Races of people (photo). Modern races of people on the planet and their origin

According to the historical concept of race put forward by V.V. Bunak, races are not stable, but represent categories that change over time (Bunak, 1938). These changes are more than obvious in the modern rapidly changing world with its mass migrations and miscegenation of all possible racial types in vast contact zones, both natural and artificial, for example, in giant megacities. Nevertheless, complexes of racial characteristics make it possible to quite clearly distinguish several major significant groupings of humanity - large races. Lowering long story racial studies, skipping the endless debates of specialists and taking into account the abundance of terminology, we can state that even the very first racial classifications are not too different from the most modern ones. As before, according to the total set of characteristics, humanity is divided into only a few large races - from three to five.

Racial characteristics include hundreds of human structural traits that are hereditary in nature, have fairly large variability and are minimally dependent on influence environment. For our purpose, however, we have to exclude the overwhelming majority of them as indeterminable on fossil remains (one can hope that indeterminable now, but potentially determinable in the near future, with the development of genetics and the study of DNA from ancient finds).

The study of fossil races faces traditional problems of paleoanthropology: a lack of materials and poor knowledge of the available materials. The first of them is expressed in the fact that known finds, as a rule, are isolated in time and space. There are almost no representative series for the Upper Paleolithic.

The opinion that races have always existed in one form or another, on the one hand, is confirmed by significant differences in fossil skulls, but on the other hand, it also has shortcomings. Firstly, it has already been mentioned several times that often in one ancient site we have skulls that can formally be attributed to different races. Of course, this can be explained by individual variability, mixed marriages, or the transition of individuals from group to group, but in this case it is unclear how, then, with such ease of group change, significant racial differences between these groups were maintained?

The oldest finds in Africa, often identified as sapiens: skulls from Ndutu (350 - 500-600 thousand years ago), Ngaloba LH 18 (110-130 - 200-370 - 490 thousand years ago) and Eyasi ( ancient 130 thousand years ago) in Tanzania, Guomde (270-280 thousand years ago) in Ethiopia, Elie Springs in Kenya (200-300 thousand years ago), Florisbad (259 thousand years ago) .n.) in South Africa.

Much more sapient and preserved than all previous ones, the skull Nazlet Khater 2 from southern Egypt. Its dating ranges from 30 to 45 thousand years ago, according to various sources it can be 33, 37 or 38-45 thousand years ago. (for a review of opinions, see: Drobyshevsky, 2010c).

There are already about 6 billion people on Earth. None of them, and not

there can be two completely identical people; even twins who developed from

one egg, despite the great similarity in their appearance, and

internal structure, always differ from each other in some small features

friend. The science that studies changes in a person's physical type is known as

under the name of “anthropology” (Greek, “anthropos” - man). Particularly noticeable

bodily differences between territorial groups of people distant from each other

from each other and living in different natural-geographical environments.

The division of the species Homo Sapiens into races occurred two and a half centuries ago.

The origin of the term "race" is not precisely established;

it's possible that he

is a modification of the Arabic word "ras" (head, beginning,

root). There is also an opinion that this term is associated with the Italian razza, which

means "tribe". The word "race" is approximately as it is used

now, found already in the French scientist Francois Bernier, who

Races are historically established groupings (population groups) of people

of different numbers, characterized by similar morphological and physiological properties, as well as the commonality of the territories they occupy.

Developing under the influence of historical factors and belonging to one species

(H.sapiens), a race is different from a people, or ethnic group, which, having

a certain territory of settlement, may contain several racial

complexes. A number of peoples may belong to the same race and

speakers of many languages. Most scientists agree that

there are 3 major races, which in turn split into more

small. Currently, according to various scientists, there are 34 – 40

race Races differ from each other in 30-40 elements. Racial characteristics

are hereditary and adaptive to living conditions.

human races.

Races and their origins.

The science of race is called Race Studies. Race studies studies racial

features (morphological), origin, formation, history.

1.1. History of human races.

People knew about the existence of races even before our era. At the same time they took

and the first attempts to explain their origin.

For example, in ancient myths

Greeks, the emergence of people with black skin was explained by the carelessness of their son

the god Helios Phaethon, who came so close to the sun chariot

The land that burned the white people standing on it. Greek philosophers in

In explanations of the causes of the emergence of races, climate was given great importance. IN According to biblical history

the ancestors of white, yellow and black

the races were the sons of Noah - Yaphet, beloved by God, Shem and Ham cursed by God

respectively.

The desire to systematize ideas about the physical types of peoples,

inhabiting the globe, date back to the 17th century, when, based on differences

people in their facial structure, skin color, hair, eyes, as well as features of language and

cultural traditions, the French doctor F. Bernier for the first time in 1684

divided humanity into (three races - Caucasian, Negroid and

Mongoloid). A similar classification was proposed by C. Linnaeus, who, recognizing

humanity as a single species, identified an additional (fourth)

pacy - Laplandian (population of the northern regions of Sweden and Finland). In 1775

year J. Blumenbach divided the human race into five Caucasian

(white), Mongolian (yellow), Ethiopian (black), American, (red)

and Malay (brown), and in 1889 the Russian scientist I.E. Deniker - on

six main and more than twenty additional races.

Based on the results of studying blood antigens (serological

differences) W. Boyd in 1953 identified five races in humanity.

Despite the presence of modern scientific classifications, in our time it is very

There is a widespread division of humanity into Caucasians, Negroids,

Mongoloids and Australoids.

1.2. Hypotheses about the origin of races.

Ideas about the origin of races and the primary centers of race formation

reflected in several hypotheses.

In accordance with the hypothesis of polycentrism, or polyphyly, the author of which

is F. Weidenreich (1947), there were four centers of racial formation - in

Europe or Western Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, South-

East Asia and the Greater Sunda Islands. In Europe or Western Asia

Neanderthals gave rise to Caucasians. In Africa from African Neanderthals

Negroids formed, in East Asia Sinanthropes gave rise to Mongoloids,

and in Southeast Asia and the Greater Sunda Islands the development

Pithecanthropus and Javanese Neanderthals led to the formation

Australoids. Therefore, Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids and Australoids

have their own centers of race formation.

The main thing in raceogenesis was

mutations and natural selection. However, this hypothesis is controversial. In-

First, there are no known cases in evolution when identical evolutionary

the results were reproduced several times. Moreover, evolutionary

changes are always new. Secondly, there is scientific evidence that every race

has its own center of race formation, does not exist. Within

hypotheses of polycentrism were later proposed by G.F. Debets (1950) and N. Thoma (I960)

two variants of the origin of races. According to the first option, the center of race formation

Caucasoids and African Negroids existed in Western Asia, while

the center of race formation of the Mongoloids and Australoids was confined to the Eastern and

South-East Asia. Caucasians moved within the European

continent and adjacent regions of Western Asia.

According to the second option, Caucasians, African Negroids and Australians

constitute one trunk of race formation, while Asian Mongoloids and

Americanoids are another.

In accordance with the monocentrism hypothesis, or. monophyly (Ya.Ya.Roginsky,

1949), which is based on the recognition of a common origin, social

mental development, as well as the same level of physical and

mental development of all races, the latter arose from one ancestor, on

one territory. But the latter was measured in many thousands of square

kilometers It is assumed that the formation of races occurred in territories

Eastern Mediterranean, Western and possibly South Asia.

2. The mechanism of race formation.

There are four stages of race formation (V.P. Alekseev, 1985) At the first

stage, the formation of primary foci of race formation took place

(territories in which this process occurs) and the main racial

trunks, western (Caucasoids, Negroids and Australoids) and eastern

(Asian Mongoloids and Mongoloids and Americanoids).

Chronologically this

falls on the Lower or Middle Paleolithic era (about 200,000 years

of the Old World took shape simultaneously with the formation of the characteristics inherent

modern man, as well as with the resettlement of part of humanity to the New

Light. At the second stage, secondary foci were identified

race formation and the formation of branches within the main racial trunks.

Chronologically, this stage falls on the Upper Paleolithic and partially Mesolithic

(about 15,000 - 20,000 years ago).

At the third stage of race formation, the formation of local races took place. By

time is the eve of the Mesolithic and Neolithic (about 10,000 - 12,000 years ago).

At the fourth stage, Quaternary centers of race formation arose and

populations with deep racial differentiation similar to

with modern. This began in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, i.e. in IV-III

millennia BC.

2.1. Factors of raceogenesis.

Among the factors of raceogenesis, the largest role belongs to natural selection,

especially in the early stages of race formation. Responsible for skin color

skin cells containing a pigment called melanin. All people for

with the exception of albinos, they have melanin in their skin cells, the amount of which

determined genetically. In particular, the formation of pigment is determined

the presence of a gene that controls tyrosinase, which catalyzes

conversion of tyrosine to melanin. However, in addition to tyrosinase on skin pigmentation

another enzyme is influenced, for which another gene is responsible,

melanin. When this enzyme is synthesized, melanin is formed in small

quantities and the skin is white. On the contrary, when it is absent (not

synthesized), then melanin is formed in large quantities and the skin is

meaning and melanin, a stimulating hormone. Thus, in color control

At least three pairs of genes are involved in the skin.

The importance of skin color as a racial characteristic is explained by the connection between

sunlight and the production of vitamin D, which is necessary for

maintaining calcium balance in the body. Excess of this vitamin

is accompanied by the deposition of calcium in the bones and leads to their fragility, then

how calcium deficiency results in rickets. Meanwhile the quantity

Vitamin D synthesized normally is controlled by the dose of sunlight

irradiation that penetrates cells located deeper than the melanin layer.

The more melanin in the skin, the less light it transmits. Before the period

when methods were developed to artificially fortify food with vitamin D,

people were dependent on sunlight for vitamin D production. To

Vitamin D was synthesized in optimal quantities, i.e. sufficient for

to maintain a normal calcium balance, people with fair skin should

live on a certain geographical latitude far from the equator, where

solar radiation is weaker. On the contrary, people with black skin had to

be closer to the equator. As you can see, the territorial distribution of people

with different skin pigmentation is a function of latitude.

Skin lightening in Caucasians facilitates the penetration of sunlight

deep in human tissue, which accelerates the synthesis of antirachitic vitamin

D, which is usually synthesized slowly under conditions of insufficient solar

radiation. Migration of people with intensely pigmented skin to distant places

from the equator to latitudes, and people with insufficiently pigmented skin - to

tropical latitudes could lead to vitamin D deficiency in the former and excess in

second with the ensuing consequences. Thus, in the past, skin color had

selective significance for natural selection.

The significantly protruding narrow nose of Caucasians lengthens the nasopharyngeal

path through which cold air is heated, which protects against

hypothermia of the larynx and lungs. The development of mucous membranes contributes to greater

heat transfer. Curly hair better protects the head from overheating, so

how to create an air layer. Elongated high head too

heats up less than wide and low. There is no doubt that these signs

are adaptive. Thus, as a result of mutations and natural

selection, many racial characteristics arose as an adaptation to conditions

geographical habitat.

Factors of raceogenesis also include genetic drift, isolation and mixing

populations.

Drift of genes that control traits can change genetic

population structure. It is estimated that as a result of genetic drift, the appearance

populations can change over 50 generations, i.e. about 1250 years old.

The essence of genetic drift is that in isolated

In populations where almost all marriages are endogamous, the chances of

meetings in allelic pairs of recessive genes, the level of

heterozygosity and the concentration of recessives in the homozygous group increases

condition.

In populations (demes) where marriages take place over many generations

predominantly within one’s own group, may occur over time

noticeable changes in racial characteristics that lead to

initially similar populations turn out to be different. Emergence

such differences, which are not adaptive in nature, are the result

shifts in the frequency of appearance of individual signs. They lead to

some features may completely disappear, while others may become very

wide use.

Isolation of populations manifested itself in various forms and volumes. For example,

geographical isolation of primitive groups in the Paleolithic era

was accompanied by differentiation of their genetic composition, interruption

contacts with other groups. Various geographical barriers

influenced not only the genetic differentiation of populations, but also

to the concentration of cultural traditions.

Mixing of populations was important in the distant past and is even more important

During the formation of young races. In the distant past, more progressive forms

met with archaic ones, which led not only to the extermination of the latter, but also

to miscegenation. Among the “young” races, the most characteristic is

North American colored race (black population of the USA), which

arose as a result of the mixing of the forest Negroid race with the Bantu races, and

also northwestern European, alpine, Mediterranean and,

possibly by other races The South African colored race arose from

Bantu, Bushmen and Hottentots. Currently in Hawaii

a new racial group is formed due to the miscegenation of Caucasians,

Mongoloids and Polynesians.

At the present stage, the future of races is determined by a number of those operating in our

time factors. The world population continues to grow,

Its migration is increasing, and the frequency of interracial marriages is increasing.

It is assumed that due to the last two factors in the distant future

A single race of humanity will begin to form. At the same time it is possible

another consequence of interracial marriages associated with the formation of new

populations with their own specific combinations of genes.

2.2 The role of environmental conditions on the formation of races.

The influence of natural conditions on the development of human races is undoubtedly.

Initially in ancient humanity it was probably stronger, in

the process of formation of modern stories was told weaker, although still

pores in some signs, for example in skin pigmentation,

appears with sufficient clarity. The influence of the entire complex set

living conditions were obviously of utmost importance for the emergence,

formation, weakening and even disappearance of racial characteristics.

When settling around the Earth, people found themselves in different natural conditions. But these

conditions that so strongly influence species and subspecies of animals could not also

and act with the same intensity on races qualitatively different from them

humanity, increasingly using nature and transforming it into

process of social labor.

In the evolution of different human groups there are many racial characteristics,

undoubtedly had a certain adaptive significance, but later in

have lost it to a significant extent due to the increasing role of factors

social character and gradual weakening, and almost complete

termination of natural selection. Initially great value

for the development of races had settlement in new areas, thanks to which many

groups of people, having found themselves in different natural conditions, existed for a long time

separately from each other. Their diet was differentiated accordingly.

Later, however, as the human population increased, more and more

contact between racial groups increased, which led to the process of their

mixing with each other.

3. Raceogenesis and genetics.

Previously, there was an idea according to which every individual

bears characteristics of a certain race. It was called typological

concept of race. This name is associated with a very clear and practically only

the only task of racial analysis is to determine the racial type

individual.

The typological concept of race was based on the hypothesis

inheritance of racial characteristics, according to which they are transmitted from

generation to generation as a whole complex. This means that racial properties

hereditarily linked, genes for racial characteristics are located in one or

several close chromosomes and any racial trait physiologically

inextricably linked with everyone else. But the physiological relationship between

racial characteristics are actually either completely absent or very

weak. What is indicated by the low correlation coefficients between racial

signs. There is a group of scientists who claim an independent

inheritance of racial characteristics, their first basic postulate is that the individual is not

is a bearer of racial properties. The second postulate is population and race (as

population group) is not a sum, but a collection of individuals;

There are certain patterns of variability within a population and race.

Racial variability is group, not individual, and makes sense

talk starting from the population level. Similar morphologically and

among themselves not by chance, but due to origin or some other

historical reasons. Race, any racial community consists of individual

historically organized elements, but these, however, are not individuals (as

thought before), but populations. The mosaic of racial variability consists of

mosaics of population variability. Both of them together create everything

the wealth of variability of the human species. Each population began to be studied

not as a sum of individuals, but as a combination unique in its specificity

group properties. The population concept is based on the achievements

population genetics, the latest biometrics, mathematical theory of evolution

A former New York Times science editor talks about research that suggests evolution didn't stop with the beginning of human history.

Sociologists have long held the view that human races are social constructs with no biological basis. Accordingly, they assume that human evolution stopped in the distant past—so long ago that historians and economists do not need to consider evolutionary arguments and explanations.

Since the deciphering of the human genome, more and more data is emerging that clearly confirms that these two premises, which always seemed unlikely, are simply wrong. In fact, race has a biological basis. And now there is no doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has been actively continuing for the last 30,000 years. And it almost certainly went on throughout human history, and continues to this day (although latest evolution quite difficult to quantify).

As a result of new studies of the human genome, it has been established that human evolution continues, that it is extensive and regional in nature. Biologists scanning the genome and looking for evidence natural selection have discovered signals from many genes favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. According to one analysis, at least 14 percent of the human genome has changed due to recent evolution.

Analysis of genomes from around the world shows that race has a biological basis, despite official statements from leading sociological organizations to the contrary. An illustration of this argument is the fact that in mixed-race individuals, say African Americans, geneticists can now identify an individual genome and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor. This would be impossible if races did not have some basis in biological reality.

Racism and discrimination are wrong in principle, not scientifically. At the same time, it is difficult to see anything in the new ideas about race that would provide new arguments for racists. Just the opposite is true. Genomic research shows that all people, regardless of race, have the same set of genes. Each gene exists in many varieties, known as alleles. In this regard, it can be assumed that different races have their own characteristic and special alleles. But this is not true either. Some alleles do have highly skewed distributions, but this is not enough to explain the difference between races. It appears that this difference is based on something as subtle as relative allele frequencies. The final verdict on the genome is that humanity is fundamentally the same.

Genetics and social behavior

Human evolution not only continues up to the present time, and on a large scale. It is also regional in nature. The period of time from 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be identified, began after the division into three main races. It therefore represents that selection which took place largely independently within each individual race. The three main races are Africans (sub-Saharan), East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) and Caucasians (Europeans, peoples of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent). In each of these races, its own set of genes undergoes changes as a result of natural selection. This is what can be expected from a population that has had to adapt to different conditions on each continent. Those genes that have been particularly influenced by natural selection should control not only expected traits such as skin color and nutritional metabolism, but also some aspects of brain function. Although the role of these selected genes is not yet understood, the obvious truth is that genes that affect the brain are just as susceptible to natural selection as any other type of gene.

What might be the role of these genes favored by natural selection? Edward O. Wilson was pilloried for writing about the presence of many social instincts in humans in his 1975 book Sociobiology. However, subsequent research has confirmed the idea that we are all inherently social and friendly. From the very early years we want to belong to a group, conform to its rules, and punish those who break those rules. Later, our instincts lead us to make moral judgments and defend our group, sometimes even sacrificing our own lives for it.

Everything that has a genetic basis, for example, these same social instincts, can change as a result of natural selection. The changing power of social instincts is most noticeable in ants, which, like humans, occupy the dominant heights of social behavior. The social instinct is rare in nature, since individuals need to curb their powerful egoistic instincts and become at least somewhat altruistic in order for their society to function. But when it appears social view, he can very quickly occupy new niches and exploit them through only minor adjustments to his social behavior. In this way, ants and people conquered the world, although, fortunately, each on a different scale.

Traditionally, these social differences have been attributed solely to culture. But if so, then why is it so difficult for tribal societies like Iraq and Afghanistan to change their culture and begin to live like all modern states? An explanation may be that breeding behavior has a genetic basis. It is already known that a genetic system based on the hormone oxytocin regulates the degree of intragroup trust. This is one way in which natural selection can strengthen or weaken breeding behavior.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty that one might think that there is no evolutionary influence at all. Modern man lived for 185,000 years as a hunter-gatherer before settling down in permanent communities. Putting a roof over your head and having more than you can carry on yourself - it seemed like a completely obvious and self-evident step. The fact that it took so long suggests that genetic changes in human social behavior are necessary and that they arose over many generations.

Tribalism appears to be the default mode of human political self-organization. It can be very effective, because the world's largest land empire, the Mongols, had a tribal organization. But tribalism is difficult to escape, and this again indicates that in this case it may be necessary gradual change evolutionary in nature.

The different races develop in essentially parallel ways, but since they do this independently, it is not surprising that they made these two most important transitions in their social organization in different time. The Caucasian race was the first to create settled communities, doing so approximately 15,000 years ago. East Asians and Africans followed. China, which created the world's first modern state, abandoned the tribal system two thousand years ago. Europe did this only a thousand years ago, and the people of the Middle East and Africa are still experiencing the birth pangs of this process.

Two specific case studies provide new evidence that evolution is involved in shaping human social behavior in the recent past. The first is dedicated to the industrial revolution, and the second to the educational achievements of the Jews.

Behavioral Changes Behind the Industrial Revolution

At its core, the Industrial Revolution was a quantum leap in society's productivity. Until this time, everyone except the nobility lived on the verge of starvation. This kind of subsistence living has been a feature of agrarian economies ever since agriculture was invented.

The reason for this economic stagnation was not a lack of ingenuity. England had sailing ships in the early 18th century, firearms, printing presses and other equipment that hunters and gatherers could not even dream of. But this technique did not improve material well-being ordinary person. The reason for this was the agrarian economy, which was called the Malthusian trap after the priest Thomas Malthus. In his Essay on the Law of Population, written in 1798, Malthus noted that whenever productivity increases and food becomes abundant, more babies begin to live to mature age, replenishing the army of hungry mouths that eats up all the surplus. And within the life of one generation, everyone returns to a life of hand to mouth.

It is quite strange, but Malthus wrote his work at the very moment when England, and soon after it, others European countries were ready to get out of his Malthusian trap. This was due to significant improvements in production efficiency, with additional labor increasing income rather than holding it back.

This event, known as the Industrial Revolution, is a landmark moment in economic history. But economic historians say they disagree on how to explain it. “Much of modern social science emerged in the late 19th and 20th centuries as a result of European attempts to understand what made Western Europe's unique path of economic development. However, these attempts did not lead to a consensus, writes historian Kenneth Pomeranz. Some experts argue that the real driving force is demography: Europeans escaped the Malthusian trap by limiting fertility through practices such as late marriage. Others explain this by basic changes, such as the beginnings of modern English democracy, guarantees property rights, the development of competitive markets, and the emergence of patents that stimulated inventive activity. However, many point to the emergence of new knowledge since the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as the availability of capital.

Such an abundance of explanations and the fact that none of them fully satisfies all experts indicates the need for a completely new type of justification. Economic historian Gregory Clark offered his own interpretation, venturing into a very plausible but unexplored possibility: that productivity increases because of changes in human characteristics.

With his proposal, Clark challenged traditional thinking because economists everywhere view people as identical and interchangeable blocks general structure. Some economists have argued that this view is implausible and have begun to question whether the nature of the primitive human units that produce and consume all of an economy's goods and services might have any bearing on its productivity rates. They discuss human qualities, but usually they only mean education and training. Other scholars believe that differences in economic performance between countries may be explained by culture. But at the same time they do not specify which aspects of culture they mean. No one has yet dared to say that culture may include evolutionary changes in behavior. But no one directly excludes this possibility.

To fully appreciate the background of Clark's idea, we will have to return to Malthus. His Essay on the Law of Population made a great impression on Charles Darwin. It was from Malthus that Darwin took the principle of natural selection, making it the central mechanism in his theory of evolution. Darwin understood: if people live on the brink of starvation, barely making ends meet, then any, even the slightest advantage can be decisive. And the owner of such an advantage will definitely pass it on to his children. These children and their offspring will prosper while the rest of the people perish.

“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I began my systematic research, I accidentally, for the sake of amusement, read Malthus’s book “On Population” and because, thanks to long observations of the mode of life of animals and plants, I was well prepared In order to appreciate [the significance of] the universal struggle for existence, I was immediately struck by the thought that under such conditions favorable changes should tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this should be the formation of new species. Now, finally, I had a theory with which to work."

Given the validity of Darwin's theory, there is no reason to doubt that natural selection is operating among the very English population that provided evidence of its existence. The question is what traits are being selected.

Four Key Features

Clark points to four behavioral characteristics population of England, which underwent sustained changes between 1200 and 1800, and also describes a very plausible mechanism for such changes. These include interpersonal violence, literacy, a tendency to save and economize, as well as hard work.

Male homicide rates, for example, fell from 0.3 per thousand in 1200 to 0.1 per thousand in 1600. And in 1800 they dropped another tenfold. Even at the beginning of this period, the level of violence against people was significantly lower than in modern society hunters and gatherers. In Paraguay, the Aché have a homicide rate of 15 per thousand men.

All this time, the working day has steadily increased, and interest rates have decreased. When inflation and risk are subtracted, interest rates reflect the compensation in the form of immediate rewards that a person requires to defer by shifting consumption of goods from the present moment to a later time. late date. Economists call this time preference, and psychologists call it delayed gratification. Children who generally dislike delayed rewards have high time preference scores. In his well-known delayed gratification marshmallow experiment, psychologist Walter Mischel tested children on their preferences. He offered them one marshmallow immediately or two after fifteen minutes. It turned out that a simple childhood decision had far-reaching consequences: children who resisted temptation did better in school and were generally more successful socially in adulthood. Children have very high indicators of time preference, but as they grow older, when they develop the properties of self-control, these indicators decrease. American six-year-olds, for example, have a time preference rate of about three percent per day or 150 percent per month. This is the additional reward that needs to be offered to them so that they give up immediate gratification. Hunters and gatherers also have high time preference scores.

Interest rates, reflecting society's time preferences, were also very high. From the earliest times of our history until 1400 AD. (data are available for this period) in all societies they were about 10 percent. Then began a period of steady decline interest rates, which by 1850 were already less than three percent. According to Clark, since there was virtually no inflation or other factors influencing rates at that time, their decline indicates that people were becoming less impulsive, more patient, and more willing to save money for future use.

These behavioral changes in England between 1200 and 1800 were of major economic importance. They gradually transformed the brutal and undisciplined peasant population into an efficient and highly productive workforce. Coming to work on time and without delay every day, as well as engaging in repetitive and monotonous work for eight hours or more, is by no means a natural way of human behavior. Hunters and gatherers would not enter into this activity of their own free will, but agrarian society originally required discipline in the field, where crops must be planted and harvested at the right time. Apparently, such a quality as self-discipline is rural population England developed gradually over many centuries until 1200. And this moment in time was simply documented.

Clark discovered the genetic mechanism by which Malthusian economics could produce such changes in the English population. Rich people had more children survive than poor people. In a study of wills written between 1585 and 1638, he found that the average testator who left nine pounds sterling or less to his heirs had two children or less. The number of heirs grew steadily with increasing wealth. Thus, the richest men, who left behind an inheritance of 1000 pounds or more, had four or more children.

From 1200 to 1760, the population of England was very stable, and its numbers changed little. This meant that if the rich had more children than the poor, they would have to move down the social ladder, since there were too many of these children overall for everyone to remain in the upper class.

This social decline had far-reaching consequences. genetic consequences. These children inherited the character traits that made their parents rich. Upper middle class values ​​such as nonviolence, literacy, frugality, and perseverance were now passed down to the lower economic class, spreading throughout society. Generation after generation, they eventually became the values ​​of society as a whole. This explains the steady decline in violence and increase in literacy among the English population noted by Clark. Moreover, these traits appeared gradually over several centuries, a time frame more typical of evolutionary change than of cultural change.

In a broader sense, such changes in behavior were only part of the many changes that took place in English society, which was adapting to market economy. Markets need prices and symbols, and they reward people's ability to count, read, and write, and their ability to think in symbols. “Population characteristics changed throughout Darwinian selection,” Clark writes. “England was at the forefront of such changes due to its long peaceful history, beginning at the latest in 1200, and possibly even earlier. Middle-class culture spread throughout society through biological mechanisms.”

Economic historians generally regard the Industrial Revolution as a rather unexpected and sudden phenomenon, and see their task as uncovering the historical conditions that preceded and brought about these profound transformations in economic life. But important events most likely there is important reasons. The Industrial Revolution was not driven by the events of the century that preceded it, but by changes in economic habits and human behavior that had slowly occurred in agricultural societies over the previous 10,000 years.

Of course, this also explains why the experience and practice of the Industrial Revolution was so easily and readily adopted by other European countries, the United States of America and East Asia. After all, the populations of all these countries lived in agrarian economies and evolved over thousands of years under the same severe restrictions of the Malthusian regime. None of the resources, none of the fundamental changes that are most often considered to be the causes of the Industrial Revolution, were able to manifest themselves with full effectiveness in these countries in the 1760s. And they didn’t show up.

Thus, unanswered questions remain about why the industrial revolution should be considered sudden, and why it first occurred in England, and not in some other country, where all the necessary conditions were ripe for it. Clark provides answers to these questions by attributing this to the dramatic growth of England's population, which tripled between 1770 and 1860. This was an alarming omen that led Malthus to write his Essay on the Law of Population.

But contrary to Malthus's gloomy predictions of mass death from vice and starvation, which would have been true at any earlier stage of human history, this time people's incomes increased, and the economy for the first time escaped from the Malthusian trap. Clarke dryly observes that English workers hastened this advance through their hard work, both on the shop floor and in bed.

Clarke's data convincingly demonstrates that the English population responded genetically to the rigors of the Malthusian regime, and that changes in its social behavior between 1200 and 1800 were shaped by natural selection. Of course, the burden of proof now falls on those who would argue that the population of England was somehow miraculously freed from the influence of the very forces of natural selection that Darwin spoke of.

Explaining the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews

The second example of recent human evolution comes from European Jews, especially the Ashkenazim of northern and central Europe. In proportion to their population, Jews have made disproportionate contributions to Western civilization. This can be easily measured by the number of Nobel Prizes. Jews make up only 0.2 percent of the world's population, yet they have received 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in the first half of the 20th century, 29 percent in the second and, to date, 32 percent in the 21st century. There is something here that requires clarification. If the successes of the Jews are purely cultural in nature (mothers who fear their children or diligence in their studies), then other peoples could achieve the same successes simply by copying their cultural customs and habits. Therefore, it would be reasonable to think about this: perhaps genetic pressure on Jews in their particular history contributed to the development of cognitive skills and abilities of this people?

Economic historians Maristella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein. In 63 or 65 AD, the supreme teacher Joshua ben Gamla issued and enforced a decree that every Jewish father should send his sons to school so that they could read and understand Jewish law. Jews at that time lived mainly from Agriculture, like everyone else, but education was expensive and did not bring much practical benefit. Many Jews abandoned Judaism, converting to a new and less strict faith, now known as Christianity.

Botticini and Eckstein say nothing about genetics, but it is quite clear that if Jews who were less capable of learning to read and write converted generation after generation to Christianity, then literacy and corresponding abilities, on average, increased among those who remained Jews.

As trade began to develop in medieval Europe, the Jewish community found itself ideally suited to become European traders and moneylenders. In a world where most people were illiterate, Jews could read contracts, keep books, appraise collateral, and handle commercial settlements. They formed a natural trading network through their co-religionists in other cities, and they had rabbinical courts to settle disputes. Jews took up usury not because they were forced to do so, as some historians believe, but because they chose it themselves, say Botticini and Eckstein. It was a risky, but very profitable occupation. The more able Jews prospered, the more the richest among them were able to support their surviving children—as did other nations until the 19th century.

As Jews mastered their knowledge-intensive niche, their abilities developed to such an extent that Ashkenazi Jews average an IQ of 110 to 115, the highest ever known. ethnic groups. Geneticists Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran calculated that given the high degree of heritability of intelligence, Ashkenazi IQ increased by 15 points in just five centuries. The first Ashkenazi Jews appeared in Europe around 900 AD, and most likely mental capacity began to develop much earlier.

If the advanced mental abilities of Ashkenazis have a genetic basis, then this phenomenon is interesting in itself, and also as an example of how natural selection has influenced the population in the recent past.

Adaptive response to different societies

The hand of evolution can be seen in the major transformations in the structure of human society and in the two cases described above. Of course, these are all hypotheses, and the influence of genes is still awaiting proof. If significant evolutionary changes can occur in such short historical periods, then evolutionary components may be present in other major historical events. One of the possible options is the development and strengthening of the West, caused by the extraordinary expansion of European societies, both in the field of knowledge and in the sphere of geographical influence. The West quickly overtook the other two major powers of the Middle Ages that were on the rise until the 16th century AD, such as China and the Islamic world.

In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, economic historian David Landes examines all sorts of factors in an attempt to explain the rise of the West and the stagnation of China. Essentially, he concludes that the answer lies in the character of the people. Landes calls culture the decisive factor, but at the same time defines it in a way that implies the concept of race.

“If the history of economic development has taught us anything, it is that culture is critical,” he writes. “Evidence of this is the enterprise of emigrant minorities - the Chinese in East and Southeast Asia, the Indians in east Africa, the Lebanese in west Africa, the Jews and Calvinists in almost all of Europe, and so on. However, culture, in the narrow sense of internal values ​​and attitudes that serve as a guide for the population, frightens scientists. There is a devilish odor of racism and heredity in this, an impression of immutability and immutability.”

Whether there is a devilish odor in this or not, according to Landes, it is the culture of each race that creates the difference in economic development. Clark's data on the decline in violence and increase in literacy from 1200 to 1800 gives us some evidence that there is a social component to culture and institutions.

Although there are no corresponding data on the population of China, Chinese society had its own distinctive features at least 2000 years. The powerful drive to survive must have adapted the Chinese to their society in the same way that the Europeans adapted to theirs.

Maybe the Chinese carry within them the genes of adherence to traditions and authoritarian power? Maybe Europeans have allelic genes that shape their predisposition to a free society and the rule of law? This is unlikely to be the case. But there is probably some genetic component that creates a tendency to follow the rules of society and to punish those who break these rules. If Europeans were a little less inclined to punish offenders, and the Chinese a little more inclined, this might explain why European societies are more tolerant of dissent and innovation, while Chinese society is not so tolerant. The genes that control the tendency to follow rules and punish violators have not yet been identified, so we do not know whether they differ between Europeans and Chinese in the way we just discussed. Nature has many buttons and keys for adjusting the intensity of social behavior in different nations and many different ways to find the same solution.

For most of recorded history, Chinese civilization has been superior to others, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the superiority of Chinese institutions rests on a fusion of culture and inherited social behavior.

The rise of the West is also unlikely to be just some kind of cultural accident. As European populations adapted to the geographic and military conditions of their particular area, they created societies that proved more innovative, progressive, and productive than others, at least in their circumstances.

Of course, this in no way means that Europeans are superior to others. From an evolutionary point of view, this is a meaningless idea anyway. In the same way, it makes no sense to say that the Chinese in their heyday were superior to others. China's authoritarian society may someday prove more successful again, especially under severe environmental pressures.

Civilizations may wax and wane, but evolution never stops. This is why geneticists can play a role, along with powerful cultural forces, in shaping the character of human society. History and evolution are not separate processes, and human evolution did not stop at a considerable distance from the point where history began. The longer we look at the human genome, the more it seems to us that these two processes are gracefully intertwined.

Nicholas Wade is a former science editor at the New York Times. This article is an abridged version of his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance.

I have questions about why there are only 4 races on Earth? Why are they so different from each other? How do different races have skin colors that correspond to their area of ​​residence?

*********************

First of all, we will examine the settlement map of the “Modern Races of the World”. In this analysis we will not deliberately accept the position of either monogenism or polygenism. The purpose of our analysis and the entire study as a whole is precisely to understand exactly how the emergence of humanity occurred and its development, including the development of writing. Therefore, we cannot and will not rely in advance on any dogma - be it scientific or religious.

Why are there four different races on Earth? Naturally, four types of different races could not have come from Adam and Eve....

So, under the letter “A” on the map the races are indicated, which, according to data modern research, are ancient. These races include four:
Equatorial Negroid races (hereinafter referred to as “Negroid race” or “Negroids”);
Equatorial Australoid races (hereinafter referred to as the “Australoid race” or “Australoids”);
Caucasoid races (hereinafter referred to as “Caucasoids”);
Mongoloid races (hereinafter referred to as “Mongoloids”).

2. Analysis of modern mutual settlement of races.

The modern mutual settlement of the four main races is extremely interesting.

The Negroid races are settled exclusively in a limited area, located from the center of Africa to its southern part. There is no Negroid race anywhere outside of Africa. In addition, it is precisely the areas of settlement of the Negroid race that are currently the “suppliers” of Stone Age culture - in South Africa there are still areas within which the population still exists in a primitive communal way of life.

We are talking about the archaeological culture of Wilton (Wilton) of the late Stone Age, widespread in the South and East Africa. In some areas it was replaced by the Neolithic with ground axes, but in most areas it existed until modern times: arrowheads made of stone and bone, pottery, beads made from ostrich egg shells; people of the Wilton culture lived in grottoes and in the open air, and hunted; agriculture and domestic animals were absent.

It is also interesting that on other continents there are no centers of settlement of the Negroid race. This, naturally, points to the fact that the birthplace of the Negroid race was originally precisely in that part of Africa that is located south of the center of the continent. It is worth noting that here we are not considering the later “migration” of Negroids to the American continent and their modern entry through the regions of France into the territory of Eurasia, since this is a completely insignificant effect in the long historical process.

Australoid races are settled exclusively in a limited area, located entirely in the north of Australia, as well as in extremely small fluctuations in India and on some isolated islands. The islands are so insignificantly populated by the Australoid race that they can be neglected when making estimates of the entire center of distribution of the Australoid race. The northern part of Australia can quite reasonably be considered this hotspot. It should be noted here that Australoids, like Negroids, for a reason unknown to today’s science, are located exclusively within one general area. Stone Age cultures are also found among the Australoid race. More precisely, those Australoid cultures that have not experienced the influence of Caucasians are predominantly in the Stone Age.

Caucasoid races are settled in the territory located in the European part of Eurasia, including Kola Peninsula, as well as in Siberia, the Urals, along the Yenisei, along the Amur, in the upper reaches of the Lena, in Asia, around the Caspian, Black, Red and Mediterranean seas, in northern Africa, on Arabian Peninsula, in India, on two American continents, in southern Australia.

In this part of the analysis, we should look at the area of ​​settlement of Caucasians in more detail.

Firstly, for obvious reasons, we will exclude from historical estimates the territory of distribution of Caucasians in the Americas, since these territories were occupied by them in not so distant historical times. The latest “experience” of Caucasians does not affect the history of the original settlement of peoples. The history of the settlement of humanity in general took place long before the American conquests of the Caucasians and without taking them into account.

Secondly, like the two previous races in the description, the territory of distribution of Caucasoids (from this point onwards, by “territory of distribution of Caucasians” we will understand only its Eurasian part and the northern part of Africa) is also clearly marked by the area of ​​their settlement. However, unlike the Negroid and Australoid races, the Caucasian race has reached the highest among existing races flourishing of culture, science, art, etc. The Stone Age within the habitat of the Caucasian race was completed in the vast majority of areas between 30 and 40 thousand years BC. All modern scientific achievements crimes of the most advanced nature were committed precisely by the Caucasian race. One can, of course, mention and argue with this statement, referring to the achievements of China, Japan and Korea, but let’s be honest, all their achievements are purely secondary and use, we must give credit, successfully, but still use the primary achievements of Caucasians.

Mongoloid races are settled exclusively in a limited area, located entirely in the northeast and east of Eurasia and on both American continents. Among Mongoloid race Just like among the Negroid and Australoid races, Stone Age cultures are still found to this day.
3. On the application of Organism laws

The first thing that catches the eye of an inquisitive researcher looking at a map of the distribution of races is that the distribution areas of the races do not intersect each other in such a way that this concerns any noticeable territories. And, although at mutual borders the contacting races produce a product of their intersection, called “transitional races,” the formation of such mixtures is classified by time and is purely secondary and much later than the formation of the ancient races themselves.

In large part, this process of mutual penetration of ancient races resembles diffusion in the physics of materials. We apply the laws of Organism to the description of races and peoples, which are more unified and give us the right and opportunity to operate with the same ease and accuracy, both materials and peoples, and races. Therefore, the mutual penetration of peoples - the diffusion of peoples and races - is completely subject to Law 3.8. (numbering of laws, as is customary in) Organisms, which says: “Everything moves.”

Namely, not a single race (now we will not talk about the originality of one or the other) under any circumstances will remain motionless in any “frozen” state. We will not be able, following this law, to find at least one race or people that would arise in a certain territory at the moment of “minus infinity” and would remain within this territory until “plus infinity”.

And from this it follows that it is possible to develop laws of movement of populations of organisms (peoples).
4. Laws of movement of populations of organisms
Any people, any race, as, incidentally, not only real, but also mythical (vanished civilizations), always has a point of its origin that is different from the one under consideration and as earlier;
Any nation, any race is represented not by the absolute values ​​of its numbers and its certain area, but by a system (matrix) of n-dimensional vectors describing:
directions of settlement on the Earth's surface (two dimensions);
time intervals of such settlement (one dimension);
… n. values ​​of mass transfer of information about a people (one complex dimension; this includes both numerical composition and national, cultural, educational, religious and other parameters).
5. Interesting observations

From the first law of population movement and taking into account a careful examination of the map of modern distribution of races, we can deduce the following observations.

Firstly, even at present historical times, all four ancient races are extremely isolated in their areas of distribution. Let us recall that we do not consider hereinafter the colonization of the Americas by Negroids, Caucasians and Mongoloids. These four races have the so-called cores of their ranges, which in no case coincide, that is, none of the races in the center of their range coincides with the similar parameters of any other race.

Secondly, the central “points” (areas) of ancient racial regions even today remain quite “pure” in composition. Moreover, the mixing of races occurs exclusively at the borders of neighboring races. Never - by mixing races that were not historically located in the same neighborhood. That is, we do not observe any mixing of the Mongoloid and Negroid races, since between them is the Caucasian race, which, in turn, mixes with both Negroids and Mongoloids precisely in the places of contact with them.

Thirdly, if the central points of settlement of races are determined by simple geometric calculation, then it turns out that these points are located at the same distance from each other, equal to 6000 (plus or minus 500) kilometers:

Negroid point - 5° S, 20° E;

Caucasoid point – p. Batumi, extreme eastern point Black Sea (41° N, 42° E);

Mongoloid point – ss. Aldan and Tomkot in the upper reaches of the Aldan River, a tributary of the Lena (58° N, 126° E);

Australoid point - 5° S, 122° E.

Moreover, the points of the central areas of settlement of the Mongoloid race on both American continents are also equidistant (and at approximately the same distance).

An interesting fact: if all four central points of settlement of races, as well as three points located in South, Central and North America, are connected, you will get a line resembling the bucket of the Ursa Major constellation, but inverted relative to its current position.
6. Conclusions

An assessment of the distribution areas of races allows us to draw a number of conclusions and assumptions.
6.1. Conclusion 1:

A possible theory suggesting the birth and settlement of modern races from one common point does not seem legitimate and justified.

We are currently observing precisely the process that leads to the mutual homogenization of races. Like, for example, the experiment with water, when a certain amount of hot water is poured into cold water. We understand that after some finite and quite calculated time, hot water will mix with cold water, and temperature averaging will occur. After which the water, in general, will become somewhat warmer than the cold water before mixing, and somewhat colder than the hot water before mixing.

The situation is the same now with the four old races - we are currently observing precisely the process of their mixing, when the races mutually penetrate each other, like cold and hot water, forming mestizo races in the places of their contact.

If the four races were formed from one center, then we would not now observe mixing. Because in order for four to be formed from one entity, a process of separation and mutual dispersion, isolation, and accumulation of differences must occur. And the mutual cross-breeding that is now occurring serves as clear evidence of the reverse process - the mutual diffusion of the four races. The inflection point that would separate the earlier process of separation of races from the later process of their mixing has not yet been found. Convincing evidence of the objective existence of some moment in history from which the process of separation of races would be replaced by their unification has not been found. Therefore, the process of historical mixing of races should be considered a completely objective and normal process.

This means that initially the four ancient races had to be inevitably divided and isolated from each other. We will leave the question of the force that could take over such a process open for now.

This assumption of ours is convincingly confirmed by the race distribution map itself. As we previously revealed, there are four conventional points of initial settlement of the four ancient races. These points, by strange chance, are located in a sequence that has a clearly defined series of patterns:

firstly, each border of mutual contact of races serves as a division of only two races and nowhere as a division of three or four;

secondly, the distances between such points, by a strange coincidence, are almost the same and equal to about 6000 kilometers.

The processes of development of territorial spaces by races can be compared to the formation of a pattern on frosty glass - from one point the pattern spreads in different directions.

Obviously, the races too, each in their own way, but general form The distribution of races was quite the same - from the so-called point of distribution of each race, it spread in different directions, gradually developing new territories. After quite an estimated time, the races sown 6,000 kilometers from each other met at the boundaries of their ranges. Thus began the process of their mixing and the emergence of various mestizo races.

The process of building and expanding the areas of races fully falls within the definition of the concept of “organismic center of organization” when there are patterns that describe such a distribution of races.

The natural and most objective conclusion suggests itself about the existence of four separate centers of origin of four different - ancient - races located on equal distance from each other. Moreover, the distances and points of “seeding” of the races were chosen in such a way that if we tried to repeat such “seeding”, we would end up with the same option. Consequently, the Earth was inhabited by someone or something from 4 different regions of our Galaxy or our Universe....
6.2. Conclusion 2:

Perhaps the original placement of races was artificial.

A number of random coincidences in distances and equidistance between races leads us to believe that this was not accidental. Law 3.10. Organisms says: ordered chaos acquires intelligence. It is interesting to trace the work of this law in the reverse cause-and-effect direction. The expression 1+1=2 and the expression 2=1+1 are equally true. And, therefore, the cause-and-effect relationship in their members works in both directions equally.

By analogy with this, law 3.10. we can reformulate this way: (3.10.-1) intelligence is an acquisition due to the ordering of chaos. The circumstance when out of three segments connecting four seemingly random points, all three segments are equal to the same value cannot be called anything other than a manifestation of intelligence. To ensure that the distances match, you need to measure them accordingly.

In addition, and this circumstance is no less interesting and mysterious, the “miraculous” distance we identified between the points of origin of races is, for some strange and inexplicable reason, equal to the radius of planet Earth. Why?

By connecting the four points of sowing races and the center of the Earth (and they are all located at the same distance), we get a quadrangular equilateral pyramid, with its apex directed towards the center of the Earth.

Why? Where do clear geometric shapes come from in a seemingly chaotic world?
6.3. Conclusion 3:

About the initial maximum isolation of races.

Let's begin our consideration of the mutually pairwise settlement of races with the Negroid-Caucasian pair. Firstly, Negroids no longer come into contact with any other race. Secondly, between Negroids and Caucasians lies the area central Africa, which is characterized by an abundant spread of lifeless deserts. That is, initially the arrangement of Negroids relative to Caucasians ensured that these two races would have the least amount of contact with each other. There is some intent here. And also an additional argument against the theory of monogenism - at least in terms of the Negroid-Caucasian couple.

Similar features also exist in the Caucasoid-Mongoloid pair. The same distance between the conditional centers of race formation is 6000 kilometers. The same natural barrier to the mutual penetration of races is the extremely frosty northern regions and the Mongolian deserts.

The Mongoloid-Australoid pair also provides for maximum use of terrain conditions, preventing the mutual penetration of these races, which are approximately the same 6,000 kilometers apart.

Only in recent decades, with the development of means of transport and communications, the mutual penetration of races has not only become possible, but has also become widespread.

Naturally, in the course of our research these conclusions may be revised.
Final conclusion:

It can be seen that there were four race seeding points. They are equidistant both from each other and from the center of planet Earth. Races have only mutual-pair contacts. The process of mixing races is a process of the last two centuries, before which the races were isolated. If there was an intention in the original settlement of races, then it was this: to settle the races so that they would be as for a long time did not come into contact with each other.

This was probably an experiment to solve the problem of which race would best adapt to earthly conditions. And also, which race will be more progressive in its development....

Source - razrusitelmifov.ucoz.ru

Lesson Plan

1. What human races do you know?
2. What factors cause the evolutionary process?
3. What influences the formation of the gene pool of a population?

What are the human races?

Human predecessors are Australopithecines;
- ancient people- progressive australopithecus, archanthropus (pithecanthropus, synanthropus, Heidelberg man, etc.);
- ancient people - paleoanthropes (Neanderthals);
- fossil people of modern anatomical type - neoanthropes (Cro-Magnons).

The historical development of man was carried out under the influence of the same factors of biological evolution as the formation of other species of living organisms. However, humans are characterized by such a unique phenomenon for living nature as an increasing influence on anthropogenesis social factors (work activity, social way of life, speech and thinking).

For modern man, social-labor relations have become leading and determining.

As a result of social development, Homo sapiens acquired unconditional advantages among all living beings. But this does not mean that the emergence of the social sphere abolished the action of biological factors. The social sphere has only changed their manifestation. Homo sapiens as a species is integral part biosphere and the product of its evolution.

These are historically established groupings (groups of populations) of people, characterized by similar morphological and physiological traits. Racial differences are the result of people's adaptation to certain conditions of existence, as well as the historical and socio-economic development of human society.

There are three large races: Caucasoid (Eurasian), Mongoloid (Asian-American) and Austral-Negroid (Equatorial).

Chapter 8

Basics of ecology

After studying this chapter, you will learn:

What does ecology study and why does every person need to know its basics;
- what is the importance of environmental factors: abiatic, biotic and anthropogenic;
- what role do environmental conditions and internal properties of a population group play in the processes of changes in its numbers over time;
- O various types interactions of organisms;
- about the features competitive relations and factors determining the outcome of competition;
- about the composition and basic properties of the ecosystem;
- about energy flows and the circulation of substances that ensure the functioning of systems, and about the role in these processes

Back in the middle of the 20th century. the word ecology was known only to specialists, but nowadays it has become very popular; it is most often used when talking about the unfavorable state of the nature around us.

Sometimes this term is used in combination with words such as society, family, culture, health. Is ecology really such a broad science that it can cover most of the problems facing humanity?

Kamensky A. A., Kriksunov E. V., Pasechnik V. V. Biology 10th grade
Submitted by readers from the website