the director of the Center for Population Economics at the University of Chicago’s business school. “Beyond that, a synergy between the improved technology and physiology is more than the simple addition of the two.”

This “technophysio evolution,” powered by advances in food production and public health, has so outpaced traditional evolution, the authors argue, that people today stand apart not just from every other species, but from all previous generations of Homo sapiens as well.

 “I don’t know that there is a bigger story in human history than the improvements in health, which include height, weight, disability and longevity,” said Samuel H. Preston, one of the world’s leading demographers and a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Without the 20th century’s improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine, only half of the current American population would be alive today, he said. ...

On a side note, there is an interesting aspect to this evolution. Ask yourself "What height do you have to be to be tall?" For an American male living today, I'm just about average at 5'11." But 150 years I would be tall. Though being taller than than my great-great-grandfathers, do I experience myself as tall? No. Because while I'm taller than my ancestors, so is everyone else taller than their ancestors. I experience myself as average just as most of my ancestors did but my objective quality of tallness most certainly has improved (assuming taller is better, as implicated here.)

The same problem applies to poverty. The poor in America are substantially better off in absolute terms than even many of the well-to-do of three generations ago but they see no improvement in comparison to their contemporaries. And this is one of the oddities about economic development. Observers correctly note the economic growth does not increase the overall happiness of society (once a certain minimal threshold is passed). That is because people do not experience a change in their realtive positions. But these observers incorrectly conclude that economic development is not making life better for members of society. Witness the findings of Fogel, et al, about techno-physio evolution. Despite not making people happier, economic growth does considerably improve people's lives over time.

Comments

[stage iv lung cancer]

interesting article. I've heard about Mr.Fogel when I first attended a seminar. He has a good finding about this increase of heights in native Americans.

[thomas t samaras]

I have researched height and longevity for 35 years. I have worked with researchers Elrick, Md, and Lowell Storms, PhD. We have published over 36 papers in medical and scientific journals, including the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and Acta Paediatrica. Our findings are sharply differ from those of Floud, Fogel, etc. in terms of height and longevity. For example, a world population of larger humans needs much more food, water, energy, and resources and
damages the environment.

While Waaler's study showed a higher mortality for shorter people, he did not account for differences in economic class according to Allebeck and Bergh (1992): "no data on social or economic conditions were available."In the developed world, low income people tend to be shorter, fatter and have more coronary heart disease and diabetes. Therefore, shorter people would have higher mortality because of their disadvantaged conditions, not their height per se. In addition, Waller's paper showed that between 70 and 85 years of age, men over 6 feet had an increasing mortality compared to shorter men.

My findings are primarily focused on evaluating height-longevity trends based on relatively homogeneous populations of deceased people. For example, veterans, baseball players, football players, and famous people were found to lose about .5 year per centimeter of height. A loss of .5 yr/centimeter is the same as the difference in life expectancy between US white males and females based on their height differences. And animal studies support our findings. Small dogs live longer than big dogs. So do small mice and rats compared to bigger ones. Caloric restriction provides the most powerful method for extending longevity
and this results in smaller bodies, especially when started early in life.

I don't know of any studies showing tall people live longer involving a million or more deaths. However, a California study of 1 million men and women found that shorter Asians had substantially lower mortality compared to taller Whites and Blacks. Latinos and East Indians had mortalities between Asians and
Whites/Blacks and their heights were also in between these two groups. These findings are corroborated by US Government data involving over 10 million deaths. In addition, Holzenberger et al. tracked 1.3 million men over a 70-year period and found they lost .7 year per centimeter of increased height.

While our life expectancy has increased greatly compared to 1900, this is due to sharply reduced infant
and maternal mortality. And as Floud et al. have pointed out, improvements in sanitation, antibiotics and medical care
have reduced mortality from infections and communicable diseases. However, the facts are that a 65 year old man
in 2007 only lived 7 years longer than a 65 year old in 1900. For 75 year olds, this advantage dropped to 2 years.
These added years are no doubt due to improved sanitation and enormous developments in medical science and technology-not to better health since John Hopkins University reports that about half the 65 year olds now take 5 or more medications per day and ~25 % take 10 to 20 medications daily. In addition, almost 70% of US adults are overweight or obese. How can this be a sign of good health? In contrast, there are many short non-developed populations that were found to be almost free of chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. And these populations didn't have the medical care and advantages of Western populations. Okinawans have the highest percentage of centenarians
and are short (males were about 5' and thin during their youth).

Over the last few years, studies have shown that people exposed to famine during gestation actually had lower mortality. For example, compared to adults born after the famine, Dutch adults exposed to famine in the last trimester had a substantially lower mortality around 57 years of age. Adults exposed to famine during gestation during the Great Leap Forward Famine in China (Song) actually had a longer life expectancy than those born after the famine. Adults born during the Great Depression also had the highest jump in life expectancy compared to more prosperous periods of the 20th century (Tapia Granados). Mortality for infants and adults also dropped during the depression.

If tall people live longer, why is that the six top populations in terms of life expectancy are relatively short compared to Scandinavians? The CIA Factbook (2007) indicates that Andorra, Macau, Japan, San Marino, Singapore and Hong Kong
have the longest life expectancies.

I am not aware of any studies that found centenarians to be tall (> 6 feet). In fact, they are usually short and range from 4'10 to 5'7. While most people were relatively short during the last 100+ years, there have always been tall people in the Western world; e.g., Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Jackson. If Floud et al. are right, then there should be a preponderance of tall centenarians. This is not the case.

I think your readers should be given an opportunity to read both sides of this issue and make up their own minds. In 2007, I edited a book with Dr. Bartke and Dr. Rollo: Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling: Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications, Nova Science Publishers, NY. The book was described by a Professor of Gerontology as "Herculian task accomplished." Another reviewer found the book presented a fair view of both sides of the arguments on height, body size and longevity.

Links to a my March commentary published in World Nutrition (World Public Health Nutrition Association) are given below. You can go to my website for a list of my publications: www.humanbodysize.com

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Tom

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks so much for the alternative view.