Urban Living Helps People Develop Resistance to Disease, Say Scientists

[Kiev Communard]

It seems that urbanism is not that bad... and the Anarcho-Primitivism is disproved yet again :D.





Living in urban areas has helped people develop an immunity to diseases, a study published today suggested. Researchers discovered that people who have a history of living in more populated regions are more likely to have a genetic variant which gives them a resistance to diseases such as tuberculosis and leprosy.

Poor sanitation and high population densities provided an ideal breeding ground for disease in ancient cities. Past exposure to pathogens led to disease resistance spreading through populations because ancestors passed it on to their descendants, scientists said. Dr Ian Barnes, from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway College, said: "This seems to be an elegant example of evolution in action.

"It flags up the importance of a very recent aspect of our evolution as a species, the development of cities as a selective force. It could also help to explain some of the differences we observe in disease resistance around the world."

Researchers analysed DNA samples from populations across Europe, Asia and Africa and compared rates of genetic disease resistance with urban history. They found that in the areas with a long history of urban settlements, today's inhabitants were more likely to possess the DNA variant which provides some resistance to infection.

The study, which was conducted by researchers at Royal Holloway, the University of London, University College London and Oxford University, is published in the journal Evolution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/23/urban-living-develops-resistance-disease

[tracher999]

yeah nice :thumbup1: keep it up bro

[bcbm]

It seems that urbanism is not that bad... and the Anarcho-Primitivism is disproved yet again :D.


note that it says after many generations and that ancient cities were breeding grounds for disease. life in urban societies usually lead to more disease until pretty recently. i mean for real, being enclosed off your land and forced into a london slum in 1810 probably didn't improve your health.

[JazzRemington]

It's also supposed to promote tolerance of other (different) people, because you're living and working in close contact. In general, people living in urban areas are more likely to be tolerant of someone different than people living in rural areas. Because anarcho-primitivists emphasize small, relatively self-sustaining communities, this wouldn't do much to enforce tolerance.

[bcbm]

gatherer-hunter societies are generally open and tolerant of outsiders, practicing a general reciprocity well outside of the typically small kinship group allowing access to new information, resources and possible kin. the lack of a defined territory and resources tied directly to that territory removes the need for most overt hostility to outsiders.

[Kiev Communard]

gatherer-hunter societies are generally open and tolerant of outsiders, practicing a general reciprocity well outside of the typically small kinship group allowing access to new information, resources and possible kin. the lack of a defined territory and resources tied directly to that territory removes the need for most overt hostility to outsiders.

But you could not deny the fact that a lot of relatively "developed" hunter-gatherer societies (like Pacific Amerindians, for instance) had already had elements of proto-class structure, institutes of slavery and female inequality.

[bcbm]

But you could not deny the fact that a lot of relatively "developed" hunter-gatherer societies (like Pacific Amerindians, for instance) had already had elements of proto-class structure, institutes of slavery and female inequality.

why would i and what does that have to do with anything? i'm not saying gatherer-hunter living was some idyllic paradise, i just don't understand the need to come up easily demolished strawmen against "primitivism."

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

And living in tropical heavily mosquito infested areas is also "not so bad" for a population because this may eventually help it develop some genetic resistance to malaria.

[Sir Comradical]

Makes sense. I spent my first two years in an apartment in the middle of Delhi breathing in the leaded petrol fumes, the smog and all the other wonderful pollutants characteristic of a third world country. I rarely ever get sick and I never get stomach upsets. My brother was born here in Australian suburbia and in his childhood, he would get eczema and asthma, he also gets sick a lot more. However there is a trade-off, he's taller than me, a lot fitter and much better at sport.

[bcbm]

i'm not sure inhaling industrial pollutants boosts your immune system...

[bcbm]

i think the idea that exposure to disease will lead to greater resistance to disease is a pretty scientifically sound concept- those who have such resistances will be more likely to survive and thus pass on their genes to a new generation and living in predominantly urban areas would speed up this process due to more disease exposure.

[Adi Shankara]

But you could not deny the fact that a lot of relatively "developed" hunter-gatherer societies (like Pacific Amerindians, for instance) had already had elements of proto-class structure, institutes of slavery and female inequality.

This is hyperbole. there is very little evidence that the vast majority of such groups fit such a profile, as many also fell into an egalitarian structure, which there is ample evidence for.

[Adi Shankara]

Anyways, this article sounds like more propaganda to further the cause against those "backward rural dwellers".

Also, they seem to not really mention the development of mental disorders and other problems related to urban living.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Urban living" also helps people develop bed bug infestations.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Urban living" also helps people develop bed bug infestations.

That's because of disparity in real material wealth, not urban living.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

As a country boy i will counter this with saying that living in a rural area, you will have such a fresh aire so you wont have to be worried abou getting contact with disseases.

No but seriously, it makes sense, like the same princip as a vaccine, but to think taht you will be healthier in a big urban enviorment is kind of false, think about polution, high stress and as adi_shankara menthioned the alienating, individualistic lifestryle (wich im convinced have much more to do with the society capitalism creates).

[bcbm]

That's because of disparity in real material wealth, not urban living.

bed bugs were originally a phenomena associated with the rich because the poor couldn't keep their homes warm enough for the little bastards to survive.

the more you know...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's because of disparity in real material wealth, not urban living.

The quick spread in places like NYC is due to population density and housing proximity. It effects the rich and the poor equally, as documented many times.

Treatment, on the other hand, which can go into the thousands of dollars, is much easier for those with money than those without.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It should be pointed out that since the 19th century at least, one of the main goals of those seeking to construct a classless society has been a breakdown in the divide between the city and the countryside.

[Reznov]

Isn't it kind of obvious, if your around a lot more people which most likely spreads more diseases quicker, faster and more germs because of such a large dense population in a smaller area?

[Quail]

Obviously there are pros and cons to living in a city, but I don't think that mental health problems that people in cities suffer come about because cities themselves are breeding grounds for mental health problems. Those problems are a problem with capitalism, not cities.

This is just a case of evolution. People with resitant genes are more likely to survive to pass them on.