Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat

[Iguana]

I don't know if you got what I said.   The Inuits, American Indians, tribes or northern Russia, Tibet, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia....  one to two hundred years ago did not have technology, i.e., heated homes.   But they existed and thrived.  And they cradled their babies close to the breast from warmth and food.    Doesn't prove we're meant to exist in cold climates.   But it does obviously evidence that we can adapt, via intelligence, without so called technology.  I'm not really into this thread, seems like it will go nowhere, but did want to state the obvious.

According to common definitions of technology, Inuits, Amerindians and the tribes you cite, Van, used a lot of technologies such as clothing, controlled fire, tents, igloos, hunting weapons, etc.     

Technology (from Greek  techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -logia) is the collection of tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures used by humans. Engineering is the discipline that seeks to study and design new technologies. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments. The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include construction technology, medical technology and information technology.

The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools. The prehistoric discovery of how to control fire increased the available sources of food and the invention of the wheel helped humans in travelling in and controlling their environment.

In 1937, the American sociologist Read Bain wrote that "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them."[5] Bain's definition remains common among scholars today, especially social scientists.

Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value. In this usage, technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems. It is a far-reaching term that may include simple tools, such as a crowbar or wooden spoon, …

I'm enjoying this discussion.  I was born and raised in this tropical country and have no idea what it is like in your 4 weather or even very cold scandinavian countries.

No human would survive there without some kind of housing, clothing, tools, hunting and fishing weapons. It’s so obvious…

[JeuneKoq]

You know what? Enough with the theories and speculation about how humans can survive, let alone thrive in the cold without technology (as defined by wiki).
Lets get some actual empirical evidence out there   !

And I don't want to hear about no Inuit or Fuegian tribes, because they obviously use at least one form of technology to keep warm (shelter, clothes, controlled fire).

Tyler, you seem to be of northern-european descent, right?
You're probably following what you would describe as an optimal, or near optimal diet, correct?

Well, Tyler, and any other willful person who shares the same characteristics as cited above, I challenge you to pick your favorite winter vacation (Christmas, St-Nicolas...) to go and live outside with absolutely no heating or cold protecting technology.
Yep, that's no T-shirt, no blanket, no central heating, no hair-dryer, no fur, no fire. I you do need to use your car during this experiment, it's windows down (Is their any natural shelter on earth with no open entry-exit?) and no heating of course.
If you've got work to do, just bring your office chair and computer outside the house, and cover it with something when done (We don't want your office tools to get cold and wet, do we?  )
If you can't sleep without a good mattress, you are allowed to bring yours outside. But no covers!!
Mosquito net allowed too, if not touching the skin. Probably wont need it though, since insects don't usually hang out in the cold...
You can train before D-day of course, make the most of your weekends and go live and sleep outside while it's not dangerously freezing yet.

This is a joke of course, but if somebody really did that, I can bet you he wouldn't last 3 days. A week max before actual death.
As long as there will be no solid evidence to back up such absurd claims, the only sensible conclusion to be made is that no human being can stand such intense cold, for such an important length of time, without the use of technology.
I'm pretty confident there never will be any evidence to be found against....

[goodsamaritan]

Juenekoq, I'm betting Inger can do it.
Beautifully too.

[panacea]

Some people really have no idea what a cold climate is like... sigh
here's how we deal with too-cold temperatures: hypothermia/focus bloodflow on vital organs and get frostbite (conserve and spend tons of energy)

here's how we deal with too much heat: sweating (relatively painless, only need to eat minimal energy and some water which is usually abundant in areas with fruit)

even if you have no idea what a cold climate is like, just looking at the facts should make it obvious to you we are not adapted for colder climates, but more on the warm side, despite having some resilience to temporary cold

[goodsamaritan]

Some people really have no idea what a cold climate is like... sigh

That would be me... I admit it.

[van]

this is like some 6th grade debate competition.   It is 'obvious' that no one here is saying that someone in the nude could survive an arctic winter.  The point here is that man for many thousands of years has lived in the arctic cold just fine, and yes with animal furs, the use of igloos etc. So what!   Brown bears in Alaska purposely go to higher mountain ground so that the higher snow falls ensure they will be covered by consistently thicker Insulating amounts of snow.    Ok, the rest here can go on.  My only point is we can adapt because we have brains and use technology, i.e.. animal furs etc. to aid us.   Every animal in the cold figures out how to shelter themselves against the wind, rain, snow and cold. 

[Iguana]

My only point is we can adapt because we have brains and use technology, i.e.. animal furs etc. to aid us. 

That's exactly what JeuneKoq, Panacea and I are saying... and what Tyler has been challenging all along!

By the way you just said the contrary this morning:

(…) The Inuits, American Indians, tribes or northern Russia, Tibet, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia....  one to two hundred years ago did not have technology, i.e., heated homes.   But they existed and thrived. (…) But it does obviously evidence that we can adapt, via intelligence, without so called technology.

[JeuneKoq]

Van, the conclusion to be made here is that humans living in countries with cold climates absolutely depend on "technology" to survive, which is not the case for people living in countries with a much milder, warmer climate. Therefore, can cold regions really be considered an "optimal habitat" for man?

[van]

That's exactly what JeuneKoq, Panacea and I are saying... and what Tyler has been challenging all along!

By the way you just said the contrary this morning:



not really.  I don't agree with you that animal furs and animal tents are representative of technology.  I just didn't want to get in a futile debate.     Thus I'll say it again,  using animal furs has little to do with whether or not a cold environment is optimal.   There are too many other factors to consider that may have more far reaching benefits for habitat.  Notice I said may have.    Some ideas that come to mind;   in cold environments there are less sugars available.   (Do we really need to reopen this can of worms?)   There is the notion of resting the body during the winter months.   If the cold environment is near the ocean, cold water fish and mammals  have superior nutrition to warm water fish, mainly due to the cold water nutrient rich waters which phytoplankton flourish in..    There's the notion of the cold actually creating a strength in the body that warm environments can't begin to induce.   And yes, Inger is a testament to what I'm writing about.   I myself  haven't put myself through the rigors of cold therapy to determine for myself the benefits or not. 
     So please,  let's not get hung up on this notion of the amount of hair on the body as to whether living in the cold is not only possible but beneficial.  To do so is not only  bad science, but ostrich like inquiry.

[panacea]

You can disagree with the definition of technology as much as you want, but communicating with other people isn't going to work, as evidenced by posters confusion of your contradictory post (unless we knew beforehand that you have an incorrect definition/meaning of technology), until you accept the actual meaning of the word technology rather than your incorrect version.

The debate here is what is our natural habitat that we evolved in - without technology (or tools), Tyler Durden was incorrectly proposing that our natural naked habitat could extend to cold climates, when it's not even valid as a hypothesis because it's so ridiculous. I postulated that our natural habitat could've been semi-aquatic (coexisting with bodies of water and frequently making use of them), which by itself is not invalid based on ridiculousness, as there is nothing (like death from too-cold temperatures) which invalidates it. My problem was that this topic was taking the direction of ignoring physical evidence (such as our skin, relative lack of thick hair, and ability to sweat to rapidly cool) and proposing contrary ideas which completely lack physical evidence. We might as well just go back to being mayans if we're going to completely ignore logic like that.

[van]

why do you Insist 'without technology'?   You do use the descriptive word 'evolved',, meaning over time.  And why do you negate a bears digging into a hillside as any different than the technology of a early man using that bears hide as doing the same as the bear did for eluding the cold through the insulating properties of snow.    It's beginning to appear as though you already have your opinion formed and are simply looking to debate period. 
    Yes, early man probably didn't  say to himself I will venture up into those glacier mountains dressed like I am with this fig leaf jockey underwear, and sit like yogi master and go beyond the reality of cold.   No but he did probably by some act notice the opportunity to hunt big game and fish beyond his local habitat.   And then, again, with brains, like the bear, figure out how to survive from the cold.   What is so frigging hard to understand about this?   This hypothesis, if it happened that way, probably evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years.     So then one Could ask the question, if one really wants to explore the question and possibility of what benefits might early man have derived from such possible exploits.     Similarly to any explorer who ventures out of their comfort zone.  I mean look at the early explorers who ventured into the new world including taking wagon trains across the Rockies.   Hard to imagine from my comfort zone.    But to refocus, maybe, just maybe, with the use of your defined version of technology, with the use of animal furs, he adapted to an optimal state of health.    Again, that's the real question when you look at the title thread.   Or I suppose you could choose to only focus on the first half of it and be attached to trying to solve where did early man first live, and not be concerned with where he might most optimally live.     But then that might open up the notion that fruit isn't man's optimal source for fuel, amongst other concepts. 

[colorles]

lets discuss the malvinas/falkland islands. climate of the falklands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Falkland_Islands

does that strike you as ideal human environment? not too hot, not too cold, maritime climate, access to seafood and rivers, ect

[TylerDurden]

Incidentally, this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaghan_people#Adaptations_to_climate

points out how one group of people used various non-technological methods to resist the cold.  The only technology they used was the various small fires they built. But, for obvious reasons, they could not have spent their whole lives always huddling near fires, and were able to hunt etc. without warmth or clothes or whatever.

Incidentally, the Neanderthals did indeed adapt to cold, Arctic environments without technology. Bear in mind that the Neanderthals came into being 100s of thousands of years before the discovery of fire.

Another point is that most palaeo HGs went in for massive migrations, following herds etc. It makes perfect sense for human tribes to, for example, migrate into colder climes during summer months while leaving for warmer climes in winter.

The absurd challenge to live outdoors is meaningless, of course. I mean I am a descendant of many generations all of whom lived in warm environments due to having fires in their houses etc.  Obviously, adaptations to the cold that do not require fur would take some generations of living in progressively colder climates in order to appear, such as the increased metabolic rate of the Yaghans, their higher body temperature etc.

[JeuneKoq]

There's the notion of the cold actually creating a strength in the body that warm environments can't begin to induce.

This is an over simplification of things. What you're actually referring to is called "cryotherapy", and it's a brief exposure of the body to very cold temperatures, in a controlled environment. It has nothing to do with the exterior environment the individual evolves in. Also, it seems that most top athletes of the world happen to originate from the warmer climates.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics
Does living in colder climates really make you stronger then?

Tyler, it's true that the Yaghan people's moderate adaptation to cold is impressive. They might've been slowly on their way to completely adapting to their environments climates, perhaps in (far) future generations.
However, as the wikipedia article states, these people use not one but several technological (as defined by wiki) methods to resist the cold, such as fires, constructed shelters, and covering their body with animal grease. I mean, their territory isn't called "land of fire" (tierra del fuego) for no reason  , as the article explains.
Obviously their body's adopted method to resist the cold is extra fat layers, as they look "chubby" compared to other ethnic groups/tribes.

Ps: they always look like they're cold as hell!! 

[JeuneKoq]

Incidentally, the Neanderthals did indeed adapt to cold, Arctic environments without technology. Bear in mind that the Neanderthals came into being 100s of thousands of years before the discovery of fire.

You never gave any satisfactory evidence to your claim. Therefor this is just your opinion. And as it was said before fire is not the only "artificial" method used to resist cold.

Another point is that most palaeo HGs went in for massive migrations, following herds etc. It makes perfect sense for human tribes to, for example, migrate into colder climes during summer months while leaving for warmer climes in winter.

Perhaps. At least it makes more sens than the rest.

The absurd challenge to live outdoors is meaningless, of course. I mean I am a descendant of many generations all of whom lived in warm environments due to having fires in their houses etc.

Damn, too bad for you. I mean my family has been living outside in the artic cold for generations. Just take a look at our recent family picture (I'm bottom right)....

[Iguana]

Nice family, JeuneKoq! I had never heard before of that Arctic great ape species of yours. Are they named Koq? LOL.

Another point is that most palaeo HGs went in for massive migrations, following herds etc. It makes perfect sense for human tribes to, for example, migrate into colder climes during summer months while leaving for warmer climes in winter.

Glad that you finally agree with me on that point :

Isn't it likely that they moved North in summer and either died, barely survived  or came back before the winter?

On the wikipedia photo dated 1883, the Yaghans all wear an animal fur on their back and they are closely packed together, apparently to share their warmth. This topic has 6 previous pages in which all this has already been comprehensively discussed, so it can be consulted in endless loop, like the old 8-track stereo cartridges. 

[goodsamaritan]

I so appreciate that tidbit about the Yaghans:

Adaptations to climate

Despite the extremely cold climate in which they lived, early Yahgan wore little to no clothing until after their extended contact with Europeans.[5] They were able to survive the harsh climate because:

1.    They kept warm by huddling around small fires when they could, including in their boats to stay warm. The name of "Tierra del Fuego" (land of fire) was based on the many fires seen by passing European explorers.
2.   They made use of rock formations to shelter from the elements.
3.    They covered themselves in animal grease.[6]
4.    Over time, they had evolved significantly higher metabolisms than average humans, allowing them to generate more internal body heat.[7]
5.    Their natural resting position was a deep squatting position, which reduced their surface area and helped to conserve heat.[6]

I'm okay with that minimal technology and adaptation.

[colorles]

This is an over simplification of things. What you're actually referring to is called "cryotherapy", and it's a brief exposure of the body to very cold temperatures, in a controlled environment. It has nothing to do with the exterior environment the individual evolves in. Also, it seems that most top athletes of the world happen to originate from the warmer climates.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics
Does living in colder climates really make you stronger then?

Tyler, it's true that the Yaghan people's moderate adaptation to cold is impressive. They might've been slowly on their way to completely adapting to their environments climates, perhaps in (far) future generations.
However, as the wikipedia article states, these people use not one but several technological (as defined by wiki) methods to resist the cold, such as fires, constructed shelters, and covering their body with animal grease. I mean, their territory isn't called "land of fire" (tierra del fuego) for no reason  , as the article explains.
Obviously their body's adopted method to resist the cold is extra fat layers, as they look "chubby" compared to other ethnic groups/tribes.

Ps: they always look like they're cold as hell!! 

to the bolded:

1) athletics is not a proper measurement of the all around fitness of a populations, given that sports tend to be quite specialized. whereas an all terrain game hunter(s) would have to be quite well rounded both mentally and physically and built for long term survival  in any given environment (without the aid of "protein powders and physical therapy" for example)

2) you say that "most top atheletes of the world happen to originate from warmer climates" followed by a url to the athletes of the summer olympics. well, no kidding you are going to find alot of atheletes from warmer climates in the summer olympics, if you look at the winter olympics you will notice that the athletes tend to come from colder climates (no duh). that was a rather poor argument; unless you are arguing that  summer athletes are "more athletic" than winter athletes, in which case i'd take it you've never done any cross country skiing...

also about the "extra layer of fat", well is it any coincidence that the peoples living in some of the coldest and windiest climates on earth ie the inuit, various siberian peoples, the various turko-mongolian peoples of the central asian steppes, etc tend to have copious amounts of subcutaneous fat, which coupled with their squat stature (another cold adaptation) gives them that jovial "puffy" appearance? that right there is an adaptation to the cold, much like pinnepeds for the matter. all of those argueing on the point that "just because people need to wear clothes, they are not fit for a cold environment", is like argueing that "just because people need to use knives and other tools to hunt prey, they are not fit to be predators" (i'm sure we have all seen this arguement on some vegan boards...but astoundinly the same arguement in premise is being used by some posters here). a large part of our adaptability is due to tool making, we have a very ancient structure to our hands that while useless for movement on are very useful for intricate tasks and grasping. couple that with are general body nature and omnivorous gut (leaning more on the carnivore side i would say, but we can still take advantage of a very large source of food without immediate or obvious consequences), and our group ability to plan and speak and track over rugged terrain and distances, and there you have it

but it is important to remember that even though we may have had to use tools to both hunt game and move to colder climates, we have still adapted to these lifestyles nonetheless, as can be seen in the human hunting skill that was so adept as to have become the dominant hunters in paleolithic times, at some point adopting/teaming up with some wolves hence proto-dogs, etc. despite what any vegan would tell you otherwise, human have hunting instincts. just about every person i have ever met does, with the exception of some rather confused people that have had that instincts "beaten out of them" so to speak. and many people on this planet do have some adaptation to cold, skin color is one (to the point where many light skinned people would not be able to return to tropical climates, without damaging there skin; the skin has to be covered up in such intense sun) and subcutaneous fat is another and the comparison is most obvious when comparing europeans with sub-saharan africans; notice which group naturally has more subcutaneous fat (in healthy individuals, it is always important to compare healthy individuals and understand the difference between healthy fat and unhealthy fat). when it comes to asians yes indeed the northern and central steppe asians tend to have more subcunaeous fat still, however some groups like the vietnamese and hmong, which live in tropical climates do have some of this fat, which can be explained by these groups having more northern origins in the past (for the matter there are some species of seals living in warmer climates, that of course still retain some blubber and hence have origins in colder climates). this not even getting into variations in metabolism. bottom line: people have always moved around a lot. and if any given group of people stays in one climate for long enough, they will adapt, and even if they move to a different climate later on, they will retain those adaptations until otherwise adapted out

this whole argument is becoming rather pointless, especially if its going to be on the notion of "technology usage", when many creatures utilize "technology" in its broadest defintion in one way or another, or at least their intellect to survive ie the bear example of how they utilize snow and borrows to keep warm (which is something mountain troops are taught the world over). i know alot of people here would take offense if some vegans randomly cam over spouting that "humans are not natural hunters because they use tools", so why argue the same thing with human adaption to various climates?

even the notion of a "perfect human habitat" is faulty since a habitat that is ideal for one population, would be unideal or even disastrous for another and visa versa. there is far too much regional adaptation that has gone on throughout humanity; some people would go as far as to say there is not such thing as "one humanity". i am not going to argue on that either way, but the reality of regional adaptation and what it means to this discussion, is something to consider

[panacea]

tyler:
yaghans used:
some minimal clothing to shelter from the elements
rock formations to shelter from the elements
boats to shelter from the elements
fires to generate heat
animal grease to shelter from the elements
defecation position as resting position to reduce surface area to keep warm

if you think this is evident of our bodies natural ability to survive in that climate, you really are as lost as I thought. on the contrary, incidentally, that is all evidence that our naked bodies, even when adapted over a lifespan to build more brown fat (which generates more heat) and have higher metabolisms, is unable without technological aid to survive in that climate. incidentally, you are completely incorrect, still, after all of these posts.

incidentally, it would be nice to know how you propose they "hunted" or got food in any way since we know they at least had knowledge of using rocks, boats, fire, clothes, and animal grease. are you proposing they "hunted" (or fished, or maneuvered) in this climate without those aids? or are you merely using them as an incorrect example to support your ridiculous position?

it is known that humans can adapt to cold and survive in cold weather, just as many other animals can adapt and survive in climates/habitats other than their natural climate/habitat, that doesn't mean that without help, luck, or severe struggle, that we are genetically adapted to that environment! seriously wake up

[van]

panacea, did you not read colore's post?  And if you did, which part of it do you not agree with.  For me your continual dismissal of our ability to live healthily in the cold over this notion that  they'd have to use something other than their own bodies to stay warm is becoming quite boring, redundant, seems to be a waste of our time to keep up with this thread.   Could you please agree to disagree if needed, and move on to another inquiry that may allow us to discover something new.

[panacea]

your ignorant assumption has made you look like a fool, I never claimed we couldn't live healthily in a cold environment when aided by technology.
the topic's title is natural/optimal habitat, I'm talking about the natural part of that topic title, not "healthy living in a cold environment with technology" as you are, please stay on topic you're filling this thread with irrelevant posts. read more slowly if you're so confused and stop applying your own little viewpoint to my words.

[panacea]

as to what colorles contributed, it is obvious humans expanded to colder climates with the aid of technology, but this is a relatively recent change, and not the natural habitat for our bodies, the bulk of our body is still adapted to our past before that change, the climate and conditions we lived in before technology/cold climates.
when you compare the differences between caucasian, asian, etc, you can clearly see the differences - but they are not major in terms of environmental adaptation

our adaptation of paler skin for areas away from exposed areas with intense sunlight is not in itself an indication of cold adaptation - it is an indication of sun(vitamin d etc) adaptation in those areas. there are many such areas which are not cold climates, yet still have little sun. even the rainforest is an example, or a typical less-thick forest with tree cover like on many islands and mainlands. To be clear, colorles is completely wrong about Caucasians being unable to live in exposed areas, as our skin can tan quickly and there is always shade some of the time (sleeping). Furthermore, people did not jump on airplanes and hop over to africa from far away back then, you gradually migrated to some other place like to a more exposed area slowly increasing sunlight exposure.

the reason all of this is important is another matter
one that has to do with even more advanced logic than people here are displaying they are capable of
for example, if we adapted to colder environments on the fast track using technology (shortly followed by cooking, farming, etc), then our digestive system has not had a chance to genetically catch up all the way
meaning the best foods are still ones we adapted to pre-technology, as well as countless other logical deductions you can make from the truth rather than speculations on fantasies

to be completely clear, skin color (or color of hair, eyes, etc) is one of the first genetic adaptations to take place to a new environment as it isnt a complex change (white bunnies, brown bunnies, black bunnies), changing a digestive system's workings is a slower adaptation. even so, skin color has nothing to do with cold/hot climate, and everything to do with sun exposure

[JeuneKoq]

2) you say that "most top atheletes of the world happen to originate from warmer climates" followed by a url to the athletes of the summer olympics. well, no kidding you are going to find alot of atheletes from warmer climates in the summer olympics, if you look at the winter olympics you will notice that the athletes tend to come from colder climates (no duh). that was a rather poor argument; unless you are arguing that  summer athletes are "more athletic" than winter athletes, in which case i'd take it you've never done any cross country skiing...

Okay, first of all any person from any states of this planet can theoretically take part in the "summer Olympics". Unless you live on a 10 meter diameter island in the middle of the pacific, you probably have the possibility to train for a 100 meter sprint, a 400 meter race, or a marathon, and anything in between.
However, there's something missing in warmer regions that makes it quite difficult for athletes native to these environments to properly train for the "winter Olympics": that's snow, and ice. Shocking, I know. I've never heard of people gone skiing on the Kilimanjaro top either. I guess you already acknowledged that (like you said, duh)
The point is that even though everybody on this planet is capable of training for the "summer Olympics", still a vast majority of Olympic champions originate from the warmer parts of our globe. And I doubt they get higher quality coaching compared to European athletes, for example.

[van]

your ignorant assumption has made you look like a fool, I never claimed we couldn't live healthily in a cold environment when aided by technology.
the topic's title is natural/optimal habitat, I'm talking about the natural part of that topic title, not "healthy living in a cold environment with technology" as you are, please stay on topic you're filling this thread with irrelevant posts. read more slowly if you're so confused and stop applying your own little viewpoint to my words.

I have asked you politely to refrain from using words like 'fool' and to a lesser degree 'ignorant'.   I am asking any moderator to strike his post and keep a check on panacea's future posts.    And now, you are the one who is mistaken, for if you read an earlier post I stated and pointed out the differences you have accused me of.  I am  focused on what environment might just be most healthy for one to live TODAY, and that is why I included to strike this wasteful discussion of technology, since it will continually keep us looking at how much hair we have underarms or on our chests and backs.   
   I am also of the strong opinion that what was done in early times may only had to do with keeping one alive, and not necessarily contributing to a long healthy disease free life,,  and the example I have given in the past was gorging on excess protein ( due to not knowing when you're next meal will come along) and similarly gorging on fruit.   Thus I give little credence to following some prehistoric bible of how someone lived or what they ate.   
  You repoint to the word 'Natural' in the title.   I say Natural to what time period.  None of us here are going to go into the wild anywhere and live there without a knife, tent, mosquito netting, clothing, shoes, and the obvious list of techno gadgets goes on..    But we could go anywhere in the world, just as early man did, and survive.   In this time period, today, where might it be optimal for someone to live?    And again, that is where I hope the focus of this thread will go.

[colorles]

Okay, first of all any person from any states of this planet can theoretically take part in the "summer Olympics". Unless you live on a 10 meter diameter island in the middle of the pacific, you probably have the possibility to train for a 100 meter sprint, a 400 meter race, or a marathon, and anything in between.
However, there's something missing in warmer regions that makes it quite difficult for athletes native to these environments to properly train for the "winter Olympics": that's snow, and ice. Shocking, I know. I've never heard of people gone skiing on the Kilimanjaro top either. I guess you already acknowledged that (like you said, duh)
The point is that even though everybody on this planet is capable of training for the "summer Olympics", still a vast majority of Olympic champions originate from the warmer parts of our globe. And I doubt they get higher quality coaching compared to European athletes, for example.

you said close quote that "the best atheletes tend to come from warmer climates" followed by url of summer olympic athletes. i simply pointed out that you using such an arguement, is no different than if i were to say "the best atheletes tend to come from colder climates" followed by url of winter olympic atheletes

its pretty simple: people from warmer climates tend to be better at "summer events", people from colder climates tend to be better at "winter events". why make this into anything more than it has to be? unless of course you are argueing that you could bring a bunch of Jamaicans to Austria and expect them to be as proficient skiers as the latter, or visa versa bring a bunch of Austrians to Jamaica and expect them to be just as proficient sprinters (with "proper training" both ways of course). either way this is a pointless arguement given the whole entire reason tropical peoples do not have access to "snow" and "ice" while more northernly people do, is do to the fact that said northernly people were able to move and adapt to day to day life in these colder climates to begin with; you seem to have taken way too much offense to my post than was intended...and sport is not real life anyways



as to panacea, well i will clarify on what i was saying about skin color: i am well aware it is an adaptation to sunlight, ie lightskin is an adaptation to less intense sunlight regions, while dark skin is an adaptation to intense sunlight regions. the point i was making though is that you cannot simply throw a bunch of light skinned people in a tropical environment and expect them to do well, much less thrive. you vastly overestimate the ability of northern peoples to tan; and no i am not talking about Iberians. you seem to be insistent that any given humans alive today, could do well in a tropical environment; i quite disagree, as some people on this planet cannot even exist in such intense sunlight without covering there skin: why do you think the relatively light skinned peoples of the arabian peninsula or the bedouins of the sahara cover their skin head to toe, even in hot climates? its protection from the sun. protection that darker skinned people need far less of, if any/ oh but i thought people only needed to wear clothing in cold climates, and all people just ran around naked in the hot sun? the whole arguement of humans being "non-adapted" to cold climates on the notion of "having to wear clothes" can be flipped on you considering the various human populations that need to wear clothes to cover and protect there light skin (which was previously as adaptation to less intense sunlight of course, and hence either a different region or a different climate in the past) from the scorching rays of the sun

point being, while the adaptation of light skin is not directly a result of colder temperatures, it tends to go hand in hand with colder temperatures due to intensity of sunlight decreasing the farther north. and although many caucasians/indo-europeans retain the ability to tan to various proficiencies, many of the more northernly ones and populations from very cloudy climates like scotland for instance, cannot. and hence they would struggle immensely in a tropical climate. not to mention things like malaria, which is clearly of more risk to caucasians

either way between you and jeune i feel like i'm being jumped on for no reason. i mean come on, are you really going to claim that i am "completely wrong" about the ability of caucasians to tan? i should know my own ability to tan, and i can tell you i quite despise tropical climates, even sub-tropical climates. i don't like intense sun exposure in general, it depresses me. now do i acknoledge that some indo-european populations can tan quite well (including the fact that some are quite dark skin to begin with)? of course, never said i didn't. in fact i never even intended to discuss this, you just insisted on making assumptions about by knowledge of indo-europeans. again: i simply said in that some caucasians could not survive well in tropical environments. i never said that "all indo-europeans cannot tan". you are putting words into my mouth




bottom line though: the prevailing notion in this thread between panacea and jeune, is that even the most cold adapted and/or least intense sunlight adapted people, could still survive quite well in tropical climates. i quite contest this, there are quite a few human populations that would struggle on a day to day basis in "hot" climates, just as there are quite a few human populations that would struggle on a day to day basis in "cold" climates. this has nothing to do with me supposedly saying "all indo-europeans cannot tan"...

either way i'm just taking what you guys give me, lets not put words into each others mouths